Wideangle lens for D-LUX 4?

[Richard D]

Panasonic is selling an extension adapter and wideangle lens (18mm equivalent) for the LX3. Wondering if the same will be available for the Leica version, or conversely, if the Panasonic lens will fit the Leica? One of the things I've noticed over the years is that I'm often wishing for a shorter focal length than I have available, rather than a longer lens. Anyone know?

[Shootist]

The one Panasonic sells will fit and work on the Leica. They are the same camera and the Panasonic one will be much cheaper.

[miami91]

Whilst at photokina, David Farkas posted on his blog that Leica would not be producing this accessory because they thought it compromised image quality a bit too much. Given some people's complaints about native barrel distortion at 24mm (which Leica corrects in firmware for jpegs or via the RAW converter), an extra piece of glass in front of the lens stretching the FOV to 18mm may truly be a dodgy proposition. And there won't be any automatic compensation via firmware or RAW conversion, as the camera will have no way of knowing the adapter is mounted (you can do manual correction, of course).

Jeff.

[Richard D]

Originally Posted by Richard D

Panasonic is selling an extension adapter and wideangle lens (18mm equivalent) for the LX3. Wondering if the same will be available for the Leica version, or conversely, if the Panasonic lens will fit the Leica? One of the things I've noticed over the years is that I'm often wishing for a shorter focal length than I have available, rather than a longer lens. Anyone know?

That's my suspicion, too. But if you look carefully, there are slight differences between the lens barrels on the cameras. One that comes to mind is what looks like a knurled ring on the Panasonic.

[Richard D]

Originally Posted by miami91

Whilst at photokina, David Farkas posted on his blog that Leica would not be producing this accessory because they thought it compromised image quality a bit too much. Given some people's complaints about native barrel distortion at 24mm (which Leica corrects in firmware for jpegs or via the RAW converter), an extra piece of glass in front of the lens stretching the FOV to 18mm may truly be a dodgy proposition. And there won't be any automatic compensation via firmware or RAW conversion, as the camera will have no way of knowing the adapter is mounted (you can do manual correction, of course).

Jeff.

That's a pretty definitive answer- thanks!
Rich.

[miami91]

Originally Posted by Richard D

That's a pretty definitive answer- thanks!
Rich.

Doesn't mean it can't be done though, just that Leica didn't think it best. Obviously, Panasonic didn't agree with them!

Like most things, I think it depends on your application, how finicky you are, and how much time you want to spend in post-processing. I'm sure there are people getting perfectly acceptable results from the Panasonic adapter. In fact, I seem to recall in another thread a few weeks ago on the same topic that Mitch Alland was using a wide-angle adapter on his Ricoh digicam, and his photography (mostly BW) is quite excellent.

Jeff.

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by miami91

Whilst at photokina, David Farkas posted on his blog that Leica would not be producing this accessory because they thought it compromised image quality a bit too much. Given some people's complaints about native barrel distortion at 24mm ..., an extra piece of glass in front of the lens stretching the FOV to 18mm may truly be a dodgy proposition. And there won't be any automatic compensation via firmware or RAW conversion, as the camera will have no way of knowing the adapter is mounted (you can do manual correction, of course).

Jeff--
1) To use the converter, you must tell the camera it's mounted.
2) Panasonic has had excellent WA conversion lenses in the past--for Digilux 2, for example.
3) The logic above sounds like salesman's palaver to me: "If I can't sell it, you don't need it." My response is: Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. Leica mentions the availability of the Panasonic converter in the LFI article with no caveats. (Comment meant respectfully; I served for a number of years as Leica salesman.)
4) "... Given some people's complaints about native barrel distortion at 24mm ..." is baloney:
4a) DNGs from Capture One show the distortion at most focal lengths, not just at 24mm, and chromatic aberration as well.
4b) TIFFs from Capture One show neither barrel distortion nor much chromatic aberration at any focal length.
4c) Both Adobe DNG converter and ACR correct the lens's chromatic aberration almost completely, but leave a slight amount of barrel distortion, easy to correct but often looking more natural than Capture One's fully corrected TIFFs.

Upshot:
Don't let anyone tell you that a reason not to buy the Panasonic WA converter is the barrel distortion of the D-Lux 4 lens. It displays that distortion to three different degrees depending on your software, and can be further corrected if you want.
Telling the camera that it is wearing the WA converter tells it to correct for apparent focal distance. It's the converter's job to feed the image to the lens from the same angles as if it weren't present.

Legitimate reasons not to buy the converter include:
a) It's big and heavy for such a small camera.
b) It requires setting the menu when you mount it and again when you unmount it.
c) It works only at one focal length, 18mm equivalent. (Telling the camera that the WA adapter is mounted automatically locks it to 24mm equivalent. That's also a good reminder to reset when you remove the converter.)
d) As you implied: the extra glass means loss of some brightness and some loss of optical quality.

But all that being the case, I still intend to purchase the WA adapter. BTW, it's not likely that the price will fall. There's no competition for it. If you want one, you'll probably do as well to buy it now as to wait.


One more thing: If Leica felt they could do it better, they would. Remember that Panasonic offered a standard close-up lens for their equivalent of the Digilux 2 (single piece of glass). Leica instead produced an achromat which sold for close to $200 as I recall. The fact that Leica isn't offering an alternative to the DMW-LW46 indicates only that Leica doesn't want to be bothered to give you more bang for your buck.

[miami91]

Howard,

I have no stake in whether someone buys/uses the converter or not, but would offer as a response to your post:

a) I also don't make much of the barrel distortion complaints, but many people are making hay about this, thus my statement "some people's complaints". I assume you're calling the assertion itself baloney, rather than my citing of the assertion, as it takes little more effort than a casual perusal of this forum, or DP Review, to find several people critical of the lens performance. I'm not one of them --- I like the camera as is.

b) How exactly do you tell the camera that the converter is mounted when Leica's firmware (menu system) contains no such function? Can you please cite the page number in the manual where this function is documented? I'm looking (at the manual, not the camera --- my camera is at home and I'm at work) and don't see it. Every option in both the Setup and Record menus are covered in pages 44-56, and I can't find mention of it...

c) I agree that many people get good results from lens converters/adapters, and that they cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. Did I not say as much with my second post?

Regards,

Jeff.

[Richard D]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Jeff--

4a) DNGs from Capture One show the distortion at most focal lengths, not just at 24mm, and chromatic aberration as well.
4b) TIFFs from Capture One show neither barrel distortion nor much chromatic aberration at any focal length.
4c) Both Adobe DNG converter and ACR correct the lens's chromatic aberration almost completely, but leave a slight amount of barrel distortion, easy to correct but often looking more natural than Capture One's fully corrected TIFFs.

Nice reply, but could you or someone reading this answer a couple ignorant questions?? 1) Can you convert .RWL images to TIFF in Capture One? 2) And what's ACR? I'm new at all this, and the process seems daunting.........

[Richard D]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Jeff--
4a) DNGs from Capture One show the distortion at most focal lengths, not just at 24mm, and chromatic aberration as well.

And what the heck is a DNG?

[miami91]

Originally Posted by miami91

b) How exactly do you tell the camera that the converter is mounted when Leica's firmware (menu system) contains no such function? Can you please cite the page number in the manual where this function is documented? I'm looking (at the manual, not the camera --- my camera is at home and I'm at work) and don't see it. Every option in both the Setup and Record menus are covered in pages 44-56, and I can't find mention of it...

Just to follow up on my own posting, I'm now home from work (woot!), and I've had a look at my D-Lux 4. There is no menu setting for indicating the presence of a lens extender/converter. Perhaps there is on the Panasonic version --- couldn't say as I own the Leica.

To repeat myself (and preemptively fend off a rebuttal from Howard!), this does not mean that the converters won't work on the D-Lux 4, it just means that the captured image will not be adjusted for any imperfections that may result from its use (in the way that the camera makes adjustments for the lens in general). I'm sure there are many that will use converters and be happy with the results. The absence of official support from Leica may, however, be a further indication that they do not intend for these gadgets to be used on the camera. Pure speculation.

Jeff.

[miami91]

Originally Posted by Richard D

Nice reply, but could you or someone reading this answer a couple ignorant questions?? 1) Can you convert .RWL images to TIFF in Capture One? 2) And what's ACR? I'm new at all this, and the process seems daunting.........

Yes, you can convert to TIFF in Capture One.

ACR is Adobe Camera Raw. It's a sub-program (for lack of a better term) within Photoshop that does the RAW file conversion, and offers many options (settings, sliders, etc) for control of the various image parameters. If you think of a RAW file as a digital negative, the RAW processor is what does the developing. Capture One is a RAW processor, ACR is a RAW processor, Lightroom contains a RAW processor, Aperture contains a RAW processor, etc and so on. As I'm sure you've ascertained, the "problem" at this point in time is that not all of these programs support the RWL RAW format that Leica has created for the D-Lux 4. As Howard has pointed out, this is hardly unique to the D-Lux 4, as most cameras are not supported in the various photo applications for weeks/months after their release. Capture One supported the D-Lux 4 from day one, ACR now does, and we're still waiting on LR and Aperture.

Jeff.

[miami91]

Originally Posted by Richard D

And what the heck is a DNG?

This is a RAW file format created by Adobe, and which they've attempted to position as a "universal" RAW format (with limited success, seems to me). In the Leica world, it's significant because its the format used by the M8 and the DMR.

Here's a link to the wikipedia definition case you want more reading: Digital Negative (file format) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeff.

[ho_co]

Jeff--
Clearly I've annoyed. Please accept my apology. None of my remarks was directed at you. You cited the opinion of D Farkas, who in turn had received the wisdom of Leica at photokina. If a company has decided not to sell a product, a salesman for the company will often come up with his own reasons, accurate or not.

Originally Posted by miami91

... I also don't make much of the barrel distortion complaints, but many people are making hay about this, thus my statement "some people's complaints". ...

Of course there are people who complain about the lens's distortion; your post states that fact as a given and you take no side. My quoting you wasn't intended to make you the author of the complaints, and at any rate, I was attempting to address the complaint rather than the complainers. I simply wanted to say that there are two available ways to avoid the distortion, one from Capture One and one from Adobe. (From what I've seen, most of the distortion complaints date from before Adobe's DNG converter and ACR were updated, at which point Capture One's TIFF was the only solution.)

... How exactly do you tell the camera that the converter is mounted when Leica's firmware (menu system) contains no such function? ...

Sincere thanks for calling me on this. I was in error. My mention of the menu setting is derived from pages 92 and 122-3 of the LX3 instruction manual (available at Panasonic - ideas for life - Downloads), and I hadn't compared the D-Lux 4 manual or menu system.

You are correct. The D-Lux 4 does not offer that setting option.

That might explain why the LFI article left open (barely) the hope that Panasonic might in future decide to offer a tele adapter as well. It seems to me that if a given adapter is doing its job, it shouldn't require setting the camera, but my information came from the Panasonic manual.

This lack of a menu option that Panasonic feels is necessary might be added as item (e) under my list of reasons one might want to avoid using the DMW-LW46 with the D-Lux 4.

The point interests me, since I had mistakenly thought that the D-Lux 4 was functionally identical to the current LX3.

Panasonic also mentions at least one LX3 design change: "LUMIX model sold after August 2008 has made audio improvement, so it cannot be played back on the previous models." (ibid, p 73)

Perhaps the "CONVERSION" setting is also a latecomer? At any rate, if Leica later decides that we need that setting, they can probably offer it via firmware update.

... I agree that many people get good results from lens converters/adapters, and that they cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. Did I not say as much with my second post?

I had no argument with your second post and made no reference to it.


Jeff, I'm sorry to have given you the feeling (as I take it I did) that I was attacking you. What I intended was to argue against some of the assumptions you cited, not against you.

I did contradict you in regard to having to set the camera when mounting the wide-angle adapter, and I was wrong. I appreciate the correction. I had checked what I thought was an equivalent manual, and our exchange here has shown that that was insufficient.

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by Richard D

... 1) Can you convert .RWL images to TIFF in Capture One? 2) And what's ACR? I'm new at all this, and the process seems daunting...

Originally Posted by Richard D

And what the heck is a DNG?

Rich--Jeff's responses are good (and succinct). Let me come at the matter just a little differently:

If you open the RWL in Capture One, it lets you output it undistorted as a TIFF or uncorrected as a DNG.

DNG was to be the open-source, 'never-go-out-of-date,' future-proof "Digital NeGative." It's interesting that this Panasonic camera has made Adobe rethink the format.

Adobe explains the difference between their own and Capture One's approach to the RWL file at Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh : Camera Raw 5.2 update et al.

The difference explains why some people are having trouble with their RWL files and the supposedly universal DNG: Capture One writes a DNG that captures the RAW data only, and does so in the general format that all RAW interpreters recognize.

Adobe, on the other hand, with the new Adobe Camera Raw and the new Adobe DNG Converter and the soon-to-come Lightroom update, makes it possible to decode the complete RWL file, with its software correction for distortion and chromatic aberration, into a version of DNG foreseen in the original DNG specification but never used before now.

In other words, no one had previously needed to use the linear version of DNG, so no one's software could recognize it. Now Adobe is writing de-mosaicked DNGs for the first time, and other programs may have trouble with them.

But that's short-term; the others will soon catch up. It happens whenever there is a change in technology. The same thing happened when the Leica M8 came out. Only Capture One could read its files, because they made use of a version of DNG that hadn't previously been implemented. People were up in arms then just as now. But after a month or so, all RAW interpreters could read the M8's DNGs, and today no one complains about it.

You're correct, it is daunting. All of us have gone through that stage of "oh, no, not another acronym," followed by "okay, that's what the acronym stands for--but what does it mean?" Don't worry. Gradually it becomes clearer.

And then someone tosses a monkey-wrench into the works, as Panasonic / Leica have just done, developing a RAW format that contains much more complex data than previously: Not just the data from the sensor, but instructions on how to process it.

Feel free to scream, but don't give up.

[Richard D]

Howard & Jeff,
Yes, this stuff is giving me a headache right now, but I love it. And like you both have done before me, I'm determined to learn it. Thanks so much for the help. When I'm more capable, I'll pass it forward to the next struggling person.
Rich.

[miami91]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Jeff--
Clearly I've annoyed.

Howard,

No no, not annoyed --- just wanted to separate out the messenger from the message. There are a couple of threads on this forum (and many others elsewhere) where people have taken many shots at the quality of the lens given the need to correct in firmware or in RAW conversion, and I've defended the design choices Leica have made. Just acknowledging that there are some who see this as a fault.

You're a nice guy (I've ascertained) who's opinion I respect, so I tried to disagree with tact --- hope that was evident.

As for David Farkas, first of all let me say that I can't say with certainty that it was his blog where I read about Leica's refusal to market the lens converters --- it may have been another article or thread. I know I got much of my information about the D-Lux 4 (as well as some images that tied me over whilst waiting for my pre-ordered camera to be shipped!) from David's photokina coverage, so I'm assuming that's where I read it. And certainly David and others in his position do have a financial incentive to prop up Leica products versus the competitors, but he seems to be a very honorable person, a well connected dealer, and someone who frequently contributes to this forum, which I appreciate. So perhaps I shouldn't cite his comments as some sort of higher wisdom, but I've generally found them to be constructive and informative.

Best wishes,

Jeff.

[ho_co]

Jeff--
You made your corrections much more gently than you might have done. And you're right on the other points as well. I don't know where the explanations came from, and it doesn't matter because they are all reasonable.

I'm with you all the way in regard to the lens: It offers a new way to approach image quality. To say as some have that Leica shouldn't allow its name to be used on a lens of such poor quality is to miss the point IMHO.

The lens is a perfect example of turning a corner that twenty years ago we couldn't even have imagined. To speak of a lens's quality as something inherent solely in its design, not as its output after digital manipulation, is no longer adequate.

And it's probably obvious that I'm (also?) getting annoyed at all the complaints about the flaws of the lens on its own. The lens doesn't exist on its own with this camera, but only through software. And that fact gives us great choices: With some images I use the fully corrected Capture One TIFFs as the basis for further work; with others I find the barrel distortion of the Capture One DNGs more appropriate; and for most I prefer the Adobe rendition. I'm glad for the choices and can't imagine complaining that we've got too many.

But I keep repeating myself in these matters, and should just get off the forum till all the software packages can read the RWL files and we can forget about these questions.

"Should," I said, not "will" get off the forum.