New Leica X (Typ 113)

[carlosecpf]

Thanks Godfrey!

Jono and Godfrey,

I have just learned from Steve Huff's website that the maximum aperture possible in some situations (1.2 meter or less) is not f/1.7, but f/2.5 or 2.8, even if you set the aperture manually at f/1.7 . Is that true?

 

[Godfrey]

I have just learned from Steve Huff's website that the maximum aperture possible in some situations (1.2 meter or less) is not f/1.7, but f/2.5 or 2.8, even if you set the aperture manually at f/1.7 . Is that true?

Yes. The maximum aperture is stopped down in a curve by increments from 1.42 to 0.42 m to maintain the best lens performance. It goes from f/1.7-1.8-2.0-2.2-2.5-2.8 @ 0.42 m, then hold f2.8 to minimum focus @ 0.2 m. Here's a chart of the curve I made some days ago:

This behavior is fully documented in the instruction manual. It's the same thing the Leica Summilux-T 23mm f/2 ASPH does, for the same reason.

Steve Huff went all goofy about it, calling it a major defect and all that nonsense. I don't know about you or anyone else, but something like this that allows my camera to make nicer photos while having zero effect on any practical use of the camera is all right by me.

G

 

[retow]

Yes. The maximum aperture is stopped down in a curve by increments from 1.42 to 0.42 m to maintain the best lens performance. It goes from f/1.7-1.8-2.0-2.2-2.5-2.8 @ 0.42 m, then hold f2.8 to minimum focus @ 0.2 m. Here's a chart of the curve I made some days ago:

This behavior is fully documented in the instruction manual. It's the same thing the Leica Summilux-T 23mm f/2 ASPH does, for the same reason.

Steve Huff went all goofy about it, calling it a major defect and all that nonsense. I don't know about you or anyone else, but something like this that allows my camera to make nicer photos while having zero effect on any practical use of the camera is all right by me.

G

"....... effect on any practical use..... " is the key statement. There is practical use in which the light gathering difference between 1.7 and 2.8 or ability to throw back-or foreground out of focus can indeed have an effect.

 

[Godfrey]

"....... effect on any practical use..... " is the key statement. There is practical use in which the light gathering difference between 1.7 and 2.8 or ability to throw back-or foreground out of focus can indeed have an effect.

It's not worth debating. This affects the range of distances from 48" and closer. I see very little to no useful need for wide open aperture at those distances—the usual problem is getting enough DoF, not too much. And with a sensor that operates at ISO 6400 and higher so cleanly, there's hardly need for even more light gathering power.

But if you do find it problematic for some reason, that's all right too: just don't buy this camera. There are plenty of cameras on the market to choose from.

G

 

[retow]

It's not worth debating. This affects the range of distances from 48" and closer. I see very little to no useful need for wide open aperture at those distances—the usual problem is getting enough DoF, not too much. And with a sensor that operates at ISO 6400 and higher so cleanly, there's hardly need for even more light gathering power.

But if you do find it problematic for some reason, that's all right too: just don't buy this camera. There are plenty of cameras on the market to choose from.

G

I have the camera, since about 3 weeks. And can speak from practical experience. For my needs, iso 1600 is as high as go with this sensor.

 

[Godfrey]

I have the camera, since about 3 weeks. And can speak from practical experience. For my needs, iso 1600 is as high as go with this sensor.

I have the Leica X typ 113 too, as well as the X2 model.

Again, I disagree. I've been shooting with the Leica X2 since 2012 (same sensor) and know this sensor very well indeed. Here are my noise tests, checking noise from ISO 12500 to ISO 800:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/x2-noise/index.html
The noise characteristics even at ISO 12500 are quite good; ISO 6400 works very well indeed.

Of course, it's not utterly smooth and noiseless at those extreme ISO settings, but to my eye it produces a beautiful image.. If it's insufficiently quiet for you, that's your issue. I'd sell the X and buy something else more suitable for you tastes rather than be dissatisfied and complain about it.

G

 

[retow]

I have the Leica X typ 113 too, as well as the X2 model.

Again, I disagree. I've been shooting with the Leica X2 since 2012 (same sensor) and know this sensor very well indeed. Here are my noise tests, checking noise from ISO 12500 to ISO 800:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/x2-noise/index.html
The noise characteristics even at ISO 12500 are quite good; ISO 6400 works very well indeed.

Of course, it's not utterly smooth and noiseless at those extreme ISO settings, but to my eye it produces a beautiful image.. If it's insufficiently quiet for you, that's your issue. I'd sell the X and buy something else more suitable for you tastes rather than be dissatisfied and complain about it.

G

I`m amused. I did not express any dissatisfaction with the camera, but made matter of fact statements.

 

[iiiNelson]

Yes. The maximum aperture is stopped down in a curve by increments from 1.42 to 0.42 m to maintain the best lens performance. It goes from f/1.7-1.8-2.0-2.2-2.5-2.8 @ 0.42 m, then hold f2.8 to minimum focus @ 0.2 m. Here's a chart of the curve I made some days ago:

This behavior is fully documented in the instruction manual. It's the same thing the Leica Summilux-T 23mm f/2 ASPH does, for the same reason.

Steve Huff went all goofy about it, calling it a major defect and all that nonsense. I don't know about you or anyone else, but something like this that allows my camera to make nicer photos while having zero effect on any practical use of the camera is all right by me.

G

I don't know that he was going all goofy on Leica so much as calling the marketing misleading for most when the f/1.7 lens is the part that's being highlighted. If it's in the manual that is good that they are forthcoming about that however most don't read the instruction manual until AFTER they bought the product. Yes some are available but if it were not for these discussions highlighting this limitation than most wouldn't know about it. As for whether the f/2.8 is good enough - well maybe it is but then there's no need to come out with an f/1.7 version either. I don't think most people spend more money on faster lenses to only use them at smaller apertures. They probably would save the money and buy the lens with a smaller aperture.

I agree that arguing over the design is somewhat pointless and if the design doesn't work for you then you probably shouldn't buy/keep it. I wonder if a floating lens element design would've allowed Leica the ability for the X to shoot wide open at all distances though as well.

 

[ptomsu]

Reading through this lens aperture story of the new Leica X is just unbelievable how they dare to bring such a product to market. Fortunately I did not buy this camera (had no interest anyway on it) but this should never have happened!

 

[Godfrey]

I`m amused. I did not express any dissatisfaction with the camera, but made matter of fact statements.

I'm glad you're amused.

I didn't say otherwise: Your opinions are matter of fact, but they imply that you're dissatisfied with the camera based on its noise characteristics and lens behavior.

G

 

[Godfrey]

I knew about the lens' behavior at close range within an hour of the camera being announced. It was described in at least two places besides the manual. It is no secret.

Instead of going all goofy over whether you can use f/1.7 at the very near range, I'd have gone all goofy over the extraordinary quality of the lens. I've been comparing it to the X2's Elmarit 24mm and my Summicron-R 35mm f/2, my other two Leica lenses providing the same field of view on their respective format cameras. The Summilux 23/1.7 is at least on par to both of them, and a better performer than the Elmarit 24 at least. It has the same beautiful rendering as the Summicron-R 35 (fitted to the Sony A7) without some of the very slight edge/corner issues that surface with that lens/sensor combination until I stop it down to f/2.8-4.

Whether Leica has used a floating element design I don't know ... they might have incorporated it into the internal focusing system.

All I can say is that I'm satisfied with the camera and the lens performance. My first few hundred exposures testing it have shown great potential. There are a few firmware bugs that I've reported, hopefully those will be addressed in due course, but even with them there's little I find wrong with the camera or its performance.

G

 

[Gbealnz]

Same with any "new" item Godfrey, there will be those that love it, those that don't, such is this world. Each to their own.

Me? I'm headed to the big smoke on Monday, and will stop off at the Leica dealership to handle/drool/etc the newer stuff. Hopefully they will have the new X as well, as it really is something I lust for. OK, I lust for an MM, but that is unobtainable right now, the X isn't.

The "variable" aperture isn't a concern, and as most have said, at close distances DoF is what you want, not the other way round. If I have a concern at all, it is that the X will replicate and make redundant my beloved X1. That was why I was contemplating the T.

Enjoy your new X. (sounds like you are anyway)
Gary

 

[Godfrey]

Same with any "new" item Godfrey, there will be those that love it, those that don't, such is this world. Each to their own.
...
If I have a concern at all, it is that the X will replicate and make redundant my beloved X1.
...

Indeed. And there seem to be those who will find fault with anything just for the pleasure of being contrary.

The X is so nice to use that I have to admit I haven't taken the X2 out since the X arrived. Which is a shame since the X2 is quite a nice piece of kit.

Anyway, so far my feelings are positive. I've sent four bug reports/feature enhancements in but none of them are show stoppers; just nuances in camera operation.

G

 

[retow]

I'm glad you're amused.

I didn't say otherwise: Your opinions are matter of fact, but they imply that you're dissatisfied with the camera based on its noise characteristics and lens behavior.

G

"Imply" is a product of perception influenced by the reader`s selective attention mechanisms and expectations. Reality and Perception, often don`t go hand in hand.

 

[Godfrey]

"Imply" is a product of perception influenced by the reader`s selective attention mechanisms and expectations. Reality and Perception, often don`t go hand in hand.

LOL! Are you always this pedantic?
As one pedant to another, it's probably best to lay off statements of the so very obvious and concentrate on adding value to the discussion.

G

 

[Paratom]

I just got back from 5 days in Nashville with the M and X2 shooting at day downtown and at night in blues bar and other dim places.
The x2 did extraordinary well in regards of handling, color and IQ (Even though I usually try to stay at ISO 1600 and lower if possible with this camera).
Switching between the x2 and the M the M suddenly appeared heavy to me and
it was a joy to use the X2.
If the X is the same IQ or better with a faster lens I am sure its a great camera.
Yes, I prefer the X2 due to the smaller size, but on the other side having f1.7 and a larger screen is nice as well.
I also believe Leica should have stated more clearly the variable f-stop but since I can live with constant f2.8 I guess I wouldnt see any problem with the variable f-stop of the new X.

 

[Godfrey]

Responding to a person on DPR who accused the X of having a soft lens, I did some resolution testing.

Setup:

• Camera set up at 6' distance from my usual target, a very busy bookcase.
• Image processing settings: Standard, Super Fine JPEG, 16M, + DNG set.
• ISO locked to 200.
• Shutter set to A mode.
• Focus mode set to Spot.
• Camera on sturdy tripod. Each frame exposed with 2 second delay.
• Series 1: Each frame is allowed to AF on the same target.
• Series 2: Manual focus on target point, focus setting not touched throughout test afterwards.
• Each frame stepped the lens aperture, first from f/1.7 to f/2, then in whole stops to f/16.

Results:

• Examining the JPEGs at center, right edge, and top left corner, ALL frames are acceptably sharp and crisp. The right edge and top left corner improve slightly from f/1.7 to f/4, center is virtually unchanged. A small degraded (presumably diffraction) sets in at f/11.
  *
  
• Examining the DNG files, processed at the LR 5.6 defaults (sharpening = 25 on LR's), all frames show distinct need for input sharpening with slightly soft rendering through all apertures. Moving the sharpening to 40 nets nets sharpness equal to the JPEGs at all aperture settings. Moving the sharpening to 50 nets increased sharpness with minimal halo'ing, again all frames.(For example, even at f/1.7, 5 point type locate in the corner of the frame at 6' distance is clearly readable with 2:1 magnification). This implies that the Leica X sensor has a medium strength AA filter, since the same correction produces the same improvement across all apertures. It also demonstrates that focus shift is extremely minimal (via the manual focus tests).

The same test of the X2 in 2012 showed significantly more variation in corner and edge quality from f/2.8 to f/5.6, and also needed additional sharpening of the DNG files, of a similar nature, determining again that the X2 has similar strength AA filter.

When next I have time to do so, I will repeat the same test with the Leica M9 and the Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 and the Sony A7 fitted with Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2. (I don't have a Summicron or Summilux 35mm in M mount at my disposal at present.) It will be interesting to see how those two compare.

But be that as it may, I cannot see any evidence to support the statement that "the lens is soft and only starts to deliver the 'Leica-magic' from f/5.6." As far as my test shows, the Summilux 23mm f/1.7 on the Leica X is a very high quality performer across all f/stops. It's sweet spot is broad, best performance ranging from f/2.8 to f/11 when diffraction starts to intrude on ultimate resolving power.

Beyond the evidence of this resolution test, I was at the annual All Italian Day car and motorcycle show with the Leica X today. I made about 80 exposures at all apertures, using primarily autofocus on "Face Detect/11 frame pattern" mode. Every frame is crisply, clearly focused, and all frames show beautiful sharpness. At the wide open end of the spectrum, defocus bokeh is beautifully progressive and lacks any jangly feeling even wide open.

IMO, this is a stunner of a lens, fully deserving of the name Summilux.

(Unfortunately, pictures will have to wait. I have other commitments this evening and best get to them now. Maybe later if I get done early. )

G

 

[Godfrey]

Photos from All Italian Day with the Leica X typ 113 are here:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/51893-fun-leica-x-all-models-2.html#post606245

enjoy!

 

[Godfrey]

I'm enjoying the Leica X quite a lot, I'm keeping it. It resonates with my, it's a "just right" camera.

Two more bits for the kit arrived ... the Leica optical viewfinder (larger and with a bit more eye relief than the Voigtländer; easier to use with my glasses) and a second battery.

Just waiting for the Arte di Mano half case to arrive and that's it.

G

 

[Paratom]

Hi Godfrey,
I wouldnt worry about the lens at all.
If there is one thing where I trust Leicas it is lenses and I go even further its image quality.
If you never saw anything that bothers you why even run testing.

Yesterday I took images with an A7s+Zeiss 24-70 and my Leica T with Zoom, side by side, just to come to the conclusion that I like the results from both ( I would have liked a clear winner). I am not saying both equally but both very good IQ.
I might slightly prefer the A7s IQ and color in some images, but in others the T-Zoom renders very nice.

On a recent trip shooting the X2 and the M (x2 when I didnt want to carry a camera bag, which was quite often)...One image from the M + 50APO stood out in regards of color and 3D look but overall all images from the X2 where totally fine for me.

What I am trying to say is that many cameras have become soo good that some slight differences in IQ are not really relevant any more (IMO).

My biggest minus for the X-cameras and T is the delay after taking an image. But I guess I can/have to live with that.