Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery

By dpreview staff on Nov 16, 2012 at 22:38 GMT
Buy on GearShop$1,995.00

Just Posted: Our real world samples gallery from the Leica X2. Following the Sigma DP series, Leica was one of the first companies to offer a large sensor in a compact-bodied camera with its X1. The X2 retains its predecessor's 36mm equivalent F2.8 lens but adds a 16MP APS-C CMOS sensor. We've been shooting the X2 in a variety of lighting situations and at a range of apertures to give a taste for what the camera can do. The 49-image gallery includes a selection of Adobe Camera Raw conversions as well as out-of-camera JPEGs.

Leica X2 preview samples - published November 16th 2012

There are 49 images in the preview samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

26
I own it
19
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Leica X2

Comments

Total comments: 114
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Nov 27, 2012)

It's a stunning little camera! These shots aren't very characteristic in my opinion.

I compared X2 files against those from a friend's Fuji X100 and went with the X2 for its better image quality.

http://carbon111.blogspot.com/2012/06/leica-x2.html

1 upvote
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Nov 27, 2012)

I should add that my experience with the camera for the five months I've had it has only strengthened my appreciation of it:

http://carbon111.blogspot.com/2012/11/still-loving-x2.html

1 upvote
Digitall
By Digitall (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm not impressed by the images I see in a 16MP APS-C fixed lens Leica camera of $ 1,995. imo.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
ENTKim
By ENTKim (Nov 20, 2012)

http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=panasonic_forum&no=129216

It's my snapshots link. (during trip in singapore)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
jon404
By jon404 (Nov 20, 2012)

Why doesn't Leica focus on making lenses for Nikon and Canon cameras?

And making the high-end M stuff.

I have no idea why they are producing this camera. The small number of buyers won't come near to covering the cost of development. Maybe business in Europe is different -- are they getting a government subsidy so they don't need to make a profit?

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Nov 20, 2012)

this is an amazing camera
in the right hands it produces pictures as good as any APS-C DSLR but with a better lens, in a pocket size

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Nov 20, 2012)

I would love to own some Leica lenses but the cameras just don't do it for me. The days of passing a camera down to the next generation are long gone.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Nov 30, 2012)

Why not get the tradition going again and strike a blow against wasteful, wanton consumerism at the same time?

1 upvote
westcoastphoto
By westcoastphoto (Nov 20, 2012)

The X2 has a maximum resolution of 16.2 MP. Why are all the photos taken with a resolution of < 10 MP?

1 upvote
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Nov 20, 2012)

they're not - the originals are all 3264×4928

2 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Nov 19, 2012)

Good point. The X1 was capable of taking great photos. The lens was terrific and the simple design made using it a joy. The X2 should first be judged on it's ability to render solid images. Everyone know Leica is expensive and not for everyone (same with the new Sony RX1). Being a great camera and cost are two different discussions.

Some comments here are funny. Since when were DPR gallery images supposed to be art? They are posted merely as samples.

3 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Nov 19, 2012)

Why not reserve judgment until we see an actual review? The samples shown may not be representative of the best output possible from the camera.

There is already a well-deserved stigma with everything and anything "Leica" but I think I'm going to give them a fair chance; I'm waiting for the full review. Who knows, it may be a decent camera.

2 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Nov 20, 2012)

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/11/leica-review-1/

0 upvotes
jimi00
By jimi00 (Nov 19, 2012)

Is it me or are most of these samples over-exposed by 1/3 stop?

3 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Nov 19, 2012)

its you

2 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Nov 19, 2012)

I just cannot get why you have to pay this ridiculous high price for a fair manual control camera.

Still, a gimmick-free, mechanical manual control is a priceless value, and a very expensive and rare buy.

Why?

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 19, 2012)

Because most people prefer AF cameras. This is a niche product.

Not saying that justifies the price, but that's one of the reasons.

1 upvote
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Nov 19, 2012)

kadardr: Because that red dot is expensive.
thewhitehawk: Leica X2 is not a rangefinder. It uses CDAF, and doesn't have a built-in OVF (though you can always buy one and plug it into a hotshoe).

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 20, 2012)

So, you're implying it's not a niche product? That shows how little you know about it.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Nov 20, 2012)

thewhitehawk, what's so special and niche about that crappy camera? Ken Rockwell surely can take better pictures with an iPhone 2G.

3 upvotes
wansai
By wansai (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.

It's a niche product. Niche products tend to be very pricey and cater to a smaller audience willing to spend the money because they feel the item they are purchasing caters to their wants/needs.

Also, I have heard this arguement before from many camera users regarding "gimmicks". What does it matter if a camera has a gimmick? It does not compel you to use it if you don't want to. I shoot full manual and on one camera even manual focus about 70% of the time. I use NONE of the "features" that come with it outside the basic functions. Still they are there and if I do need them, I can use them. They certainly don't make me shiver in my boots because they are in the camera.

1 upvote
harold1968
By harold1968 (Nov 20, 2012)

its not manual, its AF but with a simple and powerful control system

its also the smallest APS-C camera in existence, with BTW a FF lens on it unmatched by any other manufacturer

1 upvote
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Nov 20, 2012)

> thewhitehawk:
>So, you're implying it's not a niche product? That shows how little you know about it.
I'm not "implying" anything. And I 100% agree that it's a niche product. But it's a niche product because it's a fixed-prime-lens camera with an APS-C sensor, and because it's a Leica.

You said "Because most people prefer AF cameras. This is a niche product." Well, this *is* an AF camera.

0 upvotes
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Nov 20, 2012)

> harold1968:
[...]
> its also the smallest APS-C camera in existence, with BTW
> a FF lens on it unmatched by any other manufacturer

The Sony DSC-RX1's body is significantly smaller (11mm narrower and 4mm shorter), though the lens protrudes 18mm further. And an F:2.0 lens on a full frame sensor has certain advantages over an f:2.8 lens on an APS-C...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 21, 2012)

A compact APS-C sensor camera with a Leica lens is a niche product. This is the cheapest way to buy a "real" modern Leica.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Nov 21, 2012)

A modern Leica? Now that's an epitome of an oxymoron! ;)

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 21, 2012)

Sheesh... it's the cheapest way to buy a Leica camera released in the last 5 years. Does that sound better to you?

1 upvote
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Nov 21, 2012)

But what makes it a "real" Leica, aside from the red dot? It's not a rangefinder. Might as well get one of those rebranded Panasonics. Heck, my little waterproof TS-1's specs say it's got a "Leica DC Vario-Elmar lens"!

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 21, 2012)

It's made in Germany, by Leica, in the Leica factory, right next to the M cameras, or maybe in a room next to it.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Nov 21, 2012)

And so what. "Made in Germany". Really. To tell you the truth, even in cars Japanese quality is better.

1 upvote
audijam
By audijam (Nov 22, 2012)

this whitehawk kid is an idiot, period.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Dec 2, 2012)

"It's made in Germany" - Yep. Check that out:

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/

( The 10 Best & Worst Cars )

1 upvote
Tom_A
By Tom_A (Nov 19, 2012)

A friend of mine has the X1, similar lens but much slower AF. Even so the pictures he took were very very nice, and I am picky. A very good compact travel camera, if you could live with the slow AF. So the X2 should have fixed that. Yes it is expensive, but that doesn't mean there is no value.
Meanwhile I have the Fuji XE-1 with 35mm lens. Granted the angle of view is not the same. Even so, i may see him this weekend and it will be interesting to do a few comparison shots. My Fuji has so far amazed me in the image quality department, iI expect it to be better than his X1 at high ISO, however I am curious about any difference at lower iso.

3 upvotes
fim
By fim (Nov 19, 2012)

I have the Xe-1 with 35mm lens as well and the PQ is really good indeed. I set it to auto-iso and images shot at iso6400 is very clean with hardly any visible noise.

0 upvotes
fim
By fim (Nov 19, 2012)

I wonder why there are no pictures taken in low light, these samples are poor for such an expensive camera.

1 upvote
Andystack
By Andystack (Nov 19, 2012)

after looking at these photos again frankly don't know how he got such bad results, bad camera maybe, don't know where the grey cast is coming from but not all all representative of the photos this camera takes, very misleading photos.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Nov 18, 2012)

Awful colors, can't remember when I have seen worse. Very unimpressive camera altogether. Who wants one of these uglies when there is so much good stuff on the shelves?

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
tt321
By tt321 (Nov 19, 2012)

Exactly how are the colours awful? Were you there when the shots were taken? The original scenes may have looked exactly like the photos for all we know.

3 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Nov 20, 2012)

I guess everything was grey over there where those pictures were taken, even that young guys blue shirt.

2 upvotes
tt321
By tt321 (Nov 20, 2012)

If you think the saturation, vibrancy, or vividness is lacking this can easily be added in PP. So long as the colour space is properly recorded it's fine, and it is not possible to determine whether colour bits have been lost or whether the colour rendition of the lens is lacking in some way from sample shots done by someone else at a venue and time not experienced by oneself. You don't like the colour presentation of these photos, which could be down to a lot of reasons including the photographer setting the camera options in a certain way rather than the camera itself being unimpressive.

The only conclusion one can surely draw from samples like these is when one likes them, then one knows for sure that it's possible to achieve results with a camera that one likes. If one dislikes them, in many cases no conclusion can be drawn.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
shinglj
By shinglj (Nov 18, 2012)

I just shake my head when I read these posts .Why aren't you guys out taking photos instead of all this Leica sledging ?
.
Anyway I have been a very enthusiastic photographer for over 50 years and have had my work published all over the world and have won many photo contests over the years .I am too old to carry heavy gear on my travels nowadays so I bought a Leica X1 eighteen months ago .I just love it .I reckon that the photos I have taken with it are some of my best .A superb lens ,beautiful IQ if you shoot DNG (RAW) and very simple controls.A great camera for taking great photos .Not such great shakes in the gear head bragging forums though.
Having said all that I do agree that the X2 sample pics are pretty ordinary .Not representative of what the camera is capable of producing as I know.

Each to his own I say and don't knock unless you've tried it.i

8 upvotes
Andystack
By Andystack (Nov 19, 2012)

I have had great results with this camera, like it much better than my long used canon SLR. seems in general that the samples for most cameras that they post are taken rather quickly without learning the subtleties of the equipment.

3 upvotes
3dreal
By 3dreal (Nov 18, 2012)

I wondernt wonder either if the testers informed leica about flaws so they could improve the camera. An easy but good idea.

0 upvotes
MarceloSalup
By MarceloSalup (Nov 18, 2012)

As a professional photographer I'm astounded that anyone would consider that camera seriously; no viewfinder, no interchangeable lenses... just an over-priced P&S

As a lifetime advertising and marketing expert, I'm glad the X-2 exists; it validats the triumph of branding over objective metrics; it is the greatest case history in the world (maybe the 2nd, the 1st one are the little leicas that are rebranded Lumixes). I absolutely love the existence of the X2

4 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Nov 18, 2012)

Don't be too harsh. At least this model can mount an accessory electronic viewfinder, which the previous model could not. Look at the new small Canon: it has no viewfinder capacity at all! As for lens, a single fixed lens can be a creative tool in the right hands, as proven by decades of Rolleiflex users. But I agree with you that this is an example of clever branding.

2 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Nov 19, 2012)

It has an optional EVF
Its very small
The picture quality is outstanding

4 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Nov 19, 2012)

who cares for a built in viewfinder on a fixed focal lenght ? ^^

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 18, 2012)

Bit late, but better than never.

Camera itself is fine, lens is pretty good actually. Only downside is that it does have AA and CFA or ICC isnt apparently tweaked towards Leica look. JPEGs look pretty much like Panasonic m4/3s JPEGs. RAWs are quite different and much better.

Would I buy it? Nope, cause NEX-5N + EVF + any Leica M mount lens can do same. Or pretty much any good lens you choose.

1 upvote
harold1968
By harold1968 (Nov 19, 2012)

Leica M mount would not be AF
I have used that combination, nice for fun
But the X2 is an excellent package

2 upvotes
Michael Berg
By Michael Berg (Nov 17, 2012)

Is it just me or do many of the photos look underexposed?

1 upvote
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 18, 2012)

it's the strong grey overcast makes the pictures appear underexposed. I think it's very cheeky to ask 2000$ for a camera that can't even get the colours right at the first place. The overcast is so obvious and strong they can't get away with "processing style" explanation nonsense either. But I guess there are enough mugs to pay for it because of the brand. Since the advent of digital sensors Leica always lagged way behind the competition. They should stick to making good lenses only.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Nov 19, 2012)

no, there is a guy complaining that its over exposed, and a guy that says they have a grey cast, ask him, he posted 10comments after you ...

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Nov 17, 2012)

Not very impressive picture quality. Downright bad? Overpriced gadget with a reddot. No buy.

3 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Nov 17, 2012)

Why would you not take the X100 over this? Half the price and much better looking!

8 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 17, 2012)

Or the G1X or the RX100? Leica drops the ball again with their snootiness and high pricing. The IQ looks pretty indifferent to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything here.

5 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Nov 17, 2012)

Not to bash Leica at all, there cameras' are great of build and engineering quality, this one will not be different.

But we're not living anymore in the film era, and digitally speaking pixels are pixels, especially for 90% of the pixel creators who do not print or do not post images larger than Facebook format (those creators where this camera is aimed at...)
This camera is at a gadget level with many cheaper competitors.

I do not really see a market for it, except for the true Leicaholics that is.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (Nov 18, 2012)

Sure, X100 is certainly good but for me I would rather choose an Epson R-D1 or a Leica M8. This X2 seems to have slight problem with CA as well, looking at the right rear wheel of that wagon in following picture. With that said I don't know how serious it might be. Have only had a look at 4 of the pictures.
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2306079.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1353223952&Signature=YH5ASZa3vLp8XgA%2fmRJH4NQmf%2fs%3d

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Nov 19, 2012)

We had both the X100 and the X1. The X1 had the better image quality. Worth the extra money for the degree of image quality difference? That would depend on one's budget. For what it's worth the X100 developed the sticky blades problem. It was repaired and then we sold it.

We have an RX100. Great little point and shoot but not even close to the X1 in image quality.

I have never used an X2.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Nov 19, 2012)

i would buy a used m8 instead

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 17, 2012)

Is there something we are missing here considering the recent trend that any new model whether full frame or cropped they all cost around 2.000 dollars. They say full frame sensors are expensive to produce therefore cost 3x more but why a cropped camera cost the same. Is the new Leica state of the art with amazing abilities or are Nikon, Canon giving away 6D and D600. Can someone shed a light on how much really a full frame sensor cost to produce. Please no gear head remarks. Info backed up with facts and knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
IchiroCameraGuy
By IchiroCameraGuy (Nov 17, 2012)

It's not how much the sensors cost to produce that matters to a company but how much new sensor cost to produce. It is a small amount of difference between full frame and smaller sensors compared to what some companies representatives are spreading. For sure under $150 per sensor. You are paying for the best offering but not for true difference in cost to the manufacturer and/or assembly company. It's what they charge because people like photography and will pay it.

Same way people will pay an $2,500 for big screen television set that has a cool new feature and slightly better black level, cost the brand hardly anything - if anything at all - but is designed for people who will go for it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Pr0peller
By Pr0peller (Nov 19, 2012)

Larger the sensor, less chips on the die. On a larger chip there are statistically more faults, consequently more discards. All this drives up the cost of larger sensors.

0 upvotes
utphoto
By utphoto (Nov 17, 2012)

If you want a retro styled body, the same SONY sensor, better ergonomics and superior internal signal processing, a larger display, then the Pentax-01 at $400 is a bargain. OTOH, if you insist on the red dot and Leica glass, then $2K is a veritable bargain. NOT!

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

Pentax-01, a retro styled body ? You must be joking, this body has been designed in a 21rst century way by a futuristic designer. Moreover, to be genuinely "retro" it should have copied a former design, yet is there any old camera that looks like the Pentax-01 ?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 17, 2012)

Well aside from body style, he does have a point. K-01 with a 21mm DA is essentially the same camera for about half the price. It;s not like this X2 really screams classic styling, either.

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Nov 18, 2012)

plus you can change lenses. Does the leica have built in stabilization? The k-01 does. At $400 its almost a steal for what it offers. Nearly K-5 IQ, stabilization, focus peaking, etc. Its also a very decent movie camera despite what the reviews tell you. Just turn off stabilization for panning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBDbxychx9w

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 17, 2012)

I don't understand this niche of large sensor compact cameras: DP Merrill is great at low ISO, but quirky and slow, unusable at today's medium to high ISO; X100 has fantastic OVF, but awful manual controls and even worse battery life, coupled with awful write/startup/wakeup time; X1 looks cool and handles well but costs like only Leica camera can cost and is basically a large sensor P&S with awful manual mode, electronics from early 2000s and a horrendous price tag.

Is there any smart camera company that sees a tremendous opportunity here? Can someone just copy the concept of old good film Konica Hexar, or Contax T2 and just make them digital? Is that so difficult?

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes it is, those are full-frame ! Have you seen what the Sony RX1 costs? The Fuji X100 is closest to what you describe. Personally i'd go for the new X-E1, or slightly larger X-Pro1 if you really want a optical viewfinder. But that's as good as it's gonna get for now. All with the good old to-the-point operation. And now with zeiss in the game to make lenses for it as well in 2013, what more could you want ? :)

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 17, 2012)

It wouldn't have to be FF if it had a slightly faster lens to make up for it. But I think the main point was why are all these large sensor fixed lens compacts all so problematic? Nobody has made one that just works without some odd glitch or "feature".

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 18, 2012)

Well, that's true Tkbslc. All those cameras fail in some basic operation, some basic photography dialectics, making them truly annoying to use for long time and it all makes me wonder: how such designs are approved at all!
And if someone takes any clue from film cameras, then a good OVF inside any such digital camera is a must — it makes camera so much more enjoyable, versatile, economical and better companion.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 17, 2012)

This is the last thing i expected today.

2 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Nov 17, 2012)

The main problems are that the rendering of random areas (e.g. foliage) is truly awful and the colours aren't great. At this price, Leica need to provide something special but these images are nowhere near as good as the current compact benchmark, the Sigma Merrill.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 17, 2012)

These comments are in line with every preview gallery I have seen. "These are not so great" What a piece of garbage" etc.

The real lesson maybe that at some relatively low level almost all cameras look "average" in the real world. It is up to the photographer to make them look exceptional. And an exceptional photographer can make most any camera look exceptional.

8 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 17, 2012)

Good point. Fully agree. But then ...

Why show such mediocre snaps at all ?
Why not make photos that show all the strengths & advantages of a certain camera model ?
Why not capture scenes where the superiority of this model over its competitors is clearly visible ?

3 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 17, 2012)

They show the images because people believe/hope/wish they will see something that will make them choose the camera. Also the public is demanding it.
IMO the feel and handling is enormously important as the subjective experience of an instrument we admire adds to our enjoyment of the photographic experience. That is why I don't use a phone on my walkabout photo shoots.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

I agree the tool has its full meaning just in good hands, and a Stradivarius will break our hears in a noob violonist hands.

Example of a good photographer using a cheap camera: http://youtu.be/ZUkKtkEZNjs

0 upvotes
danstern
By danstern (Nov 17, 2012)

+1. Skill & content will prevail over the latest camera sensor/gadgetry.

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Nov 17, 2012)

Good maybe even very good IQ but not any better than my $140 Oly E-PL1 body with 20/1.7 Panny lens. Really!

5 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Nov 17, 2012)

yes for the price it's not that spectacular, but it still has a good 16MP APS Sony sensor... NO way your EPL1 could compete in any way. DR, noise, whatever... although the 20/1.7 panny is sharp...

6 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (Nov 17, 2012)

I wasn't aware Leicas were in the real world.

5 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Nov 17, 2012)

These are nice, but I am not sure they are all that spectacular. Some straight lines on the structures and architecture look to be over-jpeg-processed. For $2000, this is not very impressive. I will pass.

5 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (Nov 17, 2012)

With this price tag, I believe that this camera could have been a lot lot better...

6 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Nov 17, 2012)

That's what Leica users try not to tell anyone after they've thrown their life investment into an M package...

2 upvotes
Delacosta
By Delacosta (Nov 19, 2012)

I suspect most Leica users don't have to throw anything like their life investment into buying an M package. They might feel the same economic effect that others feel when buying a coffee though.

0 upvotes
Pikme
By Pikme (Nov 17, 2012)

Question for dpreview - The camera has been selling since the beginning of June, your photos were taken in July and August ---- why are we just now seeing them in mid-November? Sincere question, not meant to be a snarky comment.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Nov 17, 2012)

my fault. I took 100's of photos in the summer and only just got round to sorting out some for a gallery. i.e. i got busy and forgot...

10 upvotes
3dreal
By 3dreal (Nov 17, 2012)

And if they had turned out exceptional you would have informed us immediately, right? Let us be honest about quality. and dont kick out persons who are writing the truth. It will not help the industry and finally all of us hiding realities. We simply want quality.

2 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 17, 2012)

"I got busy and forgot" what an unbelievably pathetic and insulting explanation. It's like saying; sorry boss I forgot to come to work.

2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (Nov 17, 2012)

How many of us actually would consider such an expensive camera like this with moderate IQ, unless the overall camera IQ (with operational speed etc.) was actually stellar to justify the price. This camera is aimed at people with deep pockets who like to have a Leica brand name. (Lenses from Leica are great though on their own in interchangeable systems.) Cameras like this priced, makes one feel that the Fuji XE/X Pro series are certainly worth the price.

0 upvotes
Makinations
By Makinations (Nov 17, 2012)

oselimg: ".... what an unbelievably pathetic and insulting explanation. ..."

What part of it is unbelievable? And how is it insulting? It is kind of pathetic but who hasn't had a low priority project they've kicked along forever?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 16, 2012)

IQ seems good, but the colors from the Fuji X cameras are significantly better.

But the image of the kid on the beach show the big problem with a lens sans lens hood as with light hitting the front element, contrast is horrible. I don't know if there is a way to mount at least a screw in lens hood, but just shooting the naked lens in not the way to go.

2 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Nov 17, 2012)

This proves why small shop sensor makers cannot build a much better sensor than the bigger guys. Fuji is not huge compared to Sony, but they got enough sales to get the development going. Leica on the other hand has to rely on outsourcing. Great glass is only half of the equation.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

It's a pity we cannot see any Fuji-Leica camera. Imagine: the superior Fuji sensor/color technology with Leica lenses on the body ! By Jove ! THAT would be something, and Leica's image would be much better preserved than when it decided to cooperate with Panasonic that is basically a domestic appliances maker.

0 upvotes
gordon lafleur
By gordon lafleur (Nov 18, 2012)

Fuji's lenses are every bit a match for Leica's.

0 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Nov 16, 2012)

Good IQ, grossly overpriced a la Leica.
Yawn.

1 upvote
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Nov 16, 2012)

IQ is ok, but not stunning. You could probably get the same image quality for a lot less by putting a good fixed lens on a Nikon D5100/7000 or Sony a580, in addition to faster autofocus.

3 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Nov 17, 2012)

You're 100% correct. But it's not the point of this camera.

This is a small camera (unlike DSLR's) that gives DSLR-like IQ for those that want a retro-like, small, high quality camera. Just like the Fuji X100. It's a camera one might use when it's not feasible to use a big bulky DSLR.

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 17, 2012)

>DSLR-like IQ

The IQ looks to me to be less than that.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

Leica is a steed-breeder while other camera brands are car-makers. Of course one could get an equivalent IQ with a Nikon or a Canon for a fraction of a Leica's price. But I think that's the same discussion we could have between a horse-lover that see beyond the raw performances of this locomotion means, and a car-lover whose interest goes to speed and stamina.

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Nov 16, 2012)

Nice, but they need to do more jewellery than this to get to their customer base. Or are we not there yet with Leica?

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 16, 2012)

And to think I could get an X-E1 with 2-3 lenses for the price of this camera.

12 upvotes
lloyd007
By lloyd007 (Nov 16, 2012)

The RX1 is basically Sony slapping Leica in the face with a fish with no response possible.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 16, 2012)

In a sense, the response to ALL other cameras is the Leica M, which I would take over an RX1 any day. With those terrific Leica lenses, all they need to do is keep making bodies to mount them on. Sony can't hope to compete with Leica glass, even with Zeiss's help.

But the X2 doesn't compete with the RX1. It's not meant to. A APS-C camera like the Fuji X100 would be a closer competitor.

4 upvotes
imbimmer
By imbimmer (Nov 17, 2012)

From what's shown here, IQ wise, the X2 is no match to the X100. Regarding the M, without a reliable focusing mechanism no matter how good the lenses are, it's simply not going to realize their potential.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 17, 2012)

MF with a huge, bright rangefinder is THE most reliable way to focus, in many situations. But lloyd007 said Sony was "slapping Leica in the face with a fish with no response possible" which is utter nonsense given the fact that few lenses are as good as Leica and the new Leica M, at least to me, is a MUCH nicer camera than an RX1.

As a Fuji user, I wouldn't say V2 IQ is no match for the X100. I'd give the edge to the X100, but IQ is similar in the sense that they both have good performing APS-C sensors.

0 upvotes
sunhorse
By sunhorse (Nov 17, 2012)

@imbimmer

Have you even held a Leica M? The RF focus is very good. How did you think photographers worked before the advent of autofocus mechanisms?

6 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Nov 17, 2012)

Similarly, how did photographers take pictures with low ASA film speeds before their cameras had built-in stabilization? (Duh, they used a tripod or braced the camera on a wall or ledge.)

1 upvote
imbimmer
By imbimmer (Nov 17, 2012)

@sunhorse

I learnt to take pictures with a M3 at the age of 11 and I still shoot with a M9 occasionally. Put it this way, the real advantage of using Leica lenses is shooting them wide open otherwise even some of the better coke cans can achieve similar if not better performance stopping down 2 or 3 stops. But focusing with the rangefinder at f/1.4 or perhaps f/1.0 is really a pita and a hit or miss.

From what I've seen and read from some previews of the RX1, the fixed lens can really match the latest 35 cron asph if not beating it in performance. And that's a package you can shoot right out of the door which is cheaper than a single lens without a camera.

So I see the RX1 as a no brainer if I have to choose but man, perhaps it's simply because I have shot with so many Leicas and I no longer enjoy it anymore. YMMV. :-)

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Nov 17, 2012)

Marike yes, the new M is quite the camera now that the sensor is actually good and overall they finally "caught up" with everyone else while still being in a league of it's own. But whether or not one is better over another is thrusted aside with the insane price tag that the M is asking for, and then of course, the fantastic lenses. But come on, yelling "Leicas are the best!" is like the kids that love Lamborghinis because "they're the best". Yes, performance wise they are top tier and are beautiful, but are very unaffordable and in the end it doesn't do much more than another can.

1 upvote
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Nov 16, 2012)

I would rather pay $800 more for the FF Sony RX1, APS-C compacts are a dime a dozen but there are very few FF compacts under $3k.

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Nov 16, 2012)

+1 Sony is batting 1000 these days.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Nov 16, 2012)

I am sure Hassey will be bring a bejeweled rx1 out for those that think sony is not the brand for envy.

2 upvotes
gordon lafleur
By gordon lafleur (Nov 18, 2012)

Ehhhh....I'll stick with my Fuji x100 thanks very much. Hey, and DP review, if you need someone to shoot some test pics, I'll gladly help out for free. These are frankly dreadful.

2 upvotes
lbjack
By lbjack (Nov 18, 2012)

You're hired, Gordon...as long as you don't "get too busy and forget." ;)

2 upvotes
Total comments: 114