Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #3 · Leica X1 preview samples gallery | |
snowboarder wrote:
Look, you didn't get my Ricoh reference. I just want to point that that small camera ses an f1.9 prime lens and has a hirez LCD. Leica, which supposed to be the best of the best, uses an f2.8 lens and has a cr@ppy old LCD, already obsolete a couple of years ago...
Leica hasn't even been released yet...
I don't compare the quality of the images produced by both cameras, I'm simply pointing to Leica cutting corners and still making you believe they are the best of the best of the best..
I had some high expectations about Leica finally making something right. I didn't shoot "thousands of frames" with one, but I did try several Leicas a few times with a high consideration of buying one. I couldn't believe how bad M8 was after I read all the praises online by several "honest reviewers".
I still considered the new M9, I thought like many - that could be a great small setup: M9 + the new 21mm lens (I love wides). I didn't realize how awkward it is to shoot M9 with a 21mm lens (somehow they sold an idea to me that Leica works great with wide lenses - yeah, if it's not wider than 28mm...)
But when I noticed they put an old cr@ppy lowrez LCD in M9 also, I just couldn't stop laughing... The best of the best of the best, yeah, right...
And I'm just not getting what's so special in German bear, that drinking a lot of it
makes you more precise and valuable to put together a few parts than the precise
Asian people......Show more →
Where to start?
First, let's dispense with the LCD issue. I think everyone here will agree that leica missed the boat with the low res LCD. No argument there. I suspect that this camera was in development for a long time (small firm, etc.) and higher-res LCD's appeared on the market after that part of the camera was designed. Speculation, of course, but the time it takes a small firm like Leica wit limited resources to develop totally new products is significant and I think that this can cause them to miss supply development like this. Certainly the cost difference is not all that significant such that this would have figured in to the decision. That said, I don't think it is reasonable to judge the worth of this camera on the resolution of the LCD. it has a near zero impact on the image quality produced by the camera. It's certainly a convenience, and a welcome one, but one that's really not all that important for a fixed-lens AF camera.
As for the Ricoh producing a f1.9 lens, you are aware of how much easier it is to produce a lens of that speed for the Ricoh's tiny sensor than it is to make one for an APS sensor, right? And on an equivalent DOF basis, f1.9 isn't fast enough to be equivalent to the Leica's lens. That's one of the things with those tiny sensor, they only require the lens to have a tiny image circle making the lenses much smaller and cheaper and easier to produce. Leica's lens cost much more to produce than the tiny Ricoh's.
So ultimately, whether you point with the Ricoh has been received or not, it does not hold and does not matter. It is essentially irrelevant as a comparator for the X1.
I really don't understand the adherence to the resolution of the LCD screen as the arbiter of quality for these cameras. Nice to have a higher res screen -- certainly, does it have any real effect on the image quality produced, no. That goes for the X1 as well as for the M9. Quite frankly, I've seen some stunning samples for M9's in recent days -- it doesn't seem to be let down by the LCD screen at all, and if I had a space $7K lying around I would love to have one, irrespective of the LCD resolution -- it matters little.
Skilled craftsmen are skilled craftsmen wherever they live. And skilled craftsmen in Japan are no doubt as good as they are in Germany. However, Leica's experienced, skilled hand craftsmen are in Germany. Their skill, expertise, and quality are legendary. It costs a lot to produce cameras in this way. And even farming out most of the camera out to Asia and applying this craftsmanship in the final assembly, calibration and quality control is expensive. Many are willing to pay for it, others would pay for it if they could. Many, however, would not consider it a true Leica product if it weren't put together by Germans in-between their beer breaks. I don't necessarily agree with staying on this production path and think they are ultimately doomed to be at best a marginal player in the market by following it, but I understand it.
|
