Leica Absence of Leica X Vario in this thread

When I bought the M9 at its ridiculous MSRP price back in 2010, I could justify the purchase because: (1) it was the only game in town for full frame digital camera that uses Leica M lenses; and (2) I was single. Today, the Leica M9/M9P/M240/Mono/ME digital rangefinders are still the only game in town for that.

The X Vario does not appear to have anything that makes it truly unique and that sets it head and shoulder above other cameras from an useability and performance standpoint, in my opinion. A competitor like the XE1 has it bested. So it's hard for me, personally, to justify buying one. Oh ... and more importantly, I'm not single now!

BTW, it's not a knock against anyone that buys one. Just discussing my own justifications for not getting one. :)
 
I drive a VW GTI. Mid-life car - damn fun!!! Don't need/want fancy cars. But obviously I do own the Leica XV. It will always be a camera that many disrespect and who have not tried it. There will be no convincing them because they've already convinced themselves. The XV is a camera that many love to hate. So be it. But no matter - I love mine and consider it one of my best gear purchases along with discovering Ricoh many years ago.

Any camera that works for you and helps to make you want to go take pictures and explore your art, whatever form it takes, is the right camera, be it Fuji or Ricoh or Leica or Canon or Olympus or Nikon or Sigma...
 
Some Leica owners seem to react oversensitive if "their camera of choice" is being criticized. I think it is important to differentiate statements, whether negative or not, about a product and or its manufacturer from personal attacks. I owned a Leica M6, M8 and own currently a Leica MP, M9, X1 and several Leica m-lenses, so I guess those not knowing me personally would rather put me into the Leica fanboy corner than the one of the "Leica bashers".
However, when it comes to the XV, I can`t criticize Leica enough. Leica used to develop cameras which were unique and set some new benchmarks, including the X1 and M9. The XV is boring and unconvincing in every respect, because of its usual 16MP Sony aps-c sensor, its zoom range, slow lens speed, substandard AF, unconvincing IS, max shutter speed of 1/2000. And yes, I handled one, it`s not for me, irrespective of price. I accept compromises if I get something relevant in return, such as for example the outstanding IQ of the Sigma DP Merrills. The XV does not offer anything several other cameras could not do without a sweat, and falls short in many respects when compared with competing makes.
How about if Leica gave re-birth to a slightly bigger X1 with an exciting bi-elmar or even tri-elmar lens with a pop-up Hybrid VF a la Fuji X100s in lieu of the pop up flash?
 
Against my best judgment, I will add my third, and hopefully final, post to this thread. I would suggest for anyone considering the X Vario to read Sean Reid's review where he explains the design choices that Leica made (particularly as to the lens). I believe understanding the design choices made goes a long way toward understanding and gaining a better appreciation for the camera.

Reid explains that at this point in time, you can really only achieve two of the following three qualities in a zoom:

1. fast
2. small
3. high performance across the image circle even wide open

He further explains that what other manufacturers are doing is compensating for flaws in a lens' design by applying in-camera processing, or at the RAW processing phase. Leica chose not to do this, instead producing a small and high performance lens, but compromising on the speed.

A good example of a different choice would be the Fuji 18-55 for the X system. Check out this review:

Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS (Fujifilm) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

The review shows very significant barrel distortion at the wide end, turning into fairly significant pin cushion distortion at the long end. Of course, you may not see it in photos because of the camera correction. But, such correction involves literally remapping almost all pixels, which must introduce its own distortions and inaccuracies. It's as if the image was drawn on a balloon and you stretch the balloon until it looks correct.

In addition, the review shows very significant vignetting. If you look at the vignetting chart (RAW, not autocorrected) vignetting at 18mm wide open is in excess of 1.5EV. This means that, to correct for this, the camera is boosting exposure compensation on the edges by more than 1.5EV, which means your ISO 1600 shot just turned into an ISO 4000 shot in the corners. Significant vignetting (more than 1.2 EV) can also be seen at F4 at 55mm.

So, as they say, you pay your money and you take your choice: 2.8-4.0 maximum aperture with significant performance flaws corrected in software, or slow and high performing. I know what my choice would be, but if yours is different, that is fine also.

Cheers,

Antonio
 
at the risk of being reduntantly repetitive again, personal preferences are personal, a lot of this stuff is subjective value judgement, and all thats fine. no one need agree with my opinion of how to balance competing values. however, i do have my fur ruffled when i get told that a product that has such obvious physical limitations is in fact good for me or was a decision determined by adherence to some qualitative standard that seems to bind no other of that products competitors. its this constant chant that puts people off.

look, i really like leica. i loved the digilux 2. i think their older film cams are amazing. the M9 was truly groundbreaking. scores of their lenses, many of which i use today, are classics in both build quality and performance.

but please, dont tell me its in my interest, or due to a 'necessary' quality decision, that use of a camera requires that i put UV filters on thousand dollar lenses in order to properly render black, or that quality requires i can never shoot a digital camera beyond iso640, or physics says i cant have a 'real pro' rendering zoom that doesnt top out at a 6.5 aperture at 80mm! that, imo, is what drives folks crazy. not the different subjective decisions folks make, but the staunch opinion that these obvious competitive compromises that effect useability are 'necessary' to maintain leica quality standards.

leica doesnt follow some Platonic ideal of 'quality'. they make business decisions, some good, some not so good. all the products we buy are combinations of good and not so good. lets not exempt leica from this truism.
 
ajramirez said:
Against my best judgment, I will add my third, and hopefully final, post to this thread. I would suggest for anyone considering the X Vario to read Sean Reid's review where he explains the design choices that Leica made (particularly as to the lens). I believe understanding the design choices made goes a long way toward understanding and gaining a better appreciation for the camera.

Reid explains that at this point in time, you can really only achieve two of the following three qualities in a zoom:

1. fast
2. small
3. high performance across the image circle even wide open

He further explains that what other manufacturers are doing is compensating for flaws in a lens' design by applying in-camera processing, or at the RAW processing phase. Leica chose not to do this, instead producing a small and high performance lens, but compromising on the speed.

A good example of a different choice would be the Fuji 18-55 for the X system. Check out this review:

Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS (Fujifilm) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

The review shows very significant barrel distortion at the wide end, turning into fairly significant pin cushion distortion at the long end. Of course, you may not see it in photos because of the camera correction. But, such correction involves literally remapping almost all pixels, which must introduce its own distortions and inaccuracies. It's as if the image was drawn on a balloon and you stretch the balloon until it looks correct.

In addition, the review shows very significant vignetting. If you look at the vignetting chart (RAW, not autocorrected) vignetting at 18mm wide open is in excess of 1.5EV. This means that, to correct for this, the camera is boosting exposure compensation on the edges by more than 1.5EV, which means your ISO 1600 shot just turned into an ISO 4000 shot in the corners. Significant vignetting (more than 1.2 EV) can also be seen at F4 at 55mm.

So, as they say, you pay your money and you take your choice: 2.8-4.0 maximum aperture with significant performance flaws corrected in software, or slow and high performing. I know what my choice would be, but if yours is different, that is fine also.

Cheers,

Antonio
Click to expand...

Photozone tests have to be taken with a grain of salt as they often do not confirm what other lens testers found. However, as regards vignetting they mention that it is not an issue stopped down, i.e. literally at speeds where the XV lens starts to show up to the race. So I`d rather take the speed option with some vignetting, which can easily be addressed in post, than not getting the shot because of simply not being able to go there. The rather mild pincushion distortion shows at 55mm, a focal length were the XV doesn`t feel fit to compete. Again, I`d rather have the reach, albeit with some mild distortion. The barrel distortion at the wide end is the only true weakness of the Fuji zoom as it is too pronounced imo. And we did not even touch on the very effective optical stabilization of the Fuji zoom. And no, I`m far from being a Fuji fanboy. The XV reminds of the old muscle cars which handled superbly, provided all stars lined up their "perfect way".
 
It's a superb camera. (full stop)

As more people use it its undoubted qualities are becoming more and more appreciated. What else does one expect from Leica.

I find I am using it to the exclusion of almost anything else.
 
I'd like to take the opportunity in this thread to think aloud. Please feel free to offer your own thoughts.

A month or two ago, I was able to play with a X Vario at one of my usual dealers. I was incredibly impressed with the way it feels in the hand, the smoothness of the manual focus and zoom rings, and the overall sense of 'Leica DNA' in the haptics. Slimmer and similar to the film M6/7 in feel, the body just sits nicely in the hand and invites photography.

I've downloaded a few sample DNG's and they are pretty impressive. While they lack the bite of M9 files, they have excellent colour and malleability in post; in some ways, the colours of the X Vario are even more appealing than the M9, which I consider one of the best cameras I've used.

(I've also been trying some ARWs from the Sony RX1, and while the RX1 files have super dynamic range, almost infinite plasticity in post, and great resolution, I'm not feeling that 'excitement' from them. Perhaps I'd need to see more RX1 raw files, preferably from sunny landscapes and twilight scenes (not the dopey vampire kind), but I didn't get the 'holy crap' feeling from the RX1 files that I have from M9s, or the 'oooh, now that's nice' feeling of the XVs.)

So the X Vario feels like a dream and creates lovely images - particularly in bright daylight - and has the benefit of autofocus and a very quiet shutter, the M9 lacking the latter two. But trying to rationalize my nascent GAS leads to odd trains of thought:

I could shoot the X Vario as a fair-weather camera, like the Sigma DP1 and DP2. After all, the DP1 is f4 wide open, and I absolutely love that camera. I could shoot with it all day, every day, as long as there was just enough light, I wasn't trying to freeze leaping frog races, and I could keep it steady. The legendary slowness of the DP1's autofocus, the meager battery life, heck. I put up with all of that because of the images and near silent shutter.

And my first DSLR lens was the Canon 17-85mm f3.5-f5.6 IS on the 30D, and I fared quite well with that for the first few months. The XV lens is only a touch slower at the long end and has far better high ISO performance. But it kind of feels like going backwards in tech, as I now shoot with f1.4, f1.2 and even f0.95 lenses.

On one hand, I could have a camera that is a joy to hold and shoot, beautifully built and designed, and creates lovely images. And I could potentially put up with the slow lens as long as the image quality and shooting experience meets my liking. But on the other hand, it is simply not the first choice of camera for the low light situations in which I thrive. Portraits in dimly lit restaurants and jazz clubs, that kind of thing. Perhaps the solution is to just use more suited cameras for those situations, and 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'.

The meandering thoughts continue.
 
As you already know, this camera has brought out high emotions from so many that, in my opinion, it is akin to the political scene in the USA.:eek: However, the people who have actually used the camera for a long time seem to love it. When it comes to f stops...I often wonder how much of "our" response to the faster lenses is really real... But the last thing we need to do is have another argument about this camera.

You might drop a PM to Andrew and spylaw/Brian and see what they both have to say. I, too, was very tempted by this camera and fortunately didn't have the chance to handle one in real life.;) It's also just not in my "budget" right now.

I'm glad you've shared your thoughts.
 
Archiver and I have already conversed via PM. For my own reasons, I was set to sell the XV and had photographed it and begun to package it back up. Then I read yet another glowing commentary about the IQ and decided to take it out for one more short test drive the other morning. That night I processed the pictures and - holy cow - the daylight images were simply gorgeous. I set the speed to 500 to avoid camera shake and the pictures were tack sharp, colors were spot on and the B&W conversions were simply divine (really!). There was something very appealing to those pictures! The in-house at night pictures that night were less successful. ISO 6400 was showing strain and white balance was way off and AF was slow, but that something still came through.

This past weekend I took my GXR A12 50mm out for a forest walk and we bonded beautifully as we always do. The pictures were fantastic. But now I'm curious to again compare the GXR and the XV on a forest walk. I'll never sell the GXR as I simply love how that camera draws and it does beautiful macro, but I'm curious now to compare the GXR and XV in that context. If I can get better B&W conversions of the forest then the XV may become my primary forest walk camera. I tend to shoot at f5.6 anyway with the occasional f2.5 shots.

In prep for selling the XV I removed the grip and that made the XV feel that much small and lighter, though the grip helps in its own way. Still, as far as mirrorless cameras go, the XV is on the heavy side. I also get irritated that the EVF is not automatic like most newer EVFs, meaning that it switches to the EVF as you put your eyes to it. AF is slowish so for me it is not an action camera. (I have the E-M1 for that!)

For now, the XV remains.

Archiver, your assessment is accurate; the XV is not a low-light camera.
 
Thanks a lot for your input, as always.

About two years ago, I bought a X1 and had it for only one day. It had numerous quirky issues that made me take it back and exchange it for a black edition Fuji X100. These included very loose shutter and aperture dials and a very annoying aperture chatter when adjusting to changing light conditions. By comparison, the X100's aperture adjustment is almost silent. The X1 had this godawful TICK TICK TICK when moving the camera from a light to dark area.

Does the X Vario have a readily audible aperture chatter? I haven't been able to get back to a shop to check that out.
 
RT Panther said:
Capabilities aside,
Is it a "Serious Compact"...?
Click to expand...

Being the size of a Fuji X-E1 with the 18-55mm, with an aps-c sensor and a lens designed for maximum performance throughout the zoom range, I'd say it's both compact and serious. The lack of consumer scene modes, the direct control of shutter and aperture via dedicated physical dials, that speaks of 'seriousness', too. As much as I may have lambasted this camera on announcement, I'm increasingly of the mind that it is still a photographer's camera at heart.

Although, the lines get a bit blurry when you start to ask at what size is a camera no longer 'compact'. Amin is fine with rangefinders like the Leica M(whatever) and Zeiss Ikon as 'compact'. By that size range, the new Sony A7 and A7r are compact. Is a Pentax K3 compact? Compared with other DSLR's, yes. Against the excellent Ricoh GR series, no.
 
There are many things that put me off the X-Vario, but I would certainly class it as a "Serious Compact" - just one that leaves me stone cold.

What I would query is whether it can really be taken seriously (with a lowercase s) when even those who like and use it, consistently criticise it's low-light capabilities. By definition a compact is a carry-everywhere camera so if it is not also a use-anytime apparatus surely it fails in a fundamental part of it's target appeal?
 
About USD 3400 including an Olympus last generation EVF. Even if it was priced at USD 1500 I`d prefer the X-E2 with zoom and could update the body every 2-3 years. What was the price for a newest generation FF A7 again?
 

Similar threads

D
Leica Leica X Vario - new user
Replies
0
Views
4K
dalethorn
D
A
    • Like
Leica In The Absence of Color
Replies
8
Views
2K
airfrogusmc
A
D
Leica Leica X Vario review by Dale
Replies
5
Views
9K
XVARIOR
X
Back
Top