it's up at dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09110503leicax1gallery.asp

Please comment.

I really wanted to like this camera, but the IQ on these images doesn't come close to what I can do with the 5dm2.

--trajan

Nice. I would say a little better than I expected but I never expected this camera to outperform a 20+MP DSLR FF camera such as the 5DII or a900. The lens appears to be of very good quality offering nice contrast and pleasing color. Some of the color is not realistic and is overly warm but I suspect a lot of people will like the look. I noticed a tiny bit of CA in a few examples. I also like the look of the high ISO shots as well. They almost have a film like grain appearance. A little de-speckle in photoshop would clean the 3200 shot up nicely. If this camera was $700 or even say $1000, I think it would sell very well. As it is now, it's simply overpriced.

I think the samples look pretty unimpressive. Lots of CA, generally soft, poor DR. I'll stick with my GF1, which while not perfect looks to produce better photos, at least with the 20mm f/1.7.

trajan wrote:
I really wanted to like this camera, but the IQ on these images doesn't come close to what I can do with the 5dm2.


Did you really expect it to?? 12 mp APS sensor vs 21 mp full frame sensor. No contest really. The idea of the X1 is to provide a compact camera that you can take when you don't want to, or can't, carry a big DSLR, and still provide good IQ. I suspect it will be pretty close, if not exceed, the range of APS-C sensor DSLR's out there -- and you can put it in your pocket, or fit it neatly in a briefcase.

The X1 intended use is not as a replacement for a 5Dll, or provide IQ competitive with it. That's more the M9's job. The X1, cost aside, fills it's intended use reasonably well.

Sam Bennett wrote:
I think the samples look pretty unimpressive. Lots of CA, generally soft, poor DR. I'll stick with my GF1, which while not perfect looks to produce better photos, at least with the 20mm f/1.7.


Are we looking at the same image samples??

I agree with Tariq, I only noticed a tiny bit of CA in those sample. I don't think they were "generally" soft. Some of the images were somewhat soft, but most were sharp and, at least to my eye, had DR comparable to any APS-c DLSR. I was actually impressed with how well noise was controlled at 3200 ISO. It was clearly noisy, but I expected much worse. It was almost as good at the 5D. The GF1 from samples I've seen, appears to me to be more noisy. Quite frankly, I think these samples display very promising IQ for the camera. Would really like to see some RAW files to see for sure. Now, if Leica can only do something about the excessive price.

Noise is probably the only place where it compares favorably to MFT, but the lens appears to be decidedly inferior. Obviously it's tough to judge without the thing in my hands, shooting what I shoot and going through my workflow, but so far I'm pretty unimpressed. Panasonic has set the bar pretty high with the 20mm f/1.7, so it will be interesting to see more controlled tests.

It's a shame, because after living with the GF1/20 combo for a few weeks it's become easy to imagine being happy with an even more compact, fixed lens body if the quality was high enough and the lens was flexible enough to open up to f/2 or faster. The X1 appears to fail on both counts.

Sam Bennett wrote:
I think the samples look pretty unimpressive. Lots of CA, generally soft, poor DR. I'll stick with my GF1, which while not perfect looks to produce better photos, at least with the 20mm f/1.7.


+1. I played with a GF1 and 20mm, and the results were better than what I am seeing here. So fitting a GF1 with an even better lens would be better yet, and still cheaper than the X1. I would love to love this camera, so I will still try it, but these pics don't look promising.

Yeah, fwiw I want to love the X1 as well. Their control layout is brilliant, having a super-quiet shutter is a big difference compared to the GF1 which is as loud as a dSLR and the size is awesome, but... if the image quality and flexibility isn't there, it's a total non-starter.

I think the samples look amazing. I'm very impressed with the high iso results. Remember this is a small camera. Something you would use for travel when you want to keep the DSLR + lenses at home. The problem, for me, is the price. Too expensive (for me) to have as just a travel camera.
Jim

Lotusm50 wrote:
Sam Bennett wrote:
I think the samples look pretty unimpressive. Lots of CA, generally soft, poor DR. I'll stick with my GF1, which while not perfect looks to produce better photos, at least with the 20mm f/1.7.


Are we looking at the same image samples??

I agree with Tariq, I only noticed a tiny bit of CA in those sample. I don't think they were "generally" soft. Some of the images were somewhat soft, but most were sharp and, at least to my eye, had DR comparable to any APS-c DLSR. I was actually impressed with how well noise was controlled at 3200 ISO. It was clearly noisy, but I expected much worse. It was almost as good at the 5D. The GF1 from samples I've seen, appears to me to be more noisy. Quite frankly, I think these samples display very promising IQ for the camera. Would really like to see some RAW files to see for sure. Now, if Leica can only do something about the excessive price.



The images left a positive impression with me. Heck, I might even pay $1200 for this camera.

The posted samples were converted from raw, at least the ones that have ACR in their title. It would be nice to download some raws though.

how does the d lux 4 stack up?

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Heck, I might even pay $1200 for this camera.


Yes. I think $1200 would be a reasonble price. A bit on the expensive side, but you would expect to pay a bit of a premium -- just not a the high premium implicit in a $1999 price.

It will be interesting to see the comparison to the D300/D90 images as it is rumoured to have has a Nikon sourced sensor. It is a reasonable expectation that it should produce comparable IQ.

To expect it to perform like a full frame sensor is unrealistic. There's no free lunch!

Thanks for posting this link, I'm anxiously waiting for my X1. I think the images are quite good considering they are downsized conversions. This will be my sole camera, I have no interest in carrying a DSLR anymore, and the M9 is simply too large. What I've spent on DSLR equipment that saw limited use because I didn't want to carry it, will more than pay for the X1.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
Sam Bennett wrote:
I think the samples look pretty unimpressive. Lots of CA, generally soft, poor DR. I'll stick with my GF1, which while not perfect looks to produce better photos, at least with the 20mm f/1.7.


Are we looking at the same image samples??

I agree with Tariq, I only noticed a tiny bit of CA in those sample. I don't think they were "generally" soft. Some of the images were somewhat soft, but most were sharp and, at least to my eye, had DR comparable to any APS-c DLSR. I was actually impressed with how well noise was controlled at 3200 ISO. It was clearly noisy, but I expected much worse. It was almost as good at the 5D. The GF1 from samples I've seen, appears to me to be more noisy. Quite frankly, I think these samples display very promising IQ for the camera. Would really like to see some RAW files to see for sure. Now, if Leica can only do something about the excessive price.



The images left a positive impression with me. Heck, I might even pay $1200 for this camera.

The posted samples were converted from raw, at least the ones that have ACR in their title. It would be nice to download some raws though.


+1

When you consider how the test images normally look on DPR I reckon this camera has promise. Certainly seems to put my LX3 to shame. Obviously we can`t tell too much at present but I`ve seen a lot worse images from DSLR`s on that site.

You can't judge DR from JPEG samples

The camera uses an APS-C DSLR sensor and will have pretty much the same DR as DSLRs using that same sensor.

I think the lens could be a little sharper but other than that it's pretty much exactly what I expected. Does pretty well at ISO1600 and with an F2.8 lens that should cover most situations... when you need more it's got a flash. It's a somewhat overpriced camera but we all already knew that.

Edit: and what is the deal with the low-res LCD screen? It almost seems like this camera is one big ad for the GF1.

Samples look GREAT considering the SIZE of the camera.
They look AWFUL considering the PRICE of the camera.

So it depends on your priority. We should also compare this at the same time with a Canon G11 and and say a Sony A750.

sorry, but who cares about Leica X1? Seriously, for much less money you
can get the brand new Zeiss 21 ZE lens... Or you can get both 18 ZE and 35 ZE.
And BTW, Leica X1 has a 230K old LCD... State of the art, super duper technology,
year, right...

snowboarder wrote:
sorry, but who cares about Leica X1? Seriously, for much less money you
can get the brand new Zeiss 21 ZE lens... Or you can get both 18 ZE and 35 ZE.
And BTW, Leica X1 has a 230K old LCD... State of the art, super duper technology,
year, right...

There are many who would say, "Who cares about the new Zeiss lenses? Over priced." You make a mistake in thinking that everybody should follow your photographic lead. What works for one may not work for another. The fact that a post on it appears here shows that somebody cares about the Leica X1.

I was quite impressed with the sample images,

such as this one at ISO 1600:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/originals/l1000012_acr72i.jp (copy and paste link and then add a "g" on the end).

I suspect that how people feel about the X1 will often reflect how they feel about Leica in general.

RalphJ wrote:
I was quite impressed with the sample images,

such as this one at ISO 1600:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/originals/l1000012_acr72i.jp (copy and paste link and then add a "g" on the end).



Yeah that didnt look so terrible until I saw this:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/originals/l1000043_acr72i.jp

and this
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/originals/l1000130_acr.jp


I've seen better high iso from my S90.
Also I'd expect much better highlights from a large sensor, these are all burned and the photos dont even look overexposed. If it wasnt for the dof in some shots I could've mistaken this for a p&s to be honest.

Spyro P. wrote:
RalphJ wrote:
I was quite impressed with the sample images,

such as this one at ISO 1600:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/originals/l1000012_acr72i.jp (copy and paste link and then add a "g" on the end).



Yeah that didnt look so terrible until I saw this:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/eicax1_preview/originals/l1000043_acr72i.jp

and this
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicax1_preview/originals/l1000130_acr.jp


I've seen better high iso from my S90.
Also I'd expect much better highlights from a large sensor, these are all burned and the photos dont even look overexposed. If it wasnt for the dof in some shots I could've mistaken this for a p&s to be honest.

Your links are to the same photo, which is a terrible photo. Given the bg, I'm not sure any camera is going to make that image pop. Looking at the images in total, they are pretty good. Better than any P&S's I've seen, but, I haven't tried them all.

I was unimpressed.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rant23b.shtml

RalphJ wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rant23b.shtml



I agree with LL on the core point, but DPReview provides full-resolution images for scrutinizing. It's still problematic for other reasons, but it's not as if we're criticizing web-sized images here.