Leica X1

[__hh]

Better things to do with $2K than having another P&S

 

[totifoto]

The only thing I like about this camera is the lens, 24mm 2.8. f2 or f1.4 would have been better though 🙄

But I dont really understand this pricetag, I know its a Leica and all but the Sigma DP-1 and DP-2 and even the GF-1 and EP-1 are going for half that price and they are well compatible to the X-1.

 

[Bill Pierce]

This is old news, but I use bright line finders with every compact I’ve owned. Some offer them as accessories, but for the most part I’m using Leica and Cosina finders I already own.

That means they are the wrong format for many cameras. But I don’t care; it’s close enough for the street.

Example: Custom functions on the Canon G10 will preset 2 focal lengths on the zoom. I have the functions set to the equivalent of 50 and 90 mm lenses. When the camera is first turned on, if the custom setting is turned off, the camera sets itself to the widest setting, a 28mm equivalent. I carry the camera and three bright line finders - 28, 50 and 90.

Of course, sensor size is a problem. But, shooting at ISO 80-200 in decent daylight, I’m getting 17x22 inch prints that no one seems to distinguish from similar prints made from cameras with larger sensors.

And the little cameras are slowly getting better. If they get to the point where they can work effectively at high ISO’s, the digital M could be in trouble unless it, too, improves in that department.

 

[CameraQuest]

So, what do you guys think?


HL

To me by far the most important and most interesting thing about the Leica X1 is that its using a Sony made Nikon chip -- which implies to me the possibility of Leica eventually using other Nikon chips.

I would love to see a M10 with the Nikon D3 or D3x chip.

Stephen

 

[Bill Pierce]

Stephen -
Do you think this means we might see a lower priced camera, similar to the X1, from Nikon? I'm not so sure we would see a larger Nikon chip in a full frame M body because of the problem with the peripheral rays.

 

[photogdave]

To me by far the most important and most interesting thing about the Leica X1 is that its using a Sony made Nikon chip -- which implies to me the possibility of Leica eventually using other Nikon chips.

I would love to see a M10 with the Nikon D3 or D3x chip.

Stephen

I think this line of thinking might get people's hopes up.
It's a Sony-made chip that happens to be used in a Nikon camera only. This doesn't imply that other Nikon sensors will find their way into Leicas, or imply an relationship between Nikon and Leica.

 

[Harry Lime]

Example: Custom functions on the Canon G10 will preset 2 focal lengths on the zoom. I have the functions set to the equivalent of 50 and 90 mm lenses. When the camera is first turned on, if the custom setting is turned off, the camera sets itself to the widest setting, a 28mm equivalent. I carry the camera and three bright line finders - 28, 50 and 90.

Interesting. I didn't know you could do that with the Canon.
That makes the G11 even more attractive, especially considering the price. I already have a 50mm finder and the VC 35 is really good and relatively cheap. Hmmm, 28/35/50?

 

[Bill Pierce]

Interesting. I didn't know you could do that with the Canon.
That makes the G11 even more attractive, especially considering the price. I already have a 50mm finder and the VC 35 is really good and relatively cheap. Hmmm, 28/35/50?

Harry -

I use the bright line finders on everything, even a DSLR. Started doing it covering the troubles in Northern Ireland in the 70's with Nikon SLR's. Started with demonstation and funeral shots using the conventional SLR viewfinder, switiching to the bright line when and if the events became riots.

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry -

I use the bright line finders on everything, even a DSLR. Started doing it covering the troubles in Northern Ireland in the 70's with Nikon SLR's. Started with demonstation and funeral shots using the conventional SLR viewfinder, switiching to the bright line when and if the events became riots.

Interesting. Did you start to use a brightline on the SLR, because you can see outside the frame? Makes it easier to spot the action and see anything that should be incoming...? I think I'll try that with my D700.

Were you in Ireland at the same time as Don Mccullin? I met him last year in London. A very interesting, multifaceted man and not just because he's famous.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Interesting. Did you start to use a brightline on the SLR, because you can see outside the frame? Makes it easier to spot the action and see anything that should be incoming...? I think I'll try that with my D700.

Were you in Ireland at the same time as Don Mccullin? I met him last year in London. A very interesting, multifaceted man and not just because he's famous.

Donald and I crossed paths in N.I.. I’d always stop in London and go to the Queens’ Fishery to pick up a Brady fisherman’s bag (Billingham was the cutter, and the first Billingham bag looked like a Brady bag minus the rubber liner.) The clerks obviously looked down on a rather rag tag Yank and would always say, “Mr. McCullin was here a week ago.”

Once, in Beirut, I got to an insane asylum that had been bombed the night before and arrived well before the crowd. Obviously the situation would produce haunting images, and I would be the first to produce them. Then the attendant said, “Mr. McCullin was here early this morning.”

A fair number of other McCullin stories are possible at a later time. He’s certainly among the photographers I admire the most, not just for his war work. The first McCullin book I ever owned was “Homecoming,” not a war picture in the lot. I liked it so much I bought three copies because I knew I would wear it out. The first copy is worn out now; I’m starting on the second. The last McCullin book I got, “In England,” also, no war pics. That said, I consider him to be the best war photographer of my generation, perhaps the best ever if that was a category that actually existed.

As to the bright line frames, yes, they let you see what’s out of frame but coming at you.

 

[Harry Lime]

Donald and I crossed paths in N.I.. I’d always stop in London and go to the Queens’ Fishery to pick up a Brady fisherman’s bag (Billingham was the cutter, and the first Billingham bag looked like a Brady bag minus the rubber liner.)

I think I read a Nuts and Bolts article about this a long time ago.

The clerks obviously looked down on a rather rag tag Yank and would always say, “Mr. McCullin was here a week ago.”

It looks like for us Yanks, nothing much has changed...

Once, in Beirut, I got to an insane asylum that had been bombed the night before and arrived well before the crowd. Obviously the situation would produce haunting images, and I would be the first to produce them. Then the attendant said, “Mr. McCullin was here early this morning.”

Holy smokes, you were there? I know those pics. They are hard to look at. Almost as hard as those that Nachtwey shot in Romania (see INFERNO). Hope you were still able to make some shots (that sounds so awkward, considering the subject...). Glad you made it out in one piece...

A fair number of other McCullin stories are possible at a later time. He’s certainly among the photographers I admire the most, not just for his war work. The first McCullin book I ever owned was “Homecoming,” not a war picture in the lot. I liked it so much I bought three copies because I knew I would wear it out. The first copy is worn out now; I’m starting on the second. The last McCullin book I got, “In England,” also, no war pics. That said, I consider him to be the best war photographer of my generation, perhaps the best ever if that was a category that actually existed.

I met Mr. McCullin at a signing for 'In England' at Claire de Rouen in Soho (www.clairederouenbooks.com). It's a tiny little shop with an amazing selection of photo books. Mrs de Rouen is quite a character herself and I mean that in the most sincere way.

Anyhow, Mr. McCullin arrived on time wearing a green M65 field jacket. He certainly knows how to make an entrance. He's no longer 25 and shorter than I expected, but he's a striking figure with movie star good looks and piercing blue eyes.

After things settled down I got to talk to him a little. The first thing that struck me was his voice. He has a superb speaking voice and although he often talks about his poor schooling as a youngster (which is understandable if you know anything about his youth), you very quickly come to realize that you are speaking to a very intelligent man. It's interesting to watch him, because you realize that you are looking at several Don McCullins at the same time. I certainly think that he would like to be seen in a certain way (his public persona) and by that I do not mean to indicate in any way that he is being duplicitous, but this is a complex man and there is a lot going on there.

But he was very gracious and actually answered real questions with some thought, instead of just giving you a canned response. Everyone was very much at ease. Well, almost everyone. I asked if I could take his picture and he obliged, but I was so damn nervous that I made three very lousy shots. I'm still kicking myself for that. I've met my share of famous people and usually I'm not at all star stuck. I only got flustered on two other occasions. Once when I met Nachtwey for the first time and the other time was an encounter with a screen legend, who shall remain unnamed and would have made anyone freeze up a little.

Anyhow, 'In England' is a very good book. Obviously the people shots are impressive, but the landscapes are stunning. A lot of that is gone since they shut down the coal industry in England. I also visited the area in London where he shot the homeless. Unless I was in the wrong spot, most of that has been turned in to office buildings. No homeless in sight. If I could make any criticism, I would have to say that some of the more recent 'street shots' were not as impressive as the other work, but I'm splitting hairs here.

Mr. McCullin was off to Syria to photograph Roman ruins. I should have asked him if he needed someone to carry his bag. I would have never gone back to work that day. But I didn't. See what happens when you're too polite to ask these things?

As to the bright line frames, yes, they let you see what’s out of frame but coming at you.

I'm sitting here with a 50mm SBOOI and a D700 mounting an old H.C 2/50. That's a clever idea.

 

[kkdanamatt]

The X1 is incredibly overpriced and I'm not sure what niche it fits. The majority of threads about it here about been people wanting the X1 to be something it's not. It's a digital point and shoot, not a compact rangefinder or anything near that.

I agree completely. I handled the X1 at the Leica Booth in NYC at PhotoPlus. I wanted it to be a digital Barnack. It's not. I predict that Leitz will offer some rebate program on the X1 within a year after it hits the market. Very overpriced, even for a Leica, IMHO.

 

[Benjamin]

Interesting what youi folks have to say, though the X1 is the first digital camera that I actually consider buying.

What's not to love? Bigger than average sensor for a tiny but holdable camera, fixed lens of a proven optical formula, a proper accesory viewfinder, manual dials, EFL of 36mm , etcetera, etcetera..

It may be expensive, but still far less than half the (new) cost of Leica's other digital offerings.

 

[jke]

I say that for $2000, for the X1 not to be a boutique item (i.e. a toy for people who can spend $2000 without too much angst,) the image quality should be as good as a Canon 50D. BUT, if the image quality is the standard 100 ISO or nothing, that still doesn't mean the X1 is a bad camera. Just that its target market is for people whose priority is not necessarily image quality but other things, like size, cuteness, cache, style, etc.

I think Leica has recognized correctly that there are enough of these boutique customers who are interested in a camera as a status/fashion statement to make the X1 viable even if few image-quality-driven users ever buy the camera. And if some of these users do buy one, well those are just bonus sales.

After all, Leica sold a ton of Miniluxes back in the day even though that camera was frequently only semi-dependable (nice lens, shame about the electronics - that sort of thing.)

In fact, the X1 seems to be right in line with Miniluxes and the CM cameras. For what they are in absolute terms, they are essentially over-priced. But for what they are in Leica terms, they represent an "affordable" alternative to not having a Leica. And while they all functioned reasonably well, they definitely weren't Leica M cameras, and other cameras in that category represented at least equivalent quality at a lower cost.

 

[Rob-F]

What's not to love? . . . fixed lens of a proven optical formula. .
.
It may be expensive, but still far less than half the (new) cost of Leica's other digital offerings.

Is it a proven lens? I think it might be a new lens, since it is a retractable P&S type, not the rigid mount of the M lens. Some of us worry that the retractable design might wear itself out.

It's not less expensive than the D-Lux 4. It costs 3 times as much.

 

[skibeerr]

I agree the X1 is terribly overpriced, wich translates as I can't afford one.

The green focus light in combination with the viewfinder is silly, "what" is in focus?

On the other hand using it as you use a cv21mm on a M body should work great, is there a focus lock?

But then the Olympus EP-1 does the same for less money (ok smaller sensor) and gives the equivalent of a 34mm with viewinder and you can use your Leica lenses on it.

I am sure my wife realy needs one, I am bankrupt.




CV21mm first focussed and then composed with the viewfinder

 

[Teashop]

skibeerr, that is a brilliant image!

 

[varjag]

How come it's overpriced? I remember people paying north of $800 for that Sigma DP1 without a blink, and that was a pretty poor camera from 3rd tier manufacturer..

 

[jke]

I remember people paying north of $800 for that Sigma DP1 without a blink

And there will be people paying $2000 for the X1 without a blink too, but that doesn't make those two cameras any less over-priced within the larger camera market. It just means that there are people who can (or choose to) afford an $800 or a $2000 camera regardless of its performance.

 

[Nicolás Raddatz]

Lovely picture!!!