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

cam

Active member
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.
you have to admit, though, that flash is mighty cute! and i like that they made it manual (i.e., pop up with the finger) because i turn off the flash on all my cams that have one. in the one instance where i may be forced to, gasp, use it, i can never find the darn thing as it's buried so deep in the menu structure.

and i don't think taking it out would have given them enough room for a VF -- at least not a decent one, so i'm not really bothered by it. on my GRD and Sigma, i enjoyed using external VF's even as i often chose to compose on the screen. for a small camera, i actually like the option to shoot either way (i have an ancient VIDOM VF i plan to take with me when i try out the X1 next week -- talk about making the camera look retro!) when i'm using it in the street.

as i said in the other thread, i have an issue with the speed of the lens -- rather than the focal length. i know you're kind of wedded to your 50mm, but the 35mm might not be as bad as you think... i've found myself drawn to different focal lengths depending on the size of the camera.i love love love 28 FOV on the Ricoh, but really don't care for it much on the larger M8. i honestly think choosing to make this 35mm is the sweet spot for this size camera.

******************************************************

on the other subject that wblynch has brought up, i could personally care less. that is the last thing i care about or want them to spend their time on. but that's me, personally, though i do understand were he's coming from.

i've said it a million times before and i'll say it again here. the original Ricoh GRD is the only camera i was ever happy with the JPEGs -- and then, it was only when i tweaked their b/w settings. part of it, probably, was that RAW took so dang long to process that i actually took the time to figure this out.

i also found the Epson R-D1 pretty luscious (again b/w as that is my preference) and the Sigma DP1, miserable camera that it is to operate, had the capability of gorgeous JPEGs as well. the only reason i know any of this is because i prefer to shoot RAW (to work on) but also include a tweaked b/w JPEG in case i chose to chimp (which is rare) -- knowing that this will be closer to the finished product. i honestly can't judge a photo i see on the screen in colour :eek:

cameras that can do JPEGs well are out there. i don't think i would hold my breath, thinking that Leica will be the ONE because the price point is so much higher. that isn't what you're paying for, IMO. and that definitely isn't what i want to be paying for.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
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?
I think I'm prejudiced against slides. I know, a bit ignorant. Maybe it was the hours I spent trying to stay awake in my living room as a kid while my uncle Lloyd ran through slide tray after slide tray of travel snapshots. Or maybe it was the excruciating pain of sending a hard won shot made on kodachrome to the lab for a color print and after waiting patiently for a week, getting back a fuzzy, magenta blow-out that completely deflated my high hopes. Or my experience running an E-6 line in a pro lab and discovering that dip-and-dunk processing was anything but perfect.

Admittedly, back in those days, if you were shooting for a magazine or other offset media, transparency was king. But now? I think if you like slides that much, you should shoot slides. Because really, why would you want anything else? The experience hasn't changed a bit.
 

jonoslack

Active member
If getting a perfect image (jpg) right out of the camera was the norm what would be the artistic challenge in photography?
. . . erm . . . taking interesting/communicative/aesthetically pleasing photographs?

Like most people here I shoot exclusively RAW (because I like to keep my options open and because I have an unfortunate geek side to my personality). But I keep repeating to myself:

If it's interesting, nobody cares how good it is technically, and if it's not interesting . . . nobody cares at all



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.
Wblynch - please don't slide back into any ooze. I think there's a place for both approaches to photography, but I know in my heart of hearts that my good pictures are simply good, and only remain so with further processing, whereas my bad pictures are just bad. Posts like yours serve to remind us what photography is for.


cameras that can do JPEGs well are out there. i don't think i would hold my breath, thinking that Leica will be the ONE because the price point is so much higher. that isn't what you're paying for, IMO. and that definitely isn't what i want to be paying for.
FWIW, Leica have tried very hard with the jpg engine in the M9, it produces excellent jpgs that are often hard to match with RAW. They clearly think that shooting jpg is a valid art form :)

I'm quite certain that they'll be doing the same with the X1, so there's hope for you yet!
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
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
Pray, what's wrong with flowers and cats o hairy one?:p

oops I shouldn't have said that, we mustn't hijack this thread as well must we :(
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
... cameras that can do JPEGs well are out there. ...
Perhaps I'll take on a special project to learn the in-camera JPEG engine of my cameras (E-1, L1, G1) and work exclusively in JPEG capture for two weeks... My understanding is that the E-1 has one of the best JPEG in-camera engines ever; I've never touched it.

(Of course, I'll cheat and set it to RAW+JPEG ... Wouldn't want to lose any good photographs.)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Perhaps I'll take on a special project to learn the in-camera JPEG engine of my cameras (E-1, L1, G1) and work exclusively in JPEG capture for two weeks... My understanding is that the E-1 has one of the best JPEG in-camera engines ever; I've never touched it.

(Of course, I'll cheat and set it to RAW+JPEG ... Wouldn't want to lose any good photographs.)
I keep doing it with the M9 (i.e. shooting both) . . . then when it's time to do the processing I think "What the hell", bin the jpgs and use the raws . . . . I'm not proud of myself though :cry:
 

weinschela

Subscriber 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.
Good cameras don't make good pictures. Good photographers make good pictures. Both capture and process. Cameras capture. Yes, they start the processing if you are talking about jpgs, , but you are looking for something that cannot exist because my notion of a good picture will differ from yours and no camera processing algorithm be everything to everyone. Just one starting point.
 

cam

Active member
Perhaps I'll take on a special project to learn the in-camera JPEG engine of my cameras (E-1, L1, G1) and work exclusively in JPEG capture for two weeks... My understanding is that the E-1 has one of the best JPEG in-camera engines ever; I've never touched it.

(Of course, I'll cheat and set it to RAW+JPEG ... Wouldn't want to lose any good photographs.)
you should! and tell us what you find. (i've heard great things about the E-1 JPEGs as well, and keep on thinking of getting one as my "rain" camera.)

after losing a few DNGs on my M8, i will now always shoot both, even though it's a slower option. i feel safer knowing i'm covered.... i never could get used to seeing colour on the screen, so i've switched it back to b/w -- fingers crossed that i won't have to resort to using them.
 

jlancasterd

Active member
At the Cambrian Photography Leica day today, the Leica Rep had a pre-production X1, working, but with beta firmware.

Apparently the 35mm add-on viewfinder, which will be sold separately, will feature contacts in its base which will interface with those in the hot shoe so as to provide focus confirmation via an LED indicator.

Also, Leica is apparently 'reviewing' the steel grey finish on the X1 and M9 with the object of eliminating the 'fingerprint magnet' syndrome.
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
you should! and tell us what you find. (i've heard great things about the E-1 JPEGs as well, and keep on thinking of getting one as my "rain" camera.)

after losing a few DNGs on my M8, i will now always shoot both, even though it's a slower option. i feel safer knowing i'm covered.... i never could get used to seeing colour on the screen, so i've switched it back to b/w -- fingers crossed that i won't have to resort to using them.
I meandered about during this morning's coffee with friends and had the G1 set to a modified Dynamic B&W setting.

I have the opposite problem: I'm so used to seeing B&W images in the color world that looking through the viewfinder and seeing a B&W image is very very disconcerting! I feel like I can't see the subject well this way as I can't see what I'm going to be basing my processing on... too much information is being lost.

Weird.
 

nostatic

New member
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?
I really don't understand the fear/awe of "raw." Modern applications have made it a total non-issue. If you are running Aperture, Lightroom, etc, there is effectively no difference between shooting raw and shooting jpg except for file size. Really. Raw isn't some mythical beast that needs to be slain while drinking secret potions (though that couldn't hurt). Most of these programs produce a reasonably good jpg output with *zero* input from the user.

The only time I shoot in-camera jpg is when I have a camera that uses an unsupported raw format (by Aperture).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
A follow on ...

After my coffee time messing about with the G1, I picked up the E-1 and went out for a neighborhood walk, made another 50 exposures.

Loading all of these files into Lightroom and looking at them, starting to work with them, I'm reminded once again of my years working with slide film. Fussy fussy ... better get that exposure on the ball to within half a stop, better get that color balance right on the money, better really watch that lighting ratio and give up on shots where it goes out of bounds, ah yes and then there's the preset modes for dynamic, natural ... etc etc. And when you get it all within the right range (which isn't too hard to do considering today's cameras and their FAR more sophisticated metering capabilities), heaven help you if you actually do need to edit anything more than a very tiny bit.

Far as I'm concerned, it's way too much work. When I'm shooting, far as the camera goes I'm concerned with focus, exposure and framing: I'm concentrating on my subject matter. As long as I get focus, exposure and framing right (which is pretty much the same for RAW and JPEG on any camera, modulo the different processing headroom the two formats provide), I want the option to render my photos any way I intended after the fact with a great degree of freedom.

It's faster, easier, simpler to concentrate on what I'm doing with RAW capture, load that into Lightroom with my favorite adjustments all built into presets and camera calibrations, and zip out a hundred JPEGs in no time at all. And spend 95% of my time shooting thinking about my subject matter rather than 65% of my time worrying about the camera settings and 35% of my time noticing that what I wanted to shoot is now in the next county.

JPEG is so limiting in this respect that it just isn't worth wasting my time on with this experiment any further.
 

cam

Active member
I meandered about during this morning's coffee with friends and had the G1 set to a modified Dynamic B&W setting.

I have the opposite problem: I'm so used to seeing B&W images in the color world that looking through the viewfinder and seeing a B&W image is very very disconcerting! I feel like I can't see the subject well this way as I can't see what I'm going to be basing my processing on... too much information is being lost.

Weird.
very interesting! and to me that is where the information is just beginning!

to be fair, though, i've done this from the beginning. and, whilst i have a very good idea how colours process, i do prefer seeing b/w on the screen.

A follow on ...

JPEG is so limiting in this respect that it just isn't worth wasting my time on with this experiment any further.
you gave it a go and that's what counts! i don't really ever use my JPEGs anymore for precisely the same reason. but it is actually a good exercise (well, for me at least) as i've learned a lot in the trying... it keeps me from getting too sloppy -- RAW cannot fix all. still, if the photo is there -- i take it, and worry about PP what can or cannot be done in PP later.
 
Top