Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!

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?

This is the last thing i expected today.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Good IQ, grossly overpriced a la Leica.
Yawn.

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.

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

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