X1, the Son of M8

cfc247 · 03-22-2010

Thought I would make this post I had made in another forum for those interested in the Leica X1.

When the Dlux4 was first introduced, Leica called it the Son of M8. I got one of the first ones available in the US and used it for about a year. Though I enjoyed the camera in many respects, in its design and operational character, it was not even a remote cousin to the M8.

After shooting the X1 for a day, with the CV 35mm finder, both in AF and MF modes, I must say that it was the closest thing to shooting with my M8 in a smaller package. Sure the RF and manual lenses on the M body is faster and more precise. But the X1 is great for its size and ISO performance. The files are robust and the operation of the camera was extremely fluid. It was a good thing I picked up that extra battery though!

First batch from shooting day 1

One in color

jsrockit · 03-23-2010

I think it is more like a digital barnack than a M. The M8, to me, is all about the rangefinder. Take that away, like the X1 does, and it'll never feel like an M. Add the VF to the X1 and you you get a digital Leica Standard or Ic / If / Ig.

cfc247 · 03-23-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I think it is more like a digital barnack than a M. The M8, to me, is all about the rangefinder. Take that away, like the X1 does, and it'll never feel like an M. Add the VF to the X1 and you you get a digital Leica Standard or Ic / If / Ig.

yes, i agree. i made a reply in my post at luf about that. i was just making the point that the x1 is the camera leica advertised the dlux4 was going to be, but wasn't.

jsrockit · 03-23-2010

I think Leica was new to the digital game back then and though the Dlux 4 being a baby M8 seemed like a good gimmick. Now, I think they want the X1 to be its own class of camera not associated with the M in any way.

Pickett Wilson · 03-23-2010

And only $2,000. What's not to love?

Paul T. · 03-23-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

And only $2,000. What's not to love?

You could put his on your signature and save yourself the effort of typing?

jsrockit · 03-23-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

And only $2,000. What's not to love?

Well, as a Leica user I wipe my arse with more than $2000 at a time so I cannot relate when "poor" people, such as yourself, get upset that I waste my cash on such a horrible camera.

(The aforementioned is a joke of course)

BillBingham2 · 03-23-2010

JS,

Take a deep breath. You have to admit $2K USD is a lot for a P&S. Not it happens to be one of the best digital P&S ever made, but it's still a lot of money.

I have to agree, the M is all about the finder and the X-1 is much more of a Barnack. I happen to love the Barnack, it's my last Leica and a wonderful camera to use.

Please note that I purchased an new M4-P some years back as well as an M6 classic new when it first came out. I'm happy you are doing well these days, not all of us are. I'm not sure that Pickett's message had anything to do with not affording it. It think it was a comment about the cost when compared to other options.

Again, deep breaths.

CFC

The shots are wonderful. Makes me want to go out and shoot a bit more! Thanks.

B2 (;->

rolleistef · 03-23-2010

Well, it's meant to look like a digital Ur-Leica isn't? It's currently the only good looking camera you can find on the market, except the Rolleiflex 2.8Dn (which is the digital version of the Rolleiflex you can buy in my dreams. I've been dreaming of such a camera for so long that it looks like a 2.8D MkV or something)

jbf · 03-23-2010

If it only had better MF scales and the ability to do 'snap focus' a-la ricoh GRD

(or just had a ring on the lens to focus with, and proper DoF markers) i might consider it.

otherwise it's a P&S with a sensor not taht much better than a micro four thirds camera, and over over 1,100 dollars more.

jsrockit · 03-23-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillBingham2

JS,

Take a deep breath. You have to admit $2K USD is a lot for a P&S. Not it happens to be one of the best digital P&S ever made, but it's still a lot of money...

...I'm not sure that Pickett's message had anything to do with not affording it. It think it was a comment about the cost when compared to other options.

Those were jokes Bill. Seriously.

While I do not consider the X1 to be a P&S (it has dedicated shutter speed and aperture dials with a focus on manual operation), I do understand that it is a lot of money and it was for me too (I actually don't make a lot of money, nor do I wipe my arse with anything but the cheapest TP).

If you only have $2000 and you don't have any other cameras, then you don't buy an X1. I agree with that. However, if you have other cameras and you want something small that still offers high quality and old school manual controls, the X1 is one of the best options. It is the perfect "take anywhere" camera. I guess it is just hard for some to fathom when you think about the fact that you can get a nice older M and a Panasonic GF1 for the same cash. OR a full-frame DSLR body. OR, on a good day, an M8 body... OR, ah, f it.

raytoei@gmail.com · 03-24-2010

nice photos. people should behave nice in the forum too

cfc247 · 03-24-2010

B2 and raytoei, thanks for your comments!

The X1 is not a perfect camera, but does such a thing exist? The more I use the X1, the more I understand Leica's design philosophy behind it. The GF1, which I have used and owned, was designed with the DSLR user in mind. It's the small-form DSLR they were trying to create, and succeeded on many levels. But many among those who were trying to adapt the GF1 into a DRF w/an external finder matched with the 20mm pancake, sold them shortly after. Manual controls are a bit cumbersome, and zone focusing is virtually impossible on the GF1.

The X1 on the other hand, feels and works very much like a DRF. In fact, some use a VF on the M bodies as well, depending on the lens in use. I would say that the X1 w/VF is the closest thing to using an M8/9 w/VF. The point is that comparing the X1 to compact DSLRs or the GF1 is to compare apples to oranges. Its obvious that Leica did not have the DSLR user primarily in mind but the DRF or RF user looking for a similar shooting experience in compact form.

jsrockit · 03-24-2010

I agree completely cfc247. That is why I bought the X1 and not a GF1. I'm an M user. I cannot stand the DSLR philosophy of adding too much to a camera body.

maggieo · 03-24-2010

The more frames I see from the X1, the more I think I need to sell some stuff and start saving for one. I'm beginning to think it is worth the effort to get the $2000.00 needed to buy one. I'd better budget for a CV 28/35 mini-finder, too. Then it'll really be all Barnak-y!

BillBingham2 · 03-24-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by maggieo

.... I'd better budget for a CV 28/35 mini-finder, too. Then it'll really be all Barnak-y!

Go with the 35 Black Metal CV, she looks cooler!

B2 (;->

BillBingham2 · 03-24-2010

I do have to agree that the X-1 does make some wonderful pictures. Not having any money it's easy to wait and not dive in right now. I'm hoping that Ricoh continues to extend the GXR line of sensors to the longer side. They pre-announced a 28mm with a APS-C sensor and while I doubt the GXR will ever become my pocket/carry everywhere camera a GXR with world class 28 & 75 lenses with APS-C sized sensors would have me very interested.

B2 (;->

cfc247 · 03-24-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillBingham2

Go with the 35 Black Metal CV, she looks cooler!

B2 (;->

Yes, I agree. This is the one I use also and find it a very nice fit on the X1.

cfc247 · 03-24-2010

Here are a few more different type of images from the X1

Finder · 03-24-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfc247

B2 and raytoei, thanks for your comments!

The X1 is not a perfect camera, but does such a thing exist? The more I use the X1, the more I understand Leica's design philosophy behind it. The GF1, which I have used and owned, was designed with the DSLR user in mind. It's the small-form DSLR they were trying to create, and succeeded on many levels. But many among those who were trying to adapt the GF1 into a DRF w/an external finder matched with the 20mm pancake, sold them shortly after. Manual controls are a bit cumbersome, and zone focusing is virtually impossible on the GF1.

The X1 on the other hand, feels and works very much like a DRF. In fact, some use a VF on the M bodies as well, depending on the lens in use. I would say that the X1 w/VF is the closest thing to using an M8/9 w/VF. The point is that comparing the X1 to compact DSLRs or the GF1 is to compare apples to oranges. Its obvious that Leica did not have the DSLR user primarily in mind but the DRF or RF user looking for a similar shooting experience in compact form.

I never used a GF1, but I use an E-P1. That is not a DSLR inspired design. I have optical viewfinders for my lenses--12mm, 17mm, and 21mm--and it handles very much like all my viewfinder cameras. The 12mm and 21mm are manual focus lenses with DoF scales, although for a 35mm format camera, but that is easy to compensate for. I do like the idea of the shutter speeds and aperture being on dials on the top of the X1, but it is not that hard to set that with the Olympus controls.

A couple of questions. How do you zone focus with the X1? And why didn't the viewfinder/GF1/20mm combo prove workable?

cfc247 · 03-24-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finder

I never used a GF1, but I use an E-P1. That is not a DSLR inspired design. I have optical viewfinders for my lenses--12mm, 17mm, and 21mm--and it handles very much like all my viewfinder cameras. The 12mm and 21mm are manual focus lenses with DoF scales, although for a 35mm format camera, but that is easy to compensate for. I do like the idea of the shutter speeds and aperture being on dials on the top of the X1, but it is not that hard to set that with the Olympus controls.

A couple of questions. How do you zone focus with the X1? And why didn't the viewfinder/GF1/20mm combo prove workable?

Thanks for your comment on the E-P1. As for the GF1 w/20mm combo, the only way to manual focus is to use the focus ring on the lens (focus by wire) with no scales of any kind, neither on the lens or the screen. I guess with MF lenses mounted via adapter, the scenario changes a bit. But that makes the camera almost full RF size, with the protrusion of the adapter and lens. Even if one was to find a MF lens for the GF1, it would be terribly slow, unless you buy a 21 summilux at around 5k, or was it 6k? In any case, the only fast lenses available on the GF1 are 35mm and up, making them only good for "bokeh" hunters. There is no affordable or sensible option for a normal lens other than the 20mm pancake.

With the X1, zone focus is acheived via a focusing scale that comes up on the screen in MF mode. Some have complained that the scale does not include a more detailed scheme. I find it very usable since most zone shooting I do is at about 6, 10ft, or infinity.

I hope that answers your question.

jsrockit · 03-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finder

I never used a GF1, but I use an E-P1.

I feel the E-P1 is more DSLR than rangefinder... simply due to the fact that it doesn't have dedicated shutter speed and aperture knobs. I know this is being picky, but it's the same convoluted menus and knobs that do too many things that make the GF1 and E-P1/2 more like DSLRs. These companies need to simplify sometimes.