1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Where's the X2 love?

Discussion in 'Leica X1/X2 Forum' started by stillshunter, Aug 5, 2012.

  1. stillshunter

    stillshunter Super Moderator Emeritus

    Nov 5, 2010
    Down Under
    Mark
    Been tempted by this little camera and the reviews make it sound like it just might just bridge the gaps I couldn't reconcile with the Fuji X100, Sigma DP, etc.

    Came here to see folks reaction to the camera and nothing....maybe you're all out shooting with it rather than gabbing about it on here. :wink: But I'm not so sure yet.

    So do any of our membership own one?
    If so, how goes it?
    If not, why?
     
  2. macjim

    macjim SC Regular

    80
    Jun 20, 2011
    [QUOTE

    Came here to see folks reaction to the camera and nothing....maybe you're all out shooting with it rather than gabbing about it on here. :wink: But I'm not so sure yet.

    So do any of our membership own one?
    If so, how goes it?
    If not, why?[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, I don't own one but you'll see a good review in the new edition of Whatdigitalcamera magazine.
    There are many cameras that will trump the X2 in every way, speed, features, rear screen quality etc for much less money and, will give you the ability to capture video too. So it really boils down too whether this is your way into the Leica brand or not. Personally I like the look of the X2, and the fact it's only a stills camera, but I'd go for the X100 (or the next version due soon going by the rumours) sony's nex range of cameras and the Olympus OM-D are better value not only in price and features but it will depend on whether you want aps-c or a 4/3rds sensor camera. If its a camera in the same style as the X2, then go for the Fuji – it'll be a little frustrating at first to get used too especially as its a fixed wide angle lens – but, as I said, I haven't tried it so I'm only able to say from what I have read in reviews and users stories.
    Finally, if it's to get a way into Leica ownership, I'd steer you to the LX-5 ( or the up and coming replacement ) as a less expensive and more flexible way into Leica. It's compact, with a good quality lens, can do video and has different ratios to the pictures taken 1x1, 4x3 etc etc. I had one before I got my M9 and really enjoyed it and it's half the price too. But if your willing to spend the money I'd say try the Fuji X-Pro1 as its one sweet camera, not without it's foibles, but gives great handling with its eye viewfinder and manual controls and it has some fine lenses. Either way, let us know what you decide and enjoy whatever you go for. Maybe a user will chime in with the experiences soon.


    Cheers, Macjim.
     
  3. macjim

    macjim SC Regular

    80
    Jun 20, 2011
    PS did I say I own the X-Pro1 with the 18 & 35 mm lenses? No, well I do and use it more often than my M9. That tells you something.


    Cheers, Macjim.
     
  4. Julien

    Julien SC Top Veteran

    749
    Jan 6, 2012
    Paris, France
    Julien
  5. stillshunter

    stillshunter Super Moderator Emeritus

    Nov 5, 2010
    Down Under
    Mark
    Have been reading this for the last few hours. It's what has fueled my ongoing interest - especially as it is so reminiscent of a Barnack. But RFF is populated by M and Barnack fans and so I was coming here for some perspective. Must say though it might be a nice complement to my M2 :wink:

    Never warmed to the X100 Jim, so with all due respect I can't see the XP1 being much different. I'd have just kept my PL (25/1.4 and 45/2.8) lenses and updated to the OMD-EM5 if I wanted that experience. The X2 looks a very different proposition.
     
  6. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    So what changed your thinking Mark?

    My own limited opinion is that Leica's may be worth the money (if you have it) at the high end, because cameras like the M8 and M9 and the new monochrome version are utterly unique. If you want a true manual rangefinder (even full frame) to put some of the nicest lenses ever on, they're the only game in town. That's not a neighborhood I can afford to live in (well, I guess I could but there would be no furniture in the house!), but I can see the appeal. But the X1/X2 both have real competition and come up lacking, if not absolutely than clearly from a value perspective. And I'd argue absolutely in some respects. And the re-badged Pany Point and shoots are fine little cameras - EXACTLY as fine as their Panasonic counterparts that cost hundreds less.

    If I had the bucks, I'd love to have an m9 with a couple of amazing lenses. But short of that, I don't see why one would choose Leica. Which is why I doubt there's a lot of X2 love to be found. Jeez, even Steve Huff had a lot of trouble finding a reason to like it and he loves all things Leica.

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. zapatista

    zapatista SC Regular

    132
    Jul 28, 2012
    Denver, Colorado
    Mike
    Steve Huff loves all things that offer a $$ endorsement.
     
  8. Gubrz

    Gubrz O.* Gonzo's & Bentley's Dad

    979
    Jun 5, 2012
    Austin, TX
    Eliot
    Isn't it max 1/2000 shutter SPd??

    Eliot@iPad
     
  9. ajramirez

    ajramirez SC All-Pro

    Jul 9, 2010
    Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Antonio
    I think that what the X2 has going for it is the design philosophy it shares with the M9: a shutter speed dial, an aperture dial, only one menu page, and outstanding image quality. In the end, it's a simple and straightforward user interface that should interfere as little as possible with the shooting of still photographs.

    You may want to nitpick a few things here and there (the LCD screen, for one) but in my book, IQ and simplicity of operation trump all else.

    Plus, it's an object of beauty. :smile:

    Cheers,

    Antonio
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I'm not the target demographic for a $2,000 point and shoot. If I were, I think I'd consider it. But the zoom isn't important enough to me to choose it over the X100. And I don't see what it does that the X100 doesn't do. It's certainly good looking and creates beautiful photos.
     
  11. ajramirez

    ajramirez SC All-Pro

    Jul 9, 2010
    Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Antonio
    X2 does not have a zoom. It has a 24mm 2.8 Elmarit (36mm equivalent). FWIW, if I owned a X100 I would not trade it for the X2 either.

    Cheers,

    Antonio
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    my mistake... it looks like a little 3x zoom. Hmmmmmm. I'm not sure if that would make me more likely or less likely to buy it. I'm glad I don't need to consider it.:smile:
     
  13. Landshark

    Landshark PhotoDog

    Jul 15, 2010
    SoCal
    Bob
    see no point in the X2, unless just likes the name and the look, but as a camera I do not see it
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. retow

    retow SC All-Pro

    Jul 24, 2010
    Too little too late. I have the X1 since it was launched, but in 2012 USD 2000 (without VF) can buy a lot of excellent cameras. The praised simplicity of the X1/X2 can be had with many other cameras, once they are set up to ones needs (they gadgetry some of them have on board does not get into the way of shooting). The X1 set the IQ benchmark for jacket pocket size cameras in 2009, in 2012, the X2 sticks out on price only.
     
  15. macjim

    macjim SC Regular

    80
    Jun 20, 2011
    [QUOTE Never warmed to the X100 Jim, so with all due respect I can't see the XP1 being much different. I'd have just kept my PL (25/1.4 and 45/2.8) lenses and updated to the OMD-EM5 if I wanted that experience. The X2 looks a very different proposition.[/QUOTE]
    Well, I've not used the X100 but my experience with the X-Pro1 is been very good. The reason for buying the X-Pro1 over the X100 is the interchangeable lenses. Your not stuck with a 35mm lens, plus it has better image quality too. Handling is better as the X-Pro1 designers have learned from the X100, so maybe you'd like it seeing you don't care for the X100. You should have a look at it in a camera store and feel how it is in your hands, you might be surprised!


    Cheers, Macjim.
     
  16. nippa

    nippa SC Top Veteran

    561
    Aug 7, 2010
    Cheshire UK
    Dennis
    I think that it was Steve Huff that first noticed that images from the X2 were not quite as sharp as the X1 and then other anecdotal reports started to appear.
    The lens ,of course , is just the same so either that lens doesn't play as nicely with more pixels or the processing has changed.
    Anyway , there's not enough of an improvement to make me give up my X1.
     
  17. nikki

    nikki SC Top Veteran

    519
    Sep 12, 2011
    Dublin ,Ireland
    I have a digilux 2 - which I use for everything .I love Leica cameras ,the lenses are superb but am I going to spent nearly €1600 on an X2 - not a chance ! I would much rather an OM EM5 with a couple of nice lenses or I will wait a year or two and buy a used X1.I think Leica lacked vision when they didnt put a viewfinder in !!!
     
  18. Biro

    Biro SC All-Pro

    Aug 7, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    Mark, there's a saying in the automotive world that roughly goes like this: "It's a lot easier for a mainstream or economy-car manufacturer to reach upward in terms of market position than it is for a luxury- or exotic-car manufacturer to reach downward." This phrase became popularized when Hyundai first began to sell cars in the $25,000 price range. About the same time, Mercedes-Benz was offering a C-Class hatch for about the same price. Guess which car received better reviews?

    A lot of what I read (which means I've never actually used one) about the X2 leads me to believe the same is true in the camera world. Now, having said all of that, this is supposed to be a hobby for most of us. If the X2 speaks to you and you can afford it, there's no reason you should be concerned what others might think of it. We know it can take great photos. The only question is whether it represents good value (a truly subjective measurement) given its features and specifications. And only you can answer that for yourself.

    Personally, I would go for an X100 over an X2 any day. But that's just me. Still, given all of those identical digicams with the Lumix brand on them insead of the Leica red dot, wouldn't it be cool if Panasonic put out a Lumix X2 for $1000? Under those circumstances, how many of us would line up for an X2?
     
  19. ajramirez

    ajramirez SC All-Pro

    Jul 9, 2010
    Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Antonio
    To answer the OP's original question, it seems there is not much X2 love around here. I do not own one, but I must say I find it enticing. I remain convinced (unless someone proves otherwise) that as of now it is the only compact camera with an APS-C sensor, aperture and shutter speed dials, and a simple interface. If there is another camera that ticks all these boxes, I would love to learn about it. Whether or not, at its price, it represents good value for money, is a question that may only be answered by each one of us individually.

    Cheers,

    Antonio
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Antonio,

    I may be missing something, but how does the X-100 not meet those criteria? I know the menus aren't as simple or elegant, but if you want to operate it as simply as the X2, that's a simple matter of not using the menus for more than basic setup. Put ISO on the fn button, adjust aperture and shutter speed with their dedicated dials, and you're good to go. The X-100 was clearly aimed straight at the X-1 market, scored a direct hit, and the X-2 was Leica's response, but the consensus seems to be it didn't change much from the X1 for the better.

    Am I wrong about that?

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 2