Leica X1 = $2000 USD

pedroboe100 said:

Lawyers on vacation and some journalist/war correspondets?

Click to expand...

people with underdeveloped EGO ?

------------------------------------------------------------
Forget ISO, noise, mpixel & other nonsens!
Don't talk about these things like a guru.
Go out, make photos and have fun!

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/panasonic-leica-dslr/152704-lumix-gh1-8.html#post990208

It's a very good point indeed, and you have to wonder why a company like Leica hasn't realized what basically every other camera brand - as well as most other "system sellers" such as Microsoft with the Xbox, Sony with the PS3, Nintendo with the Wii and so forth - have come to understand: get them in at a low price point, then sell the peripherals/addons/accessories at a premium.

I believe Leica would sell 2-3 times as many lenses as they do today if they could provide a $1500-2000 M body (even a 1.3 crop one).

Now, you gotta wonder what their main source of revenue is. My bet is the lenses, not the bodies...

Just sell the bodies at a loss and make up for it with the lens sales!

Thomas
--
K-7 / DA 15 Ltd / DA 35 Ltd / DA 70 Ltd / Sea & Sea DX-2G / 2x YS-110a strobes

Hope the reviewers diss Leica as much as Olympus got criticised for same LCD specs.
--
Shoot the Light fantastic

I dont know.. if you cant afford the 7k for the body, can you really afford the lenses?

ktwse said:

It's a very good point indeed, and you have to wonder why a company like Leica hasn't realized what basically every other camera brand - as well as most other "system sellers" such as Microsoft with the Xbox, Sony with the PS3, Nintendo with the Wii and so forth - have come to understand: get them in at a low price point, then sell the peripherals/addons/accessories at a premium.

I believe Leica would sell 2-3 times as many lenses as they do today if they could provide a $1500-2000 M body (even a 1.3 crop one).

Now, you gotta wonder what their main source of revenue is. My bet is the lenses, not the bodies...

Just sell the bodies at a loss and make up for it with the lens sales!

Thomas
--
K-7 / DA 15 Ltd / DA 35 Ltd / DA 70 Ltd / Sea & Sea DX-2G / 2x YS-110a strobes

Click to expand...

Knallbert said:

mpgxsvcd wrote:
What do these cameras do that an m4/3 can’t?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G

Click to expand...

which means, of course, that the question has no meaning in this context.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

What I was trying to say is the physical build of Leica cameras (like my M8) feel great to use. Marry that with a back to the basics interface in the m4/3 format would have been a camera I would not mind spending $2000 to buy.

No, I'm not trying to collect M4/3 bodies. I've had a G1 for 11 months now. I really enjoy it. I thought I was going to use the Pen as the second body. I really dislike the interface and other assorted things that I won't go into now. So second body was going to be either GH1 or GF1. GH1 arrived faster than expected (was trying to wait and decide between the two. GF1 looks like it could be terrific. So my two bodies will probably be GH1 and GF1. Sell the Pen and either sell the G1 or have it converted for Infra Red.

Spunky8 said:

I don't understand why you would be prompted to buy the X1 for $2,000 if it were an m4/3 body when, in fact, the X1 sensor is larger than the m4/3 sensor. Why would the lack of an m4/3 sensor on the X1 prompt you not to purchase the camera if it's something you can use? Are you just collecting m4/3 bodies?

Click to expand...

--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

I totally get what you are saying. I, too, dumped the E-P1. Nice feel on the camera, but too many technical impediments to ease and flow in shooting. I substituted the EP-1 with a GH1 and I'm glad I did---not a single regret.

Disagree that GF1 kills G1.

Enter Voightlander: There is such an opening here for a quality rangefinder. Voigthlander did it before with the Bessa. I'm hoping it enters the digital marketplace.

While I believe that criticism of the LCD is legitmate based on the specs, the specs are not what poses the biggest issue for me. For me, the biggest issue is that the EP-1 LCD screen (and, I presume, the X1 will be the same) is virtually unusable in bright light. I couldn't accurately compose anything using that screen. That was the killer for me. That, coupled with the absence of a viewfinder, is what prompted me to part company with the EP-1. I'm happy others are not bothered by these issues. I couldn't overcome them.

A number of posters believe that ego is the only reason to buy a Leica M. In many cases, ego prompts the acquisition. In other cases, it's not ego, it's someone believing that Leica is the best camera and, thus, it will take great pictures, regardless of the skills of the photographer.

But, in a great many cases, Leica is the perfect camera for the task. I've never used Leica digital cameras, but Leica M film cameras definitely have a serious photographic purpose: They are quiet cameras, unassuming in looks and capable of wonderful available light and candid photography.

I took my Leica M's with me on my trips to Cuba. They were the perfect cameras for the street photography I did, often in very dimly lit places. They don't look like pro cameras and they do not intimidate subjects.

So, for those of you who assume that ego is what Leica is all about, I suggest you think twice. The camera is a serious instrument and has a definite, even unique, purpose.

... that's a sad fact.

If Leica were truly in it for the photographer as I'd always thought they were, they would have done everything in their power (cost is no consideration) to create an ideal photographic tool for the pro street shooter, as they've done in the past. If being mechanical is the goal, fine they've done it. But if being the best is the goal, they've failed, simple as that.
--
W.L. Clark Swimm
http://www.clarkswimm.com

Im interested in the X1. But, it will most likely be $2500 in Canada, so, i dont know.. i can get a 50 f1.4 and 14-24 f2.8 for my d700 with that monies.

Spunky8 said:

A number of posters believe that ego is the only reason to buy a Leica M. In many cases, ego prompts the acquisition. In other cases, it's not ego, it's someone believing that Leica is the best camera and, thus, it will take great pictures, regardless of the skills of the photographer.

But, in a great many cases, Leica is the perfect camera for the task. I've never used Leica digital cameras, but Leica M film cameras definitely have a serious photographic purpose: They are quiet cameras, unassuming in looks and capable of wonderful available light and candid photography.

I took my Leica M's with me on my trips to Cuba. They were the perfect cameras for the street photography I did, often in very dimly lit places. They don't look like pro cameras and they do not intimidate subjects.

So, for those of you who assume that ego is what Leica is all about, I suggest you think twice. The camera is a serious instrument and has a definite, even unique, purpose.

Click to expand...

Have you actually used one? I mean, more than a few weeks, more like a year or two? If not, sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If you have not used an M, what you're doing is like pontificating about a book without reading it.

--
Stéphane

http://gallery.lumieredargent.com
http://blog.lumieredargent.com

Clarkey said:

Exactly what is the mark up on a thing that's hand made? Take that mark up, add another 25%, and I think you've got the idea behind Leicas rediculous pricing model.

I may have missed the point, but forget the x1, that M9 has no better noise handling than a gh1, and I'll bet it has little gain in resolution.

Click to expand...

Have a proper look at the samples. Yes it has high noise at 1600 but the extra resolution pulls apart the results from the GH-1. It is easy to see at 1600 noise reduction could be used to get rid of the noise and you would end up with a photo at 1600 with less noise, no banding and still far more resolution than the GH-1.

Given that m4/3rds cams are completly capable of shooting leica glass I see no reason why any person in their right mind would waste their money on these bodies, when a proper investment in great glass would go that much further.

Clarkey said:

Seriously Leica what was the point.
--
W.L. Clark Swimm
http://www.clarkswimm.com

Click to expand...

My comments were directed to the M Leicas, not the X1. I have no clue whether that camera will approcach the M series in capability, but I'm betting it won't.

yes, I would consider it. It's easy to dismiss these products as just too expensive and having the Leica tax. But what is missed here is the kind of lens they are giving you.

Look at it this way- see that new Leica/Panasonic micro four thirds lens? It's very nice, very fast. Probably the sharpest micro four thirds lens the moment it comes out and much better. Certainly better than the Olympus pancake by far.

And it shows in the MSRP- $900. Don't think for a second that good lenses on micro four thirds are going to be cheap. Look at how much the Olympus super high grade glass costs on four thirds. There's a reason for that.

So let's say you get a pocketable camera, with a kick ass F2.8 lens (let's make that $900 for a quick comparison), and you have an APS-C sensor with what will be better DR/noise than micro four thirds, but probably not by much- still probably better. Better bokeh by 1 stop (that means to compare the bokeh you need to go to an F2.0 in micro four thirds).

Oh, and are you missing they give you LightRoom for free? The camera also uses DNG as its RAW format which means it works with almost any RAW converter out of the box.

Start adding all of that up. Light Room - MSRP $300. Lens- $900. That's $1,200 right there. Continue with superb build, great interface (from everything I am seeing it's a great interface), pocketable APS-C and all of a suddent it doesn't look all that expensive, does it?

As for the M9- yes, it's expensive, but it's manual focusing system beats the sh*t out of any other digital camera micro four thirds or DSLR I have seen (no, I haven't used the M9 but I have focused with range finders, and it's worlds appart from what we are used to on regular DSLR's even).

And it's a 18 megapixel full frame in such a size....

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

and Leica has it. Quality.

I think people dismiss that too quick.

In fact I would even say that ego's may also be what makes a lot not appreciate for a second what they are getting on that end of that brand, even if a bit on the expensivo side.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Jogger said:

http://www.popflash.com/index.php?p=product&id=4316&parent=0

... also, M9 = $7000. Im not sure who would go for that Leica X1 instead of m43.

Click to expand...

these are all over priced for just a red dot, I rather use that $$$ to get a d3x and I can make big $$$ with d3x

no I've not used a Leica of any sort. I don't doubt the handling s superb and that is something of great value. Image quality though is a major consideration and this is where I'd argue the M9 falls short... by a long shot.
--
W.L. Clark Swimm
http://www.clarkswimm.com