Would you buy a Leica X 113?

Some resolution testing...

Some resolution testing...

Responding to a person on DPR who accused the X of having a soft lens, I did some resolution testing.

Setup:
  • Camera set up at 6' distance from my usual target, a very busy bookcase.
  • Image processing settings: Standard, Super Fine JPEG, 16M, + DNG set.
  • ISO locked to 200.
  • Shutter set to A mode.
  • Focus mode set to Spot.
  • Camera on sturdy tripod. Each frame exposed with 2 second delay.
  • Series 1: Each frame is allowed to AF on the same target.
  • Series 2: Manual focus on target point, focus setting not touched throughout test afterwards.
  • Each frame stepped the lens aperture, first from f/1.7 to f/2, then in whole stops to f/16.
Results:
  • Examining the JPEGs at center, right edge, and top left corner, ALL frames are acceptably sharp and crisp. The right edge and top left corner improve slightly from f/1.7 to f/4, center is virtually unchanged. A small degradation (presumably diffraction) sets in at f/11.
    *
  • Examining the DNG files, processed at the LR 5.6 defaults (sharpening = 25 on LR's), all frames show distinct need for input sharpening with slightly soft rendering through all apertures. Moving the sharpening to 40 nets sharpness equal to the JPEGs at all aperture settings. Moving the sharpening to 50 nets increased sharpness with minimal halo'ing, again all frames.(For example, even at f/1.7, 5 point type located in the corner of the frame at 6' distance is clearly readable with 2:1 magnification). This implies that the Leica X sensor has a medium strength AA filter, since the same correction produces the same improvement across all apertures. It also demonstrates that focus shift is extremely minimal (via the manual focus tests).
The same test of the X2 in 2012 showed significantly more variation in corner and edge quality from f/2.8 to f/5.6, and also needed additional sharpening of the DNG files, of a similar nature, determining again that the X2 has similar strength AA filter.

When next I have time to do so, I will repeat the same test with the Leica M9 and the Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 and the Sony A7 fitted with Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2. (I don't have a Summicron or Summilux 35mm in M mount at my disposal at present.) It will be interesting to see how those two compare.

But be that as it may, I cannot see any evidence to support the statement that "the lens is soft and only starts to deliver the 'Leica-magic' from f/5.6." As far as my test shows, the Summilux 23mm f/1.7 on the Leica X is a very high quality performer across all f/stops. It's sweet spot is broad, best performance ranging from f/2.8 to f/11 when diffraction starts to intrude on ultimate resolving power.

Beyond the evidence of this resolution test, I was at the annual All Italian Day car and motorcycle show with the Leica X today. I made about 80 exposures at all apertures, using primarily autofocus on "Face Detect/11 frame pattern" mode. Every frame is crisply, clearly focused, and all frames show beautiful sharpness. At the wide open end of the spectrum, defocus bokeh is beautifully progressive and lacks any jangly feeling even wide open.

IMO, this is a stunner of a lens, fully deserving of the name Summilux.

(Unfortunately, pictures will have to wait. I have other commitments this evening and best get to them now. Maybe later if I get done early. )

G
 
Not for me, the clip on finder is off putting, and I'm not mad about EVFs anyway. For me the X-Pro 1 is far more my kind of thing.

As for the lens, I think every lens in production is more than good enough for me, I don't need wide-open performance, nice bokeh etc.
 
Godfrey said:
LOL! I already have a Sony A7. It's a totally different camera, in every way.
Only reason it produces photos on the same quality order as the Leica X is that the only lenses I use on it are Leica R lenses... ;-)

G
Click to expand...

then i'd spend the money on an investment like some Leica glass for the a7 rather than a fixed lens camera that will depreciate in a few years...

or just stick to the a7 and spend the money on a holiday
 
Jubb Jubb said:
then i'd spend the money on an investment like some Leica glass for the a7 rather than a fixed lens camera that will depreciate in a few years...

or just stick to the a7 and spend the money on a holiday
Click to expand...

- Just got back from a week's holiday to Maui.
- Already have a dozen Leica R lenses for the A7. (And ten Leica M lenses I can use on it, and five Nikon F lenses I can use on it too.)

You just don't understand the X. It's a very simple camera with an excellent lens. Light, compact, no equipment decisions to make, no distractions, superb controls, excellent sensor. Darn near silent in operation too. It's just right to carry every day, very low impact.

It's worth it to me as it focuses me on making photos, not playing with gear. I may ultimately use it more than the A7, the E-M1, the M9, and all the others.

G
 
Godfrey said:
- Just got back from a week's holiday to Maui.

It's worth it to me as it focuses me on making photos, not playing with gear. I may ultimately use it more than the A7, the E-M1, the M9, and all the others.
G
Click to expand...

well LUCKY You ... Maui and a 113
sounds like bags of Fun
and that last sentence took me by Surprise
it's lovely to be smitten, more so when the driving force is the Creative
 
johnwolf said:
Godfrey, are you seeing the irony in your last paragraph?🙂
Click to expand...

The irony is that if the Leica X had been available in 2011 when I started back down the path to Leica stuff, I most likely wouldn't have bought the GXR, M lenses, M9, Leica R lenses, and A7. I have the X2 as well, but it just missed on a couple of things that the X now has.

I would have bought the E-M1 kit, though, as I'd been waiting for that sensible development of the FourThirds format since Micro-FourThirds came out in 2008. It is the logical next step replacing my E-1 and E-5 system cameras.

There are times when I need a full system kit for various purposes. But most of the time, my needs are easily fulfilled by a simple, high quality camera with a single 35mm FoV lens. The X does that as well as the M9 does, costs a third the amount, and is smaller and lighter to boot.

G
 
I have been tempted by the X1, X2, and the X113, but that latest is getting fairly close to M camera size now. Having an M8 will serve I think, despite not featuring AF... but it also doesn't have an AA filter either! Thanks Godfrey, for your commentary from the basis of a user... 🙂
 
Godfrey said:
The irony is that if the Leica X had been available in 2011 when I started back down the path to Leica stuff, I most likely wouldn't have bought the GXR, M lenses, M9, Leica R lenses, and A7. I have the X2 as well, but it just missed on a couple of things that the X now has....

G
Click to expand...

That must be a pretty good feeling to have really connected with a camera. I envy you. Other than the GR, I've not had the experience of any digital solution feeling just right. How would you characterize the X b&w output compared to your GXR or M9?

John
 
I'm not sure if I'd buy one or not... I'll never say never. I'd be happy to use one, but I can think of a few others that may suit me better.

How's the AF speed on it?
 
I don't know, given the OP's apparent preference for full-frame with a fast high quality 35mm lens in a notably compact body - I'd take a serious look at an RX1/r before pulling the trigger on a Typ 113. I've owned an X1 (and a GXR + A12 M, GR, DP2M and A6000) and I shoot digital and film M's but my new-to me RX1r has been a bit of a revelation. Not without its faults and minor annoying quirks but I am fairly smitten with mine at the moment as a most capable carry everywhere with phenomenal IQ.
 
johnwolf spake:
That must be a pretty good feeling to have really connected with a camera. ...
Click to expand...

Indeed. The Leica X is exactly what I started looking for in 2010-2011 when I'd closed the photo business and wanted to stop carrying all the heavy equipment. Took a couple of years for the right thing to surface, but now that it's here I'm very happy.

As to the B&W output, the in-camera JPEG engine does a pretty darn good B&W (I use BW High Contrast film mode, knocking back the contrast and sharpness one notch as otherwise it seems a little too aggressive). My B&W work, however, is generally rendered from raw (see below).

Well, back to making photos. Enough of the equipment chatter on this one. ;-)

G


Leica X
ISO 100 @ f/1.7 @ 1/1250 sec​
 
I think the Leica X tip 113 is what the x1 had to be a few years ago. It took time, maybe too much but at the end the Leica engineers (and marketers?) listened what clients were saying!
AS for me the idea to upgrade from my x1 to this camera is tempting but I do not plan now to do it. For sure I would buy it if I had not already an x1.
robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
383
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
16
Views
496
Jason Schneider
J
Godfrey
return to Leica X...
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
Godfrey
Godfrey
lxmike
Anyone else prefer their XT to their X series rangefinder
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
sojournerphoto
S
T
Anyone have a Canon R7, or a Nikon Z6?
Replies
7
Views
232
Darthfeeble
Darthfeeble
Back
Top Bottom