Leica X2 Revisited

Yes, John, I agree and that is correct if one is a bokeh junkie like me...it can be disconcerting. But, on the other hand, I find nothing wrong with the bokeh in these X1 images:

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/leicax1/pool/interesting/

The X1/X2 has amazingly good IQ...that is indisputable by any review ever done. Enough OOF? Shallow enough DOF? Depends on taste.

Can't do macro? BS...I have been doing a lot of it lately with the X1. A Kiwifoto extension tube, a step up ring and a closeup filter is all you need....

Or, just tape the filters over the lens...or, just tape a small magnifying glass on and you are good to go. LOL...
 
helenhill said:
Thanks for posting the review

Looking at the Photos in that review kind of put me off...
Many of the OOF areas seemed Smeary & some a tad muddy...disappointing to me :confused:

Hmmmm....this is why I have a hard time buying into digital
Click to expand...

I notice this a lot too.

Obviously some of this is simply due to the different rendering of film and a sensor. But I wonder if some of this effect is due to jpegs. A Jpeg tends to reduce the amount of data in areas that have less information. A blurred, bokeh-ish bit of the photo might quite possibly be compressed more than a busy, higher-contrast part of the photo - hence smeariness?
 
Having an M-4, M-6ttl, M-8, Dlux 3 and Dlux 5, I have enjoyed the X-1. The 2.0 firmware was a significant help in the focus department. The lens is very sharp at 4.0 and extremely sharp at 5.6. I use the 24mm external viewfinder to save battery life and turn off the display. I have also printed 13x19 images using an Epson R2400 on fine art paper with extremely good results (using Nik plugins with Lightroom). I also use the manual focus with f/5.6 frequently with no problem (no more than using an M-8 without focusing before shooting kids, etc.)

I see X1 limitations including the noise with upper ISO speeds, which are necessary with the f/2.8 in lower light. I also think (personal opinion) that the controls should be metal and much, much tighter to turn which is done on the Dlux series well. I think the true APS-C sized sensor is very good (the Dlux 5 is only 4/3) which is approaching the M-8.

So, what does the X-2 have? If the focusing is ultra fast, that would be helpful, but not critical. The ISO setting appears tremendous and the additional pixels would help with sharp enlargements. Best I can tell (haven't used one yet), the X-2 has the same top dials and doesn't improve how easy those are to accidentally move.

My conclusion is that the best reason to upgrade would be the increased ISO speed and 30% more pixels, but that should be in new technology. For the cost, I am saving for either a new M lens or trading in the M-8 and M-6 for an M-9P. Alas, like most of my Leica equipment, I shall wait until a good used model comes available. I'll post some X-1 photos and come back with links.
 
dave lackey said:
This weekend I will be doing digital infrared with the X1 (Thanks Thom!).... will let you see the results when I get them!:cool:
Click to expand...

Hmmm, sounds interesting. I haven't done infrared in 20 years! AND the last time I did it, it was with a Konica film. Don't see that anymore (except on ebay).
 
jsrockit said:
Hmmm, sounds interesting. I haven't done infrared in 20 years! AND the last time I did it, it was with a Konica film. Don't see that anymore (except on ebay).
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are cool...in fact, Memphis just recently posted some nice IR photos with a Nikon he had modified just for IR.

In my case, I have used my Summarit 1.5 IR filter taped onto my D40 and it worked quite well. Will do the same with the X1 just for kicks.:D

An extension tube, step up ring and filters are all available for the X1 at very low prices should I want to do more than the occasional IR venture.
 
┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▔╲
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕▂▂▂
▂▂▂▂▂▂╱┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▔▔▔▔▔▔╲▂▕▂▂▂I
 
jsrockit said:
┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▔╲
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕▂▂▂
▂▂▂▂▂▂╱┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▔▔▔▔▔▔╲▂▕▂▂▂I
Click to expand...



wow man, you must be bored :p
 
jsrockit said:
┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▔╲
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕▂▂▂
▂▂▂▂▂▂╱┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▔▔▔▔▔▔╲▂▕▂▂▂I
Click to expand...

:p Ha! Took me awhile to figure it out....:eek:
 
helenhill said:
Thanks for posting the review

Looking at the Photos in that review kind of put me off...
Many of the OOF areas seemed Smeary & some a tad muddy...disappointing to me :confused:

Hmmmm....this is why I have a hard time buying into digital
Click to expand...


As the sun rises this morning, I had a little extra time and found that the link referenced above is indeed up again...so I went back and the photos are truly bad photos, period.

With no experience at all, in February, I picked up a friend's X1, started shooting indoors and outdoors in the grey rain and the worst of my photos without PP was better than anything posted on the link. These are underexposed, poorly processed and dull images. The OOF area are awful. on the link....if I can pull these out of the air, then anyone can do better than the photos on the link:

attachment.php


attachment.php



The flickriver link shows you the way the X1 photos should turn out. Regardless, the link I went to this morning is obviously from a biased user of another camera and proclaims the X2 not worth the money.... too bad, it is his loss. To produce bad images and publish an article that people should not buy that particular camera is bad form.

So many reviews are like anatomical parts that most people don't like to see, much less hear.:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom