[mattyb]

The 70-200 that subego has can do f/2.8 at 70mm and at all focal lengths to 200mm. Its a pro piece of kit and has the price tag to match ($2000). He also has a fixed (aka prime) lens of 135mm at f/2 - thats nearly $1000 for one focal length. Its likely that the fixed lens at f/2.8 will be of better quality - likely. But you'll be limited to that focal length. AFAIK the D-Lux3 cannot do f/2.8 for its entire focal length, only at 28mm.

I really don't know what advice to give TBH. I'm not bothered about changing lenses or carrying them around, I felt too limited with a SX10 before. That X2 takes some shit hot low light stuff though !!!

[Phileas]

Also, just because two lenses share the same speed doesn't mean they're the same quality. Your D-Lux3 lens can't touch the Leica's lens.

Personally I love shooting with prime lenses - unless I need the extra length, my zoom lenses go unused for months. There's something really special about shots taken with good prime.

[Hawkeye_a]

My D-Lux3 has a Leica lens. Both the D-Lux3 and X2 have Leica lenses.

I've heard the term 'prime lens' quite a bit but don't know what it referrs to. Does it just mean 'good lens', or is there something more to it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

The 70-200 that subego has can do f/2.8 at 70mm and at all focal lengths to 200mm. Its a pro piece of kit and has the price tag to match ($2000). He also has a fixed (aka prime) lens of 135mm at f/2 - thats nearly $1000 for one focal length. Its likely that the fixed lens at f/2.8 will be of better quality - likely. But you'll be limited to that focal length. AFAIK the D-Lux3 cannot do f/2.8 for its entire focal length, only at 28mm.

I really don't know what advice to give TBH. I'm not bothered about changing lenses or carrying them around, I felt too limited with a SX10 before. That X2 takes some shit hot low light stuff though !!!

Yeah. Most zoom lenses have a narrower aperture as you zoom in. For example, the D-Lux3 has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 when it's at 28mm, but zoomed in to 112mm, it's a hair short of f/5 maximum aperture. IOW, the more you zoom in, the more light you need.

Keeping the same max. f/2.8 on my beast zoom is definitely one of the things I'm paying for on that lens. Equally important though is the image stabilizer. It (no hyperbole) makes camera shake on your handheld shots as if they were shot with a 4(!) stop faster shutter speed. Normally you'd need to shoot a 200mm lens at at least 1/200th of a second. 1/400 if you don't want to get all sniper-like braced and relaxed. This thing looks like it was on a tripod all the way down to 1/25th of a second. It's freakin' heaven.

The 135mm... that's just one of the best portrait lenses ever. There's like, magic sharpness dust Canon puts in it, and then the 8 iris blades make whatever isn't sharp look just as gorgeous. I like to shoot long (as may be evident). This puppy on a crop sensor is sooooo much fun.

I'm mulling over the D-Lux3 vs. the X2. Give me a bit.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

My D-Lux3 has a Leica lens. Both the D-Lux3 and X2 have Leica lenses.

I've heard the term 'prime lens' quite a bit but don't know what it referrs to. Does it just mean 'good lens', or is there something more to it?

Prime only means "one focal length". So, the X2 is a prime.

Primes don't have to be good, but if you're buying a detachable one, you want the best you can afford, so people tend to talk about the ones at the better end of the quality spectrum.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

My D-Lux3 has a Leica lens. Both the D-Lux3 and X2 have Leica lenses.

The D-Lux3 is a rebadged Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2, that includes the lens. Leica has sprinkled some, but not much, magic dust on that camera, but that's mainly in the image processing. It's really a Panasonic but for the name and shares all the highs, nice and sharp in good light, and lows, poor low light performance, of the early Lumix line.

The lens in your D-Lux is nowhere near as good as the lens in the X2.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The D-Lux3 is a rebadged Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2, that includes the lens. Leica has sprinkled some, but not much, magic dust on that camera, but that's mainly in the image processing. It's really a Panasonic but for the name and shares all the highs, nice and sharp in good light, and lows, poor low light performance, of the early Lumix line.

The lens in your D-Lux is nowhere near as good as the lens in the X2.

Yup, I know about the relationship between Panasonic and Leica. My point was that my D-Lux3 has a Leica lens (as do the corresponding Panasonics).

So, anyone, overall, is the X2 a justifiable step up from the D-Lux3? or is it just a marginal difference? The low light stuff looks leaps and bounds better to be. But if the D-Lux3 was at one end of the spectrum(0), and the M class at the other end(100), where would you place the X2? (specifically for the type of mages and situations I've mentioned)

Cheers

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yup, I know about the relationship between Panasonic and Leica. My point was that my D-Lux3 has a Leica lens (as do the corresponding Panasonics).

So, anyone, overall, is the X2 a justifiable step up from the D-Lux3? or is it just a marginal difference? The low light stuff looks leaps and bounds better to be. But if the D-Lux3 was at one end of the spectrum(0), and the M class at the other end(100), where would you place the X2? (specifically for the type of mages and situations I've mentioned)

Cheers

First, and probably most important. If the lack of a zoom doesn't bother you, you will be happy with the step-up to the X2. Will you be $2,000 happier? That depends on how much you're willing to accept Leica stuff isn't cheap.

OTOH, I think you'd also be happy with a MFT like the OM-D. Here's a shot at 6400ISO:



Here are the originals. Don't trust what Photobucket does to the image I posted here.

The body is a little taller than the X2, but is otherwise smaller in the other dimensions. The Panasonic f/1.7 pancake lens we keep talking about is pretty darn thin (hence the "pancake").

That paring is $1,400. Buy an even better $600 lens too, or never change the lens again (just like the X2) and bank the $600.

Now, to be clear, even though the f/1.7 from Panavision is faster than the lens in X2, the lens in the X2 is probably better. We have to face facts. Leica focuses more on this than Panasonic, and the lens in the X2 probably costs more than $400, which is the how much the Panasonic f/1.7 goes for.

Now, you buy a $600 prime lens, that's going to be closer to, if not par, with the lens in the X2, and it'll be faster (larger max. aperture).

You spend $1,000 on a prime lens, that's going to be flat-out better than the lens in the X2 in every respect. You've still spent the same money.

Does that help at all?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

From what i've read thus far, the Sony DSC-RX100 and the Fuji X100s are the closest competitors (specs wise at least). Then there's the Sony RX1, which is essentially a compact-ish with a DSLR sensor and a price to match (~$2800).

No, that's not quite right:
The Sony RX100 uses a compact-sized 1" sensor (large for a compact point & shoot, but tiny when compared to APS-C-sized sensors. Have a look at the comparison from dpreview:

The RX100's sensor is the yellow one, the big, light-green one is the size that is found in all the other cameras I've linked to and the Leica you're interested in. The RX100 in no way competes with the X100s, it competes with the Fuji X20 (zoom lens, small sensor). The Sony RX1 has an even bigger sensor, but costs $2800. All these large-sensor cameras (APS-C and up) have the same sensor size as dslrs, and thus offer similar image quality. Canon's EOS-M uses a modified version of the sensor that the 60D uses, for instance.

The cameras I've mentioned and the X2 appeal to people who want something small, who don't want/need to swap lenses and who like the focal length they have chosen. (That's another reason why I wouldn't get any of the X100s' competitors (with the exception of the RX1), I prefer 35 mm to 28 mm.)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Could someone explain what a "fast"/"slow" lens is? I know what shutter speed is(blink speed), and i know what an aperture is(size of the 'eye'). And i know that the larger the aperture, the more light gets in, so a faster shutter speed can be used. Sorry for the noob question, but the jargon takes some getting used to.

The basic idea is to look at the following f-stop sequence:
f/1.4 --> f/2 --> f/2.8 --> f/4 --> f/5.6 --> f/8 --> f/11
At each step of the sequence, the amount of light captured by the optics doubles. If you shoot with a f/.4 lens wide-open instead of a f/4 lens, you can use a shutter speed that is 2^3 = 8-times faster (if you keep the ISO fixed).

You can also use the additional light in different ways: you can shoot at lower ISO and thus reduce noise/increase dynamic range.

However, large aperture lenses also give you another, creatively very, very, very important tool in your bag: they allow you to separate the subject from the background. If you increase the size of the aperture, the so-called depth-of-field (what is perceived to be in focus) decreases. That means a f/2 lens gives you more creative freedom than a f/4 lens.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I'm not too keen on swapping lenses and such. If i was I would have stepped up to a full DSLR. Small size, less fidgeting, simple, and image quality(day and night). I am not only willing, but keen to give up 'flexibility' of lens swapping and features(video, etc), for a smaller camera if it can deliver DSLR comparable image quality in the scenarios i mentioned.

Then these compact large-sensor cameras sound like a very good fit. I know I'm repeating myself, but have a look at the cameras I've linked to in a store, take them in your hand and you will quickly understand which one you prefer.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's not quite right:
The Sony RX100 uses a compact-sized 1" sensor (large for a compact point & shoot, but tiny when compared to APS-C-sized sensors.

Oh yeah, my bad. And cheers for spelling out the math regarding those attributes.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yup, I know about the relationship between Panasonic and Leica. My point was that my D-Lux3 has a Leica lens (as do the corresponding Panasonics).

So, anyone, overall, is the X2 a justifiable step up from the D-Lux3? or is it just a marginal difference? The low light stuff looks leaps and bounds better to be. But if the D-Lux3 was at one end of the spectrum(0), and the M class at the other end(100), where would you place the X2? (specifically for the type of mages and situations I've mentioned)

Cheers

Not all Leica lenses are created equal. In the case of the D-Lux 3 Leica's involvement was fairly minimal, making it a Leica in little but the name. The camera received a fair amount of criticism for this when it first came out.

At the time Leica didn't have much of a foothold in digital, so the partnership with Panasonic made sense. I don't know how deep that partnership still goes, but it looks to me that they've realized that it did cheapen the Leica brand and are stepping away from the practice to release the same camera under two different brand names.

From the questions you're asking it looks to me that your knowledge of photography isn't all that deep - and I don't mean this is in any way to be patronizing. Unless you wish to dive into the deep end and learn more about the intricacies of the relationships between cameras, sensors, lenses and how this affects your images then I suggest that any number of the cameras discussed here will make you perfectly happy.

If you've got your heart set on the X2, get it. It is a far more capable camera than your D-Lux, it will deliver beautiful images even on full auto. Spend some time understanding how it works and it will reward you with even better results. However, do keep in mind that you're spending money on the Leica name and while the X2 is a real Leica, albeit on the low end of that brand, you can spend less money on a camera that's at least the equivalent, if not better.

For example, the little Sony will probably also be just fine for your purposes and also be a huge step up from the D-Lux. It comes with a wonderfully fast and sharp Carl Zeiss lens, and pushes amazing quality images out of that little body.

Last but not least, there's the micro four thirds format, which would be my personal recommendation. The Panasonic pancake lens we keep talking about is nothing short of amazing. Most photographers, myself included, will reach the end of their skill before that lens reaches the end of its capabilities.

Micro four thirds bodies also allow you to use true Leica lenses, should that be something you're interested in, or even the amazing Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95, which takes low light photography to a whole different level. Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 Lens for Micro Four Thirds BA259M

Not my image, just for illustration:



And finally, it is worth remembering that images aren't taken by cameras, they are taken by photographers.

Some of my recent favourite images I've taken with a Pentax K1000 that I keep around for the sole purpose of keeping my skills sharp. You can pick one up on ebay in mint condition for well under $100. http://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_trksi...at=0&_from=R40

Fully manual, max usable ASA of 800 when shooting with Ilford HP5 pushed one stop. Take a look at what people do with that film: https://www.google.ca/search?q=Ilfor...h=651 (careful if you're at work, artistic b/w boobs) and with that camera: http://www.flickr.com/groups/k1000/

I also love using my 1970's Yashica rangefinder, which comes with a f/1.7 lens that's a thing of beauty, and even my old Polaroid camera to take portraits of my kids. It's the (wo)man, not the machine.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Then these compact large-sensor cameras sound like a very good fit. I know I'm repeating myself, but have a look at the cameras I've linked to in a store, take them in your hand and you will quickly understand which one you prefer.

Yes, I'd forgotten about this. VERY important to hold them before deciding. I was after a Canon (350D IIRC) but after holding it in the store I didn't like the fit. Nikon's D40 felt 'right' - for me. It won't matter so much for you, but for DSLRs, that first camera, and then the lenses that you buy, basically means you're dedicated to a certain 'system' for a while. Can't say I regret my choice, although it took Nikon a while to get a 70-200 f/4.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

From the questions you're asking it looks to me that your knowledge of photography isn't all that deep - and I don't mean this is in any way to be patronizing. Unless you wish to dive into the deep end and learn more about the intricacies of the relationships between cameras, sensors, lenses and how this affects your images then I suggest that any number of the cameras discussed here will make you perfectly happy.

I want to add though, if you do wish to dive into the deep end, there's nothing you've said which makes me think you can't swim. You seem able to wrap your head around the theory (which isn't exactly easy), and aren't afraid to ask questions when you aren't. That's all good in my book.

[Phileas]

Got inspired by this thread to grab a camera today. Used the old Ricoh to shoot some little vignettes of my kids and have just been putting them through Aperture. The grain is emphasized with Nik Tools - I was after a slightly pushed film look.

[Hawkeye_a]

Thanks for the information guys, ive got to process the info and think about it.

While researching this class of camera, i came across the following sites which provided some helpful opinion and comparisons:

I really enjoyed this article because it made a lof of sense to me, about the entire photo taking process.... Forbes: X-Philes

And Snapsort which seems to do a decent job at comparisons and recommendations of similiar cameras.

Cheers

[Hawkeye_a]

Question:
I noticed at the end of Steve Huff's review, he says "The X2 will not shoot action very well.....". What parameters is he taking into consideration here? The f/2.8 and max shutter speed?

I was playing around with my D-Lux3 on manual, and set the shutter to 1/1000th, f2.8 and ISO1600, and took a picture in a very well lit area, and the result was pretty dark. (i'm guess if it was a 'faster' lens(bigger aperture) the results would have been better?). But then what's the point of having a max shutter speed of 1/2000th on this(DL3 and X2) camera?

Cheers

[Phileas]

A properly exposed image is a properly exposed images, regardless of the speed of the lens. You can properly expose an image with a pinhole camera, which is pretty much the slowest "lens" there is.

If your image was underexposed, and assuming the camera isn't defect, then that's most probably a metering error. You might have selected spot metering (where a very small predefined part of the image is metered and exposed for) or center weighted when the remainder of the room was differently lit.

Check your settings to see what might have happend there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Question:
I noticed at the end of Steve Huff's review, he says "The X2 will not shoot action very well.....". What parameters is he taking into consideration here? The f/2.8 and max shutter speed?

My guess is he's commenting on some aspect of the autofocus. Either the speed of the motor, or the ability of the AF to track moving subjects.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I was playing around with my D-Lux3 on manual, and set the shutter to 1/1000th, f2.8 and ISO1600, and took a picture in a very well lit area, and the result was pretty dark. (i'm guess if it was a 'faster' lens(bigger aperture) the results would have been better?). But then what's the point of having a max shutter speed of 1/2000th on this(DL3 and X2) camera?

When you say "well lit", do you mean direct sunlight on a perfectly clear day?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

A properly exposed image is a properly exposed images, regardless of the speed of the lens. You can properly expose an image with a pinhole camera, which is pretty much the slowest "lens" there is.

If your image was underexposed, and assuming the camera isn't defect, then that's most probably a metering error. You might have selected spot metering (where a very small predefined part of the image is metered and exposed for) or center weighted when the remainder of the room was differently lit.

Check your settings to see what might have happend there.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think he intended the picture to be properly exposed. The idea was to see what happens when you use high shutter speeds, and therefore need to let in a lot of light via aperture and ISO. Since he couldn't overexpose a shot letting in as much light as possible from the aperture and ISO, he's wondering what those high shutter speeds are for.

I think.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think.

Crap. I missed the "manual" part. Maybe there wasn't as much light after all.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by subego 

I might be mistaken, but I don't think he intended the picture to be properly exposed. The idea was to see what happens when you use high shutter speeds, and therefore need to let in a lot of light via aperture and ISO. Since he couldn't overexpose a shot letting in as much light as possible from the aperture and ISO, he's wondering what those high shutter speeds are for.

I think.

Yeah that's what i was trying to try out.

I tried it indoors in the office (the lighting is obviously on a 'phase', so such a fast shutter could have captured an unusually dark image). I will have to try it outdoors.

So ....... having a shutter speed of 1/2000 should be 'decent' for some motion(people walking, cars moving(not racing), etc) ? (of course it would be better if the aperture couple open up more).

[subego]

The sun is bright. Like, really bright.

I just pointed my camera at the street in front of my place. It's old and funky, so it's actually not too far off from a grey card (the shade of grey the camera meters for).

At f/2.8 and ISO1600 it wants a shutter speed faster than the max 1/8000 my camera can pull off. At least five stops faster.

1/2000 is plenty short. People walking should be more or less frozen at 1/60. Totally frozen at 1/200.

[mattyb]

In the middle of summer, on the beach is when I use really fast shutter speeds. 1/1000 for this one :



Sorry, skiing (snow) is also another time.

A helicopter's blades (a chinook for example) will be frozen with no blur at 1/1000.

1/320 for Pelote Basque :



That ball is going FAST, notice the protection the guys wear.

My kids (9 and nearly 6) need at least 1/125th, but then there's blur when you want blur e.g. cycling or other actions stuff.

Just wanted to show you another surfer where 1/1000 wasn't fast enough, too much water is blurry :



The shots of surfers could only be done with a SLR since it requires a long reach. I tried with one of those ultra-zooms and the pictures were crap. D90 with a Sigma 150-500 does the job, and is relatively cheap.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

The shots of surfers could only be done with a SLR since it requires a long reach. I tried with one of those ultra-zooms and the pictures were crap. D90 with a Sigma 150-500 does the job, and is relatively cheap.

Very nice. Cheers for sharing the surf pictures. When I was thinking fast movement I was thinking surfing/cars. I doubt the X2 would be a good fit for sports just because of the lack of zoom? I could consider paddling out with camera in hand to compose the image *gasp*.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

A helicopter's blades (a chinook for example) will be frozen with no blur at 1/1000.

That would be plenty fast for me.

Also what do you mean by 'long reach'?

[Phileas]

Long reach = long lens = telephoto lens.



A recent flight to Montreal. 1/800, at f/5.6 and 125 ISO. Props move fast.

Lining up for arrival at Toronto Island Airport.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Long reach = long lens = telephoto lens.



A recent flight to Montreal. 1/800, at f/5.6 and 125 ISO. Props move fast.

Thanks for that. 1/800 for props in flight is plenty IMO.... from some of the comments i've seen about the X2's max of 1/2000 you'd think it was some kind of a catastrophe. The X100s has a max of 1/4000, does it actually make much of a difference? Or is this just a case of "my shutter is faster than yours"? Apart from taking pictures of the sun, what's the purpose of 1/4000?

Cheers

[OreoCookie]

I wouldn't worry too much about that, Hawkeye. The camera you're interested in just isn't aimed at high-speed shots and you can freeze most motion at 1/2000 s -- and what you cannot freeze, you'd probably shoot with a different camera anyway. E. g. the nice surf shots are impossible due to the focal length you've chosen (you need a really long lens).

[Hawkeye_a]

As far as the camera overall, I wonder why they decided to include a built-in flash instead of a OVF. The 'hot shoe' could have been used for an add-on flash for those extremely rare occasions for when a flash might be wanted. Or maybe that's just my preference.

[Phileas]

That would be my preference as well. I honestly can't remember the last time I used a build-in camera flash for anything.

[OreoCookie]

I use to trigger my SB-700 and my SB-600

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The D-Lux3 is a rebadged Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2, that includes the lens. Leica has sprinkled some, but not much, magic dust on that camera, but that's mainly in the image processing. It's really a Panasonic but for the name and shares all the highs, nice and sharp in good light, and lows, poor low light performance, of the early Lumix line.

The lens in your D-Lux is nowhere near as good as the lens in the X2.

Leica & Panasonic

I guess you were right. For some reason i thought the lenses were manufactured by Leica, not by a 'contractor'(Panasonic, or whoever). Ugh.... so essentially my D-Lux is just entirely a rebranded Panasonic with a different casing and tweaked firmware. I prefer the aesthetic design of the D-Lux, but hardly think that alone was worth the premium. (I think it came with a 3-year warranty which was nice). At the time, i thought the D-Lux had an actual Leica manufactured lens(with Panasonic electronics).

[Phileas]

Don't feel bad - it's still a decent camera but yes, the premium you paid went almost entirely to that shiny Leica badge.

My dad was all ready to buy the D-Lux 3 when it came out, I managed to talk him out of it and get the Pana instead.

[mattyb]

Been reading a few reviews and comments about the Fuji X100 and the latest X100S. Seems to be a very popular camera, and it takes some great photos. Cheaper than the X2 as well.

[mattyb]

This review in particular : Fuji x100s Review :: A Camera Walks Into A Bar • Photography By Zack Arias • ATL • 404-939-2263 • [email protected]

[Phileas]

Nice review and funny as hell. I wonder though if Fuji has ironed out all the kinks that early reviews found so infuriating: Fujifilm FinePix X100 In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review

(I am reading the negative reviews to stop myself from dropping the cash for a camera I really, really want and really, really don't need at the moment)

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Been reading a few reviews and comments about the Fuji X100 and the latest X100S. Seems to be a very popular camera, and it takes some great photos. Cheaper than the X2 as well.

Yeah its got the specs, better(marginally IMO) low light performance, OVF and cheaper. But it is about 30% heavier, is not as user friendly (complicated), and well it just doesn't "look" as good to me.

@Phileas..... yeah i'm sort of doing the same.... trying to find any fault i can to prevent me from buying the thing. Once I order the thing, they'll come out with the X3 which has a built-in OVF, no built-in flash and better performance.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Nice review and funny as hell. I wonder though if Fuji has ironed out all the kinks that early reviews found so infuriating: Fujifilm FinePix X100 In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review

According to the reviews I've read (and I have read lots), most of the quirks have been fixed, in particular general sluggishness, the unreliable AF, the awkward menu system (the most used settings are accessible via a quick menu) and manual focus is more than usable now (manual focus ring responds properly now, focus peeking and split screen available as focus aids). I know, I'm not helping

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

@Phileas..... yeah i'm sort of doing the same.... trying to find any fault i can to prevent me from buying the thing. Once I order the thing, they'll come out with the X3 which has a built-in OVF, no built-in flash and better performance.

I don't see how. The X100(s) (and the X-Pro 1) don't just have optical viewfinders, they have a hybrid viewfinder: in optical mode, you can use the lcd for the electronic viewfinder to display arbitrary information (parallax lines, focus scale, rule-of-thirds grid, AF point(s)), e. g. a live-histogram. The Fuji's optical viewfinder is much, much more powerful than the optical viewfinders you can get for other cameras which plug into the hotshoe of the camera (which are just »dumb« optical lenses). For situations where you prefer an electronic viewfinder, you can use that, too.

I reckon Fuji has patented the key technologies surrounding the hybrid viewfinder, so I doubt any other manufacturer will introduce a camera with one any time soon.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't see how. The X100(s) (and the X-Pro 1) don't just have optical viewfinders, they have a hybrid viewfinder: in optical mode, you can use the lcd for the electronic viewfinder to display arbitrary information (parallax lines, focus scale, rule-of-thirds grid, AF point(s)), e. g. a live-histogram. The Fuji's optical viewfinder is much, much more powerful than the optical viewfinders you can get for other cameras which plug into the hotshoe of the camera (which are just »dumb« optical lenses). For situations where you prefer an electronic viewfinder, you can use that, too.

I reckon Fuji has patented the key technologies surrounding the hybrid viewfinder, so I doubt any other manufacturer will introduce a camera with one any time soon.

Thats cool and all, but I'm a sucker for simplicity. Like i mentioned earlier, id just prefer an OVF over the flash(which i almost never use on my dlux).

EDIT>>ISO12500!!



Leica X2 review Thephoblographer.com

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Thats cool and all, but I'm a sucker for simplicity. Like i mentioned earlier, id just prefer an OVF over the flash(which i almost never use on my dlux).

I don't quite understand, the X100s does have an optical viewfinder and a flash. (Of course, nobody forces you to use the flash if you don't want to. ) I think you're getting confused about the word »hybrid viewfinder«; in simple terms, it means that the Fuji has an optical and an electronic viewfinder built-in (you don't have to pay extra), and you can use either or both. So you can just stick to the optical viewfinder and forget about the electronic viewfinder if you want to.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

EDIT>>ISO12500!!

The X100s does up to ISO 25,600 in jpg mode and 6,400 in RAW. I don't want to start any pixel-peeping discussions, but if you read reviews of the X100 and X100s, they were always universally praised for the image quality of the sensor + optics combo as well as high-ISO capabilities.

[mattyb]

Hawkeye, just get the X100s and then send the difference to me.

I'll make you a Leica sticker for it.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Hawkeye, just get the X100s and then send the difference to me.

I'll make you a Leica sticker for it.

Aahhh... but will you be in Germany when you make the sticker?

@Oreo, i know the tendency of most is to favor products with a plethora(El Guapo!) of options and then just find a workflow to suit oneself, and ignore the rest of the 'fluff'. But i'm stubborn in that I prefer refined design choices (minimalistic) , not in a pretentious way, but a way which shows the designers thought about the product instead of just cramming it with every option imaginable.

Many people are complaining about it NOT having stuff. I'm complaining because it has a flash which i have no use for .(and i suspect they will remove in the X3)

[Phileas]

I don't think the flash will be removed. Like you, I don't really have any use for it, but too many people do.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I don't think the flash will be removed. Like you, I don't really have any use for it, but too many people do.

You could be right. IMHO, I think people are prone to use flash when the cameras have much smaller sensors(cause they need to use it in low light). I think with an APS-C size sensor and relatively good-to-great high ISO performance the flash is almost superfluous. At that price for a compact, I fell we can safely assume that the people who would be considering buying it know about low-light stuff, and probably prefer not to use flash.

I wonder if a built in OVF in it's place would see more use by the intended customer base?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

@Oreo, i know the tendency of most is to favor products with a plethora(El Guapo!) of options and then just find a workflow to suit oneself, and ignore the rest of the 'fluff'.

I know I sound like a rabid fanboy, but simplicity is what the X100s is about. My parents used to have a Contax rangefinder from the 1960s, a beautiful piece of engineering which still works 50 years after it has been sold, and the camera is so simple that if you can use the rangefinder, you can use the X100s (in full manual) -- with the exception of occasionally changing the battery and downloading the pictures, of course. Simplicity is why I want the X100s.

[Phileas]

Agree with Oreo. The controls on the Fuji are where they belong on a classic viewfinder. Aperture on the lens, exposure as a dial on top, with another dial for stopping up or down. That's about a classic a setup as there's ever been.

The Leica takes a similar route for sure, but both cameras have electronic menus underpinning that simplicity.

[mattyb]

If I had money to throw about, I'd get an X100s before the Leica. Leica to me is like Audi or BMW : you buy it to show off, not because its better or more reliable than the competition.

[Phileas]

Same here. The X100 is the better camera, in my opinion.

The real Leicas, i.e the M series, is where I somewhat disagree with you. Those are in a class of their own. Truth be told, I have no idea why Leica insists on selling to the lower end of the market.

Just concentrate on the creation of stunning $10k cameras and call it a day. That's where the Leica magic happens.

[Hawkeye_a]

I've decided to put this purchase on hold for now. Quite frankly i'm not fully sold with any of the options available.

LeicaX2: no built in viewfinder, and to a lesser extent a flash i will never use(although it did remind me of WallE).
X100s: too big for my liking, and quite frankly doesn't look nearly as well polished as the Leica; and it's chock full options and features making it more complex than i'd like.

They both had respective 'pros'... X2 was smaller, better designed(aesthetic and ui) and a better lens. X100s, had better low light performance and was cheap(er).

My initial idea was to find a camera which was all about pure photography and less about the 'gadget', and i'll admit the Leica X2 came close. Ever since we got our first digital camera 11 years ago, the pre occupation with the specs (MP, zoom, sensor size, ISO, etc) has really cheapened the art form IMHO; sometimes i wonder if i'd be happy with a film camera(an old M maybe?)... where these additional attributes were of no concern.

Cheers

PS>>mattyb.... that picture at Navy Pier was taken at 1/30th and ISO2000. I assume your X2 is en route?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...they have a hybrid viewfinder: in optical mode, you can use the lcd for the electronic viewfinder to display arbitrary information (parallax lines, focus scale, rule-of-thirds grid, AF point(s)), e. g. a live-histogram. The Fuji's optical viewfinder is much, much more powerful than the optical viewfinders you can get for other cameras ..

I checked it out. This new hybrid vf seems like a pretty interesting innovation.

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Same here. The X100 is the better camera, in my opinion.

The real Leicas, i.e the M series, is where I somewhat disagree with you. Those are in a class of their own. Truth be told, I have no idea why Leica insists on selling to the lower end of the market.

Just concentrate on the creation of stunning $10k cameras and call it a day. That's where the Leica magic happens.

To be fair from what i've read about it, the X2, like the X1, is made in the Leica factories along side the M in Germany.