Spyro P. wrote:
Sean Reid says the lens is excellent across the zoom range, and most importantly it has a marked manual focus ring with hard stops and distance markings. So there, at least we have a proper landscape camera.
Having read the Reid Review article, the potential IQ on offer with the X Vario is encouraging and combined with a light CF tripod, it does appear to hold some potential as a minimalist system for extended backpacking and/or more demanding hiking trips.
i think you are asking too much. if you want a faster zoom your going to have to deal with bulk. if you want compact you're going to have to accept either very slow or a prime like the ricoh gr, x100
wolfloid wrote:
@ Sebboh
I don't think this is true: Fuji has brought out an excellent F2.8-F4.0 28-55, so a wider range and much faster than the Vario, and it's only 70mm long - hardly massive. The X100 prime is an f2, since when is that slow?
This utter crap Leica Vario camera is also fixed to that slow zoom and even costs more.
sebboh wrote:
i said slow OR a prime if you want reasonably compact. not slow and a prime. yes, f/2 is fast, but it's a short prime. the fuji 18-55mm is wider and faster yes, it's also bigger unless i'm missing something in the specs.
the high price has nothing to do with the specs, it has to do with the fact that leica is producing it. i have no idea why you think they would make something cheap? the x2 costs twice what the x100s costs.
If you look at the specs for the lenses alone, the Leica may me a bit slimmer than the Fuji. However, if you look at the size / weight paramters for the Leica Vario packet compared to the Fuji lens mounted on the X-E1, they are very close, ony a few mm and grams apart. The Leica being heavier. And f/6.4 is still slower than the f/5.6 you get with most kit lenses.
SR emailed me back and said the shutter sound is a quiet tick (and he will update the article with that info)
Paula just pulled its @rse out of the lurch in my book
Very expensive, bit bulky, slow lens, slowish AF, but awesome controls, very good IQ (pending infinity testing) and attention to detail.
Pros and Cons, take or leave it.
I'll pass, mostly because of price, but it doesn't look bad at all for tripod work and daytime street.
I don't think this is true: Fuji has brought out an excellent F2.8-F4.0 28-55, so a wider range and much faster than the Vario, and it's only 70mm long - hardly massive. The X100 prime is an f2, since when is that slow?
This utter crap Leica Vario camera is also fixed to that slow zoom and even costs more.
Not just that-- I've made some nice images with my S100, and that has a much smaller sensor than the Leica (I'm hesitant to call it that, and yet, what other company would bring something like this... thing out?).
DoubleNegative wrote:
I'm gonna go with "told ya so."
You must be the most incredible "blogger" out there.
No, you didn't tell us anything. The leaks were out for a week or so
when you posted completely different "confirmed" specs (24MP etc).
You wrote something like "everyone is wrong, those are real..."
You wrote big "obviously fake" on a real pic of the camera.
Then when real samples were out, you changed your "confirmed" specs.
Revised your post several times. Now you're trying to get a credit for real leaks...
Your sorry a@@ blog must have two readers - you and your dog
because you're so desperate to push it everywhere...
AshNZ wrote:
I'm changing my mind, I may actually consider this camera. When you do the DoF calculations, the F stops aren't that bad due to the sensor size.
I currently have an M8 and 50 Lux ASPH which takes stunning portraits shots (something the Vario would struggle with).
I'm looking forward to seeing more shots
Really? I use f/5.6 on a 50mm lens for landscape-y photos. . . . it's a lot of DOF. It doesn't really work for "bokeh" shots.
snowboarder wrote:
You must be the most incredible "blogger" out there.
No, you didn't tell us anything. The leaks were out for a week or so
when you posted completely different "confirmed" specs (24MP etc).
You wrote something like "everyone is wrong, those are real..."
You wrote big "obviously fake" on a real pic of the camera.
Then when real samples were out, you changed your "confirmed" specs.
Revised your post several times. Now you're trying to get a credit for real leaks...
Your sorry a@@ blog must have two readers - you and your dog
because you're so desperate to push it everywhere...
Insults aside, this is generally correct from what I saw.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Really? I use f/5.6 on a 50mm lens for landscape-y photos. . . . it's a lot of DOF. It doesn't really work for "bokeh" shots.
You are focused to infinity, and that will never yield 'bokeh'. Subject isolation is more important than very wide f stop. If you can get close to your subject, and the background is isolated away from it, you can still achieve very nice out of focus rendering.
Obviously, this may limit some shots, but it is very possible.
Doublenegative may be too eager to promote his blog at times, but he's a very nice and helpful poster with a lot of knowledge. It's really disappointing to read such nasty unprovoqued attacks from our Mr. Angry snowboarder.
Yeah, snowboarder's is tact is poor as usual, although Doublenegative's "told ya so" comment is somewhat outrageous, IMO, considering he was all over the place with this X Vario rumor.
Whatever you might think of Andrew, you can at least count on an unfettered opinion. While he seems to frequently criticize, he also offers praise. It's just not nearly as frequent.
Mescalamba wrote:
Advantage over X-E1 + 18-55?
None.
It's not a Fuji X-tran CFA?
It probably has a much nicer feel in the hand, which was a big difference I found between the Fujis and M9.
Will it make anyone a better photographer? I doubt it.
The camera is really middle of the road. Very safe in terms of spec list. I'm looking forward to seeing some DNG conversions but Jono's Jpegs do look promising with good across the frame performance. I thought the bokeh of the close-up shots was very Leica-like.
I agree the MF implementation appears to be superior to all the fly-by-wire options (other than maybe the Zeiss Touits).
As with every Leica, it's going to boil down to whether the trade-offs/compromises are worth the price premium.
rscheffler wrote:
Whatever you might think of Andrew, you can at least count on an unfettered opinion. While he seems to frequently criticize, he also offers praise. It's just not nearly as frequent.
In today's world of political correctness, calling BS BS is seen as "angry" for some reason...
The funniest thing is I'm never angry, I just call things what they truly are.
In today's world of political correctness, calling BS BS is seen as "angry" for some reason...
The funniest thing is I'm never angry, I just call things what they truly are.
It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's just called being nice.
I'm intrigued by the X Vario lens qualities espoused by those who have actually used it. It appears the Leica engineers have gone for quality across the board, with no nefarious 'cooking' behind the scenes. Time will tell.
I cannot understand why the zoom could not be faster, especially at the long end. Even a kit zoom is usually faster, and no larger. Fuji, for example, has a zoom which is 18-55mm, f:2.8-f:4.0. Thta is quite a bit faster, and no larger. So, why?
philber wrote:
I cannot understand why the zoom could not be faster, especially at the long end. Even a kit zoom is usually faster, and no larger. Fuji, for example, has a zoom which is 18-55mm, f:2.8-f:4.0. Thta is quite a bit faster, and no larger. So, why?
