this little camera produces better color that the M240
Like most cameras do...
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!
this little camera produces better color that the M240
LOL! That means I'd have to have an M(240) to compare it with first. Far as I can tell, the people photos I've seen out of the M are just fine, but I tend to photograph people in B&W most of the time anyway.... this little camera produces better color that the M240 ... so far ... with less effort, nor needing a computer science degree from MIT to get decent skin tones ...
In my experience, image stabilisation is the most essential factor in making good video unless you're willing to encumber yourself with a tripod.Indeed. That's one of the important details Leica did right. It's particularly useful with video capture as no one I know who does video seriously would ever use auto-focus. Explicit focus control is one of the essential factors in making good video.
Godfrey
Most of the videographers I know use SteadyCams and tripods, rails and dollies. None of them use image stabilization.In my experience, image stabilisation is the most essential factor in making good video unless you're willing to encumber yourself with a tripod.
Guy, I think it is something slightly different than just creating a camera for the hobbiest market. I actually think digital technology is rapidly improving to the point where there is no need to lug a gorilla of a body around - just look at the work Vieri Botazzini has done using Sigma DPxM and Nex bodies - serious, professional fine art work (see other camera thread). When I was last in a certain professional camera shop in central London which sells both Leica and Panasonic cameras, the owner claimed a well known British photographer was enthusiastically using a GH-3 having bought two bodies and all the available lenses. I can understand how you would not rely on some consumer or prosumer cameras in critical situations - but what if you had a main and a spare? Both for the price of half a Nikon D4 or 1Dx?I tend to agree Peter and a point I did not bring up. I'm a Pro so I have to have gear to stay in business. But more importantly many hobbyists may have a load of gear and something happens they lose interest or tire of lugging this crap around all day long and we see this daily folks giving up there full DSLRs and going mirrorless, 4/3 rds and smaller. There bored or whatever and maybe find a new hobby . I see it all the time and not many hobbyist stick with a hobby for 40 years either they find something more fun, challenging or whatever and they downgrade there whole systems. Just look at our buy and sell its a tell tale sign of what's going on . For some jumping on this Leica maybe all they want to deal with at this point. I hate to see it but its reality. Heck I have the Fuji X-E1 myself and if it was just my hobby it maybe the only thing I have or a Leica M or X for that matter. My hobby is Golf and I have a bag full of top latest generation clubs and I'm pretty damn good at it now. To me its fun when its not fun anymore ill dump the bag and move on to something else. Photography hobby's are no diffrent.
Hi DouglasBoy, I don't know, Jono. I can usually find a silver lining in many Leica products, like the X2, but this X-Vario just seems too far out in too many categories. It has a slow zoom, the usual Sony 16mp sensor, it is still kind of large for what it is
Hi MarcPlenty of people up there outside of the "super-highway of photo forums" know a bit about photography, love to take photos, and document their comings and goings. Those more into it may well want to have more analog control of their camera, and may be willing to pay for it in a less toss-away, "here today, gone today" form.
Sure, but this camera is hardly aimed at that crowd.Most of the videographers I know use SteadyCams and tripods, rails and dollies. None of them use image stabilization.
G
Guy, I think it is something slightly different than just creating a camera for the hobbiest market. I actually think digital technology is rapidly improving to the point where there is no need to lug a gorilla of a body around - just look at the work Vieri Botazzini has done using Sigma DPxM and Nex bodies - serious, professional fine art work (see other camera thread). When I was last in a certain professional camera shop in central London which sells both Leica and Panasonic cameras, the owner claimed a well known British photographer was enthusiastically using a GH-3 having bought two bodies and all the available lenses. I can understand how you would not rely on some consumer or prosumer cameras in critical situations - but what if you had a main and a spare? Both for the price of half a Nikon D4 or 1Dx?
LouisB
Rolling Stones - You Can´t Always Get What You Want Video - Adlercover - MyVideoI think it's sad that they couldn't have squeezed just another 2/3 stop out of the lens.
Let's face it, if it were f2.8 - f5.6 nobody would have batted an eyelash.
f2.8 - f3.5 (1/2 stop)
f5.6 - f6.5 (1/3 stop)
f3.5 - f6.4 sounds so bad!
Ah Well
Maybe not, but when I shoot video with any camera, I work the same way.Sure, but this camera is hardly aimed at that crowd.
:thumbs:You can make a case that even the ludicrous Hasselblad Lunar is a better option for the tacky rich individuals looking for fashion statement. At least the Hassy body, as fugly as it is, is a capable camera body with access to quality lenses. You can't say the same thing about the mini.
Howdy, Jono. I'm not really sure that's a fair comparison, considering the Panasonic zoom is a constant aperture zoom, which is another animal entirely. Plus, their sizes aren't really that far off with the lenses retracted, which is probably the more useful measurement when considering carry and packing size.Hi Douglas
Maybe this picture kind of helps to understand why the lens is slow:
It's the XV next to the Olympus OMD with the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 - in both cases the lenses are at their largest extension.
The XV lens is certainly slower, but the DOF difference is slightly made up with the larger sensor. Any low light problem is compensated by the very good high ISO.
The IQ is certainly better with the XV, and the handling is much more 'camera' like.
Of course the XV doesn't have Image Stabilisation or a built in EVF, or interchangeable lenses and the AF on the OMD is much faster - but if you plug in the EVF it's about the same height as the OMD. It makes a smaller package overall.
I've found that going out for a walk with the dogs - or sitting on the car seat: times when I would always have taken the OMD, I've been picking up the XV.
I think that if you simply want a camera - one which is fairly versatile, and has excellent image quality - with a zoom, then this is a reasonable option - in the UK an OMD + Panasonic lens is only about 15% less than the XV anyway.
Without decent image quality it would be nothing . . . but the IQ is excellent.