Leica X1 photo gallery proves that big shots do come in little packages
By Darren Murph 
posted Nov 8th 2009 11:48AM
posted Nov 8th 2009 11:48AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
*drools*
Mediocre shots, nothing special. Absolutely nothing that an average dSLR with an average lens won't do.
except that this "average dSLR" shoots are taken with a pocketable point and shoot camera.
Well, I really don't think these shots are much better than what I can take with my G10, which is similarly sized.
I think the mediocre, ordinary, snap-shot-quality pictures is due more to the DPReview photographers' total lack of motivation to show what any camera can do. All their sample shots for even the best cameras are boring and uninspiring.
I wouldn't judge a camera based on their pics. Wait till it gets in the hands of photogs who actually care.
I have a SD200.....good enough for most shots. The best camera is the one you have with. The X1 does not fit in your pocket (with a lens attached).
Well considering it has the lens built in and not removable no, I imagine it wouldn't be much good without it.
Those looked like absolutely average shots.
I agree.. Nothing a standard Canon couldn't do.
i agree.... nothing special to me
I can get similar-quality shots from a Panasonic FX500 and a few seconds of patience too. Then I can hand it to my slightly technophobic parents and they'll take a great shot as well.
I hate to agree... but ya...
Yeah, you just need to learn to use...the manual mode.
I would say they are average given the competition, especially with the likes of the Sigma DP1/DP2 and the micro-fourthirds cameras (Panasonic GH1, GF1, Oly EP1/2) that can actually use real Leica lenses (this X1 is fixed) and shoot video are are around the same compact size.
Being that this camera costs as much as a Canon 7D at $2,000, it looks like it doesn't take any better pictures then a Rebel, and is no more compact or take better pictures then a DP1/2 or m43s cameras.
I agree, nothing special in those photos. I took some very similar ones with Lumix cameras, same pallette (well, same Leica optics too) but with a camera price of sub-$500.
Before you guys get all dismissive, did you check the specs for the shots before proclaiming your Internet Expert opinions? Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO? If you take those things into consideration, those shots are VERY interesting. Many of those shots were taken at a very high ISO, and yet retain a ton of detail and accurate color reproduction.
Take a look at shot 11, for example. That was shot at 3200 ISO, which is pretty amazing. Combine that with crisp detail throughout the deep depth of field, superb color using only existing light, and you've got something that blows your point and shoot out of the water.
I just recently purchased a Canon 7D, and it looks like this thing can compete with it pretty easily, and in a much smaller package.
Not that I'll be switching, but still. A little context to your opinion is a good thing.
@ Richard Kaufmann
Agreed about the detail and all that but still very unimpressive shots there. The author made it sound like it was amazing photography (in a creative sense) we were about to see in that gallery, I think that's what people here are "complaining" about.
It better "blow the point-n-shoot out of the water", given the price of that camera...
That said, I want one. Now.
Oops. That's would be -> @surgicalsnack
sorry.
@indeed: Oh sure, I don't think they're super awesome shots in a CREATIVE sense, either. But they're not meant to be - they're test shots to demonstrate how the hardware performs under a variety of conditions.
Which is an entirely different thing than saying "My XX point and shoot can do the same!". Yes, YOU TOO can take boring photos with your pocket camera! But can you do them under the same conditions?
Not likely.
Just as a reality check, high-end DSLRs are also capable of incredibly average shots. That doesn't mean they /aren't/ capable of excellent photos.
It comes down to the artistry of the photog. An DPR reviewers focus only on the technical parts of the cameras they review.
People who look at DPR photos expecting creative photos are looking for the wrong things. The test photos are to demonstrate contrast, vignetting, (purple or color) fringing at wide angles or wide f-stops, bokeh, pixel/sensor sharpness, lens resolving power, and so on.
In that regard the X1 does rather well for a pocketable camera.
The comparison to the 7D is hard to make. You can't get more average than the 28-135mm kit lens, which isn't even an L lens (versatile yes, but f/3.5-5.6, fringing and vignetting, mediocre resolving); and if you pay up for better glass you've already spent more than the cost of the X1. Preferences for pocketability vs lens versatility are still up for grabs.
Still, I agree it's not worth the price tag Leica demands. I'd only go for the M series with its excellent lineup of lenses. But then for that price I'd just go for a GF1 or EP2 and splurge on m4/3 lenses.
@fh: Ewww, you said "kit lens"! My point re: the 7D comparison is that the Leica seems to compare somewhat favorably on a TECHNICAL level to my 7D with L glass, which makes it "not bad" in my book, as it's cheaper overall, and smaller.
And yeah, my 70-200mm 2.8L IS can produce sharper images with better bokeh, but there's no way the body of the X1 can accommodate that amount of glass, so I give the X1 kudos in that regard. :)
Still won't be giving up my 7D, as I love my lenses and have no need for pocketability, but it's still kinda impressive to me.
None of the photos bothered to showcase depth of field in portraits/group shots (although the bokeh we do see is very pleasant).
None of the photos bothered to showcase display edge to edge sharpness.
None of the photos bothered to showcase high dynamic range.
Meh, even though the X1 no longer follows Leica's tradition of releasing super-overpriced rebadges of Pannys, I am really not that jealous of this camera. Anything shot with ISO above 400 starts looking grainy as hell...you aren't seriously comparing this to the Digital Elphs SD200, right? If I was going to get a high-quality, small camera, I'd go with a G10/11, or even a DP2. Digital technology isn't worth shelling out tons of dough with the intention of having an heirloom object for your kids.
Have to agree.
The G11 is a damn nice camera, and while I love Leica, the G11 would be the point and shot I preferred to kick around. This thing is lovely, but $2k is a tad rich for the task.
is that Dr. Evil??
I though the same thing!
He's looking at the "Lazerz"
This camera cost one MILLION dollars.
ah, as much as I drool over this camera, there's one thing the SD200 can do that the X1 can't: zoom! XD
(Sarcasm aside, I actually shoot primes most of them time, so no zoom is a small problem. There many indications that this is a gorgeous photographer's camera - good results, ability to get a small DoF etc...)
i love the way the camera appears to be squishing his forehead. It's like someone just smashed it into his eye.
Two shots in the gallery tell me a bit about the camera and the lens. The leaves have really nice color gradation, and the totally typical white wall with blue doors are about the contrast of the lens. This is one reason I like Leica lenses. They have great contrast. I prefer a good Zeiss for contrast but the 35mm R lens is just about the most amazing thing to shoot with.
It is really silly to pay that kind of cash unless you are interested in such things, but there are measurable qualities, this isn’t about smoothing electrons on the way to the speaker... $2K for the X is really pushing things, but if I had drawers of cash, well I’d get an M and a Noctilux.
Since when has the lens to do with the contrast?
Lenses are more important to capturing contrast than sensors. Good thing to read:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml
Please, someone smash a brick in Wwhat's face for posting bullcrap ..
So that what is described there has nothing to do with large area contrast which is taken as a measuring tool by the original comment.
And in fact there are better and different words available I'm sure to describe that rather than using 'contrast' because you can't think of the real word and then pretending that is the word you need.
I browsed around a bit and think I have a somewhat of basis for this view
What the hell, why is the truth such an affront today?.. oh wait it's sunday where we traditionally celebrate anti-realism.
Once again: bite me.
If you look at the highlight in the middle of the white wall, and look at the difference between the highlight and the darker areas, that is contrast. Some lenses are better at this. Nikons, not my preference on contrast, but sharp, Zeisses are known for it. Leica has a balance between the two. Additionally, color rendition is usually something that sets apart good lenses from bad. The sensor or film has something to do with it, and Kodachrome would be a pain for high contrast situations, but it is not just the film/sensor.
Sorry, that I can’t help your understanding, and I don’t pretend to be an optical engineer outside of basic engineering physics. I understand what I need to know to make an image. People do get paid to do this. If I’m fortunate enough to shoot with Leica or large format Nikkor glass, something tells me that I can distinguish my tool preferences.
So, the camera manufacturers agreed there needs to be more BPP (bits per pixel), when is that going to happen, and when will they change to another compression format in the camera to facilitate it? Talk is cheap I want to see some action in that area.
If you didn't notice, there was a big note saying the pictures were taken in DNG raw format. That's 16 bits per channel (RGB) per pixel, or 48bpp. For reference, your average TN panel only outputs 6 bits per channel per pixel (18bpp). The standard "16.7M colors" that most everyone is used to is 24bpp.
Another compression format? Are you referring to bit depth? The Leica X1 is a 14 bit camera, same as the modern Canon and Nikons. The 14 bit image is then converted to 16 bit images when they're imported into Lightroom, Aperture, etc.
This camera uses the DNG file format, which is lossless, so there's no compression.
Or did I misunderstand you?
I understand this links to a Gallery of X1 images, the camera in the picture is the M9. BTW at 1.3" thick it is easily pocketable in a say a jacket or pants .... doubt it with jeans.
If that's the man taking the picture... who the hell is in the back?
Hipsters all look alike and different like.
House of mirrors.
I think I'm in the center of Leica's demographic, and I'm very, very interested in getting a small-ish camera as a walkaround. (My big gun is a 1ds iii.) To get to the punchline first, the camera I've preordered is the Olympus E-P2. Why?
* Better looking results (poring over the sample images)
* Included viewfinder (and bigger/better LCD)
* Interchangeable lenses
* $700 cheaper
The other candidates... Lumix GF1 -- would have beaten the Oly, until the E-P2 was announced; Leica M9 -- ludicrously expensive, and I actually *like* autofocus!; Canon G11 -- loved my G9, but the G11 looks like a regression from the G10, and everyone else has moved forward; the Canon S90 -- may still get it just as a shirt camera.
This is all with some regrets. The X1 *looks* gorgeous, and I'm sure the feel of the controls is just buttery -- but in the end, it's the images that count.
Did anyone else wonder why the article has a shot of someone holding an M9?
I have taken shots at least as good with my beloved, wonderful,unequalled and supremely cool GH1.
Although I'm willing to admit that if someone would buy me a Leica I would probably use it too.
Yeah, I'll buy this just so it can go with my diamond encrusted MacBook Pro.
I should shave my head while I'm at it...
Shitty shots at DPreview, as usual. Very little lens-distortion, but otherwise... meh. I guess if you have the cash it'll make you happy. I'd much rather get a DP2.