Or go for the E-p1 with 20mm f/1.7 and get f/1.7 and IS.

I have absolutely no need for IS at the focal lengths I'll be using with the subjects I'll be shooting.

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.

Panasonic or Leica. Let me think

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.

mfurman wrote:
Panasonic or Leica. Let me think


Hmmm....a more capable imaging machine and $1200, or the word "Leica" on my camera...let me think.

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.

Jman13:
...a more capable imaging machine

Yes, indeed - many cameras these days are just machines without any soul. If I need new technology I may as well stay at work all day long

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.

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.

mfurman wrote:
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.

Well, ironically, when Leica sent over personnel to Japan to work with Panasonic in producing some of the Leica branded lumix lenses made by Panasonic. I believe this occurred with the design of the Panasonic L1 over three years ago. Somewhere on the Panasonic site is an interview with the designer of this camera where he talks about the technology sharing between Leica and Panasonic.

You can read about that lens here:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/dslr/l1/leica01.html

Tariq Gibran wrote:
The X1 is not quite as silent as the DP2. You can hear what the X1 sounds like over at Luminous Landscape.

I know, I saw the video and I f*n loved it, even though I'm a sucker for quiet cameras... "tick-tick-tick" like a mechanical watch

Damn I didnt realise the DP2 was selling for that price, I might just get one

Here is the article I was thinking about regarding the collaboration between Leica and Panasonic on the Lumix L1 Lens over three years ago:

http://www.lar.panasonic.com/lumix_Spanish/popup/behind_the_scenes_l1/vol4.html

Spyro P. wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The X1 is not quite as silent as the DP2. You can hear what the X1 sounds like over at Luminous Landscape.

I know, I saw the video and I f*n loved it, even though I'm a sucker for quiet cameras... "tick-tick-tick" like a mechanical watch

Damn I didnt realise the DP2 was selling for that price, I might just get one

Yes, i really liked what I heard also.

I understand and share in the love for Leica glass, even if it is overpriced (sometimes making Canon and Nikon's prices seem restrained). I get the M9. Leica is very smart to keep the rangefinder alive. Few competitors would be willing to tread those waters, and it's still the perfect format for travel, hiking, and reportage with the body, charger, spare battery, and two to three lenses taking up roughly the same space as a 1D or D3, charger, and spare battery. And with such a wide variety of lenses still in production for the mount, if you have the means and don't need the different features of the DSLR, why not? I even get the S2, even if I'll never actually get an S2 (odds are very much against it). Why shouldn't Leica challenge the medium format makers, where astronomical pricing is the norm, with their fairly radical design?

I see the advantages of a APSC P&S with a fixed focal length lens. And I really like the looks of the camera body and funky pop-up flash. Even when I factor all of that in, I still can't help but look at the price tag and feel that Leica is very obviously trading on the brand name alone with this one.

zoetmb wrote:
With that price and a fixed lens, I don't think I'm interested.

One of the reasons to buy a Leica (in my opinion) is the elegance and quality of the design and machining. When you look at a Leica MP, M7 or M8, it does kind of take your breath away, even aside from picture quality. The X1 doesn't do that for me, but perhaps it looks better in-person.

I guess I haven't been so impressed. I happen to own a rebadged Leica compact camera, but I haven't been able to wrap my head around the appeal of the RF. They're pretty heavy, blocky, and not all that fun to use.

If I want a walk-around camera, I think the GF1 looks a lot more interesting to me, even though it's a smaller sensor. With a 20mm 1.7 or with a 14-45 3.5-5.6 it's $900 U.S. With both lenses, it's about $1250. Seems like a much better deal and I would assume it's physically smaller. And that's at list price. Some time after release, it will probably go for less. But new Leicas are almost never discounted.

Agreed. I've been using an EP-1 with Olympus 4/3 zooms, and have been very pleased with the performance. The Oly 4/3 zooms add a lot to the price though.

If I were rich enough that spending money didn't matter, I might go for an M9 (or an M7). But since it matters a lot, I don't think they'll ever be a Leica in my hands.

That system would be heavier than a GF1 or EP-1. I guess the optical viewfinder would be nice, but I frankly have a hard time grasping the appeal... and goodness knows I have enough expensive habits to be susceptible to the Leica craze.

It will be interesting to see if/how Nikon/Canon react to both the GF1 and the X1.

I don't think they will. Maybe some APS-C fixed-lens cameras, but I kind of doubt it.

Arka C.

mfurman wrote:
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.


My guess is when they created this one http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/ under the Leica name.
At least that is when the lens matched the sensor to produce a camera capable of taking outstanding images!

I own two other Lumix's (an FZ50 and a waterproof TS1), but their image quality pales in comparision to the LX3. While I also have a pair of D200's and old D1X's with a bunch of lenses, I now take my LX3 with me on most travel outings because of less weight, less bulk, and the outstanding images I get.

IMO, Lumix has carved its mark in the very competitive camera world. I hope it continues to produce gems like the LX3 and GF1. For all we know the Leica name on the lenses of these cameras were made in the same factory as the cameras the Lumix bodies.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
mfurman wrote:
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.

Well, ironically, when Leica sent over personnel to Japan to work with Panasonic in producing some of the Leica branded lumix lenses made by Panasonic. I believe this occurred with the design of the Panasonic L1 over three years ago. Somewhere on the Panasonic site is an interview with the designer of this camera where he talks about the technology sharing between Leica and Panasonic.

You can read about that lens here:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/dslr/l1/leica01.html



Actually years before that. Panasonic has been doing pro-level video for quite a while (20+ years) and their video lenses are excellent.

Note also Leica's reputation as a premium lens designer is not much older, it didn't really appear until the 70's. Remember Nikon made their name in the 50's by selling lenses that were better than the Leica's for less money. Leica was always known for good glass, but they were in the same category as Nikon, Canon or Pentax in the 50's and 60's, not in Zeiss's class.

mawz wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
mfurman wrote:
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.

Well, ironically, when Leica sent over personnel to Japan to work with Panasonic in producing some of the Leica branded lumix lenses made by Panasonic. I believe this occurred with the design of the Panasonic L1 over three years ago. Somewhere on the Panasonic site is an interview with the designer of this camera where he talks about the technology sharing between Leica and Panasonic.

You can read about that lens here:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/dslr/l1/leica01.html



Actually years before that. Panasonic has been doing pro-level video for quite a while (20+ years) and their video lenses are excellent.

Note also Leica's reputation as a premium lens designer is not much older, it didn't really appear until the 70's. Remember Nikon made their name in the 50's by selling lenses that were better than the Leica's for less money. Leica was always known for good glass, but they were in the same category as Nikon, Canon or Pentax in the 50's and 60's, not in Zeiss's class.


Yes, I agree with that but, of course, these video lenses did not need to have the resolving power that lenses designed for film and/or high MP still cameras require. Two different animals I think.

I think the Canon S90 will be a much more capable camera.