New Leica X (Typ 113)

[Godfrey]

Thinking about Jono's excellent article on the new X inspired me to pull out my X2 and do a little shooting with it yesterday. I then realized that there wasn't a general purpose "Fun with..." picture thread for the Leica X cameras, so I created one.

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

Now there's a place for all Leica X photos to be showcased. Please post some of yours!

Walking and shooting with the X2 again for the first time in a while, I'm again amazed at how good this "digital Barnack" can be. It lacks a bit on responsiveness, but the photo quality it makes is well worth it. I can only imagine that the new X with its better EVF option and faster lens will be similarly or even more delightful.

I like shooting with it much as I did yesterday: fitted with a 35mm optical viewfinder, mostly at f/5.6-f/8, image processing set to B&W contrasty + raw. I switch back and forth between AF and MF, focusing by zone. It's a light, small, easy to live with camera with simple, direct controls.

Looking at the photos I made yesterday, I can't really say that I feel I need to upgrade. Which is good ... It helps me save my money for even GASsier extravagances.

G

 

[jonoslack]

Nice write-up and the pictures are up to your standard stellar color contrast perspective and content presentation.

Did you use Aperture or something else...or just OOC JPGs as the EXIF suggests sRGB.

So now DLux 4 K or the Leica X.....

Do hope you all do not have to revise the Union Jack!

Bob

Hi Bob
Sorry, I missed this one.
I am using Aperture (just too much faff to use LR). I'm also using Yosemite, and the RAW support for the X (and the X-Vario and the T) has gone from:

Mavericks - nothing
Yosemite beta 1 - full support
Yosemite beta 2 - support for images under 1600 ISO
Yosemite beta 3 - no support

so it's a mixture - for the OOC jpgs I've been reducing the sharpness (contrast is quite low anyway) and making certain not to over-expose.

. . . . . So - roll on the D-Lux 4 - I'd love to have a go with one (but I haven't yet!).

 

[jonoslack]

I was intrigued to see that AF for macro work is a challenge, even with the aperture limited to f/2.8 to help out. (actually, focus at 1.7, take pictures at 2.8 would be a good strategy working close -- does it do that?)

Interesting point that - it's rather hard to tell, but I guess it probably does.

My reference is the Ricoh GR, with an APS-C chip and 28 mm-eff focal length, also f/2.8. The previous GR-D's, with their little image chips, were great at macro, perfect for running off flower and eBay product shots. The GR, however, sucks a bit at macro with AF. Maybe it is just really hard to do this at APS-C size with a pocketable lens.

Seems likely - sucks would definitely be an overstatement, it's usually quite good, but sometimes slow to twig that you're focusing on something close - if you go to manual focus - down to the closest, then back to AF it seems to get the point

Good to see Scarlett toddling about with only the slightest skyhook to help out.

Thanks Scott - she's doing great - now she can manage across a room with no help (as long as she doesn't think too hard).

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Re: Don't forget the V-Lux [typ 114]

Which Jono was shooting at the same time over the past summer. See his article at Leica V-Lux (Typ 114) . Has anyone used this model (or its Panasonic cousin)?

scott

 

[Godfrey]

...
I am using Aperture (just too much faff to use LR)
...

Jono,

I'm just curious as to why every mention you make of Aperture has to include a negative comment about Lightroom. I feel the same way about Aperture that you do about Lightroom, but both work pretty darn well. I see no point to saying, "... I used Lightroom to process my photos, rather than dealing with all the faff about the now-no-longer-in-development Aperture, soon to be discontinued and made unavailable, ..."

Seems a bit over the top.

G

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,

I'm just curious as to why every mention you make of Aperture has to include a negative comment about Lightroom. I feel the same way about Aperture that you do about Lightroom, but both work pretty darn well. I see no point to saying, "... I used Lightroom to process my photos, rather than dealing with all the faff about the now-no-longer-in-development Aperture, soon to be discontinued and made unavailable, ..."

Seems a bit over the top.

G

Only because if I don't say something then people always say "why don't you use Lightroom?

It's not meant as a criticism of Lightroom, just that I don't like it!

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,

I'm just curious as to why every mention you make of Aperture has to include a negative comment about Lightroom. I feel the same way about Aperture that you do about Lightroom, but both work pretty darn well. I see no point to saying, "... I used Lightroom to process my photos, rather than dealing with all the faff about the now-no-longer-in-development Aperture, soon to be discontinued and made unavailable, ..."

Seems a bit over the top.

G

Perhaps this deserves a longer answer.

I hope you accept the reason for mentioning it. . . . . but actually, the 'faffing about' remark was nothing to do with any opinion of Lightroom. It was because I have a 50,000 image Aperture library, and all my workflow hinges around it.

Changing this worfklow for a new camera is really not a sensible decision, so I don't - it doesn't actually reflect on Lightroom at all (which I am very conversant with).

As far as non-development of Aperture is concerned. I hear you, but it will work properly at least until Yosemite is replaced (2 years?), and RAW updates will continue (as this is core support) - in fact, it might easily improve.

Apple have said that they want to start from scratch with a new program with lots of new features . . . and that there will be a migration for Aperture libraries (which at least implies that it will be capable of doing what Aperture does). The new architecture will allow other developers access, so it's reasonable to hope that Silver efex pro etc will be usable.

So although it was tempting to through the baby out with the bathwater and transfer the whole lot to Lightroom, that represents a great deal of work - maybe I'll have to do it in two years, but it won't be any harder then than now (might be easier as lots of others will have tried too). On the other hand, perhaps Photos will actually be really good - in which case bailing out now would require another time consuming transfer back again.

I'm staying put with Aperture until either 1. Yosemite is replaced and Aperture no longer supported or 2. Photos comes of age, in which case I'll use that.

Does that make sense?

 

[ptomsu]

Only because if I don't say something then people always say "why don't you use Lightroom?

It's not meant as a criticism of Lightroom, just that I don't like it!

I am ambivalent WRT Aperture and Lightroom. End of the day I find Aperture has the far more advanced cataloging and archiving system while LR is better in RAW development.

I am using both and simply will continue to use Aperture for import as well as archiving and then as soon as everything is in perfect order for me I am using LR.

Let's wait and see what the new Photo in Yosemite will look like ......

 

[Godfrey]

Only because if I don't say something then people always say "why don't you use Lightroom?

It's not meant as a criticism of Lightroom, just that I don't like it!

When you repeat something over and over again, it sure sounds like you're disparaging it. I understand you might not intend it to be that way, but that's how it reads.

Perhaps this deserves a longer answer.

I hope you accept the reason for mentioning it. . . . . but actually, the 'faffing about' remark was nothing to do with any opinion of Lightroom. It was because I have a 50,000 image Aperture library, and all my workflow hinges around it.

Changing this worfklow for a new camera is really not a sensible decision, so I don't - it doesn't actually reflect on Lightroom at all (which I am very conversant with).

Oh, I understand completely! One of the reasons I cannot get on with the Fuji X cameras is that I find how most raw converters treat their raw data to be really awful, and the one or two that do a passingly good job I dislike using. I have too many cameras and different kinds of raw files to change my workflow just to accommodate one manufacturer's sensor weirdness.

As far as non-development of Aperture is concerned. I hear you, but it will work properly at least until Yosemite is replaced (2 years?), and RAW updates will continue (as this is core support) - in fact, it might easily improve.

Apple have said that they want to start from scratch with a new program with lots of new features . . . and that there will be a migration for Aperture libraries (which at least implies that it will be capable of doing what Aperture does). The new architecture will allow other developers access, so it's reasonable to hope that Silver efex pro etc will be usable.

So although it was tempting to through the baby out with the bathwater and transfer the whole lot to Lightroom, that represents a great deal of work - maybe I'll have to do it in two years, but it won't be any harder then than now (might be easier as lots of others will have tried too). On the other hand, perhaps Photos will actually be really good - in which case bailing out now would require another time consuming transfer back again.

I'm staying put with Aperture until either 1. Yosemite is replaced and Aperture no longer supported or 2. Photos comes of age, in which case I'll use that.

I'm well aware of the Aperture end-of-life cycle you are thinking about. I suspect, though, that once Photos is out, it will end-of-life rather more quickly.

I've never liked the UI and design model for either iPhoto or Aperture ... I find it clumsy and overly complicated ... but that's just my personal take on having tried to use it for the past half decade. I still have a current copy,

I'm hoping (and talking to the engineers on the project about it—remember, I have some close connection with Apple engineering... ;-) that the new Photos app will be different, will be something that works in a way that I can work with. Because there's a lot of goodness in the integrated way that Apple's apps work together.

Does that make sense?

Your position, your likes and dislikes, and the curve of your useage do make sense. But I don't think you have to repeat your opinion of Lightroom with every mention of Aperture. For those that ask you "Why don't you use Lightroom?" ... I'd just ignore the question. It's silliness to ask that when you're responding to the simple question, "What do you use to process the image files?"

And now back to the regularly scheduled Leica X (Type 113) discussion.

G

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Re: Raw File Rendering

I stick to Capture One for everything from a Phase One back (nice old P45+) to the Leica m240, Olympus 5-series, and Ricoh GR or GR-D. It seems the only files they won't handle are the Leica S for some reason... If you want database (I don't), they've got database. They apparently do the best job on Fuji's Bayer-on-crack matrix, too. Runs almost identically on Mac and PC now. They can do local corrections for more things than I worry about, and their shadow slider is awesome. At intervals when things are about to change, as was true recently, they run very big beta tests, so you can get a word in sometimes.

scott

 

[Paratom]

I have experimented over the last years and lately with LR,C1,aparture and DXO.
In the end I allways get bacl to LR. OK, I am not experienced with aparture, but I might have looked into it deeper if I saw a big difference in raw conversion. I didnt-even though I liked the color and WB options.
Same for C1-images look slightly sharper, and colors different for Leica M but not allways better, different than LR.
LR has the advantage that it supports nearly all cameras (all that I own), often has several profiles for one camera and I believe the output is very consistent. No surprizes.
If I had a phase back I would probably just use C1.
DXO I own because I like to be able to browse through images without having to import them, but the raw conversion seems somewhat soft to me.

 

[Godfrey]

I was at the camera shop yesterday and took a few moments to look at the Leicas. They didn't have the new X in yet, but they had an MP, an M Type 240, an X Vario, and a T with EVF. I had my X2 with me.

The the MP and X Vario, aside from the lens, are so close in overall size, shape, and feel ... I suspect the X Type 113 is even closer with the shorter lens. The feel and size is one notch nicer on the X Vario than the X2 ... the X2 feels more like a "digital Barnak" where the X Vario feels like a "digital M4 with MATE" lens.

The T is a super solid little brick and, my, what a quiet shutter it has! Truly amazing for a focal plane shutter. But I decided a while ago that I don't want another system camera ... I have too many already. I looked at it mostly to see the EVF performance—yes, it's substantially nicer than the X2 EVF.

This all bodes well for the Leica X Type 113. Which is unfortunate for me, since I'll likely be moved to spend the money to buy one. Oh well... there are worse things than buying yet another camera.

G

 

[Gbealnz]

I'm swinging on either the new X or the new T, have had a very fleeting look at a T, with zoom, but not seen the X.
I would retain the old X1 however, so am wondering if the new X is a logical idea, it replicates the X1, but in a newer package, surely? T however (with zoom, especially) is a slightly different direction.
Any thoughts?
Gary

 

[segedi]

Really depends if you want an interchangeable lens system it not. And if you want to use legacy lenses or not. Personally, I think the new X looks like a fantastic camera, but one that I wouldn't buy. I can't justify having a fixed lens camera no matter how great and useful it might be. I've been hooked on 75mm lately.

And the T seems a bit expensive for what it is. I've just haven't gotten along with anything other than rangefinders and Leica ones at that. Though I do find the EVF and Live View valuable on the M 240, I still prefer the optical rangefinder as a base.

 

[jlindstrom]

I'm swinging on either the new X or the new T, have had a very fleeting look at a T, with zoom, but not seen the X.
I would retain the old X1 however, so am wondering if the new X is a logical idea, it replicates the X1, but in a newer package, surely? T however (with zoom, especially) is a slightly different direction.
Any thoughts?
Gary

If you're keeping the X1 and maybe not entirely sure if you want to invest in a system camera and you like zooms.. then I'd say the X Vario would be the better choice. It wouldn't compete with X1 for set focal length, you would get the zoom, controls would be identical, signature quite close etc.

I'd meditate on that for a bit.

//Juha

 

[Godfrey]

I'm swinging on either the new X or the new T, have had a very fleeting look at a T, with zoom, but not seen the X.
I would retain the old X1 however, so am wondering if the new X is a logical idea, it replicates the X1, but in a newer package, surely? T however (with zoom, especially) is a slightly different direction.
Any thoughts?
Gary

As I said above, I have more than enough (too many) system cameras with full suites of lenses and such. I'm enjoying the rediscovery of my X2 ... simplicity in use, one lens, no options, easy. Camera, case, strap, viewfinder, memory card, and spare battery ... all you need.

If I go for a new X, it will be on the strength of the improved lens, the somewhat larger and more robust body, and the better EVF. One of the things I don't really like about the X2 is the collapsible lens and the only so-so manual focusing. With the X's fixed-length lens, on-barrel focusing control, and high resolution EVF, both of those issues will be gone.

But it's still a lot of money for not so much difference in the camera. On the other hand, a Leica M body with a fast 35mm lens fitted is a setup I can use day after day and never complain about. The Leica X looks so much to be just that in a modern, digital form.

I'm not quite committed yet, but it's looking that way.

G

 

[Gbealnz]

If you're keeping the X1 and maybe not entirely sure if you want to invest in a system camera and you like zooms.. then I'd say the X Vario would be the better choice. It wouldn't compete with X1 for set focal length, you would get the zoom, controls would be identical, signature quite close etc.

I'd meditate on that for a bit.

//Juha

Thank you Juha,
you've got me thinking now, always a bad thing.
To that end I will get some brochures on both the T, the X (when they get them here), and the Vario.
Then go find them to fondle and see what I think.
Regards
Gary

 

[Gbealnz]

As I said above, I have more than enough (too many) system cameras with full suites of lenses and such. I'm enjoying the rediscovery of my X2 ... simplicity in use, one lens, no options, easy. Camera, case, strap, viewfinder, memory card, and spare battery ... all you need.

If I go for a new X, it will be on the strength of the improved lens, the somewhat larger and more robust body, and the better EVF. One of the things I don't really like about the X2 is the collapsible lens and the only so-so manual focusing. With the X's fixed-length lens, on-barrel focusing control, and high resolution EVF, both of those issues will be gone.

But it's still a lot of money for not so much difference in the camera. On the other hand, a Leica M body with a fast 35mm lens fitted is a setup I can use day after day and never complain about. The Leica X looks so much to be just that in a modern, digital form.

I'm not quite committed yet, but it's looking that way.

G

You're not helping at all Godfrey, LOL.
At one stage I was looking definitely at the T, but you are correct, I don't need a system.
The one fear I had with the new to me (used) X1 was the fixed lens, and no choices except footwork. As I have expounded numerous times, it was THE best thing. So buying a T with the fixed Summicron would be OK, it would replicate this, AND give the option to expand if I so desired.

But there is this nagging thought that the X would be more than sufficient. Or that the Vario could do it all. Goodness, what a quandary, I should buy all three, LOL
Thanks anyway.
Gary

 

[Godfrey]

...
But there is this nagging thought that the X would be more than sufficient. Or that the Vario could do it all. Goodness, what a quandary, I should buy all three ...

Ach, the ultimate GAS victim... !!

For me, it comes down to the controls. I applaud Leica for the doing the T: the control interface is very innovative and, with a bit of familiarization and accommodation time, should be fantastic. It's a modern take on using the touch-screen smartphone UI model for camera control. BUT, when I played with it the other day, it's not really what I'm looking for at present.

The X series control layout revisits something that I like a lot in my Leica M, Rollei 35, and other manual film cameras, as well as in various digital cameras with a good 'super control panel' or discrete control setup: I can glance down at the camera and in an eye-blink know what all the exposure settings are, re-set them quickly, and be ready when I bring the camera to my eye. I've done exposure and focus guesstimating for so long that I am usually within a half stop of correct with a guess. And similarly I often don't bother to use either rangefinder or TTL viewfinder for focus: I just set a distance on the focusing scale and shoot. The X2 allows me to do that but it's a little clumsy at it with the rear focus dial; the X' manual focusing and scale setting should be a lot better with the control right on the lens where it is a more natural movement to set it.

BTW, while the X lens doesn't have DoF markings, if they implemented the manual focus distance display on the LCD or in the EVF like they did with the X2, the DoF indication will be live when you're focusing. I hope they did that ... it's one of the brilliant, subtle bits in the X2. Jono?

In a sense, the X could be my "M Edition 60" surrogate. A super simple camera with a comfortable and minimalistic control interface, dedicated to a single lens. The M Edition 60 kit is about two pay grades up the scale from where I sit and I'm not on a rapid escalator to that level of financial involvement. Set the camera to blank the LCD, use it just for setting ISO, stick in the optical viewfinder, and go shooting.

G

 

[jlindstrom]

This is getting a bit of topic, but I reckon it's related enough to warrant a line or two

About the smartphone UI of the T or rather the touchscreen itself. How long will one of those last? I've lately been noticing growing amounts of problems with my iPhone 5's screen. I'm pretty convinced it's due to iOS 8, but anyway.. it's now 2 years old and doesn't always respond at all.

Expanding that to the T. I'd be pissed off in a big way if in 2 years time the screen would start lacking in response, wether due to software update or something else.

Also looking at photos from finger-smudge filled screen isn't pretty at all..

Thus, I will continue to use cameras with mechanical buttons and no touchscreen (except occasional iPhone photography).

So there's that to consider as well, when choosing between X and T series.

//Juha