Leica DL4 RAW and LR2.1

[Ken Larsen]

Hello. I am a new forum member and am trialing the Leica D-Lux 4. I love the way it handles and the image quality in-camera. I use PS Lightroom 2.1 to manage my images.
LR has no problem "seeing" the Leica jpegs, but doesn't "see" or recognize the Leica RAW formated images. Am I doing something wrong? or is it incompatible? Ken Larsen

[miami91]

Originally Posted by Ken Larsen

Hello. I am a new forum member and am trialing the Leica D-Lux 4. I love the way it handles and the image quality in-camera. I use PS Lightroom 2.1 to manage my images.
LR has no problem "seeing" the Leica jpegs, but doesn't "see" or recognize the Leica RAW formated images. Am I doing something wrong? or is it incompatible? Ken Larsen

Adobe has yet to provide support through either LR or ACR. Ditto for Apple with Aperture.

Jeff.

[sdai]

It is probably because of the severe barrel distortion of the Dlux 4 lens Adobe has to manage to correct from RAW conversion.

I came across a talk involving Thomas Knoll, Eric Chan and bunch of other folks on the Adobe a while ago and heard people talking about it since then.

I didn't believe it at the beginning until I downloaded one of the RAW files some guys put up on the web, mapped it on my own computer and gave myself a treat. Jesus Christ ... they call it a Leica lens.

[mhoersch]

Originally Posted by sdai

It is probably because of the severe barrel distortion of the Dlux 4 lens Adobe has to manage to correct from RAW conversion.

I came across a talk involving Thomas Knoll, Eric Chan and bunch of other folks on the Adobe a while ago and heard people talking about it since then.

I didn't believe it at the beginning until I downloaded one of the RAW files some guys put up on the web, mapped it on my own computer and gave myself a treat. Jesus Christ ... they call it a Leica lens.

I'm glad someone confirms the impression I got when I tried the D-Lux 4. I can't understand how they can put "Leica" and "Summicron" on a lens with that level of distortion. I returned the thing to my dealer right away. And I don't care if dpreview rave about the image quality.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by sdai

It is probably because of the severe barrel distortion of the Dlux 4 lens Adobe has to manage to correct from RAW conversion

The screenshots on the DPReview review showed that they were using a beta of ACR v5.2

[miami91]

Originally Posted by mhoersch

I'm glad someone confirms the impression I got when I tried the D-Lux 4. I can't understand how they can put "Leica" and "Summicron" on a lens with that level of distortion. I returned the thing to my dealer right away. And I don't care if dpreview rave about the image quality.

Right... Because some theoretical distortion matters much more than image quality. And I say theoretical because if it's either corrected in camera or corrected by your RAW processor (without requiring direct user intervention), then that's exactly what it is. Given that one doesn't use photos without having them "processed" through some medium, this whole distortion argument really becomes an exercise in pedantry. It's the results that count, at least for most of us.

Finally, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's a 5.1mm lens (at the wide end) with an f/2 max aperture, in a very compact and (comparatively) inexpensive form. Just what kind of performance would you expect? The equivalent of a $4000.00 M lens? The barrel distortion I get from a CV 15m lens on my M7 is far worse, and actually requires significantly more effort to sort out. So speaking for myself at least, the barrel distortion on the D-Lux 4 is a complete non-issue.

Jeff.

[gyoung]

Originally Posted by miami91

Right... Because some theoretical distortion matters much more than image quality. And I say theoretical because if it's either corrected in camera or corrected by your RAW processor (without requiring direct user intervention), then that's exactly what it is. Given that one doesn't use photos without having them "processed" through some medium, this whole distortion argument really becomes an exercise in pedantry. It's the results that count, at least for most of us.

Finally, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's a 5.1mm lens (at the wide end) with an f/2 max aperture, in a very compact and (comparatively) inexpensive form. Just what kind of performance would you expect? The equivalent of a $4000.00 M lens? The barrel distortion I get from a CV 15m lens on my M7 is far worse, and actually requires significantly more effort to sort out. So speaking for myself at least, the barrel distortion on the D-Lux 4 is a complete non-issue.

Jeff.

I dont mind the idea of using software to correct the residual lens aberrations, a trade off for getting a 24mm f/2 for a very reasonable price!
Its apparent from the reviews that the distortion and aberrations are removed in camera with jpeg processing, are they also removed from the raw files? or are you left to sort out that for yourself, I don't remember any menu items in Photoshop for correcting barrel distortion or chromatic aberration.

Gerry

[miami91]

Originally Posted by gyoung

I dont mind the idea of using software to correct the residual lens aberrations, a trade off for getting a 24mm f/2 for a very reasonable price!
Its apparent from the reviews that the distortion and aberrations are removed in camera with jpeg processing, are they also removed from the raw files? or are you left to sort out that for yourself, I don't remember any menu items in Photoshop for correcting barrel distortion or chromatic aberration.

Gerry

I think there are controls in ACR, at least for barrel distortion -- it's been awhile since I've used it, since I mostly use Aperture. It's also a bit moot at this point in time since the raw files of the D-Lux 4 are yet to be supported by Adobe.

For Silkypix (the raw converter bundled with the LX3) and for Capture One, this appears to happen automatically without user intervention via the camera profiles those vendors have developed.

Jeff.

[sdai]

It doesn't matter what a RAW converter can do or not, it's a shame that Leica would even allow Panasonic to use their trademark on such a crappy lens ... in terms of optics ... it can be added into the fish eye category.

If you guys could spare 5 minutes on the S2 forum, you can read many posts from proud Leica aficionados criticizing Hasselblad's digital correction in post processing software - for ONE lens specially built for cropped sensor

[jank]

This brings the question, is the "perspective " linear?
We were taught to draw that way.taught to see it that way ,trained our brain to see it that way ( actually doing some postprocessing).
In the film era, it had to done (postprocessing) in the optics like the Distagons -(rectilinear lenses).
Now it could be done digitally, no need to make sophisticated lens systems forcing additional correction (aberations) and other compromises.

[miami91]

Originally Posted by sdai

If you guys could spare 5 minutes on the S2 forum, you can read many posts from proud Leica aficionados criticizing Hasselblad's digital correction in post processing software - for ONE lens specially built for cropped sensor

Any comparison to Hasselblad or the S2 seems apples to oranges. We're talking about a pocket-sized compact digicam in the sub-$1000.00 dollar price category. I have far different expectations for this genre than a $30,000.00+ MF camera system.

Jeff.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by miami91

Any comparison to Hasselblad or the S2 seems apples to oranges. We're talking about a pocket-sized compact digicam in the sub-$1000.00 dollar price category. I have far different expectations for this genre than a $30,000.00+ MF camera system.

Sorry if I haven't made it clear, Jeff.

It was people comparing the Hasselblad to the S2, and tried to make the whole Hasselblad lineup sounds like crap because it corrects the distortion and vignetting of ONE lens which is specially designed for cropped sensor.

Many Leica aficionados believe that the company is on such a high ground against any digital correction to make up inferior optic design, I don't think there's any good reason why they would allow this happen.

On the Panasonic side, they could definitely adopt a more conservative design to avoid pushing its limit, they chose to do so probably because they wanted desperately to impress the consumers with some fancy optics specs. while they had nothing to brag on the camera alone.

[miami91]

Originally Posted by sdai

Sorry if I haven't made it clear, Jeff.

It was people comparing the Hasselblad to the S2, and tried to make the whole Hasselblad lineup sounds like crap because it corrects the distortion and vignetting of ONE lens which is specially designed for cropped sensor.

Many Leica aficionados believe that the company is on such a high ground against any digital correction to make up inferior optic design, I don't think there's any good reason why they would allow this happen.

On the Panasonic side, they could definitely adopt a more conservative design to avoid pushing its limit, they chose to do so probably because they wanted desperately to impress the consumers with some fancy optics specs. while they had nothing to brag on the camera alone.

I've now gone and read the 5 pages of that argument --- I hadn't when I responded earlier .

In any event, while I am far less informed on the technical aspects than you or Michael Hussmann, for example, it seems that both of you (and others) agree that software correction to compensate for design tradeoffs is a perfectly reasonable way of optimizing results. To quote Michael from the other thread, "Applying digital corrections comes at little cost and makes a great lens even better; it would be stupid not to do this." And there's no doubt that design tradeoffs came into play when wresting more speed and a wider angle out of this physically tiny lens.

Believe me, I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else on this camera. And I don't know that it's necessarily any better than the competition (Ricoh, Canon G10, etc.) ---- I'm red dot loyal, and don't look very closely at models from other makers.. But from my own experience, the results are superior to the predecessor model D-Lux 3, and I think the changes made (faster lens, wider angle, external viewfinder option, better high ISO) are going to be very appealing to people who prefer "M style" photography. Perhaps this is where Leica gets the nerve to call this camera "son of M8".

Jeff.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by miami91

... from my own experience, the results are superior to the predecessor model D-Lux 3, and I think the changes made (faster lens, wider angle, external viewfinder option, better high ISO) are going to be very appealing to people who prefer "M style" photography.

To be honest, I'm not the target audience of the camera so it couldn't bother me the slightest, and as long as the vast majority of its target audience are perfectly happy with the end results, then who cares?

There's one side effect though, when either the camera runs the correction or you run the correction, a certain amount of image data will be discarded as a result of the "defisheye" process, anyone who has played with perspective correction in Photoshop or defisheye function in Nikon Capture should know what I'm talking about.

In that regard, the 24mm lens is no longer a 24mm lens because user only gets a cropped frame as the end result.

Originally Posted by miami91

Perhaps this is where Leica gets the nerve to call this camera "son of M8".

Has Leica really said so? then what is the "son of M8.2"? LOL

[miami91]

Originally Posted by sdai

Has Leica really said so? then what is the "son of M8.2"? LOL

M8.2 is childless, I guess.

See last sentence of product home page...
Leica Camera AG - Photography - D-LUX 4

Personally, I might label it more of a third cousin...

[sdai]

Originally Posted by miami91

M8.2 is childless, I guess.

See last sentence of product home page...
Leica Camera AG - Photography - D-LUX 4

Personally, I might label it more of a third cousin...

Thanks a lot for the pointer, Jeff ... that would crack some good laugh, to be exact, it can only claim to be "a stepson of the M8", do they share anything in common in their development? I don't think so. LOL

[nostatic]

If you shoot pictures of brick walls and pixel peep, then the camera sucks.

Luckily I don't generally find brick walls to be particularly interesting subject matter. And pixel peeping gives me a headache.

[gyoung]

Originally Posted by miami91

I think there are controls in ACR, at least for barrel distortion -- it's been awhile since I've used it, since I mostly use Aperture. It's also a bit moot at this point in time since the raw files of the D-Lux 4 are yet to be supported by Adobe.

For Silkypix (the raw converter bundled with the LX3) and for Capture One, this appears to happen automatically without user intervention via the camera profiles those vendors have developed.

Jeff.

Thanks, its only a snapshot camera after all, but a better one than most, for that price you dont expect to get Elmarit 24mm optics, but the if results are OK then it will do until the electronics die and its a goner.
In spite of the hype about son of M8 I will use the M6 & M3 when I want real quality, at least until we get a digital M I can afford!

Gerry

[miami91]

Originally Posted by gyoung

Thanks, its only a snapshot camera after all, but a better one than most, for that price you dont expect to get Elmarit 24mm optics, but the if results are OK then it will do until the electronics die and its a goner.
In spite of the hype about son of M8 I will use the M6 & M3 when I want real quality, at least until we get a digital M I can afford!

Gerry

I agree completely Gerry. I have modest expectations for it, and also look forward to buying an affordable digital M and/or a digital M that is full frame and doesn't require external filters. Until then, I happily carry on with my M7s and a film scanner.

Regards,

Jeff.