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.
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 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.
I played with an X1 and got to look at real shots taken with it. The results were much more impressive than what is shown on DPReview. As always, their samples are weak.
RalphJ wrote:
I suspect that how people feel about the X1 will often reflect how they feel about Leica in general.
Totally agreed.
Most people, (me included), consider Leica as an arrogant elitist brand, which shows so clearly in their pricing.
I did not even take a look at the posted samples, since I have zero interest in this camera, but obviously, only Leica fans, for whom the price is no issue, will have a more objective evaluation of this camera. For all others, the price will be included in the equation, and this camera, like all Leica products, is ridiculously overpriced.
However, this reminds me of when I first bought my Contax T2 for 900$ back in the film days. Taking this into consideration, the X1 actually seems cheaper considering the digital components included.
This said, I do have an interest in Aps-c or even FF compacts, but not this one. I do hope Sony will introduce something similar soon, with a Zeiss not G lens.
Most of the shots were wide open, at high iso. I think the noise is just fine given it's an APS-C sensor, I also think the CA was very low given that it's a pancake lens. The lens also seems to produce little/no coma and is quite sharp right from f/2.8.
I have a 5D-II, I don't see why people are so disappointed... did they expect it to be better than the 5D-II?
Look at the sharpness right into the corners (lower right corner is in focus) on this shot This is ISO400 which is nice & clean. The colour and DR looks good too.
Most people, (me included), consider Leica as an arrogant elitist brand, which shows so clearly in their pricing.
I did not even take a look at the posted samples, since I have zero interest in this camera, but obviously, only Leica fans, for whom the price is no issue, will have a more objective evaluation of this camera. a Zeiss not G lens.
I guess I completely disagree with this assumption (at least on this forum) and I think this has been demonstrated by a few in their reaction to the M9 vs. M8. The price is a major issue for me and I have no particular love for Leica but that should not prevent me from being able to judge the cameras abilities and performance.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Most people, (me included), consider Leica as an arrogant elitist brand, which shows so clearly in their pricing.
C'mon Edward, having a bad day? A brand cannot be elitist. Do you mean that the employees are elitist, or the owners, or the CEO, or what? I have seen lots of evidence of exactly the opposite. Sure, there are some misguided owners who let their mouths run amok, but mostly they are a friendly bunch, and quite relaxed.
Aston Martin and Ferrari are clearly "elitist" brands (perhaps even "arrogant"), and everyone wishes they could afford them.
And while I can get similar performance levels out of a Chevrolet Corvette, I still would rather have a Ferrari or Aston. Is a Ferrari "worth it"?
There are a number of parallels.
The problem is Aston Martin is actually an amazing car.
Leica X1 is NOT an amazing camera. Even if it was cheap I wouldn't buy it.
Ricoh GRIII has a 920K amazing LCD and it's still considered a "luxury" compact for $700...
Leica X1 has an old cr@ppy POS 230K LCD and they want you to believe
they are the best out there so they can charge crazy money for it.
Look, I'm a big fan of some quite expensive watches. I really admire the craftsmanship
and the effort to construct something so small and beautiful, working well for a long time.
But I don't pretend a Breitling watch measures time better than a $2 electronic Casio.
Leica wants you to believe their expensive cameras are better. They are not.
I for one like the luxury-car brand metaphor. Not all Aston Martins are great. Not all Leicas are great. But if either company was doing nothing right, they wouldn't be in business anymore.
I just don't understand the hostility. If other photographers want to "waste" their money on an arrogant, elitist camera instead of a bargain Asian brand, how is that different from the guy who wants to "waste" his money on a Breitling watch instead of a $2 Casio? What business is it of anyone's?
I hope Leica stays in business. The M9 is about half the size of every other full-frame camera, so it's not as though the Leica R&D department is sitting still. If people who "overpay" for the X1 help to keep the company going, why should those who don't like the X1 be so angry about that?
If the X1 is as awful as some here are claiming, can we not trust reviewers to find that out and broadcast their findings so that nobody makes the egregious mistake of actually buying one?
RalphJ wrote:
If the X1 is as awful as some here are claiming, can we not trust reviewers to find that out and broadcast their findings so that nobody makes the egregious mistake of actually buying one?
Well, unfortunately, we can't given what happened with the M8 reviews when it was introduced. At least now, we will apparently know if a specific reviewer has received compensation from a brand they are reviewing. Ultimately, we have to take these reviews with a huge grain of salt. That's just another reason why forums such as this are so important.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Well, unfortunately, we can't given what happened with the M8 reviews when it was introduced. At least now, we will apparently know if a specific reviewer has received compensation from a brand they are reviewing. Ultimately, we have to take these reviews with a huge grain of salt. That's just another reason that forums such as this are so important.
Especially if we're talking about the Leica reviews. They are very, very careful
in picking the "reviewers" getting the cameras. I suspect it's a strategy to delay the launch
and give those very few "reviewers" enough time to generate the excitement and noise...
RalphJ wrote:
If other photographers want to "waste" their money on an arrogant, elitist camera instead of a bargain Asian brand, how is that different from the guy who wants to "waste" his money on a Breitling watch instead of a $2 Casio?
there is a major difference. The Leica owners are blind in the admiration
for the cameras clearly behind the competition. The M8 fiasco proved that.
The Breitling owners admire the craftsmanship, but won't try to prove the precision
of the time measurements against the simple electronic component.
It's not important to them. If Leica owners stopped pretending the cameras were
great and started admitting they were just the collectors of the high quality "objects",
they would be exactly like the watches owners.
Look, I admit it became quite hostile, but the Leica side is clearly equally responsible.
They are just denying anything putting their products in a more objective light...
It all must be great or shut up. They are Leica, aren't they?
