X-1 preview photos up on dpreview

[morgan]

They've got some samples they took from a fully functional X-1. They look decent, not sure if I think 2k decent, but pretty nice. 1600 looks pretty good, 3200 less so. I think the 2.8 is still pretty limiting...

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/

 

[lemalk]

I'm pretty frickin' impressed with the noise at higher ISOs. Seems like better than my M8.

But I agree - that f2.8 is this thing's achilles heel. Oh, and the fact that it's $2000...

 

[morgan]

Yeah, for 2k, I don't know. I guess the 3200's aren't terrible (some are better than others). The 1600 looks good and the slower stuff looks very nice (as it should). Better than consumer grade p&s. But when compared with the m4/3 stuff like the GF1 or EP1, it's a harder sell. I really wish there was an OVF in there, especially for 2k.

 

[Bugleone]

f2.8 lens,..fixed,.....no viewfinder,.....2000USD.....

Apart from retired dentists who wants a camera like this?............

 

[Benjamin]

Looks good! I will let some time pass, but I am sorely tempted by the camera.

It's nigh on exactly what I've been waiting for, at present I don't actually own a digital camera of any sort though I use them as loaners on occasion.

It would be cool if Leica decide to develop some decent tele/wide converters for the camera, though I could live without the tele and even a wider lens for digital.

I quite genuinely think that they are onto a winner here, and the wish the best of luck to them.


P.S. Of course the X2 will be far better, but who cares..

 

[morgan]

f2.8 lens,..fixed,.....no viewfinder,.....2000USD.....

Apart from retired dentists who wants a camera like this?............

Well, if it delivers the image goods, probably a lot of people. I do agree that it's pretty expensive, for what it is though.

 

[Bugleone]

I genuinely don't 'get' it,.......why do you want this camera? Surely there are MUCH better cameras for much less money (?) A Lumix GF-1 is going to knock it into a cocked hat.....

 

[Benjamin]

f2.8 lens,..fixed,.....no viewfinder,.....2000USD.....

Apart from retired dentists who wants a camera like this?............

Well I'm no dentist.. In fact my teeth are pretty, well, rubbish.

f/2.8 lens: Total Non-Big deal. Even at night, no mirror= almost zero vibration, coupled with the in body image stabilization.

Fixed lens: How many people have never even taken a 35mm lens off of their Leica M?

No (built in) Viewfinder: Sure, it'd be nice but the height of the camera would no doubt suffer for one.

With practise I'm sure that with a Brightline finder one could quickly become adept at guessing where the mark was and using the spot AF. I use a brightline finder anyway (on an M) so it's another total non-issue for me.


Gimme!

I would agree that it's on the pricey side, but it's Leica, and no doubt given time the price will come down. For the same money I would take one of these over an M8, almost no question.

 

[Bugleone]

But an m8 is a good camera for actually making real images,...the X1 is hamstrung in every dept. If it was full frame sensor,..or had something else unique that someone might want I could understand.......

....As far as I can see, it's simply a rich mans toy,..and a brainless rich man at that! I'm just amazed that there are (ordinary) people who are thinking to buy it,..apart from those who see 'Leica', have money to burn, and look no futher.

 

[fotomeow]

In defense of Leica (sort of):
OK, well, perhaps most of the bashing is legit; but another way to look at it: the sensor is APS with a crop factor of 1.5, which is the same as the M8, RD-1, and Nikon DSLR for that matter--> all these other cameras mostly have 24mm down to 2.8, not lower (of course we would want a faster 2.0!) but at least its on par.

Leica has got to realize this is a tough sell: Perhaps thats why they are throwing in Lightroom for free with the $1999 USD (trying to attract the Leica film holdouts who cant afford the M8/8.2/9?)

 

[Rob-F]

Judging by the sky in the nighttime shot of the church, I'd say it looks good at 3200. Overall IQ looks very good; though I feel there were highlights in danger of being overexposed (no glaring problems, though). Dynamic range is seldom wonderful with digital, though.

I do regret the fixed focal length. I'd like at least a 30 to 75mm equivalent zoom on a camera of this type.

 

[aizan]

1600 doesn't look that good to me, even at reduced size. dan havlik's article in pdn talked about that being a common symptom. maybe it has something to do with live view? is the sensor designed to work differently than regular sensors?

 

[Bugleone]

I'm not "bashing" it,...I am genuinely confused that they hope to sell any.

If they had given it an 'M' mount and offered a nice vari focal optical finder, I am sure they would have had people lining up to buy........

 

[Rob-F]

Leica has got to realize this is a tough sell: Perhaps thats why they are throwing in Lightroom for free with the $1999 USD (trying to attract the Leica film holdouts who cant afford the M8/8.2/9?)

Oh, they are throwing in Lightroom? I wish they had done that with my D-Lux 4! Instead of Capture One . . .

 

[Mephiloco]

I don't see any reason to get a X1 over a LX3, and I consider the LX3 to be overpriced at around $500.

I don't care so much about the fixed focal length, but you'd hope that in deciding to go with a fixed focal length they'd make the lens at least fast. At f2.8 I have to shoot at 3200 usually, if that were a f2 or faster lens I could comfortably shoot at 1600 with no problems. Not that it's an issue, I don't think I could live with myself if I were to spend $2000 on a glorified P&S.

Edit: I think it should've had a fixed aperture zoom lens. Olympus has no problems making F2 28-80 zooms, but Leica can't even throw a prime faster than f2.8 on their overpriced p&s?

 

[morgan]

Well I'm no dentist.. In fact my teeth are pretty, well, rubbish.

f/2.8 lens: Total Non-Big deal. Even at night, no mirror= almost zero vibration, coupled with the in body image stabilization.

Fixed lens: How many people have never even taken a 35mm lens off of their Leica M?

No (built in) Viewfinder: Sure, it'd be nice but the height of the camera would no doubt suffer for one.

With practise I'm sure that with a Brightline finder one could quickly become adept at guessing where the mark was and using the spot AF. I use a brightline finder anyway (on an M) so it's another total non-issue for me.


Gimme!

I would agree that it's on the pricey side, but it's Leica, and no doubt given time the price will come down. For the same money I would take one of these over an M8, almost no question.

The speed matters when the max usable ISO is 1600 (and if you don't want to use a flash). Last weekend I was shooting my 35/1.2 on 1600 and 3200 speed film in a bar situation and I don't think I ever stopped down below 2.0 (I was mostly wide open and 1.4) and shutter speed was probably around 1/30th all the time. If I'm stuck at 2.8 on 1600, I better hope my subjects aren't moving at all.

I'm not really down on the X1, I think it's a cool concept, but for that amount of money Leica needs to hit it out of the park. 2.8 and noisy 3200 isn't really going that deep...

 

[Bugleone]

Actually, if they had made a digital version of the Contax G, can you imagine how excited the photo world would have been?

 

[Paul T.]

No, it's a digital Hexar AF that I want!

Kudos to Leica for getting close. I do think in this instance they should bite the bullet and get the camera made in Japan. One might be prepared to pay a premium for a solid German-made rangefinder, but a Point and shoot is a point & shoot, wherever it was made.

 

[merciful]

Unbearably...

Unbearably...

... large DOF. I'm glad I spent a little more on my new body (like, about $5000 more).

 

[cam]

No, it's a digital Hexar AF that I want!

me too!

i am hoping beyond hope that the Ricoh announcement next week may be it.