Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery

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

Nov 20, 2012*permalink

Tee1up

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.

Nov 20, 2012permalink

Hugo808

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

Nov 30, 2012permalink

westcoastphoto

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

Nov 20, 2012permalink

Simon Joinson

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

Nov 20, 2012permalink

mcshan

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

rallyfan

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

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

Nov 20, 2012permalink

jimi00

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

Nov 19, 2012permalink

its you

Nov 19, 2012permalink

kadardr

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?

Nov 19, 2012permalink

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

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

Nov 19, 2012permalink

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).

Nov 19, 2012permalink

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

Nov 20, 2012permalink

wansai

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.

Nov 20, 2012permalink

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

Nov 20, 2012permalink

> 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.

Nov 20, 2012permalink

> 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...

Nov 20, 2012*permalink

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.

Nov 21, 2012permalink

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

Nov 21, 2012permalink

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"!

Nov 21, 2012permalink

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.

Nov 21, 2012permalink

audijam

this whitehawk kid is an idiot, period.

Nov 22, 2012permalink

Tom_A

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

fim

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

fim

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

Nov 19, 2012permalink

Andystack

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

shinglj

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

Nov 18, 2012permalink

Andystack

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

3dreal

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

Nov 18, 2012permalink

MarceloSalup

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

Nov 18, 2012permalink

kodachromeguy

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.

Nov 18, 2012permalink

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

Nov 19, 2012permalink

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

Nov 19, 2012permalink

Mescalamba

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.

Nov 18, 2012permalink

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

Nov 19, 2012permalink

Michael Berg

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

oselimg

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.

Nov 18, 2012*permalink

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 ...

Nov 19, 2012permalink

wakaba

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

ybizzle

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Pat Cullinan Jr

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

M Lammerse

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.

Nov 17, 2012*permalink

schaki

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

Nov 18, 2012permalink

mcshan

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.

Nov 19, 2012*permalink

i would buy a used m8 instead

Nov 19, 2012permalink

oselimg

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.

Nov 17, 2012*permalink

IchiroCameraGuy

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.

Nov 17, 2012*permalink

Pr0peller

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

utphoto

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!

Nov 17, 2012permalink

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

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 ?

Nov 17, 2012permalink

tkbslc

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

zos xavius

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.

Nov 18, 2012permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

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?

Nov 17, 2012*permalink

M Jesper

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 ? :)

Nov 17, 2012permalink

tkbslc

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".

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

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.

Nov 18, 2012*permalink

M Jesper

This is the last thing i expected today.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

gsum

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Photomonkey

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

gl2k

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 ?

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Photomonkey

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.

Nov 17, 2012*permalink

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

danstern

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

ulfie

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

kewlguy

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...

Nov 17, 2012permalink

AngelicBeaver

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

kodachromeguy

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Fox Fisher

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Nishi Drew

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Delacosta

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.

Nov 19, 2012permalink

Pikme

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.

Nov 17, 2012*permalink

Simon Joinson

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...

Nov 17, 2012permalink

3dreal

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

oselimg

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

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Adrian Van

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Makinations

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?

Nov 17, 2012permalink

marike6

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.

Nov 16, 2012permalink

love_them_all

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

gordon lafleur

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

Nov 18, 2012permalink

Der Steppenwolf

Good IQ, grossly overpriced a la Leica.
Yawn.

Nov 16, 2012permalink

chlamchowder

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.

Nov 16, 2012permalink

rjx

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.

Nov 17, 2012permalink

Pat Cullinan Jr

>DSLR-like IQ

The IQ looks to me to be less than that.

Nov 17, 2012permalink