Leica X-U (Typ 113) Sample Gallery

You have a good point, but sometimes a quick handful of words is just as effective at conveying a message as a series of complete, properly formed sentences would be. (Am I allowed to use “be” at the end of a sentence?!) Writen communication is becoming more like verbal communication, largely, at least in my own opinion, because of major shifts in the devices with which we communicate. When texting, you can literally see when the other person is typing, and their text arrives in seconds, almost like a real in-person conversation. The difference is that typing on a phone or small keyboard, and then then reading it at the other end is much slower than speaking and listening. So people compensate using brevity in the form of shortened sentences, “bad grammar”, abbreviations, and new words.

Sorry for the ramble....on the phone I’m typing this on I can’t even scroll up to see the beginning!

@shigzeo If you're bored why engage? Answer: Because you don't find it boring. In fact you took offence and felt compelled to add your comments to the conversation.

I never claimed I do not make mistakes. If someone sees mistakes in my writing that are so bad as to make them difficult to understand, I would be more than glad to be corrected so that I can be better understood in future. And as someone in North America myself, I assure you that the standard of English writing ability here is bizarrely low. I regularly encounter people from Norway, Germany, Iceland and Estonia who write more legibly than the average North American. This forum has some of the most comprehendible writers I have come across on the internet, but still so many people here struggle with the most basic of sentences. Other forums are much worse - particularly those used mostly by younger people. And so my sincere question was: Is it just laziness or is it a lack of intelligence?

I guess you could call it laziness. Doubtful that IQ has changed (not that there's a good objective way of measuring intelligence, anyways).

You'd probably be surprised to meet some of the individuals behind poorly written online comments. There's a good chance they do in fact know how to write properly, and do so when they feel it's appropriate and worth the effort.

It would be really interesting to see a statistical analysis of the amount of time spent composing internet posts versus their subjective quality.

@PhotoRoo:

Boring because it is a common trope, and often completely wrong. If you were to be specific: lack of vocabulary, messed up use of adverbs, dangling on participles- or similar, I might agree. In fact, I agree that Canadians have the worst grasp of slang among English-speaking countries, specifically because the slang lexicon is borrowed from abroad and not enriched enough from within. But worse? It depends on how you define your terms.

It's a forum. People are lazy. People are typing in lieu of talking; and just like when talking, you use shortcuts and everyone knows that there is no reason to expect perfection. Nor is it even possible.

Everyone goes through stages. When I was still in uni, I went through a non-capitalised phase, then a pedant phase, to arrive where I am, which is hoping to not make too many mistakes and not being a jerk.

Mic drop?

Photoroco reminds me of reading Jonathan Swift. Complaining that we're destroying our language is so old and boring.

I mean the dpreview staff member who commented just wanted to sound cool and like "one of us" ;)
Or did you want to hear something like
"Dear Sir, than you for applying ... " ;)

Grammar pedant isn’t a good look you.

*thanK

Which $600 APS-C camera with an f1.7 lens is fully waterproof down to a depth?

I'm not aware of a $600 camera with an f/1.7 lens that is fully waterproof, but I think even for $600 it would be unimpressive, for $3300 it's amazing and stellar and typifies Leica camera making expertise.

"for $600 it would be unimpressive, for $3300 it's amazing and stellar" - ???

It was sarcasm. Put a reasonable price tag on this thing and it wouldn't get much interest from the moneyed folks who buy $3000 cameras on a whim, or the enthusiast who wants a specialized camera. Put an exceptionally high price tag on it (for what it is and what it does) and you'll probably catch the former who doesn't look further than the name.

"Stellar"? For the record, The Stellar was a Hasselblad, not Leica. ;)
And f/1.8 lens! And "only" $3,000!
"for $3300...typifies Leica camera making expertise."
Perhaps you meant, camera marketing expertise?

ZeB:

Right the X1 has a very nice lens. (And the X2, and XE)

I thought the X1 has slow buffering. No, not SeaLife DC2000 slow.

@RAW yes, the issue with the X1 is its extremely slow operation. The optical VF is useless, like trying too much to look like a Leica shooter if you know what I mean. Oh, and forget about taking pictures of my dogs even on the couch.

I didn't say best colors =)

Ribs looked tasty.

It's a 35 mm 35mm-equivalent lens.

Here’s an idea: instead of using the tainted, triggering word “equivalent” what if you said “about the same as.”

I think you had a typo in your URI. This is DPReview, you are looking for PDReview (Pedantic Digital Review).

The 'full' in FF stands for two things:
1) A mirrorbox size (and thus sensor size) that makes more or less 'full' use of lens mounts flange focal distance.
2) A sensor size that makes 'full' use of the image circle of the majority of lenses designed for a given mount.

@Noirdesir: in 50 years of photography I have never seen FF defined as meaning either of those things. Will you please share the authoritative source?

Noir, that would mean all cameras are full frame.

@noirdesir - No.

Just look at the origin of the term. My explanation is the only logical way somebody could have come up with the term. Of course, its genesis has an extra step, the coming into being of so-called CROP (frame) cameras. I hope you won't dispute the definition of that term:
1) A mirrorbox size (and thus sensor size) that does NOT make full use of lens mounts flange focal distance.
2) A sensor size that does NOT make full use of the image circle of the majority of lenses designed for a given mount.

Start with that definition of a crop sensor camera, and my stated definition of 'full frame' is just the corollary. Just because you had not heard my definition before, doesn't mean that you once you hear it, you'll be able to recognise that, yes, that's actually the proper definition.

Noirdesir,

Here is your opportunity to learn something and correct your ignorance of fact, if you choose.

The term “full frame” comes from the frame size of 35mm film cameras and has been around for decades. It refers to a camera that makes the largest practical use of sprocketed 35mm motion-picture film. This results in a negative size of 24x36mm. Lenses were designed to make use of this frame size and we still refer to cameras - especially digital ones - as “full-frame” if their SENSORS are the same size as that 35mm frame.

A “crop sensor” (note: “crop” is not an acronym so should not be capitalized) Is any sensor that is smaller than full frame as defined above. Typically the term is used to refer to APS/C sensors, which are about half the size of full-frame. Crop here means that using a full-frame 35mm lens on such a sensor results in an image that is only a portion of what would result with the same lens on FF.

It has nothing to do with mirror boxes or flange distance.

Due to the lack of any text styling option in the comments section, I very occasionally capitalise a word to emphasise it.

And while I do recognise that the origin of the term 'full frame' goes back further than I thought, the meaning of words do change over time and sometimes multiple definitions can be equally valid depending on context (new definitions get attached to existing words thanks to their usage). For example, in cinematography 'full frame' means/meant something else than in still photography.

There might also be slight differences between different languages. My knowledge of photographic terms goes back to the 1980s, in German. In English it is limited to roughly the year 2000 and later. Since then, all usage of FF I have seen was always in opposition to crop format. German Wikipedia, eg, places the origin of the term 'Vollformat' as a consequence of needing to differentiate between the common smaller sensor sizes compared to well-known 'Kleinbildformat'.

Yes. “Full frame” and “crop-sensor” is related to sensor size, not either of the two definitions you proposed higher in the thread.

The funny thing is, both definitions (yours and mine) happen to be true. Before mirrorless (both terms were definitely already in use then) my definition correctly describes 'full frame' cameras.

How exactly did this discussion about FF emerge here?
The text says "35mm-equivalent".

Btw, meanwhile, DPR redacted the text to read:
> 35mm-equivalent, F1.7 lens

With the comma, I no longer complain. Thanks, DPR for removing the ambiguity.

@falconeyes - because one guy claimed that fullframe meant something and then we all had to prove we are super smart relevant guys and corrected him, then he said some other things that wasn't "You guys are super smart and relevant" and more along the lines of "I still believe the thing I said is true despite everything everyone else said" which caused everyone to say more things to make it extra super duper clear that we are super smart guys and relevant and know more stuff than strangers on the internet.

Then it just sort of got out of hand. Sorry.

I'm surprised that a German photographer doesn't know every detail of Oskar Barnak's groundbreaking camera and its pioneering use of 35mm roll film.
Zurück zur Grundschule für dich mein Freund.

@MrBrightSide - I'm not sure I follow, unless I missed where someone was invoking Barnak's name or the invention of the Leica 35mm rangefinder camera? It also seems like a trivial thing for Deutsch schools to teach as a part of the curriculum in elementary school, do they really do that?

Oskar was basically the person who established the 24x36mm image size that you are all talking about and because you are German and your teachers should have used him as an example of how one person can succeed by ignoring conventional wisdom. That is why I brought him up. He is the definition of genius.

It is not the camera itself that qualifies him as a national treasure, it the way he used his brain to reimagine how photography might be accomplished.

@MrBrightSide - Neat.

Also, I'm not German.

In German, 35mm format actually was called "small film format" ;)

Yes, kleinbildformat like Noirdesir (French screen name? For a German?) said.

He's Swiss. Which means, neroanelito probably speaks 4 languages :)

Only three languages :)
And yes, I know all about Oskar Barnack, just that 24 x 36 mm was never called 'Vollformat' (full frame format) in German. I didn't know that is was called 'full frame' in English already way before digital. But we all seem to agree that the term 'full frame' (for DSLRs initially) was used to describe cameras that covered the full frame of the 24 x 36 mm format.

But why would people refer back to that film-era format if not for the simple reason that we had a lot of lenses designed for that format and that those lenses had mounts designed to allow for a mirrorbox the size needed for the 24 x 36 mm format.

Some here seem to claim that the term 'full frame' was still used because 24 x 36 mm was the full frame of 35 mm sprocketed film. I'd say it was used because it was the 'full' frame of all the lenses that people had and those lenses had registration distances to allow for a corresponding mirrorbox.

Yes, you would continue to say that, and continue to be wrong. According to your definition, Olympus 4/3 cameras are full frame cameras. They aren't.

For 4/3 to be FF, there would need to have been a line of lenses (and cameras) with the 4/3 format that existed before 4/3 digital cameras were created. There wasn't one, so there is no reason to call them FF.

Some people call 4/3 (and m43) crop formats because you 'need' to apply a crop factor (that is >1) if you want to reference AOV with the 24 x 36 mm focal length equivalent. But that also was partially done because people adapted 24 x 36 mm format lenses to it.

In general, the term 'crop' is used with decreasing frequency: 1) Lenses for the camera exist that have a larger image circle than the sensor diagonal, 2) Such lenses are adapted, 3) the camera has interchangeable lenses. Beyond that, ie, for cameras with fixed lenses, what people know about the camera foremost is the equivalent focal length of its lens, not the actual focal length + crop factor.

(1) Doesn't exist for 4/3
(2) Doesn't exist for 4/3 (it does for m43, but not very widespread)
(3) Does apply for 4/3

In the United States 35mm was called miniature format. The Manhattan Miniature Camera Club devoted to 35mm photography was founded in 1933. http://mmcc-nyc.org/index.shtml

What's really needed is a sensibly-priced Panasonic version of this camera.

Yes we all love Agni ;)

Say Hi to Nathan next time you're eating there :D

My initial comment is evidence based, since in my whole life the only place I have ever seen people holding Leica cameras is at Cowes Week.

We’ll remember to chastise you for the thorough mediocrity then

My favorite part is that there are pictures right beside a lake or literally ON a boat. It's like the reviewer is taunting us. ^_^