I totally agree.. the X1 could have been great in so many ways. I think this was Leica exercising their right to shoot themselves in the foot.... to protect the M.
And if this is true.. I still can not understand why Leica did not have a talented photographer produce a gallery of X1 photos for the Leica website rather than let DPReview be the only site with production model photos. I just can't get over the short-sightedness of Leica in this area of marketing a new, highly anticipated camera.
the Ricoh will be out in early December.
When Andy Westlake explained in another thread that dpreview users didn't know how to interpret the x1 samples I was at the time swayed by his arguments and even went back and re-appreciated some of x1 samples (especially the colours of the close-ups and the macro with Tower Bridge in the background which I really liked).
Actually, he was pretty clear about the fact that the X1 shots are not "straight out of the camera" as we know it. They are converted RAW files, which explains why there's more noise (less NR applied?) and far less sharpening applied.
You're comparing out of camera Jpegs (in camera NR) vs direct RAW conversions.
I have read that the x1 has a firmware solution for is but it will only work in jpegs. All the files from the x1 are converted from dng and apparently jpegs from the camera for the ricoh but I am not sure. Which would go a long way towards explaining what we see or thing we are seeing.
Yeah, this about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. But that's okay witih me. I enjoy watching these companies taking risks. Makes it all so interesting.
Really? Wow, I would take the GXR output here any day over the X1. GXR looks clear, clean and crisp, while the X1 looks digital / overprocessed and has visible CA and other artifacts. Weird how different people see different things :/I also think the X1 does better than the Ricoh for IQ
from the Tower Bridge photograph in the Samples gallery
there were taken from 180° different vantage points, by different photographers, on different days and using very different camera settings as is the case with the other samples
the X1 inexplicably was shot at f11 and the GXR at f4, which placed it at some disadvantage given the laws of physics
I just downloaded the GXR shot of the bridge on my imaging computer and was just stunned by the quality. There was no excuse for shooting this shot at F11 on the X1, but still I have the feeling that at the same F stops, the GXR will beat the X1. Maybe it's the AA filter?
Right! Why take pictures when you can just wait a bit longer for the perfect camera? There will be plenty of opportunities for picture taking later. Cameras are getting better and better all the time. Just keep waiting.
hi, i beg to differ, the tools do exist...your brain and what you see in your minds eye is every bit as important as what a reviewer sees in his review. a reviewer will also judge a camera by the image quality of a picture. if your mind sees the ricoh photo quality as better than the x1 then more people will probably see it too. and they are indeed seeing it too. what you see in your mind and what you perceive is right, correct and important and nobody can take that away from you cause the human brain and eye sensory path is one of the most wondrous things in this world even more wondrous than the cameras we use. nuff said, rant is over. rude
before making a judgement about the two cameras remember your comparing apples to oranges so to speak. According to Andy the files from the Leica are dng files with almost no processing. The dng files I see from my other cameras also look a bit flat and not as sharp. The files from the Ricoh jpeg output right from the camera with all the processing like sharpening and increased contrast etc. We need the dng files from the ricoh to make any kind of meaningful comparison. I would not expect to see much difference in over all sharpness between the two cameras but I would and do expect the leica to have more contrast and better edge shapness wide open as well as better control of flare which we can already see.But again this will be quite minor. Also don't forget the Leica lens is 24mm and the ricoh 33 which should make the ricoh a tad easier to correct. If ricoh were to make a 24 lens sensor module that could be an interesting comparison but I bet with the 24 the ricoh will much closer to the leica in price, as the f2.8 24mm will be more expensive to make.Really? Wow, I would take the GXR output here any day over the X1. GXR looks clear, clean and crisp, while the X1 looks digital / overprocessed and has visible CA and other artifacts. Weird how different people see different things :/I also think the X1 does better than the Ricoh for IQ
from the Tower Bridge photograph in the Samples gallery
there were taken from 180° different vantage points, by different photographers, on different days and using very different camera settings as is the case with the other samples
the X1 inexplicably was shot at f11 and the GXR at f4, which placed it at some disadvantage given the laws of physics
--
John Walker
http://jhwalker.smugmug.com/
Wayne Kerr - right?
Sorry to contradict you but the Ricoh 50mm samples do state:
