–
The newly released Leica X Vario has “it”.
What’s “it”?
…Image quality.
This camera has image quality in spades. All of the sample photos I’ve seen just ooze micro-contrast, sharpness, jaw-dropping colour, etc.
The Leica M8 had”it”.
The Leica M9 had “it”.
Heck, the Sony RX1 has “it”.
The Leica M240 will never have “it” (sorry, I couldn’t resist).
Am I tempted to get this camera?
Surprisingly, yes.
Will I get this camera?
No.
All the documented shortcomings — slow zoom lens, slow auto focus, no built-in viewfinder (forget the price for now, I mean, this is Leica so you know what you’re in for) — ultimately conspire against this camera, at least for my kind of shooting. I’m too addicted to the “decisive moment” and the rapidity of rangefinder shooting.
But, man, have you seen the sample images? The colour?
Wow.
—Peter.
Prosophos 
I will be curious to see what kind of replies you get from your post Peter. I was really hoping for an interchangeable M mount body. I too am very happy with my “old” tech camera.
I too have been fairly impressed with the images and like yourself, stuck with the M9. What I wished was for Leica to have compromised and had gone after two different target markets with this new camera, so they didn’t have to give up their their original intent of who they had hoped to sell this camera too.
Simply change very little is they so desired but simply had made it have an interchangeable M mount. Therefore they could have kept their “slow” zoom, even offered it as a kit lens with the body for their original market, but open up the doors to those that need to shoot faster or with faster glass they might already have on hand with their current M glass. Heck, it could have even beeen a very suitable back-up camera for those who desired to have one along side their M9 for example and have a camera their empasizes a different type of shooting. Just some thoughts. Dave (D&A)
Duane, I posted my thoughts here prior to seeing yours posted. We’re on the same wavelength (as I often am with you having read many of your posts elsewhere. Heck I now shoot with the same one you’re currently using. Its definitely not old technology if the images it produces is what one is looking for.
Dave (D&A)
I’m having a great time with my M-E!
Fascinating. You mean out of the camera colors as in JPEGs? Sure. But I use a raw workflow exclusively. You can get any color you want with a raw workflow, from virtually any camera.
Funny that this camera has a CMOS sensor too, just like the RX1. That proves that the “it” you are looking for is not a CCD vs CMOS quality but a matter of image processing. 🙂
I like the XV too, but the X2 is better for me (same sensor, fixed 35EFoV lens) as a complement to the M9. I like this sensor enough to consider a NEX 6 as well.
Godfrey, I can certainly respect varying opinions as we are all different, have different needs and expectations and different ways of working with files. I too only shoot and work with RAW, regardless of system but I completely disagree with the notion (whenever I read it somewheres), that its east to make a RAW files from one camera look almost exact like abother camera’s RAW file in post processing…not even when it relates to color.Each digital raw files from a variety of cameras have their own fingerprint and although my opion is CCD often has a look I desire that’s not often found in CMOS cameras, that doesn’t mean CMOS cameras don’t produce spectacular files. Sometimes just a different look.
Dave (D&A)
Dave, you are correct on all counts.
I can easily provide examples that prove you incorrect, but since everyone who expresses this opinion seems to have already made up their minds, I don’t have the energy to bother.
The fingerprint of a particular sensor that I see has little to do with the colors that a camera produces. Color is completely and totally malleable, in my experience, to within the dynamic range capabilities of a sensor, and has virtually nothing to do with whether a CCD or CMOS technology is used at the sensor.
Other factors are much more important when distinguishing between sensors. Format, resolution, acutance derivative of the strength of the AA filter, dynamic range (or, to be more precise, saturation overhead), the depth of the photosite wells, the specific match between lens and sensor assembly, tendency to moire and other effect … these are the important factors in the imaging qualities. Color calibration and micro-contrast are far more malleable than these.
I have now seen at least a dozen M9 vs M240 raw samples in rigorous test setups. In all cases, once sensor color calibration curves have been adjusted, they are identical in color and contrast, but the M240 produces less moire, less noise at identical sensitivity settings, and higher acutance.
Sorry, but I disagree and I have personally seen the evidence that supports this.
G
There is no “evidence” when talking about such subjective topic. Like you we all have “personally seen the evidence” that supports our own point of view on this matter.
Personally I see a big difference and prefer the M9 and the MM to the M240. But maybe more on topic, I have to agree that the X-Vario certainly has a great style for a CMOS sensor. So much so that I was quite surprised about its look, and keep wondering why Leica couldn’t have made the M240 look that way.
Do you think the X2 has “it”?
The X2, like all modern cameras, is capable of great output, but no, I am not wowed by its files.
Peter, you mention rapidity of shooting with your traditional Leica frames. I am just learning rangefinder focusing. I look at your Soccer trio shot a couple of posts back, shot wide open with the girls running with the ball and each other. Do you remember if you pre-focused the distance or are you so used to it that even on action shot you can bring that focus patch together? If it had been stopped down you could just guess and it wouldn’t matter much like I said it is wide open and clearly spot on despite the movement.
Here’s what I did:
Because I was shooting film, and only had one chance at the shot, I waited until the trio was almost where they needed to be, for the composition I desired. Then, because I was tracking their movement (note: *I* was tracking their movement… you don’t need a Nikon D4 to do it!), I realized that my best bet was to focus on the ball, then raise the camera up to frame them all properly… by the time I did that, they were where the ball was a fraction of a second ago, so they were now in focus. Then I clicked the shutter (it helps to have a shutter with no lag time, like on the M3 I was using).
These are the little tricks I used to teach to my students, but I won’t hide the fact that you need to practice, practice, practice. I still practice… daily. If you are indeed at the beginning of your journey with a rangefinder then, through constant practice, you will develop a “6th sense” with focusing, and will ultimately find all auto focus cameras lacking.
On another note, I had been previously shooting soccer with the Noctilux @ f/0.95… after doing that for a while, shooting a 50 summicron @ f/2 is infinitely easier.
Hope that helps,
—Peter.
Hi Peter
Hope you’re well. Just putting the thoughts on camera to one side….thanks for this reply! I just learn’t a lot from it! Still enjoying the MM and have some projects in mind and started. Missing my M6. Just processed my last role of Portra after I had sent the camera off…regretting the sale now!
Interesting camera from Leica. I got the impression this product was focused NOT on the enthusiast but someone wanting to enter the Leica world at a consumer level. People not too worried about price, but the brand. Interesting to read your thoughts on the image quality. I have read bits and pieces though have not seen any images.
Still actively following prosophos.com :-)!!
Regards
Andrew
It is a HUGE help. It was very kind of you to take the time.
Hi Peter,
It sounds interesting.
However I haven’t seen any image from the this camera that has “it”. If doesn’t bother you where can I find it?
First let me express to all that I apologize for alarming # of spelling and syntax mistakes in my posts above, which like this one is being typed and an old tiny cell phone…so hope through it all, one can make sense of what I’ve tried to express.
Godfrey, my posting of my experience with sesnors and their output, vis-a-vis color was said in an attempt to relay my experience which might differ from yours and is simply with the intent of a constructive conversation, nothing personal. I can only say I’ve been working with digital sensors long before there were digital cameras of any sort and actively working with digital image files since the mid 1990’s. Hundredreds of thouhsands of them from every imahanable camera and yet I don’t consider myself an expert nor authority on them. I simply relayed my experiences with regards to color output and attampts to match that paramter between cameras with different sensors. I agree, there are so many other attributes that contibute to the differences seen in images from different sensors but my experience has tought me color is also one of them that simply can be totally matched to another, even with heavy manipulation. Sometimes its very close and sometimes not when attempting to do so. I most certainly respect if your own experiences as such are different.
Dave (D&A)
Well, my own history with digital imaging and capture pre-dates yours by a decade or more: I was developing algorithms for image processing at NASA in the early 1980s.
But there’s little point to pushing the debate. I disagree with you – I find it very easy to replicate rendered colors from any mix of cameras around as long as they produce raw sensor data. It’s mostly a matter of calibration and profiling. With the automated calibration and profiling tools that are now available … a piece of cake.
Manufacturers strive to produce the color palette that fits their own notions of ‘what is right’ with their in-camera JPEG engines. 12 to 15-bit raw data is far far more flexible than JPEG output, and ultimately very very malleable as to the desired mix of colors it produces.
Other factors are much more important when you look at camera and sensor differences.
Never having been able to program my own DVR, this calibrated color matching is over my head like the cloud where (I’m told) photoshop now resides. Still, Sean Reed’s DNG conversions in Lightroom sure look good on his site compared to similar conversions from other camera’s files. I suspect that, regardless of what can be done, what will be done likely benefits from quality out of camera files and the X Vario seems to have those.
There’s been a howl of protest about the slow lens, and it is molasses in January at the (not so long really) long end; but a couple of the beta testers and early production model shooters seem to find the camera a tangible yet simple joy to use. Comparisons to the Digilux 2 have been made, in fact, I understand the two have had the same designer.
If it feels really good, is simple to use, allows zone focus shooting, AF’s adequately, and produces great IQ with minimal fuss, perhaps there is yet some joy to be had at f/3.5-6.4. Alas, as with all things Leica, the tariff for crossing the boarder into that land of milk, honey, and frozen molasses will keep me home… sigh. 😉
Hi, I agree with you that the x vario has ‘it’.
I have owned the x vario for a week now and I just love it. I just can’t believe the IQ, just beautiful.
Rosie
Yes, I totally agree with Rosie: the image quality and colour! Yea, man, that’s what I want!
Patrick