do you think the image quality would be similar to M8 or something a bit less, i am very interested to try something from leica, especial this compact.
I think it's great. First compact digital that actually speaks to me.
Interchangeable lenses are nice, but add bulk and cost. I have little interest in zooms in this range. The Olympus and Panasonic m43 developments are encouraging, too, but ultimately I would prefer the larger sensor.
If the sensor is anywhere near the quality of a D90/D300s, with decent AF performance and handling (we can assume the lens is great), this will be a pretty formidable compact. Silent, stabilized, and with a great lens, this is the compact I've been waiting for.
Of course, it's double what I would like to pay. We'll see what happens to that over time. If this helps prompt Nikon to develop a <$1000 competitor, it's very good news indeed.
thrice wrote:
Not everyone wants shallow DOF, and some people prefer the classic 35mm FOV typically used by photojournalists and street photographers. Also is much more versatile unless you're shooting portraits, in which case a discreet camera is not required.
How is this more versatile than a GF1, especially when you take into account the fact that you have the capability to swap lenses on it? The 20mm f/1.7 is a 40mm equivalent so it's closer to the "classic" 35mm FoV, and the fact that it's a 2x crop means that even at f/1.7 the DoF is not shallow enough to be problematic in most situations.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Interchangeable lenses are nice, but add bulk and cost.
Not sure why you'd claim that considering that the X1's lens is more bulky than the GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7 and the X1 looks to be over twice as expensive.
Interchangeable lenses add bulk and cost, relative to a fixed lens design on the same platform. Of course the GF1 is cheaper and may be smaller -- it's a Panasonic, and it's a smaller sensor. It's not a direct comparison.
Not sure why you're being so defensive and argumentative. Different people can value different things.
I still probably won't buy an X1, at least not at $2k. It's unquestionably a preferable camera to me, though.
Edited to add -- I don't think any of these are a slam dunk. They've all got compromises. What's encouraging, though, is that there's continued movement in the development of high quality compacts with decent sensors. This is a Very Good Thing.
I'm not being defensive, I just think what you're saying is incorrect. I honestly doubt the GF1 would be significantly larger if it had a 1.5 crop sized sensor - the flangeback distance wouldn't need to change, and the lens mount itself wouldn't need to be larger, as proved by the M9, so I think it's still a fair comparison. Would it be slightly more expensive with the larger sensor? Probably, but not $1,100 more expensive. The GF1 likely wouldn't have been any cheaper if it was a fixed lens since an interchangeable lens system can actually minimize cost since you're setting up (ideally) a continual revenue stream. Leica, with the X1 will make money off the X1 sale, batteries, and a few accessories. The GF1 is part of a larger system, and after the sale of the GF1 Panasonic will continue making money beyond batteries and accessories by continuing to sell lenses - and that all figures into the cost to consumers.
Again, I really don't see anything attractive about the X1 beyond the "cool" factor of it having old-school Leica style. I suppose the proof is in the pudding and perhaps the X1's lens will be of much higher quality than the 20mm f/1.7, but only time will tell and f/2.8 really just doesn't do it for me for a camera that I would likely use for street shooting, often in low-light conditions.
I think that 1.5 crop is already a compromise so 4/3 sensor cannot be better. I also do not think of Panasonic as a company making better lenses than Leica. It is not the name what is most important to me but the minimalistic design and controls. I do not use/need live view or movie mode (never used them in my Canon cameras). Yes, I would much prefer a non-collapsible lens with full aperture control and manual focus on it and this is the biggest problem for me. I cannot at this point afford M9 but I am not happy with any other "feature rich/menu driven" cameras. Instead of a new Canon I may get this camera and think how to do the rest.
Sam Bennett wrote:
I'm not being defensive, I just think what you're saying is incorrect. I honestly doubt the GF1 would be significantly larger if it had a 1.5 crop sized sensor - the flangeback distance wouldn't need to change, and the lens mount itself wouldn't need to be larger, as proved by the M9, so I think it's still a fair comparison. Would it be slightly more expensive with the larger sensor? Probably, but not $1,100 more expensive. The GF1 likely wouldn't have been any cheaper if it was a fixed lens since an interchangeable lens system can actually minimize cost since you're setting up (ideally) a continual revenue stream. Leica, with the X1 will make money off the X1 sale, batteries, and a few accessories. The GF1 is part of a larger system, and after the sale of the GF1 Panasonic will continue making money beyond batteries and accessories by continuing to sell lenses - and that all figures into the cost to consumers.
Again, I really don't see anything attractive about the X1 beyond the "cool" factor of it having old-school Leica style. I suppose the proof is in the pudding and perhaps the X1's lens will be of much higher quality than the 20mm f/1.7, but only time will tell and f/2.8 really just doesn't do it for me for a camera that I would likely use for street shooting, often in low-light conditions....Show more →
Panasonic doesn't make a compact DX/APS sensor camera, and Leica does. I don't much care about the hypotheticals.
I think for many the EP1 GF1 X1 would be 1 of several cameras (at least for me) that are owned. From that perspective I have changed my view of this genre from a stand alone kit to an option when the main kit is not desired. I will view this camera class as I would a pocket cam at least from situations where I would prefer a PS. Traveling social functions where the DSLR stands out too much. The EP1 for lack of flash and speed of glass fell short. The GF1 fits the bill. The x1 does as well but for the same price and greater versatility I get a GF1 20 1.7 14-140. My gues is that the GF1 will perform nearly as well if not better than the leica.
mfurman wrote:
I am seriously thinking of getting one. By the way GF1 with a Leica 35 mm equivalent lens would cost a bit more than $2000 (actually something like $5000 +)
A seriously silly comparison. Leica lenses aren't designed for the format so you're obviously going to pay silly amount of money to get an ultra-wide for that purpose. The 20 1.7 pancake provides a similar field of view as the X1 lens and I'd be surprised if at 2.8 the image quality wasn't as good.
mjmetts:
The 20 1.7 pancake provides a similar field of view as the X1 lens and I'd be surprised if at 2.8 the image quality wasn't as good.
If the lens in X1 is not better than Panasonic 20 f/1.7, Leica is in serious trouble. To be honest, if you do not believe in Leica quality, that is fine but why do you need to try to put it down? I have been a Canon user (had Leica M6 TTL, in the past) but I am very seriously disappointed with what not only Canon but other companies are making these days. They are catering to gadget hungry enthusiasts. I do hope that companies like Leica succeed.
I think the real competition here is the Sigma DP2, not so much the m4:3 cameras. The X1 seems to be* a slightly improved version of the Sigma: faster buffer and framerate, IS (?), probably better high ISO and by the looks of it better build quality, eronomics and trimmings, for double the price. I think the image samples will determine if the X1 is worth the premium, because the DP2 already has half decent high ISO performance, nice oof rendering and bloody amazing tonality at low ISO. One of the best digital cameras for B&W work I've ever seen.
For me the disadvantages of an m4:3 with a pancake compared to the X1 & DP2 are basically two: One, the m4:3 cameras have noisy shutters. It doesnt sound like a big thing, but people who value compact usually value discreet as well. There's no reason for a camera with no mirror to be so noisy and for me this is sloppy design by Olympus and Panasonic. Leica and Sigma got it right.
The other thing is that you can prefocus the X1 & DP2 very accurately and intuitively with their distance scales/dials. This, for these little cameras that lack DSLR focus speed is a very important option to have. Also, because of the crop factor and consequently wide lenses with plenty of depth of field, it is also very practical. In daytime you stop down and prefocus and you have everything in focus and a camera in your hands that is as responsive as any DSLR or DRF. Doesnt matter if you have the best AF in the world, this is still the fastest way to shoot a camera. The GF1&EP1 force you to fluff around with AF points or zoomed-in screens in the last second each time you take a shot. You become a slow shooter and for some photographers (me **) this is crippling. Again, Leica and Sigma got this right.
*to be confirmed, I havent seen a proper review yet.
** and Sean Reid apparently, I just finished reading his initial review.
Spyro P. wrote:
I think the real competition here is the Sigma DP2, not so much the m4:3 cameras. The X1 seems to be* a slightly improved version of the Sigma: faster buffer and framerate, IS (?), probably better high ISO and by the looks of it better build quality, eronomics and trimmings, for double the price.
If it sells for 2K, the X1 would be more than triple the price of a Sigma DP2 which sells for just under $650 these days. The X1 is not quite as silent as the DP2. You can hear what the X1 sounds like over at Luminous Landscape.
I am very curious to see how well the X1 performs. As I mentioned earlier, Sean Reid has stated that the X1 is made in Japan. I know Leica states it is made in Germany. Given that Sean Reid had direct access to the engineers and personnel at Leica recently, I would bet he has some insider info on this. My bet, as others have stated, is that all the parts are produced elsewhere, including the lens!, and some degree of final assembly/quality control is carried out in Germany. It's highly doubtful the AF Elmarit lens on the X1 is completely made in Germany. Given that, its silly to think that a Panasonic, Sigma or whomever could not make a lens as good or better. The Sigma DP's may have their issues but one thing they really got right was the lens!
Tariq Gibran said: ...that a Panasonic, Sigma or whomever could not make a lens as good or better
I must have missed something recently: help me please understand when Panasonic became a leading company in lens design. I am not sarcastic - I just would like to know. I might still readjust my plans.
