All manufacturers use the defense that "there was no other way".... Sometimes it is true, and sometimes not. Leica themselves lead the wolrd is fast, well-corrected glass that happens to be very compact, which shows it can definitely be done. It just cost a hell of a lot. Not mentioning cost in the Vario X zoom equation sounds just a bit economical with the truth IMHO.
Maybe because the target audience, since they're already considering this camera, isn't that concerned about cost? And mentioning that it's made to a price point would then imply that they're buying a budget (Leica) camera. Though this should be obvious to anyone stepping into a Leica store, and the fact the XV is not that much more than the X2. But, even if it is a budget Leica, there is some expectation of performance, and early results indicate it is technically good, within its realm of usefulness.
edwardkaraa wrote:
+1, nice read (pun intended)
Totally agree about the small aperture vs optical performance. My ZM 85 f/4 may be optically excellent and quite small and light, but the reason I didn't use it often is the small aperture which is very limiting in many circumstances. Of course I had to buy the ZM 85 f/2 which is even better at comparable apertures but I have to put up with this monstruosity of a lens, huge, heavy, very unbalanced on my M9. There is always a price to pay.
Yes, it's always a compromise. It's basically why I chose the 90/2.5 Summarit and others go for one of the 90/2.8 flavors. I do love the ZM85/2 and would probably also enjoy the 90AA, but is the extra 2/3 stop worth the size and price difference? In this respect, the XV's lens is 'only' ~1/3 stop slower than f/5.6 at the long end, which seems to definitely be a mental barrier for many of us concerning lens performance (me included).
I agree with Reid that Leica touting it as a 'mini-M' was definitely going to backfire among a significant portion of enthusiast photographers.
Michael Reichmann pretty much says it all in Reid's quote. He was shooting outside on an overcast day, and, using the long end, he had to go up to 1600ISO. The zoom's performance in full daylight is what a good prime does well past sundown. That some people won't know better, or won't care, or will accept the tradeoff, sure. But enough to call this a "good compromise"? Not if you ask me.
Not sure if someone referenced any of the earlier compact film cameras on this thread? Leica X Vario is not the only slow zoom with emphasis on image quality. It won't be very popular, but I think it fills a product segment, nevertheless.
joe88 wrote:
Not sure if someone referenced any of the earlier compact film cameras on this thread? Leica X Vario is not the only slow zoom with emphasis on image quality. It won't be very popular, but I think it fills a product segment, nevertheless.
I wonder why they couldn't achieve constant f4 like in those 35-70 Vario Elmars. Those weren't big lenses in their class, and they certainly weren't considered to be optically compromised.
Spyro P. wrote:
I wonder why they couldn't achieve constant f4 like in those 35-70 Vario Elmars. Those weren't big lenses in their class, and they certainly weren't considered to be optically compromised.
probably mostly due to the differences between film and digital sensors. i doubt those lenses would look as good on digital sensor as they did on film.
I think the 35-70 optics were larger than you realize and the design didn't have to deal with AF. Of course the hypothetical XV f/4 lens wouldn't be an actual 35-70 and covers a smaller image area, but once you add AF to the equation, lens diameter is inflated somewhat towards double the width of the motor assembly in the lens.
A partially collapsible lens would have been nice. Maybe it's a cost/complexity/durability consideration?
sebboh wrote:
probably mostly due to the differences between film and digital sensors. i doubt those lenses would look as good on digital sensor as they did on film.
The Leica-R 35-70/4 is a perfectly nice lens on digital. An updated version, scaled down 1.6x to match an APS-C sensor (22-44mm f/4) and without the major design constraints of needing to clear an SLR mirror (giving flexibility to make it a bit wider and/or sharper), would be a pretty nifty little device.
mpmendenhall wrote:
The Leica-R 35-70/4 is a perfectly nice lens on digital. An updated version, scaled down 1.6x to match an APS-C sensor and without the major design constraints of needing to clear an SLR mirror, would be a pretty nifty little device.
Then we'd be talking about something like a 24-46/2.8 zoom, which would likely be pretty large, especially all of the focus and aperture electronics are figured in. Either way, I think Leica should have made this zoom faster, or smaller, or cheaper. At least one of those.
mpmendenhall wrote:
The Leica-R 35-70/4 is a perfectly nice lens on digital. An updated version, scaled down 1.6x to match an APS-C sensor (22-44mm f/4) and without the major design constraints of needing to clear an SLR mirror (giving flexibility to make it a bit wider and/or sharper), would be a pretty nifty little device.
oh, i thought he was talking about some fixed lens camera that i wasn't aware of with a vario elmar. the R version of that lens sure isn't small. it would be a lot bigger than what the XV has if it were just scaled down to 1.5x (sony/nikon aps-c not canon ) even without adding AF. moving it closer to the sensor plane is different than a straight rescaling and that's where a complete redesign becomes an order.
sebboh wrote:
oh, i thought he was talking about some fixed lens camera that i wasn't aware of with a vario elmar. the R version of that lens sure isn't small. it would be a lot bigger than what the XV has if it were just scaled down to 1.5x (sony/nikon aps-c not canon ) even without adding AF. moving it closer to the sensor plane is different than a straight rescaling and that's where a complete redesign becomes an order.
The Leica-R 35-70/4 is 79mm long, plus ~44mm to the focal plane. Scale that combination down by 1.6x, and you've got a total depth of 77mm from lens front to sensor plane. Isn't the X Vario ~94mm deep (plenty of extra room for sensor+screen)? And, of course, a straight scaling is the worst case for the least you can do; with the flexibility for a complete redesign without mirror clearance, you should be able to get even smaller with zero compromise (even improvement) in image quality.
rscheffler wrote:
I think the 35-70 optics were larger than you realize
maybe, I've only seen it in photos... it doesnt look bigger than other similar lenses?
but that's full frame, you would've thought that scaling down for APS-C and mirrorless would allow them to make it smaller and keep the constant f4, even when adding AF in the equation... but I'm not a lens designer, obviously it's not that simple
mpmendenhall wrote:
The Leica-R 35-70/4 is 79mm long, plus ~44mm to the focal plane. Scale that combination down by 1.6x, and you've got a total depth of 77mm from lens front to sensor plane. Isn't the X Vario ~94mm deep (plenty of extra room for sensor+screen)? And, of course, a straight scaling is the worst case for the least you can do; with the flexibility for a complete redesign without mirror clearance, you should be able to get even smaller with zero compromise (even improvement) in image quality.
you have to scale it by 1.5x, not 1.6x, so that's 83mm meaning you only have 10mm to get the sensor, lcd and the random protrusions included in the 94mm measure. a bigger size issue would probably be the diameter with AF. is the R 35-70/4 really only 79mm long? it seemed much bigger when i looked at it.
If including autofocus is a major contributor to what's crippling the specs of the X-Vario's lens, then Leica should have simply pulled an appeal to photographic "purism" and made the camera manual focus. After all, if Leica can market the considerably more expensive M system without autofocus, then they should be able to pull off the same for a "Mini-M" --- sell it as a feature, not a bug. A slow-ish f4 lens on APS-C will be very "forgiving" for focus, with abundant depth-of-field; on a bright LCD or EVF, manual focus should be a breeze.
sebboh wrote:
is the R 35-70/4 really only 79mm long? it seemed much bigger when i looked at it.
I'm reading that right off Leica's data sheet for the lens: 79mm long, 74mm wide, 505g weight. 8/7 element/group construction (simpler than the 9/8 for the X Vario). I suppose when you attach the hood you add a couple centimeters.
mpmendenhall wrote:
If including autofocus is a major contributor to what's crippling the specs of the X-Vario's lens, then Leica should have simply pulled an appeal to photographic "purism" and made the camera manual focus.
agreed, though i think the market for a leica compact zoom (tiny though it is) probably wouldn't feel that way. people interested "photographic purism" and leica would get a real m or something that wasn't this thing.
i'm slightly curious exactly how AF is implimented since it seems like they actually did a good job of giving the camera real manual focus with proper feel, infinity stops, and a focus scale.
mpmendenhall wrote:
I'm reading that right off Leica's data sheet for the lens: 79mm long, 74mm wide, 505g weight. 8/7 element/group construction (simpler than the 9/8 for the X Vario). I suppose when you attach the hood you add a couple centimeters.
hmm, maybe i was thinking of the f/2.8? presumably the XV performs a little better than a downsized R 35-70/4 too, though i hear the R is very good.
sebboh wrote:
i'm slightly curious exactly how AF is implimented since it seems like they actually did a good job of giving the camera real manual focus with proper feel, infinity stops, and a focus scale.
Focus-by-wire seems like the most obvious method to me; you can make the focus ring feel mechanically however you want, and once you make the encoder and AF response sensitive and fast enough, it gets really close to the real thing (especially when hidden behind the small lag of a non-OVF).
) even without adding AF. moving it closer to the sensor plane is different than a straight rescaling and that's where a complete redesign becomes an order.