sebboh wrote:
full sized images look slightly better than the fuji zoom, but still pretty crappy compared a nex or fuji with a small prime.
Yeah, I don't know, I love the Fuji colors but not with false color artifacts and the other problems it has. The only very good prime on NEX is the Sony Zeiss 24mm but that lens itself has some of it's own problems. I of couse haven't tried the Touit lenses. The sony 35mm is interesting but pretty boring and the Sony 50mm F1.8 is surprisingly mediocre.
One of my favorite lenses ever was the Contax 35-70 F3.4 which I always shot at F8. If this lens can deliver that lens' level of microcontrast and corner to corner sharpness, I'll happily buy one.
Jon, how would you describe this camera? What's the concept? Who is it for? Why should I buy this camera instead of the Fuji X-E1 with 18-55 or Nex-6 with 18-55? What do I get for the extra money?
mortyb wrote:
Jon, how would you describe this camera? What's the concept? Who is it for? Why should I buy this camera instead of the Fuji X-E1 with 18-55 or Nex-6 with 18-55? What do I get for the extra money?
Probably because of a really nice lens (speed aside), tactile feel and good looks. I'm not interested myself, but the Fuji and NEX-6 are even less interesting unless I'd use primes.
You can ask the same question regarding the Leica X1 and X2 versus other APS-C interchangable lens cameras. I mean, a slow lens doesn't mean it's a bad lens. In fact it could mean just the opposite.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Yeah, I don't know, I love the Fuji colors but not with false color artifacts and the other problems it has. The only very good prime on NEX is the Sony Zeiss 24mm but that lens itself has some of it's own problems. I of couse haven't tried the Touit lenses. The sony 35mm is interesting but pretty boring and the Sony 50mm F1.8 is surprisingly mediocre.
One of my favorite lenses ever was the Contax 35-70 F3.4 which I always shot at F8. If this lens can deliver that lens' level of microcontrast and corner to corner sharpness, I'll happily buy one....Show more →
it doesn't. look at the full sized images. it performs worse than the sony 50/1.8.
Makten wrote:
Probably because of a really nice lens (speed aside), tactile feel and good looks. I'm not interested myself, but the Fuji and NEX-6 are even less interesting unless I'd use primes.
You can ask the same question regarding the Leica X1 and X2 versus other APS-C interchangable lens cameras. I mean, a slow lens doesn't mean it's a bad lens. In fact it could mean just the opposite.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I find it hard to tell because there aren't any classic landscapes. Almost all the pics appear to be mid range where it seems good to very good.
Is this what you meant? If so yeah, the colors are really nice on the first one but I don't see much micro contrast, a bit too much CA, and blurry outer zones... It was at F5 though, I would have shot that at F8 given the shutter speed. I might put this down to photographer error.
On the second photo... yeah pixel level detail is a bit disappointing... again though not F8... I'll look around some more I guess but that's not inspiring.
Is this what you meant? If so yeah, the colors are really nice on the first one but I don't see much micro contrast, a bit too much CA, and blurry outer zones... It was at F5 though, I would have shot that at F8 given the shutter speed. I might put this down to photographer error.
On the second photo... yeah pixel level detail is a bit disappointing... again though not F8... I'll look around some more I guess but that's not inspiring.
yeah, i thought you might just be looking at downsized images.
i was looking at all these, that were posted a few pages ago.
corners are better than your average zoom, but way weaker than your average prime. color and contrast seem nice. maybe corners improve a bit at f/8 and f/11, but the image will lose contrast and sharpness in the center due to diffraction at those apertures too. you'd get much nicer images with a NEX-3N and the two sigmarits.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I have a C3 and the original sigmarits. Good lenses but it would be really nice to have a fantastic zoom APS-C camera that's not too big.
it'd be nice. i don't see one on the horizon though, zooms just seem either too big or too crappy (usually both).
i'm happy to see that good compact primes are now appearing both fixed and not fixed.
It's a little disappointing that after all these Decades, no zoom on the market can touch the C/Y Zeiss 35-70 in image quality, price, and size. The Leica tri-elmar is of course even better but way more expensive and not as flexible.
FlyPenFly wrote:
It's a little disappointing that after all these Decades, no zoom on the market can touch the C/Y Zeiss 35-70 in image quality, price, and size. The Leica tri-elmar is of course even better but way more expensive and not as flexible.
how long has it even been since somebody made a 35-70mm though? these days that is too short a range to market. i wish leica had stuck something like that in this camera. adding to the wide end really complicates things optically (i'm told).
Dunno, Leica 35-70 (made in same place as Zeiss) is maybe boooooooring, but damn good lens. If you like that surgical blade style..
Today we have quite ok-ish-to-great 24-70s. Unfortunately quite expensive.
I think it would find its market, if it was good as a prime lens.
Fixed compact with 35-70/4? Bit meh unless it would be FF ala RX1. Then it would be really interesting. But nowhere close to compact. Tho then, X-Vario with much worse specs isnt compact or light either..
mortyb wrote:
Jon, how would you describe this camera? What's the concept? Who is it for? Why should I buy this camera instead of the Fuji X-E1 with 18-55 or Nex-6 with 18-55? What do I get for the extra money?
Sadly, I haven't handled an X Vario, yet, so I can't say.
For me the X Vario would be for those times when you need to travel light and bulk is an issue, you can live with 28-70mm and are happy with F8. If the X Vario zoom is anywhere near the optical quality across the sensor at F8 of the two 10 year old R zooms I use, I wouldn't be disappointed. I note there's two aspherical elements used in the X Vario zoom - 9 elements 8 groups. In the 28-90mm R there's 11 elements in 8 groups also with 2 aspherical elements.
The promise of Leica engineering and optical quality c/w a 16mp (Sony?) Aps-c sensor in a compact camera weighing less than 700g is very tempting. It seems the lens has a very nice manual focusing ring and hard stops. The downside of fixed lens, might be offset by never having to clone out dust/pollen or clean a sensor, it would be a welcome novelty to be honest.
A Gitzo G1028 mk2, (740g) ball head (300g), X Vario with spare battery, EVF and hood, would weigh less than 2kg and can be stashed easily away in a rucksack. By comparison a 1ds3 and 28-90mm R weigh 2.3 kg, the tripod and head 2.5Kg. For summer hill walking with a bit of hands on and especially for wild camping, 3 kg off the back would be a lot of sweat saved. A potential downside is that my better half has announced she would like to use this camera as she's fed up lugging around the 5d2 and 24-104mm and the G9/I Phone doesn't do justice to those more interesting scenes/light and where females are concerned - possession is 9/10ths of the law ...
The close focusing ability at all focal lengths would be good for flora, rock geology, abstracts etc.
Extrapolating my experience of R primes and zooms, I'd doubt it very much if the X Vario zoom lens could match a quality prime even stopped down.
The Fuji/Nex systems I've looked very carefully at and passed on them. In the 5 years I've had the 1Ds3 I can think of at least 4 instances when I would have ruined a camera of lesser build quality and I would expect the X Vario to cope with similar abuse. I know very little about electronics, but graduated as a Mechanical Engineer and worked for 10 years in the Chemical industry and the last 13 years in Quarrying, If nothing else, I've learnt that money spent on good design and quality engineering is generally a sound investment.
There is a caveat though and I'm waiting for Leica to confirm the environmental sealing and the operating conditions which are missing from their online tech data/brochure and Sean Reid of Reid Reviews to answer some other Q's.
Jon Tainton wrote:
[Extrapolating my experience of R primes and zooms, I'd doubt it very much if the X Vario zoom lens could match a quality prime even stopped down
That's not my own experience, using the R 35-70/4. According Erwin Puts (and Leica MTFs), the 35-70/4 is: Its performance is as good, if not better than that of the comparable lenses with fixed focal length at the same apertures, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 35 mm f/2, the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 35 mm f/1.4, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 50 mm f/2 and the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 80 mm f/1.4.
I'm sure a more modern re-design of these classic primes, using the level of technology employed in the zoom, would trample all over the zoom's image quality (see, e.g., 90/2 AA) --- but the older lenses were still, I'd say, "quality primes," and the zoom can beat them for corner-to-corner pleasing sharpness. Looking at the posted X Vario files (especially at full resolution), I'm not seeing anything impressive up to this level. So, it's disappointing that Leica seems to have regressed here in lens design to produce a slow zoom that isn't exactly prime quality.
mpmendenhall wrote:
That's not my own experience, using the R 35-70/4. According Erwin Puts (and Leica MTFs), the 35-70/4 is:
I'm sure a more modern re-design of these classic primes, using the level of technology employed in the zoom, would trample all over the zoom's image quality (see, e.g., 90/2 AA) --- but the older lenses were still, I'd say, "quality primes," and the zoom can beat them for corner-to-corner pleasing sharpness. Looking at the posted X Vario files (especially at full resolution), I'm not seeing anything impressive up to this level. So, it's disappointing that Leica seems to have regressed here in lens design to produce a slow zoom that isn't exactly prime quality....Show more →
Ah. Mea culpa, I should have qualified my experience. Which is; with the 28/2.8, 60/2.8 & 90/2.8 against the 35-70/4 and 28-90. The two zooms are very good for my needs, the primes too, which is probably one of life's pleasanter dilemmas to have.
My own processing skills are frankly not the best for web display, so I'm all too conscious of that and non judgemental when viewing anything online, except for images from 'trusted' reviewers and manufacturers websites.
sebboh wrote:
it doesn't. look at the full sized images. it performs worse than the sony 50/1.8.
With respect, I beg to differ. Sure, the Venice pictures are just not very good at all. But the ones on the petapixel test are IMHO quite impressive. Good enough that, if backed up by similar performance at infinity, which matters to me, I would have considered this camera were it not for the slow lens. Now I will wait and see if the RX1-R materializes, and how good it is.
