DPReview reviews Leica X1

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Here's the link:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaX1/">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaX1/</a></p>

[jack_palmer]

<p>Over priced as usual and two steps behind other manufactures. What a shame. My money is on the Gf-1 for now and the future. I may keep my MP and lenses,but no Leica digitals for me.</p>

<p> </p>

[blakley]

<p>That's not what the review says, Jack.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...the X1 is comfortably the best-performing small camera, in terms of high ISO noise, currently available.</em><br>

<em>...if you shoot in raw the X1 provides files which have technical quality beyond any other camera of a similar size, and on a par with the best APS-C DSLRs. Raw resolution is very impressive, and high ISO performance is excellent.</em><br>

<em>...with a little care and attention, the X1 can provide image quality which surpasses any other camera of a similar size, and equals most DSLRs."</em></p>

</blockquote>

[jack_palmer]

<p>The review also say: "Once you start using the camera (X1) the short comings become clear." In conclusion is listed 8 Pros and 13 negatives. Read the whole review. It's a large sensor P&S with a slow lens offering simple manual controls. At $2,000.00, it's way over priced and outdated before it hits the store. It offers nothing really new, just repackaged. The only reason that I can see to buy this camera is if you really can't be seen with anything that doesn't either say Leica or have the Red dot on it.</p>

[charles_hess2]

<p>The slow AF, even compared to the Canon G11 kills it for me, sad to say.</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>How do you really feel about that red dot, Jack?</p>

<p>(Three references to it on this page: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=83600)</p>

<p> </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>It was a shame that they did not just make a fixed lens rangefinder then they would not of needed any AF.</p>

[jack_palmer]

<p>Ralph, I own an MP and lenses which I love. I had an M6 before that. I just think their digital offerings especially the X1 is to little to late. I don't see any way it can survive. And.. there are people that would defend the Red dot no matter what Leica put it on and thats what bothers me the most. If this camera said anything but Leica on it there's no doubt in my mind that it would be slammed for being hopelessly behind in just about every way. Maybe that's why the defenders love it???</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>what Leica put it on and thats what bothers me the most.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you care so much? Its just a camera...Breathe deeply, calmez vous. Leica are not alone in having diehard fans are they? In fact the Canon/Nikon crowd are just as bad. What's wrong with the M9 anyway - surely that is a home run for Leica?</p>

[starvy]

<p>so is it good or bad?!?</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I really do wonder why the fixed 24mm lens has to extend from the body so much. There is no mirror box so one would think that the lens could be smaller since it is only an f2.8. Really like the analogue controls though. Sure wish my DSLR had the same type of control interface.</p>

[blakley]

<p>The review simply doesn't support your statements that the X1 is "two steps behind other manufactures" or "hopelessly behind in just about every way". It describes the camera's strengths and weaknesses. Some of the strengths are considerable. So are some of the weaknesses. The review makes a strong case that, especially at high ISO, the RAW file quality of the X1 is significantly better than the GF1 you say your money is on.</p>

<p>If you value fast, accurate autofocus and 3-stop IS more than high resolution and low noise, choosing a GF-1 or EP-2 is a valid choice. If your preferences run the other way, the X1 is a valid choice.</p>

<p>If you're not willing to pay $2,000 for high-resolution low-noise photos, that's a valid choice too. $2,000 is 100 rolls of color film + pro lab processing for your MP. I used to shoot twice that many rolls each year in my MP, and I'm not a pro. I still shoot probably 25 rolls a year, so an X1 - which will undoubtedly provide more than 4 years of high-quality photos with reasonable care, doesn't seem that expensive.</p>

<p>By the way, I don't have an X1 and don't have any current plans to get one, so I have no dog in this hunt.</p>

[davebell]

<p>Bob, there is an excellent plug-in I used called Noiseware, which I am sure you are familar with. I often use it on my ISO3200 images from my 5D. It is extremely flexible and I am in control of exactly the amount of noise reduction which gets applied, from the feintest hint to heavy NR (thankfully very seldom). I see no issue doing the same with GF1 shots. Of course the trade-off with NR is softness, or loss of detail and I don't know how a GF1 image processed with Noisware compares against a similar high ISO X1 image. But, lets not forget, the X1's high ISO performance can be largely negated by the fantastic Panasonic 20mm F1.7 lens. That for me makes a huge difference not only for ISO, but for stopping motion. By the sounds of things, the focus speed is poor on the X1.</p>

<p>To me, a very high priced, fixed/slow lens camera with slow focussing just doesn't cut it against a much better priced camera with removable lenses (can take M mount lenses amongst others), excellent 20mm F1.7 lens, slightly worse high ISO performance. Panasonic quality is exceptionally good as well, which I can vouch for from first hand experience behind the scenes.</p>

<p>I think the review has done more than enough to steer me toward the GF1 which I will hopefully pick up in the next month.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>The new Leica X1 cannot beat the flexibility of my "older" Sony R1!</p>

[blakley]

<p>It can't beat the flexibility of my 4x5 monorail camera either.</p>

<p>I'm also looking at the GF1 but wonder whether waiting a bit might be rewarded.</p>

[khi]

<p>Ah, the Leica X1. I agree with Jack. In years past, when the photographic world consisted of nothing but film cameras, Leica could honestly lay claim to a higher level of quality-both build quality and image quality because of the superior Leica lenses. In this new digital world, I don't think Leica can lay claim to either. The line between price and image quality has become very blurred. I think the M9 is a fine camera, but is it acceptable to pay $7k for the artifacts and moire that can be had for half that price? Maybe for some, just not for me.</p>

<p>The X1 is a great example. The claim that the image quality is superior to other P&S cameras is not valid. I have seen nothing yet that would convince me of this. Believe me, I wish to be convinced. Some of the statements made in this review are incredible. I quote: <em>Autofocus distinctly slower than most ..."</em> <em>"Accurate manual focus impossible (lens stops down uncontrollably)..."</em> Accurate manual focus impossible? With a Leica camera? Unbelievable in my opinion. I will admit that the image quality may be superior to the GF-1, which has been shown to be quite noisy, but this is not the case with Olympus EP-1 or the EP-2 I would imagine. The latest issue of Shutterbug magazine has a review of the EP-1 (not the EP-2, mind you-with the AF improvements and the live external viewfinder) by Mr. Joe Farace. In his review of the EP-1 he says (and I quote): <em>"Some photographers, myself included, see the EP-1 as an affordable Leica M camera; otherwise, what's really the purpose of that oh-so-retro VF-1 optical viewfinder that comes with the 17mm f.2.8 pancake lens? <strong>In fact, based on my testing of a new M8.2 and some expensive Leitz lenses, the image quality of the Olympus EP-1 meets or exceeds those I made with the Leica." </strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

The latest pre-release price I have been seeing for the X1, including the grip and the optical viewfinder is just shy of $2,500. Once again Leica is shooting themselves in the foot. (Can you say Digilux3?) A Olympus EP-2 with the live external viewfinder and 17/2.8 prime lens is priced at $1099. Add a M mount adaptor, and any M mount lens (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander) can be used on this little beauty. I am seriously considering the EP-2 myself. Again, I would have liked nothing better to have been convinced by Leica that the X1 is worth it, but I have not seen one "Real World" review done with this camera. I have talked with Leica in NJ and they seem to be using that time honored "stick your head in the sand" approach. Their repsonse was:<em> " So far only few reviewers have looked at the camera, and to my knowledge all of them have been extremely impressed with the image quality that comes out of this camera."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

There is no valid reason to me that should have kept Leica from making this camera interchangable lens compatible, other than a lack of vision. Leica could have cleaned up on the digital rangefinder market with such a camera. At a $2-2.5k price point, the competition is too strong and I think the camera is destined to fail. As a matter of fact, I would like to see any camera company step out from the herd and produce a true interchangeable lens digital rangefinder with a price point of $2-2.5k. I think the company that shows that kind of vision and "nads" will find a ready market for such a camera.</p>

[blakley]

<p><em><strong>In fact, based on my testing of a new M8.2 and some expensive Leitz lenses, the image quality of the Olympus EP-1 meets or exceeds those I made with the Leica.</strong> </em></p>

<p>If Farace is using the cameras to shoot JPEGs at ISO 160 and f/5.6, this is easy to explain. At ISO 640, 1/4 sec, and f/1.4 in DNG, the M8 provides quality no micro 4/3 camera can touch. I've used the M8 and several Olympus E-series cameras in these conditions, and while the Olympus cameras are good performers, anyone who thinks they're an image quality match for the M8 has got a bad sample or is doing something wrong.</p>

[khi]

<p>Bob, what you say regarding the M8.2 may be so. Mr. Farace does not indicate whether he was shooting jpeg or raw in his review. However, I did not include that quote from his review to get in a pissing contest over the M8-that has been done at length already. This is about the X1. I included his quote to back-up what i said originally. That is, in this digital world, excellent image quality is not the exclusive domain of Leica any longer-that excellent image quality is available for alot less money. Leica is <em>the</em> rangefinder camera company, yet two Japanese electronics corporations are leading the way in what you could call "digital" rangefinder photography. Interesting. The facts remain the facts. According to all the presently available information, Leica is about to <em>again</em>, release a flawed digital camera and charge twice as much for it.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Although the DPreview fuzz-balls are not a valid basis for comparison, as I learned after a bogus G11-D3000 post, I believe the Leica X1 fuzz-balls look better than from most other cameras. So the inexorable conclusion is that, if you want to take pictures of fuzz-balls at high ISO, the X1 is your ticket!

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaX1/page24.asp

[les_lammers]

<p>It is a nice camera but quite overpriced. I agree with Keith Harris regarding the 'digital world' and image quality. To each their own.</p>

[john_gellings]

<p>Keith, who are these two japanese companies that are leading the way? The only digital rangefinders on the market are offered by epson and leica. Only one of those is japanese. The X1, GF-1, and E-P1/2 are not rangefinders. </p>