Leica X Vario - the camera formerly known as Paula

[Photojazz]

Nice little 3K plus camera. Thanks for sharing the review Jono. I bet it was fun to play with this little camera. The bokeh in close up use certainly is pleasing to the eye.

Well, I call it like I see it. Maybe it's that much more than the X1/X2 but only if it's what you are looking for For me, it's really not. Me, I used the X1 as a gateway drug to the M9. but once I got the M9, I only saw the X1 as lens "fix" money, honestly, and sold out. I could see no justification for keeping a compact camera with a fixed lens over a compact camera with M lenses. I didn't stay content with just a taste of Leica for long, after delving into Panasonic with Leica lens (same as D2 I think) and earlier digilux models. I wish I had kept that Panasonic with separate lens.

The X1 was a fun camera, and I took some nice photos with it, but the slow AF I found very annoying, granted, this camera should best that. However, I have a hard time getting excited about a compact camera that won't do 2.8 speed at least. For most circumstances, I guess it would be ok. But there are situations where that little bit of extra speed would have made a big difference.

I too Vote for a Mini M with interchangable lenses and a 36 mpx sensor. Honestly, coming to Leica from mostly nikon use of big DSLRs, the Leica M9 is compact to begin with. It's one of the things I appreciate most about it. That and the killer glass. I think I would hold onto a dream of a M240 before this camera...

Doug

 

[peterb]

On reflection, I certainly understand Leica's lens design decision. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh.

 

[douglasf13]

As a very happy Sony RX-1 owner, I can honestly say that I would have given the Leica X Vario serious consideration if it had been available when I bought the RX-1. I didn't give the X2 serious thought at the time because I had previously owned an X1 and wanted to try something different. The convenience of a 28-70mm zoom (albeit very slow) may have been enough to make me choose it over the 24mp full frame RX-1. The sample images that Jono posted look very promising.

I guess this would make me wonder why you didn't go ahead and choose something like an X-E1 with a zoom (or something similar) in the first place, since it isn't really any larger than the X Vario?

That is where I struggle with this camera. If it had a lens that retracted, I could see it as something more unique, despite the cost, but, with the largish lens on the front and the heavy weight, why not go with one of the multitude of mirrorless cameras with zooms already out there?

 

[Godfrey]

Sigma 1.7X is widely included in the "APS-C" category, and the R1 is much closer to Canon APS-C than to Four Thirds.

Nikon 1.5X APS-C: 23.5 x 15.6mm
Canon 1.6X APS-C: 22.3 x 14.9mm
Sony R1 sensor: 21.5 x 14.4mm
Sigma 1.7X APS-C: (eg, DP1): 20.7 x 13.8mm
Canon G1X: 18.7 x 14mm
Four Thirds: 17.3 x 13mm

It's a close call, not worth debating.

For me, the so-called APS-C sensor format is ~16x24 mm. How sensors from 14x21 to 16x24 all sensibly be called APS-C, and then APS-C camera users sneer at 13x17.3 mm in FourThirds, is beyond my ability (and patience) to understand. No one called the R1 APS-C format when it was a current model, ya know?

G

 

[MPK2010]

Useful perspective, thank you Jono. Excellent that you took a picture of the word "SLOW" and used it as a sample photo. Purely unintentional I am sure.

I think if you start with the propositions that (i) price is irrelevant, (ii) ergonomics and aesthetics are paramount and (iii) it is not necessary to rely on narrow depth of field to achieve a good composition, then this camera has some appeal.

 

[douglasf13]

It's a close call, not worth debating.

No one called the R1 APS-C format when it was a current model, ya know?

G

The R1 was usually referred to as aps-c, when it was a current model.

I vaguely remember that there was something about the supporting electronics for live view that required the sensor to be masked off a bit to that smaller size, but I can't confirm that at the moment.

 

[Godfrey]

The R1 was usually referred to as aps-c, when it was a current model.

I vaguely remember that there was something about the supporting electronics for live view that required the sensor to be masked off a bit to that smaller size, but I can't confirm that at the moment.

I don't recall it. I had an R1, had FourThirds at the same time. The format was 1mm taller and 4mm wider than FourThirds. My Pentax *ist DS' sensor was noticeably larger than the R1's.

Eh? who cares? Have it your way. You want to call a sensor nearly 30% smaller area than another one as the same format, be my guest. But don't tell me FourThirds is teensy, ok?

G

 

[jonoslack]

I enjoyed your report Jono - great photos and insights throughout.

I may have missed this - does the lens extend when zooming? Overal the X Vario seems a good size - bit smaller and better proportioned than the Fuji and Panasonic zoom combos you mentioned in the article. This size advantage would be even greater if the Leica - as was the case with the Digilux 2 - does not extend with zooming.

Amin, Even at the widest setting, the lens extends out (according to Leica pics) .

Thanks Amin, Vivek
The lens is shortest around 35-50mm. It extends nearly 1cm at 70mm and about 1/2cm at 28mm.
So the answer is Yes. But not much!

 

[ptomsu]

Jono,

excellent impressions and review! Really enjoyed reading.

Actually this might be the camera of choice if you look for a high IQ and high build quality, relatively small camera WITHOUT the need to carry multiple lenses.

I need to try one and see if this will become my everyday P&S ...

Peter

 

[JSRockit]

I don't recall it. I had an R1, had FourThirds at the same time. The format was 1mm taller and 4mm wider than FourThirds.

1mm 4mm wider is a big difference IMO. It's the difference between a 2x crop and a 1.5x crop... also, APS-C still has a decent depth of field control without having to be super close.

You want to call a sensor nearly 30% smaller area than another one as the same format, be my guest. But don't tell me FourThirds is teensy, ok?

Anything smaller than APS-C is tiny IMO. To me, APS-C still can look like full frame at times. m4/3 looks closer to P&S sized sensors at times.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Thank you Jono. Having used the D2 for a number of years, it is certainly a good follow-on camera of a similar kind. The slow lens could be easily off-set if the sensor is capable of some great high ISO performance, so we shall see what the lab testers and pixel peepers have to say!!

Now I know why you didn't have time to write a cheque!! :lecture:

 

[Mark Gowin]

I guess this would make me wonder why you didn't go ahead and choose something like an X-E1 with a zoom (or something similar) in the first place, since it isn't really any larger than the X Vario?

That is where I struggle with this camera. If it had a lens that retracted, I could see it as something more unique, despite the cost, but, with the largish lens on the front and the heavy weight, why not go with one of the multitude of mirrorless cameras with zooms already out there?

Douglas, you make a fair comment. I very much like the X-E1 and seriously considered it. At the time, I decided against the X-E1 because Lightroom didn't do a very good job processing the images and I had no interest in using a different raw conversion software for what would be my secondary (non-serious) camera. That was then - the equation is a little different now with improved LR performance. In my attempt at trying to be optimistic about having more limited discretionary funds than I once had, I am fortunate that I am not in a position to be in the market for another camera right now.

 

[jonoslack]

Now I know why you didn't have time to write a cheque!! :lecture:

Hi David. Glad you liked it. And yes, it's because I've been too busy, but this isn't the half of it! I will I will I will!

 

[douglasf13]

I don't recall it. I had an R1, had FourThirds at the same time. The format was 1mm taller and 4mm wider than FourThirds. My Pentax *ist DS' sensor was noticeably larger than the R1's.

Eh? who cares? Have it your way. You want to call a sensor nearly 30% smaller area than another one as the same format, be my guest. But don't tell me FourThirds is teensy, ok?

G

I didn't call anything teensy, but comparing to m4/3 is a difficult, because of the different ratios. If you crop the R1 to m4/3 ratio, then the sensor sizes are close, but, if you crop m4/3 to 3:2, then not so much. Either way, the R1's sensor size is still closer to aps-c than it is m4/3.

 

[douglasf13]

Douglas, you make a fair comment. I very much like the X-E1 and seriously considered it. At the time, I decided against the X-E1 because Lightroom didn't do a very good job processing the images and I had no interest in using a different raw conversion software for what would be my secondary (non-serious) camera. That was then - the equation is a little different now with improved LR performance. In my attempt at trying to be optimistic about having more limited discretionary funds than I once had, I am fortunate that I am not in a position to be in the market for another camera right now.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't like X-trans either, even with the current LR, but there are also m4/3 zooms, NEX zooms, etc.

 

[Amin]

Thanks Amin, Vivek
The lens is shortest around 35-50mm. It extends nearly 1cm at 70mm and about 1/2cm at 28mm.
So the answer is Yes. But not much!

Thanks, Jono. That 1cm of extension is insignificant when you compare to how much the Fuji 18-55 and Panasonic 12-35 extend with zooming, and those are the lenses people point to when making a case that Leica should have gone with a faster one.

Here are those three kits compared at CameraSize.com:

I wish I had a similar photo with the lenses at their longest extension.

 

[monza]

The Leica social media team just released a photo (showed up on my FB newsfeed this morning) that was taken by Yvonne Venegas using the new Vario X. The photo shows Yvonne's father shooting a model with a big Canon DSLR. What are they thinking? https://www.facebook.com/LeicaCamera

'What are they thinking' applies in so many ways.

 

[peterb]

Amin,

Really neat comparison. And just what I was wondering: how would the X Vario and it's f3.5 18-46mm lens stack up against an X-E1 and its very sharp f2.8 18-55mm lens, size-wise.

Now I know.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Vivek]

Well, the XE-1 is more like the "Mini M" than the Mini M ever will be because the XE-1 has a built in EVF and at the right place like an M. You hang the Olympus EVF on top of the Mini M and it is almost like the GX1. Moreover, the XE-1 is obviously better shaped for proper hand holding.

I have to point the obvious because Leica sent an email which claimed that the M inspires the shape of the Mini M.

 

[monza]

Not only that, Fujifilm offers an M bayonet for the X-E1.

What's also interesting: the X-E1 with faster/longer zoom with OIS and built-in EVF is only about $500 more than the cost of the Leica EVF by itself.