The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The X1 Chat Box

V

Vivek

Guest
I think it's fair to point out that many of the more expensive cameras being discussed are aimed at the Pro market. The best and most expensive cameras have always been so. Part of the reason they are expensive is because they provide the best possible optics and advanced exposure options that can be extremely valuable to a working pro who has invested the time and effort to use them to their potential.

In the "old" days, a Hassleblad (as an example) was considered one of the top of the line cameras in the world (still is), but it required a great amount of skill on "capture" and in the darkroom to bring out its full potential. I would almost go so far as to say that the more sophisticated (which can equal expensive) the tool (camera) is, the degree of skill and effort required to extract top notch results will be greater. I know I had to study and practice and put in a ton of hours in the darkroom before I could feel like I had mastered even the first part of the potential of a "pro" camera. The effort required to produce good results with digital seems very similar to film in that regard (to me).

At the other end of the spectrum, by the time disposable film cameras started showing up in the grocery store next to the checkout line, the film and processing industry had completely sussed out what the average joe was looking for when it came to snapshooting. The results were predictable and had been made relatively brainless. As far as I know, that avenue of photography is still available.
Good points, but, as Bill says, one would expect "better" results from an expensive camera like the X1.

If anyone thinks that it is not an expensive camera for what it is then I live on a different planet than them.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Good points, but, as Bill says, one would expect "better" results from an expensive camera like the X1.

If anyone thinks that it is not an expensive camera for what it is then I live on a different planet than them.
I may have jumped into this discussion too late and missed some things. Does someone actually own an X1 and has been experiencing quality output that they consider to be inferior to much less expensive cameras? if so then I missed the mark with my reply.

On the other hand, if someone is talking about an expensive digital point and shoot (similar to an X1) then I might suggest that even with those cameras, some investment of time is necessary to understand how to set them up to yield results that meet your own criteria of "good". To simply open the box, place the batteries, turn it on and shoot the thing without any further adjustment is asking for a disappointment. Even the lowliest P&S cameras take some finesse to make them give optimal results. And maybe that is different from film.
 
W

wblynch

Guest
Thanks Oren,

I don't want an auto-everything camera. In fact I don't want auto-ANYthing if I can have it.

Typically my post processing is levels and curves adjustments with occasional color, vibrance and saturation adjustments. I sometimes crop and rarely do I need to do touch up or blurring. I don't usually apply sharpening.

I learned way back to compose in the camera and most always get what I want in that regard.

I have not gotten the knack of Lightroom for RAW processing and it's a very non-intuitive program.

My biggest anger with digital cameras is they don't work like film cameras.

That is what is attractive about the X1 - or more so, the M9. I like the simple rotary switches for shutter speed and aperture. I don't know what to think about the manual focusing wheel. (of course I would prefer these controls to be on the lens itself).

This capability of the Panasonic G1 to use legacy lenses is mainly what attracted me to that camera.

Of course Vivek, with his lens experimentation and published results, unknowingly convinced me to buy the G1.

But, I hate the small sensor crop-factors. I need a FF camera. But is it too much to ask for a FF that is no bigger than a 35mm? I mean, those Nikons and Canon monsters are ridiculous.

My perfect digital camera would be an OM1 with a FF sensor sitting on the film plane.

I am sure I will end up in the M9 camp but spending over $10,000 for a camera and lens is hard to swallow. It's a culture shock that will take some time to accept. ( and at that price I certainly don't want to live in a computer cave fixing pictures :D )

Thank you all again, Bill


What specifically are you doing to them in post, that you can't achieve well enough by adjusting the camera's jpeg settings? And can you be more specific about how you're making your prints and what you don't like about them?

No, I'm not suggesting that jpgs are "as good as raw" in any general sense; I shoot only raw myself with my digital cameras. But Bill has already said he's been happy with machine prints from film, and that he values auto-everything convenience. So philosophy aside, the question remains as to whether he's missing something within easy reach that could get him much closer to what he's looking for.

Bill, the other reason for trying to be more specific about the diagnosis is that it's extremely doubtful that the X1 will deliver anything that's fundamentally different from what's possible with existing cameras. The lens may be subtly better for those who groove on such things, the controls more congenial for traditionalists, the construction quality nicer than other compact digital cameras, and so on, but it's unlikely that the jpg engine will be much smarter than the best that have been seen so far.

So it makes sense to figure out if there's something that can be tweaked about the settings you use with your current camera and printer to produce results that you like better while still allowing you to work on auto. If the answer is no, you may well be better off with film. If the answer is yes, it's better but it's still not quite right, at least it would be clearer just what problem you're trying to solve and there'd be a more specific basis for figuring out what other digital camera and/or printer might be worthwhile for you to try.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I may have jumped into this discussion too late and missed some things. Does someone actually own an X1 and has been experiencing quality output that they consider to be inferior to much less expensive cameras? if so then I missed the mark with my reply.

On the other hand, if someone is talking about an expensive digital point and shoot (similar to an X1) then I might suggest that even with those cameras, some investment of time is necessary to understand how to set them up to yield results that meet your own criteria of "good". To simply open the box, place the batteries, turn it on and shoot the thing without any further adjustment is asking for a disappointment. Even the lowliest P&S cameras take some finesse to make them give optimal results. And maybe that is different from film.

The second part has no dispute whatsoever. It is a general thing that applies to anything about photography.

The first part, again, anyone who have been using digital cameras (P$S or whatever) can easily see that the X1 can not deliver any magic given its specifications.

To come up with a price tag like this, in this day and age, is simply indicative of this being a boutique item than an actual photographic tool.
 
W

wblynch

Guest
Perhaps I've been going about this in the wrong way.

I'm trying to communicate what I HOPE the X1 can be.

(but like a "Hope Sandwich" maybe all I will get is air...)

I want a high quality "photo capturing instrument" with great build standards and fine optics. I want to have control over how I compose and focus my pictures. And I want to know that this instrument will last a long, long time. No plastic throwaway junk.

Then if the camera could have profiles to replicate the look of common films, like Ektachrome, Superia, Kodachrome ...whatever... and the popular black and whites, that's what I want.

There should be a method to load film profiles into the camera so the user community could craft their own and share them.

Take your pictures, let the camera create the output and go have them printed.

Just make it simple. High quality, but simple.

I mean, what is the target market for the X1 anyway?
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
The second part has no dispute whatsoever. It is a general thing that applies to anything about photography.

The first part, again, anyone who have been using digital cameras (P$S or whatever) can easily see that the X1 can not deliver any magic given its specifications.

To come up with a price tag like this, in this day and age, is simply indicative of this being a boutique item than an actual photographic tool.
I completely missed the point here. I read something that made me think the essence was something along the lines of: "The more money you spend on a camera, the simpler and more-stunningly-perfect-without-any-additional-work the images should be."

As for the X1... who knows. I bet it'll be a wonderful thing. I gave up bitching about Leica prices after I recovered from the S2 announcement. Personally, I think it'll be a honey of a camera, especially with an external viewfinder. And I'd even go further and prognosticate (big word alert!) that of all the digital Leicas, this little X1 has the most potential of becoming a collectable. How's that for some off-the-cuff fantasy?
 

Arjuna

Member
As TRSmith said " ... the film and processing industry had completely sussed out what the average joe was looking for when it came to snapshooting. The results were predictable and had been made relatively brainless. As far as I know, that avenue of photography is still available. " I have a friend who has a couple of digital p&s cameras that she barely understands how to operate, certainly no RAW files or computer processing: she takes her cards to a photo store, chooses the pictures she likes, on a kiosk I think, and gets prints (4x6) made. And I have to say that results that I have seen are very good, and make me wonder whether I could do as well, much less any better, with my (certainly limited) PhotoShop skills, and Epson pigment printer. I am happy to have control over the process, and more or less enjoy it, but for someone who doesn't, and for someone who didn't make their own prints from film, I think that the commercial options for having digital files (e.g. jpg's) processed are probably comparable or better than they were for film. If someone was hoping that the digital world, with expensive digital cameras, would somehow make things much easier and better than it was with film, then I think they will be disappointed.
 
N

nei1

Guest
Target market for the X1,Id say it was probably me........not that Im egotistical at all.... however,leica didnt you notice that I nearly always use a 50mm summicron!!..I dont use flash and object to carrying one around.I thought the leica axiom had some connection with truth and fidelity;...well flash blasts that to hell and back,,.....take it off and make it a viewfinder and Ill buy one,even if its a 35mm lens.
 

nostatic

New member
Perhaps I've been going about this in the wrong way.

I'm trying to communicate what I HOPE the X1 can be.

(but like a "Hope Sandwich" maybe all I will get is air...)

I want a high quality "photo capturing instrument" with great build standards and fine optics. I want to have control over how I compose and focus my pictures. And I want to know that this instrument will last a long, long time. No plastic throwaway junk.

Then if the camera could have profiles to replicate the look of common films, like Ektachrome, Superia, Kodachrome ...whatever... and the popular black and whites, that's what I want.

There should be a method to load film profiles into the camera so the user community could craft their own and share them.

Take your pictures, let the camera create the output and go have them printed.

Just make it simple. High quality, but simple.

I mean, what is the target market for the X1 anyway?
Why bring a knife to a gunfight?

Take a look at the size of the processor on a camera. Then look at your computer. Which do you think will give you faster/better results? Raw workflow is incredibly simple today...to the point of it not even requiring much thought.

I use Aperture. I've used Lightroom, and it is less intuitive (to me), but the process is the same.

1. shoot picture in raw
2. hook camera up to computer
3. computer automatically recognizes camera, starts Apterture, and I pick photos to transfer.
4. Aperture shows the photos and I can quickly/easily manipulate - or just print right then and there.
5. There is no 5. I'm done.

If you want specific looks, there are ways to get that. For instance SilverFX pro lets me choose the b&w "film" along with other parameters. In order to do that I select an image, choose "Edit with SilverFX pro" from the menu, the image opens, I click a few things and then I save.

PP is only as much work as you want it to be. I've printed things that looked great (to me) that had maybe about 30 seconds of tweaking in Aperture.

The beauty of raw and PP is that you can make a lot of your creative decisions after the fact and change on a whim. If you tell the camera to shoot "Tri-X", then you'll be stuck with a Tri-X shot. If you shoot raw, you can have SilverFX turn it into Tri-X with a few clicks. Or anything else.

I want the camera to collect the light the best it can. Beyond that, I think there are better platforms for manipulation.
 
N

nei1

Guest
"The beauty of raw and PP is that you can make a lot of your creative decisions after the fact and change on a whim."

.........believe it or not this is exactly what a few people object to,.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
And I'd even go further and prognosticate (big word alert!) that of all the digital Leicas, this little X1 has the most potential of becoming a collectable. How's that for some off-the-cuff fantasy?

:thumbs: Completely agree!:)

A camera that is so beautiful ought not to be touched with bare human fingers. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
:thumbs: Completely agree!:)

A camera that is so beautiful ought not to be touched with bare human fingers. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
You might be on to something there, included with every Leica product, a pair of one-size-fits-all, skin-tight, lintless, gloves. White with a big red emblem on the back of each hand. :)
 

barjohn

New member
I am not sure how the Nikon D300 compares to the D90 (which I owned) but maybe due to my poor taste in imagery I like the colors and images I am getting from the E-P1 and the GF1 better. True the DR is not as good but to my eye there is something more pleasing and natural looking in the little M 4/3s camera images than the big D90's images. I have printed them at 13x19 and they look stunning and friends I have given prints to usually frame them and put them in their homes. Since I don't do this for a living it satisfies me that it brings pleasure to me and others I share with. Though I work with a calibrated monitor and calibrated HP Photo printer using pigment inks and high quality photo paper, I find that the print images are different and often better than what I see on the 24" monitor. I wonder just how good the sensor (assuming it is the Nikon D300 sensor) is in the X1 and how good an image it will render. Unless Leica is using Nikon software in their camera they will have a long learning curve to master and perfect the output from that sensor.
 
W

wblynch

Guest
"The beauty of raw and PP is that you can make a lot of your creative decisions after the fact and change on a whim."

.........believe it or not this is exactly what a few people object to,.
Well, unfortunately not all of us are artistic geniuses. :(
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Why bring a knife to a gunfight?
...
I want the camera to collect the light the best it can. Beyond that, I think there are better platforms for manipulation.
Really like that leading line. ;-)

I think your summation is about what I'd say, with the exception that I'd use "rendering" rather than "manipulation".

But Bill seems to want something else ... He wants something that does exactly what he wants it to, "I don't want an auto-everything camera. In fact I don't want auto-ANYthing if I can have it", yet is smart enough to figure out what he wants without telling it anything: automated, adaptive and obedient robot intelligence. He wants it to be a film camera that has all the advantages of a digital camera ... or is that the other way around? That "emulates" films ... rather than has distinction of its own look and feel in the images it makes. I don't know. It all seems too contradictory, and too much at odds with the realities of technology. I'm certain the X1 will never live up to this fantasy wish list; I don't know any camera that could.

As I said in prior comments, it took a human being to process your film exposures into photographs that are vibrant and rich. With a digital camera, you've taken those other people out of the processing. If you won't do it, don't expect a camera to: it's nothing more than a machine.
 

nostatic

New member
Well, unfortunately not all of us are artistic geniuses. :(
I guess I'm still not clear on why you have to be. Most (all?) of these software packages have presets. Want sepia? One click - done. Want b&w conversion? One click - done. Want vivid colors? One click - done. Or you can "roll your own" and change the details to your heart's content. You have a choice.

Digital is not analog. It never will be - they are in many ways orthogonal to each other. Photography has always been essentially two steps - take the shot, then develop the shot. That still is the case. In the past the latter step was either the photographer breathing chemicals or sending it off to a lab. Now it is the photographer hunched over a computer. And it can be as easy or as detailed/complicated as you choose to make it. Want easy? Use iPhoto. Click, click, print. Done. Want complicated? Use Aperture or Lightroom or CaptureOne and tweak curves, move multiple sliders, apply custom settings, etc.

Either way the photographer has way more power over creating the image than they ever have. And not only that, the technology has also made it incredibly simple to get a finished product. Getting a *good* finished product though still requires work. The amount depends on the person...
 
W

wblynch

Guest
But Bill seems to want something else ...

He wants something that does exactly what he wants it to, "I don't want an auto-everything camera. In fact I don't want auto-ANYthing if I can have it", yet is smart enough to figure out what he wants without telling it anything: automated, adaptive and obedient robot intelligence.

He wants it to be a film camera that has all the advantages of a digital camera ... or is that the other way around? That "emulates" films ... rather than has distinction of its own look and feel in the images it makes.

I don't know. It all seems too contradictory, and too much at odds with the realities of technology. I'm certain the X1 will never live up to this fantasy wish list; I don't know any camera that could.
Is it too much to ask a $2,000 camera to make good pictures?

Perhaps that is a fantasy that even Leica can not deliver.

I will slide back into my primordial ooze now.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Is it too much to ask a $2,000 camera to make good pictures?
Perhaps that is a fantasy that even Leica can not deliver.
I will slide back into my primordial ooze now.
LOL ... well, I'm sure it will make excellent photos. But whether they stand up to an abitrary requirement of "vivid and rich" with no adjustments whatever is very doubtful. ;-)
 

Arjuna

Member
Somewhere I read an analogy once that I liked: this is how it goes: in the days of film photography, there were two extremes (for amateurs); the first was the serious black and white photographer; different types of film, perhaps the zone system, different developers, agitation methods, and then the printing - test strips, grades of paper, and complicated/sophisticated dodging and burning strategies developed for each print. not to mention alternative processes. A lot of time, energy, and developed skill involved in the process. The other extreme was the photographer who took slides: set exposure, focus, and framing; press the shutter. send the film to the lab. select the keepers, throw the rest out. done. The emphasis is on the moment of capture, and a better camera/better lenses would produce a better picture/slide, if your technique was up to it. The digital realm of Photoshop and layers and gradients and curves, not to mention Raw developers, plainly is a similar paradigm to the B&W film extreme. What is a former slide photographer to do in the digital realm, when the consensus is that one much shoot Raw to achieve the best quality?
 
N

nei1

Guest
The philosophy of the X1 is great,any photo taken with this camera will be of interest,I dont think there will be that many photos of flowers or cats from people who buy this and to be honest if price puts them off then leica could charge a little more just to push them somewhere else.If you think the price is too high just wait a month after release when all the "early adopters" will be selling them off.
This is an attempt by leica to give all the balding old cronies like me a little hope in this digital world and that thought is very gratefully recieved even if in practice the X1 proves to be a dilution of what it promises.
 
Top