mfurman wrote:
Panasonic or Leica. Let me think


I'll go with the company which specializes in 21st century electronics. This is, after all, a DIGITAL camera we are talking about and not a 1950s film cameras.

Uncle Mike:
I'll go with the company which specializes in 21st century electronics.

And the one that makes cameras with LV, Movie Mode and a few more important goodies.

hahahaaha

Had a brief thought when I saw it was an APS-C sensor. Then I saw the price and thought it was funny. If Leica actually plans to sell any of those, that price needs to be cut in half and then some.

And if the X1's sensor is as good as the D90 sensor, why bother getting the X1 when you can pick up a D90 and a 35mm f1.8 or a 20mm f3.5.

I doubt if anyone....other than those who feel the red dot gives them some special magical power.... is going to spend that much on the X1 when you can get a GF-1 with a superb 7-14mm, 20mm f1.7, and maybe even a 14-45mm for the same price or less.

You can also adapt better alt lenses for th GF-1 too. The choice is pretty clear.

I just opted out of the GF1 w/20, and 90 macro on Amazon pre-order. It's not that the GF1 won't be nice, it's just that it is destined to lose significant value in a short time. The Micro 4/3rd (MFT) format is still an experiment of sorts, especially in light of the fact that the Leica X1 can fit a much larger sensor in the same space. People who have purchased a $900 Leica DG Macro-Elmarit f2.8 made for the Panasonic GF1, more specifically a MFT camera, will have a hard time selling it if the 1.5x format becomes the accepted standard. A high quality, self-contained body/lens combo like the X1, although costly at first, seems to be a better deal now and down the road. Quality workmanship and materials make a difference.

Lack of a zoom kills it for me, though an APS-C sensor is nice for a change. Is there any chance of other models?

EBH

Barry Pehlman wrote:
I just opted out of the GF1 w/20, and 90 macro on Amazon pre-order. It's not that the GF1 won't be nice, it's just that it is destined to lose significant value in a short time. The Micro 4/3rd (MFT) format is still an experiment of sorts, especially in light of the fact that the Leica X1 can fit a much larger sensor in the same space. People who have purchased a $900 Leica DG Macro-Elmarit f2.8 made for the Panasonic GF1, more specifically a MFT camera, will have a hard time selling it if the 1.5x format becomes the accepted standard. A high quality, self-contained body/lens combo like the X1, although costly at first, seems to be a better deal now and down the road. Quality workmanship and materials make a difference.


Ironically, my experience is that 4/3rds lenses hold their value better than APS-C lenses despite the latter having become the accepted format for smaller-than-35mm DSLR's. With m43, as with 4/3rds, you're buying into a system and lens value tends to track inversely with how popular the system is due to supply & demand issues.

I'd expect the X1 to be a worse deal now and down the road compared to a GF1 with 20 and 45mm lenses. With the GF1 your next body will not require new glass, whereas the Leica will likely have a similar lifespan but you'll end up paying more than twice as much for the replacement.

Don't get me wrong, I think the X1 looks excellent, but at $2000 it's not a good value compared to the GF1 in a straight up comparison. The Leica wins primarily on size, as well as simplicity rather than value.

pascal03 wrote:
Had a brief thought when I saw it was an APS-C sensor. Then I saw the price and thought it was funny. If Leica actually plans to sell any of those, that price needs to be cut in half and then some.

And if the X1's sensor is as good as the D90 sensor, why bother getting the X1 when you can pick up a D90 and a 35mm f1.8 or a 20mm f3.5.

I doubt if anyone....other than those who feel the red dot gives them some special magical power.... is going to spend that much on the X1 when you can get a GF-1 with a superb 7-14mm, 20mm f1.7, and maybe even a 14-45mm for the same price or less.



Size. The X1 with the lens retracted is closer in size to a LX3 than a GF1, let alone the D90 (which is monstrous in comparison to either the X1 or GF1).

The Gf1's a better deal, but a more complex camera. If all I wanted was a small, pocketable camera with a 35mm equivalent lens the X1's the obvious choice. If I need more flexibility or capability I'd go for the GF1. If I needed more speed I'd pay the size tax and get the new Pentax K-X and a couple pancakes (which is only a bit larger than a G1)

Mawz wrote:

Ironically, my experience is that 4/3rds lenses hold their value better than APS-C lenses despite the latter having become the accepted format for smaller-than-35mm DSLR's. With m43, as with 4/3rds, you're buying into a system and lens value tends to track inversely with how popular the system is due to supply & demand issues.

Well that's debatable, but they won't fit a micro 4/3rds (MFT) camera without an adapter thus increasing it's size. Conversely, mounting a MFT lens to a FT body, if even possible, will not cover the sensor without cut-off. From what I have read, the Olympus MFT body doesn't do well with Panasonic MFT lenses in the IQ department. You can adapt Nikon and other manual focus lenses to these modified P&S bodies, but for me it doesn't make sense putting a large lens on a camera the size of a EP1. At that point I would just get an SLR.... at least it has an optical viewfinder. Right now the only two players in the MFT game is Panasonic and Olympus. If the technology exists to put a 1/5x sensor in a camera the same size as an EP1 or GF1, why go smaller with a 2x sensor?

I'd expect the X1 to be a worse deal now and down the road compared to a GF1 with 20 and 45mm lenses. With the GF1 your next body will not require new glass, whereas the Leica will likely have a similar lifespan but you'll end up paying more than twice as much for the replacement.

Leica film cameras hold their value... that's a fact. The M8, a disaster IMO, was Leica's first attempt at putting digital in an M series. Besides the lousy color issues, I think it was dumb of them to put a 1.3x sensor in a true rangefinder camera. It was difficult enough when I owned a M6 to feel confident within those various RF lines. A 1.3x sensor just made it worse. Now it seems that those who want a true digital rangefinder will get it with the M9.... but I digress. Panasonic has no history of making still cameras even if the GF1 might end up being the best MFT camera on the market. Next year it will probably be the GF2, then GF3 for 2012. Knowing Leica, they don't fix what's not broken. I expect the X1 to end up being a cult camera like those tiny Rolleis were, the ones made in Germany, not Singapore.

As part of the X1's $2000 "deal", Adobe Lightroom ($300) is included. That's a nice feature and I guess it's better than waiting for and then paying for Photoshop CS5 to acknowledge the X1.

Don't get me wrong, I think the X1 looks excellent, but at $2000 it's not a good value compared to the GF1 in a straight up comparison. The Leica wins primarily on size, as well as simplicity rather than value.

Any tiny, metal camera made in Germany that shoots 3 frames per second, no shutter lag, 13 true MP, a 1.5x sensor, and also looks cool is worth consideration, especially compared to the only competition at this point - the Sigma DP series, cameras that seem to be an excercise in frustration en route to decent quality pictures at 4.5 MP per jpeg (14MP if you do Sigma's fuzzy math, but only in RAW).

For those who want a zoom, do some cropping with the 1.5x sensor. You should come out to a focal length in the 50s after factoring the 2x sensor. Need a faster lens than the G10 because it topped out at ISO 200, try the X1 at 800. Now you got a camera with a sensor ten times the G10 and a 1.4 lens, so to speak.

Still haven't decided on anything at this point. I am not thrilled about announcements for products three or more months down the road. We'll see.

Barry Pehlman wrote:
Mawz wrote:

Ironically, my experience is that 4/3rds lenses hold their value better than APS-C lenses despite the latter having become the accepted format for smaller-than-35mm DSLR's. With m43, as with 4/3rds, you're buying into a system and lens value tends to track inversely with how popular the system is due to supply & demand issues.

Well that's debatable, but they won't fit a micro 4/3rds (MFT) camera without an adapter thus increasing it's size. Conversely, mounting a MFT lens to a FT body, if even possible, will not cover the sensor without cut-off. From what I have read, the Olympus MFT body doesn't do well with Panasonic MFT lenses in the IQ department. You can adapt Nikon and other manual focus lenses to these modified P&S bodies, but for me it doesn't make sense putting a large lens on a camera the size of a EP1. At that point I would just get an SLR.... at least it has an optical viewfinder. Right now the only two players in the MFT game is Panasonic and Olympus. If the technology exists to put a 1/5x sensor in a camera the same size as an EP1 or GF1, why go smaller with a 2x sensor?

I'm using the 4/3rds as an example to indicate that even if APS-C EVIL's become the defacto standard, the m43 stuff is likely to retain value.

Frankly, I like the 4/3rds format better than APS-C. It's not that far behind APS-C in high ISO performance, I like the 4:3 aspect ratio better and the extra DoF actually helps me a lot in low-light shooting (something I was not expecting). I'd still take a APS-C DSLR over 4/3rds for a primary body for other reasons (viewfinder size mostly, if I was primarily shooting a DSLR, the K-7 would be in my bag as it's the best combo of size and performance, as it is I use an E-30 to backup my G1). And for most work I'll take a good EVF like the G1's over any crop-body OVF and even some FF OVF's, the G1's EVF is huge and extremely easy to focus. I would not be likely to switch to an APS-C EVIL camera from m43 anytime soon, unless Panasonic decided to drop the system (I have little expectation that Olympus will be a serious player in the EVIL world, they don't seem interested in seriously pursuing the system, but rather see it as a nice niche line alongside 4/3rds, which works in my favour as I can buy Oly 4/3rds stuff to cover what the m43 stuff doesn't do well).

I was also surprised to find that some 4/3rds stuff does quite well adapted to m43. The 40-150 f4-5.6 is a great little telezoom, cheaper and smaller even with the adapter than the Panasonic 45-200 OIS. And my 14-54 actually handles quite nicely on the G1, handling much like the Sony 717, 828 and R1 EVF P&S's. It's not small, but it does work well.

What I'd really like to see is a 32x24 format EVIL system.


I'd expect the X1 to be a worse deal now and down the road compared to a GF1 with 20 and 45mm lenses. With the GF1 your next body will not require new glass, whereas the Leica will likely have a similar lifespan but you'll end up paying more than twice as much for the replacement.

Leica film cameras hold their value... that's a fact. The M8, a disaster IMO, was Leica's first attempt at putting digital in an M series. Besides the lousy color issues, I think it was dumb of them to put a 1.3x sensor in a true rangefinder camera. It was difficult enough when I owned a M6 to feel confident within those various RF lines. A 1.3x sensor just made it worse. Now it seems that those who want a true digital rangefinder will get it with the M9.... but I digress. Panasonic has no history of making still cameras even if the GF1 might end up being the best MFT camera on the market. Next year it will probably be the GF2, then GF3 for 2012. Knowing Leica, they don't fix what's not broken. I expect the X1 to end up being a cult camera like those tiny Rolleis were, the ones made in Germany, not Singapore.

As part of the X1's $2000 "deal", Adobe Lightroom ($300) is included. That's a nice feature and I guess it's better than waiting for and then paying for Photoshop CS5 to acknowledge the X1.

Leica compacts on the other hand do not traditionally hold their value. Even the CL sells for around the same as a used R2a these days. I highly doubt the X1 will hold value like a M8, let alone most other M's. And for all that Leica doesn't fix what's not broken, they also have a tendency to preserve non-optimal design choices for traditional reasons (M film loading for example, which was obsolete by 1965 and is preserved to this day by the M8/M9 battery/card loading)


Don't get me wrong, I think the X1 looks excellent, but at $2000 it's not a good value compared to the GF1 in a straight up comparison. The Leica wins primarily on size, as well as simplicity rather than value.

Any tiny, metal camera made in Germany that shoots 3 frames per second, no shutter lag, 13 true MP, a 1.5x sensor, and also looks cool is worth consideration, especially compared to the only competition at this point - the Sigma DP series, cameras that seem to be an excercise in frustration en route to decent quality pictures at 4.5 MP per jpeg (14MP if you do Sigma's fuzzy math, but only in RAW).

For those who want a zoom, do some cropping with the 1.5x sensor. You should come out to a focal length in the 50s after factoring the 2x sensor. Need a faster lens than the G10 because it topped out at ISO 200, try the X1 at 800. Now you got a camera with a sensor ten times the G10 and a 1.4 lens, so to speak.

Still haven't decided on anything at this point. I am not thrilled about announcements for products three or more months down the road. We'll see.

Where the camera is made means little today and the Germans do not have much experience building digitals, unlike the Japanese. Looks are also mostly irrelevant to me (I got a red G1 in part because nobody else seemed to want them).

I agree that the DP's are the real competition to the X1, but the GF1 or EP1 with a pancake is pretty close if you have big pockets.

Barry Pehlman wrote:

Any tiny, metal camera made in Germany that shoots 3 frames per second, no shutter lag, 13 true MP, a 1.5x sensor, and also looks cool is worth consideration, especially compared to the only competition at this point - the Sigma DP series, cameras that seem to be an excercise in frustration en route to decent quality pictures at 4.5 MP per jpeg (14MP if you do Sigma's fuzzy math, but only in RAW).


IF the X1 actually is made in Germany (made meaning not just lightly assembled from entire modules actually made elsewhere), which I doubt, then I would agree. Not surprisingly, most longtime Sigma DP users don't have as many issues with the camera as those who either have not used it or have only used it for a few days. Here is an interesting test which shows how well the DP2 image holds up to the Panasonic GH-1:
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/09/sigma-dp2-shootout-pt-2-detailed-scene.html

Beyond showing that there really is something special in the resolving ability of the true color foveon equipped DP's (and how good the lens on the DP2 is), the above test also shows just how bad the Olympus 17mm 2.8 pancake lens is. I have no doubt that a better lens would have allowed the GH-1 to perform better.

MFT vs. 1.5x: The comparisons.... and a 1.5x sensor is bigger than the 1.6x pictured. Size matters.

http://eolake.blogspot.com/2009/08/comparisons.html

Barry Pehlman wrote:


Well that's debatable, but they won't fit a micro 4/3rds (MFT) camera without an adapter thus increasing it's size. ... From what I have read, the Olympus MFT body doesn't do well with Panasonic MFT lenses in the IQ department. You can adapt Nikon and other manual focus lenses to these modified P&S bodies, but for me it doesn't make sense putting a large lens on a camera the size of a EP1.

You know, I have been quite surprised by the effectiveness of using the somewhat larger (but not monstrous) FT lenses on the mFT. They don't balance perfectly, but they are quite usable. I used two such lenses, the Olympus 11-22 and 14-54, in NYC last week, and am simply gawking at the images that they returned. Moreover, I never found the combination to be at all burdensome, as I carried it around the city for my regular 7-10 mile walks with little fatigue. The whole kit weighed less than my wife's 20D with a 17-40 attached.

Plus, if you're after attention, that setup will get you some, even without the little red dot. I wandered into B&H at one point, and within the space of an hour, two salespeople and three customers walked up to me and asked me "What is that, and how do you like it?" My answer? Very much.

At that point I would just get an SLR.... at least it has an optical viewfinder.

I found that the MF assist on the camera's EVF was actually more effective in nailing focus manually than a comparable optical viewfinder would've been. Granted by EOS-1 would've autofocused far more accurately than my EP-1, but who wants to carry that much weight around as a walkabout camera?

Right now the only two players in the MFT game is Panasonic and Olympus. If the technology exists to put a 1/5x sensor in a camera the same size as an EP1 or GF1, why go smaller with a 2x sensor?

Even if they remain the only players, I don't think the system is about to die out. One nice thing about the 4/3 sensor is that, image quality notwithstanding, some outstanding optics can be made smaller for the format. It seems that Olympus and Panasonic are finally catching on to the real benefit of 4/3 and m4/3... size. Forget the E-3 that's the same size as a Nikon D700 or 5D.... what people looking at m4/3 really want is a capable small camera we can take with us everywhere. Even if a new APS-C based format were released, the lenses would probably be larger than the existing 4/3 lenses, and the camera bodies probably would not be any smaller than the present examples. And even with the larger lenses, these cameras still weigh less, and are less bulky than, M-system rangefinders.



Leica film cameras hold their value... that's a fact. The M8, a disaster IMO, was Leica's first attempt at putting digital in an M series. Besides the lousy color issues, I think it was dumb of them to put a 1.3x sensor in a true rangefinder camera. It was difficult enough when I owned a M6 to feel confident within those various RF lines. A 1.3x sensor just made it worse. Now it seems that those who want a true digital rangefinder will get it with the M9.... but I digress. Panasonic has no history of making still cameras even if the GF1 might end up being the best MFT camera on the market. Next year it will probably be the GF2, then GF3 for 2012. Knowing Leica, they don't fix what's not broken. I expect the X1 to end up being a cult camera like those tiny Rolleis were, the ones made in Germany, not Singapore.

As both you and Mawz note, the Leica fixed lens digital units don't have a huge advantage in terms of retaining resale. I know... I own one. As you say, the X1 will probably be a one-hit wonder for well-heeled travel and street shooters, and for consumers who like owning gear rather than learning how to use it well.

As for Panasonic's history of making still cameras... well... a turkey that's fed for a thousand days of its life hasn't the slightest idea that the farmer will wring its neck the day before Thanksgiving. Looking at the past to see how a company will do in the future may not have much predictive value. So far, they've produced a number of good lenses, and some decent cameras. They may crash and burn, or they may succeed, but I think that the existence of so many 4/3 lenses, and the excitement in the community of m4/3 users, should ensure some longevity. My own experience on the Olympus end of the system has been good enough that I may not even care if the system stops development right now.... I've already gotten some great material, and will likely get even better stuff as time goes on, and I learn the hardware (and the art of street and travel photography) better.

As part of the X1's $2000 "deal", Adobe Lightroom ($300) is included. That's a nice feature and I guess it's better than waiting for and then paying for Photoshop CS5 to acknowledge the X1.

Seems to me that most people shelling out $2000 for a camera probably already have some version of Photoshop Bridge, Aperture, or Lightroom

Any tiny, metal camera made in Germany that shoots 3 frames per second, no shutter lag, 13 true MP, a 1.5x sensor, and also looks cool is worth consideration, especially compared to the only competition at this point - the Sigma DP series, cameras that seem to be an excercise in frustration en route to decent quality pictures at 4.5 MP per jpeg (14MP if you do Sigma's fuzzy math, but only in RAW).

Not at $2000... my entire m4/3 kit with some superb Olympus f/2.8-3.5 lenses cost less than that.

For those who want a zoom, do some cropping with the 1.5x sensor. You should come out to a focal length in the 50s after factoring the 2x sensor. Need a faster lens than the G10 because it topped out at ISO 200, try the X1 at 800. Now you got a camera with a sensor ten times the G10 and a 1.4 lens, so to speak.

Aside from the size, I don't see these two cameras as being in the same league. The G10 is something like a quarter of the price, with a tiny sensor and a slow lens. The Leica seems to be competing with the Sigma DP, and possibly trying to interest advanced shooters accustomed to a "system," but also looking for light weight and simplicity. In that vein, the X1 may capture a few buyers, but if the m4/3 system continues to grow as I hope it will, the X1 may find itself in a very small niche, APS-C sensor notwithstanding.

Arka C.

Barry Pehlman wrote:
MFT vs. 1.5x: The comparisons.... and a 1.5x sensor is bigger than the 1.6x pictured. Size matters.

http://eolake.blogspot.com/2009/08/comparisons.html

Note as much as people make out. I went from a D300 to the G1 (and now the E-30 as well). The G1 actually delivers marginally more resolution than the D300, slightly better colour, but is noisier at ISO 800+ and loses out on dynamic range. The E-30 doesn't stack up as well against the D300 due to the difference in AA filters (the G1 has the weakest AA filter of the three, the E-30 the strongest)

The demonstration from eolake shows that the G1 keeps up very well with the Ti1/500D despite the smaller sensor, while delivering better colour.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Barry Pehlman wrote:

Any tiny, metal camera made in Germany that shoots 3 frames per second, no shutter lag, 13 true MP, a 1.5x sensor, and also looks cool is worth consideration, especially compared to the only competition at this point - the Sigma DP series, cameras that seem to be an excercise in frustration en route to decent quality pictures at 4.5 MP per jpeg (14MP if you do Sigma's fuzzy math, but only in RAW).


IF the X1 actually is made in Germany (made meaning not just lightly assembled from entire modules actually made elsewhere), which I doubt, then I would agree. Not surprisingly, most longtime Sigma DP users don't have as many issues with the camera as those who either have not used it or have only used it for a few days. Here is an interesting test which shows how well the DP2 image holds up to the Panasonic GH-1:
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/09/sigma-dp2-shootout-pt-2-detailed-scene.html

Beyond showing that there really is something special in the resolving ability of the true color foveon equipped DP's (and how good the lens on the DP2 is), the above test also shows just how bad the Olympus 17mm 2.8 pancake lens is. I have no doubt that a better lens would have allowed the GH-1 to perform better.




The DP2 definitely does better wide open, the M.Zuiko isn't that great wide open. Note some of that is the fact that the much higher resolution GH1 sesnor is outresolving the low-resolution DP2 sensor. The M.Zuiko 17 would likely do a fair bit better on the Foveon sensor which is FAR less demanding than the GH1's sensor. By f5.6 though the GH1/M.Zuiko is just stomping all over the DP2 outside of the extreme edges, it really shows off how the resolution difference between the 12MP bayer sensor and the ~4.7MP Foveon, even with the latter's no-AA and no-interpolation advantages.

mawz wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Barry Pehlman wrote:

Any tiny, metal camera made in Germany that shoots 3 frames per second, no shutter lag, 13 true MP, a 1.5x sensor, and also looks cool is worth consideration, especially compared to the only competition at this point - the Sigma DP series, cameras that seem to be an excercise in frustration en route to decent quality pictures at 4.5 MP per jpeg (14MP if you do Sigma's fuzzy math, but only in RAW).


IF the X1 actually is made in Germany (made meaning not just lightly assembled from entire modules actually made elsewhere), which I doubt, then I would agree. Not surprisingly, most longtime Sigma DP users don't have as many issues with the camera as those who either have not used it or have only used it for a few days. Here is an interesting test which shows how well the DP2 image holds up to the Panasonic GH-1:
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/09/sigma-dp2-shootout-pt-2-detailed-scene.html

Beyond showing that there really is something special in the resolving ability of the true color foveon equipped DP's (and how good the lens on the DP2 is), the above test also shows just how bad the Olympus 17mm 2.8 pancake lens is. I have no doubt that a better lens would have allowed the GH-1 to perform better.




The DP2 definitely does better wide open, the M.Zuiko isn't that great wide open. Note some of that is the fact that the much higher resolution GH1 sesnor is outresolving the low-resolution DP2 sensor. The M.Zuiko 17 would likely do a fair bit better on the Foveon sensor which is FAR less demanding than the GH1's sensor. By f5.6 though the GH1/M.Zuiko is just stomping all over the DP2 outside of the extreme edges, it really shows off how the resolution difference between the 12MP bayer sensor and the ~4.7MP Foveon, even with the latter's no-AA and no-interpolation advantages.


Given that the DP sensor is larger than a micro 4/3rds sensor, the edges of the Zuiko pancake would be even worse. The problem is entirely with the Olympus lens. In this test using the Zuiko, I think "stomping" is a bit of an exaggeration looking at that comparison. I'm anxious to see how the upcoming Panasonic 20mm pancake performs. I do suspect that lens will truly "stomp" the Olympus pancake.

Dpreview have posted a hands on preview for the Leica X1:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/LeicaX1/

Not me, it's too pricey. I already have an M8, so I'm more than good.

I'm on a couple of waiting lists for the X1. A small format camera with a larger than 4/3rds sensor tweaked by Leica built to do one thing, shoot quality still images. No video, no scene modes, make this camera very appealing. Leica appears to be the only manufacturer out there with simple high quality still photography in mind. I've had enough of small cameras that do a whole bunch of things pretty well, but nothing exceedingly well. I have high hopes for the X1.

For me the X-1 is a big yawn. Fixed focal length, no macro, no optical ro evf, no live view. A very limited photographic tool. Great for people who only "see" in a 35mm focal length. No filters allowed (those washed-out Havana skies, cars and waters could really have used a polarizer!). Also, anyone ever try to shoot in the tropical sun (I live in Fla) with just an LCD held at arm's distance? Ridiculous! However, a pro with a multi-thousand $ studio set can do OK . . . .

How can this even come close to the G1/GH1/GF1 system? The 20mm pancake is superb from all accounts.

Forget snob appeal, I would shoot a leica in a heartbeat if it was an adequate photographic tool. But, let's see, for the price . . .

a Conurus converted Zeiss 17-35 2.8, or

a Voigtlander 125 APO macro with $600-700 left over to take a trip!, or

a GH1 system with EVF, swing-out LCD, 1080 HD video, 28-280 zoom, plus a fast 40mm equivalend 1.7 pancake, or

a truly legendary Canon 85L 1.2, or a 24mm TSE mark II

or . . you get the idea.

I'll go back to yawning, now.

While I agree the X1 seems pretty limited (I wish it at least had an f/2 in there), there is at least one place where it's really going to differentiate itself from the MFT offerings (which I see as its main competition) - almost utterly silent operation. It would appear they've taken advantage of the fixed lens and put in a leaf shutter instead of a focal plane shutter which makes it significantly quieter than a GF1, for instance.

I personally love their approach to the manual controls in relation to the auto modes - having distinct shutter and aperture dials for manual controls, with a "A" setting on each which in combination determine Manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority or Full Auto? Brilliant.

Too early to tell.
I would have to wait and see what the difference was in dynamic range, high iso... over an EP2.
One thing I know now though, is the price is too high. I'm sure Samsung, Sony and others will come out with APS-C EVIL cams, and probably with interchangeable lenses at much less.

...or one from Ricoh? http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/23501/system-camera/

I know I won't spend a dime on anything with "Leica" logo on it.