The X1 Chat Box

[Guy Mancuso]

Let's start it here.

 

[drazin]

maybe i didnt read enough about it...but it doesnt look that impressive for 2k.

why would i buy it over an older m8?

 

[TRSmith]

I think my wife needs one of those for Christmas. Of course i'll have to play with it for awhile so I can give her some good tips on how best to use it. I bet she'll love it!

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

$2000 for a fixed slow lens? Ouch?

 

[nostatic]

Interesting. Shake reduction (presumably in the body), relatively slow lens (GF1 has a f1.7), 3fps (don't care), AF (by whom?), presumably you can't get focus information through any viewfinder you'd add.

Is it the dream camera or the answer to a question nobody asked? While there is something oddly compelling about it (mmm, red dot), seems like u4/3 is a way more flexible choice.

If they'd put a 35/2 I would have been a lot more interested...

 

[Lars]

Perspective... that's just below what I paid for my F5 brand new in 1997. If X1 was priced $1K I would have said Leica is nuts - $2K is beyond comprehension.

 

[johnastovall]

The slow lens worries me but they said very good low light performance.

I like the concept.

 

[nostatic]

At $1K I likely would have bought one. The similar priced competition is more flexible but one could argue that the X1 is a very good one-trick pony. But at $2K you can buy a lot of different options (Sony a850, Pentax K7 and one or two ltd primes, etc)

 

[iiiNelson]

$1K would be a fair price considering the Leica premium, the D-Lux 4 debuted @$850, and the DP1/2 are going for about $700 give or take. I agree that the Micro 4/3 take is a better option for most people who aren't brand sensitive and want a smaller camera. $2000 will get you all but the more prestigious full frame bodies.

 

[Bob]

GF-1 looks like a far better deal

 

[nostatic]

yeah, my plan was to get the GF1 w/20/1.7 along with the Leica 45macro for small/street and the X1 price/specs reinforces that. That combo should come in well under $2K. Have to see the X1 in person though. I've been seduced before...

 

[cam]

agree with everybody.

i probably would have bitten at 1k, even though the speed of the lens annoys me. a Lux would have had me doing somersaults, but i would have happily settled on a Cron. at this price, though, a definite pass.

 

[Terry]

Yes,
I already have the GF1 on order and I'm not canceling it. I do like the controls on the back which are similar to the M's. I really wished the X1 were m4/3.

 

[nostatic]

It's funny because the M9 is actually "fairly priced" for what you get relative to the competition. I think $1K is too low for the X1 - too close to DP1/2 prices and the Leica will arguably be WAY better build quality. But $2K puts it in an opportunity cost area that is pretty deep. I'm thinking $1500 should have been the price. That would reflect the red dot tax, justify the better build quality, and excuse the slow lens.

 

[Braeside]

Too limited for me - fixed lens - no thanks - not at that price, red dot or not.

GF-1 getting my close attention now.

 

[nei1]

If its really quick itll be worth it especially if its well built.If not the DP2 is looking like a bargain.

 

[iiiNelson]

I really wished the X1 were m4/3.

Agree 100%. I was holding out on buying a new Micro 4/3 body in hopes that they changed their 4/3 stance. I love the look and form factor of the X1. I hate the price and lack of versatility. Final reservations for when I actually get my hands on it but I'd say I'd rather put $2K towards an M9 or another camera.

Seriously $2K for a glorified point and shoot is absurd to be nice about it.Ican't really say much bad about the M9. I'm trying to really convince myself to start saving up for one.

 

[nostatic]

what's annoying is that my DLux4 is f2 at the wide end. I know it is a much smaller sensor they are covering, but for $2K they could have put a cron up front. As was said above, I think many of us would be more seriously looking at piggy banks around the house if it had a fast lens.

Or maybe the f2.8 provides a convenient excuse to save money

 

[iiiNelson]

what's annoying is that my DLux4 is f2 at the wide end. I know it is a much smaller sensor they are covering, but for $2K they could have put a cron up front. As was said above, I think many of us would be more seriously looking at piggy banks around the house if it had a fast lens.

Or maybe the f2.8 provides a convenient excuse to save money

I agree that a f/2 would have made more sense especially coming from the same D-Lux 4 mindset as you. A f/1.4 would be better and almost definitely be enough to justify the cost to most people though.

 

[totallynatural]

I too was hoping (in hindsight, very very optimistically) that the X1 was going to be priced at around £1000-1500. I love the style of it, the shutter speed dial etc, pop up flash etc. I do not doubt at all that the X1 will be capable in the right hands of fantastic pics.

At that price I may have been able to sell a few things (including my current camera) to afford it (I prefer to shoot at a single focal length using primes) and like the 35-40mm field of view. I also find using a single focal length forces me to think more about framing shots.

The price of £2000, however, for a fixed focal length knocks it straight out of the ball park for me.

I am also miffed that the optional viewfinder still does not come with an focus assist light (especially as I assume it will not be a cheap accessory).

I think I'll stick to saving for some M-mount primes for my G1. I know Leica is considered 'elite' in terms of its products but I thought they were trying to get new customers (and £1000-1500 for fixed lens camera still isn't cheap).

By pricing it as they did they relegate a lot of keen photographers who are not affluent but who would eventually like to own a leica product to continually dreaming.:sleep006:

Fingers crossed rumours about an pentax mount interchangeable lens Ricoh are true...heres hoping

If thats fails I'd better start saving for a M9 (or M11 as it will be by the time I can afford one )