philber wrote:
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.
the petapixel images are downsized and processed well (as well as better composed). the venice pictures are simply straight out of camera jpegs (or close to it) taken with generally mediocre technique. i can make any mediocre lens look just as good as the petapixel images at 2048 pixels long (you should have a look at what the author of that reviews pics from other reviews look like). the few venice images where the center is sharp show the how the lens actually performs at full resolution prior to downsizing.
the petapixel images don't impress me much because i've seen lots of pics that looked just as good at that size but looked crappy at larger sizes.
I'm with Sebboh on this one, and I'm the last person to pixel peep.
But when they chop off half your usable aperture settings specifically to achieve spectacular IQ, you expect to see spectacular IQ. And I really don't see it...
Given that it's the wide end and probably OOC JPG. Leica isn't known for their excellent JPGs like Olympus. It gives me some hope that perhaps the 35-70mm equivalent of the range might actually be very good at F8.
Yes that's quite good for a kit lens. The main problem is that other manufacturers have kit lenses starting from 200$ that aren't that much worse - only slightly larger. From what I've seen the new Canon 18-55 STM IS is quite a bit better than this, it has stabilization, AND it costs about 250$.
Paying Leica kind of money for a fixed lens camera, and "hoping" that the 35-70F8 range will be "ok or better" should make you stop and think. Even if it's semi-compact.
I'd like to see a shootout between this camera and the upcoming Sony RX100mk2. And some blind test comparisons. I doubt the Leica will get an all-out win.
Yeah, $2500 is way too rich for my blood, but $1500 used might be very tempting. Although at that price range there's no good reason not to just get a D600 + C/Y 35-70 F3.4. Except for size.
In the Canon shot above, the corners look really terrible though and the white flowers just look like white blobs... maybe the bottom corners are just out of focus.
With my M9 files, I have always noticed that ACR crops the image more than the camera JPG. Not sure why is that but I think it has to do with the demosaicing algorithms.
100% JPGs out of RT 4.0.1.11 x64, only recovered a bit to keep red channel inside sRGB (not much issue if you use WideRGB/ProPhoto), no sharpening, contrast is lower due recovering (its not LightRoom you know? ).
Sorry guys, but if you need to do a performance/price analysis, then the mini-M is not for you. It is targeting those who would buy a D-Lux over a LX, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Took delivery of one, late yesterday. There doesn't appear to be any hoods available yet in the UK ...
Size comparison with Vario Elmar R 35-70/4 and 1ds3 battery. I know the photos are crap - I ain't a product photographer.
This photographer has owned/used a wide range of current cameras Fuji, Nikon1, D800 etc and his thoughts are all here in his blog, well worth a look if you're interested http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co.uk/
***** EDIT - What really struck me was that the R Mount and the Canon mount appear the same size as the XV Lens mount to the XV body. Need to dig out a vernier gauge to measure *****
Size comparison - Vario Elmar R 35-70/4, XV and a 1ds3 battery
Size comparison - Vario Elmar R 35-70/4, XV and a 1ds3 battery
Sorry guys, but if you need to do a performance/price analysis, then the mini-M is not for you. It is targeting those who would buy a D-Lux over a LX, not that there is anything wrong with that.
P.S. Found Nelson Tan's review pretty funny.
Because of the price or because of the performance?
Sorry guys, but if you need to do a performance/price analysis, then the mini-M is not for you. It is targeting those who would buy a D-Lux over a LX, not that there is anything wrong with that.
P.S. Found Nelson Tan's review pretty funny.
Not sure if its up to date, but one of versions (latest I think) of D-Lux wasnt just camera but very nice SW pack from Adobe, which actually if it was combined with LX, would be more expensive. So one of D-Lux was like if you got discount on LX and Adobe products..
FlyPenFly wrote:
Interesting, would you mind doing a thorough comparison test series at F8?
I'm hoping to do a field test (landscape scenery and tree foliage) of the XV against the 1ds3 and 35-70/4, 28-90, 28/2.8 and 60/2.8. Tripod mounted, infinity settings, range of iso's etc - work and weather permitting. Sadly, the XV will then be in California for a fortnight, so it will a 3-4 weeks before anything is available. I'm in general familiarisation and RTFM mode at the mo.
).
