X-U (or X Type 113) Focus Aid

Discussion in 'Leica X Forum' started by David H Dennis, Jun 26, 2016.

  1. David H Dennis

    David H Dennis Leica Place Rookie

    24
    Jun 7, 2016
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    David H Dennis
    Is it just me, or is it hard to use the focus magnification in the X-U because the magnified portion of the image is simply blown up from the viewfinder, and therefore highly pixelated and without much detail? I think I've been missing focus targets because of this.

    And I'm curious, for those who know: Is the Q any different/better?

    Interestingly enough, when I bought this camera I though it would be the gateway drug for a SL. Now I think it might be more one for the Q because I would really like a full-frame camera with high ISO ability that works in a similar way and is similarly small and light.
     
  2. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    The Q is better in a lot of ways besides full-frame image quality. The Q acts like a modern camera, while the X series act like early digital cameras. My trading of the Q for the X-U was based on my shooting far more 35 mm perspectives than 28 mm. With the Q, I most often cropped off my advantage in sensor and pixels, but if you "see" in 28 mm you should love the Q.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. asiafish

    asiafish Leica Place All-Pro

    Aug 9, 2013
    Bakersfield, CA
    Andrew
    Other than the viewfinder being external, how do the X and X Vario act like early digitals and how is the Q better?

    I've used the Q and owned both the X and X Vario. Yes, the Q is a bit faster focusing, which I would hope for given its newer and much more expensive, but the X (and X Vario in good light) focus as quickly as most cameras in their class, have no serious lag issues with regards to card writes, have outstanding optics and very easy-to-use and logical interface. Other than the aperture ring around the lens and better exposure compensation dial I see little difference in the actual usability. With the EVF attached, the X 113 in particular is very close to Q level in terms of usability and feel.
     
  4. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    There are probably 100 things. Stabilization of the X is the same as the X1 from 2010 - very primitive. Shot-to-shot performance is slow. Some new things have been added such as video, but other than being much larger than the X1/X2/XE to get a faster lens, it's the old camera with a few new things added. I remember when I first shot the X-U and how much more primitive it was than the Q. And that's not a negative for me, since I'm good with the X's design. Except being much larger than the X1 just to get a faster lens. And the X1 had a fabulous carry case (18709) for carry in places where most traditional cases would look out of place etc. So it's a mixed bag. I much prefer the 35 mm view which is why I traded, but if I were buying again today, it would be a tossup between the smaller f2.8 XE and the f1.7 'X', in no small part because of the extremely handy case that Leica made for the X1.
     
  5. asiafish

    asiafish Leica Place All-Pro

    Aug 9, 2013
    Bakersfield, CA
    Andrew
    I never used stabilization on my X, or video. For that matter, I don't use cases so that isn't an issue either.

    My only operational complaint with the X series was that you cannot shoot DNG only without a JPEG, but doesn't the Q share this limitation?
     
  6. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    I'm not aware of any expert reviewers who say that real image stabilization is less than a great idea. As to cases or lack thereof, I see lots of people carrying cameras around their necks with the cameras bouncing against their chests, or worse. If that's what a user prefers, then they live in a very different world from me.
     
  7. asiafish

    asiafish Leica Place All-Pro

    Aug 9, 2013
    Bakersfield, CA
    Andrew
    I use IS all the time on my Canon, but with Leica I've never thought of it.
     
  8. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    I'm not against cameras with no IS, but I do take precautions when they don't. Burst shooting in handheld use for example. And then the IS in some cameras can be far less effective than others. There's no substitute for getting familiar with a camera's quirks before going on a shoot.
     
  9. David H Dennis

    David H Dennis Leica Place Rookie

    24
    Jun 7, 2016
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    David H Dennis
    Understandable, since people tend to use wide angle lenses with Leicas, and IS isn't all that useful for wide angle.
     
  10. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    Mostly if people are talking about 'Leicas', they're probably talking about rangefinders, yes? And those are in a category very different from SLR's, mirrorless, digicams etc. Leica never even made a zoom lens for their rangefinders.

    Since I've had most all of the Leicas except for the 'S' series, my impression of the 'X' series is that it's a primitive digicam, very unlike their rangefinders. I was mildly surprised that the X-U has video, but when I dug through the manual and the camera itself, noting the same 'IS' that the X1 introduced in 2009, I realized that they just patched the video in but the X remains otherwise as primitive as the X1.
     
  11. asiafish

    asiafish Leica Place All-Pro

    Aug 9, 2013
    Bakersfield, CA
    Andrew
    Yup, and the lens I use. IS with on my Canon is a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, for which IS is a huge benefit.
     
  12. asiafish

    asiafish Leica Place All-Pro

    Aug 9, 2013
    Bakersfield, CA
    Andrew
    We will have to agree to disagree. I don't equate a lack of features with being primitive in the case of the X, but with the camera's intended audience valuing direct, manual controls and considering the lack of extra fluff as a feature in itself.

    I really enjoyed the X, and never considered it to be less advanced than my Canon 6D DSLR, just being entirely different in purpose.

    As I said before, I'd like to buy X 113 another when the funds are available.
     
  13. David H Dennis

    David H Dennis Leica Place Rookie

    24
    Jun 7, 2016
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    David H Dennis
    I think Dale has somewhat different ideas about the English language than we do. At first I thought it was really strange for him to talk about the cameras he obviously loves (for, why else spend so much money on them?) as primitive, but then I realized that what he really means is what we say when we talk about direct, manual controls and simplicity of operation.

    A nice way to think of this is the Nikon D5300. This camera has very sophisticated and complex electronics, designed to prevent you from taking technically bad pictures. So it will not let you shoot at too-low shutter speeds, too high ISOs, etc, and it doesn't give you an easy way to override its ideas without pulling out the instruction manual. To me, this camera is harder to use than the D5 or Leicas, which both respect your control inputs even when they are "obviously" wrong. For this reason, you pretty much have to bend over backwards to try and take a good picture of the moon with the D5300. I wasn't able to do it, actually. I lost patience, sighed (since I really wanted a 24 MP crop sensor image), pulled out the D5, and did it in an instant.

    So if you think about it, the X-U is really primitive compared to the D5300 since it doesn't lift a finger if you might be using it incorrectly. At the same time, it's a lot more pleasing for photographers who know what they are doing. I think the X is probably much better for teaching photography than the D5300, although obviously price is a huge barrier ...
     
  14. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    It's not a language thing, it's an experience thing. Maybe when you've used enough cameras, you'll understand 'primitive' in the 'X' sense. I work with pro photographers to whom the 'X' is a very foreign concept, explanations notwithstanding.