V
Vivek
Guest
Good points, but, as Bill says, one would expect "better" results from an expensive camera like the X1.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.
If anyone thinks that it is not an expensive camera for what it is then I live on a different planet than them.