photo: Leica X Selfie

[Godfrey]

Leica X :: ISO 1600 @ f/2.5 @ 1/40 sec​

Haven't done a selfie for a bit. Testing the X and I liked this one. From the raw file...

Thanks for looking! Comments always appreciated.

G

 

[helen.HH]

Nice One G !
Skin tone and color palatte look pleasing

How does that 113 'feel' in the hands... Steady and Solid ?

 

[Godfrey]

Nice One G !
Skin tone and color palatte look pleasing

How does that 113 'feel' in the hands... Steady and Solid ?

Thank you, Helen!

The X feels for all the world like a slightly lighter, smaller M4-2 with a lighter weight 35mm Summilux on it. And metering, etc, built in. It is a delight to use. 🙂

G

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Looks like a fun kit. Was the selfie made in RAW or Jpeg? If Jpeg with no processing, the skin tones look fantastic! 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Godfrey, I just read Steve Huff's review of the X, where he goes on at length about not being able to use the lens' fastest apertures at close distance. He notes that if you're closer than 4 ft., the camera won't use apertures faster than 2.5 or so. He surmises that Leica hobbled the lens in this fashion because it doesn't perform well enough wide open at close distance. Have you noticed this yet, and if so, is it a nuisance… or no big deal?

I'm curious why you went for the X instead of, say, the Fuji X100T. Something about image characteristics? Or something else? Thanks.

 

[Godfrey]

Looks like a fun kit. Was the selfie made in RAW or Jpeg? If Jpeg with no processing, the skin tones look fantastic! 🙂

Thank you for commenting.

The image was output in both JPEG and DNG, what I posted was the processed DNG. With either, a small amount of white balance correction was necessary since the light was from a warm-white fluorescent bulb which causes a yellow-green shift. A dab with the Lightroom WB eyedropper and a small tweak of the green-magenta tint set the background right in both JPEG and DNG, leaving the skin tones as you see.

In more normal lighting circumstances, the out of camera JPEGs require no tonal adjustment at all.

The rest of the processing: In order to image the LEICA print on the bezel correctly, I did a horizontal flip and a -1 degree counter-clockwise rotation to correct for my slightly off-angle holding of the camera. I also added a light vignette.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, I just read Steve Huff's review of the X, where he goes on at length about not being able to use the lens' fastest apertures at close distance. He notes that if you're closer than 4 ft., the camera won't use apertures faster than 2.5 or so. He surmises that Leica hobbled the lens in this fashion because it doesn't perform well enough wide open at close distance. Have you noticed this yet, and if so, is it a nuisance… or no big deal?

I'm curious why you went for the X instead of, say, the Fuji X100T. Something about image characteristics? Or something else? Thanks.

Yes, he raves. And following him, there've been a half dozen ridiculous raving threads by the gear head goofballs on DPR.

The aperture is programmed to limit maximum aperture a small amount through the close focusing range from about 1.2m to 0.4m in order to promote best lens performance. See this chart I created using my camera to measure it:

To call the lens "hobbled" is hysterical stuff. Leica did this to achieve the best lens performance at very close range distances, nearly always a problem with other very short focal length, fast lenses (including the Fuji X100's f/2). I guess that, to Steve Huff and others, bragging rights to f/1.7 are more important than best lens performance.

In practical use, I don't notice it at all: I don't spend much time trying to get less DoF at close-up distances like this... I'm always trying to get ENOUGH depth of field and closing down instead. The bokeh is much nicer wide open at, say, 24" than my Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC or M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 at minimum focus distance (about 31") wide open; I have to stop both of those down to f/2.8-f/4 or so to achieve the same pleasing bokeh. And the Summilux 23mm on the X focuses all the way down to 8".

G

 

[Godfrey]

...
I'm curious why you went for the X instead of, say, the Fuji X100T. Something about image characteristics? Or something else? Thanks.

Sorry, I didn't respond to this part of your question.

I'm not a big fan of the Fujis both on reasons of their ergonomics (the specific locations of controls and design of the menus I find awkward) and because of the Xtrans sensor's raw files.

The Leica X2 produces nicer image files straight out of the camera and much more easily edited raw files with tremendous overhead in them right off the bat, and there are no other fixed prime lens, large sensor digital cameras with a 35mm equivalent FoV. The Leica X2 controls and options are much simpler, much more satisfying to me.

The Leica X typ 113, over the X2, adds a small increment in size which makes my hands even happier, a nicer manual focusing arrangement, more responsiveness, and a better lens. The Summilux 23/1.7 lens is a better performer than the one in the Fujis or even the X1/X2. I love the camera's absolute simplicity and lack of clutter—I set it up in less than four minutes after taking it out of the box.

The Leica X typ 113 is as close to a film camera experience as you can find in the digital camera world, excepting maybe the Leica M Edition 60 kit that is a pay-grade or three over my discretionary income. The X provides me much of what I'd love to get out of the M Edition 60 kit at a price that I don't need to sell my children into slavery to pay. ;-)

G

 

[jsrockit]

Looks like it's a good camera...