First impressions with the D-Lux

[allamande]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got to take mine out for a spin today. I only used aperture priority and limited the ISO to 200 (lowest possible). It was a very bright day today (as most days are here) and when I went out it was late afternoon with lots of strong contrasty shadows everywhere. I shot about 50 frames.

 

Here is a summary of my first impressions under these circumstances:

 

The raw files tend to be underexposed. I was using the multiple area brightness metering mode. In all cases where there were strong light and shadow areas, the image tended to be underexposed and needed extensive PP adjustment. In some cases, the underexposed shadows showed noise, when corrected.

 

The colors are skewed in the JPEG files toward jarringly vibrant. I only use raw files in general, so I didn't really worry about this aspect.

 

I used LR5 for PP.

 

Overall, the camera feels right in the hand, well balanced, and responsive. It shares many of the features/characteristics of the earlier generation D-Luxes so it is an easy transition, at least for the basics of the camera. Its strap is nonadjustable which renders it useless for me. I'm not sure why they chose to go this route ("cost" would be a laughable explanation).

 

I also did some trial shots indoors. The AWB seems to be not as accurate as the old D-Luxes (this is based on shooting in the same room, with the same lighting conditions).

 

I think for my needs and usage, this camera will work very well, once I get to know its quirks.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Ece

[TEBnewyork]

Actually I don't think it is all the camera. So far I think LR is doing a really poor job on the default conversions. I have both the LX100 and D-Lux here and find that all the RAWs seem very blah in LR and need more work than they should. Using other RAW converters is giving different initial results.....especially in how clean the files look.

 

Here is an example. The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - Fun with the LX100 / D-Lux Typ 109

The next post also has a visual example.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[allamande]

Thanks Terry!

I did think about the role of LR in the initial results. Camera raw does the same thing.

Hopefully LR will update its profiles soon.

Which converters work best for you now?

 

Ece

[dhsimmonds]

Ece

 

Whatever the technicalities, it was very clever of you to spot the Scottish national flag in the sky!

[lct]

Capture One does not recognize LX100 nor (i guess) DL109 raw files yet but can be used on tif files created by supported raw converters.

Silkypix 4.2 + C1 v8 + CS3 here. Default sharpening and noise reduction.

(5MB files)

200 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3728729403_TCR7f6S-D.jpg

200 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3728717628_SDRFVWX-D.jpg

640 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3728709567_S9rNSd8-D.jpg

1250 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3728713468_22QFxq7-D.jpg

1600 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3728721282_zghbJJS-D.jpg

1600 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3728733956_fmnZgRS-D.jpg

[allamande]

 

Whatever the technicalities, it was very clever of you to spot the Scottish national flag in the sky!

 

...and I was out walking with my sheltie. Talk about serendipity!

[allamande]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

lct, Thank you for the files! Somebody on another thread claims that ACR works fine but my experience is that ACR and LR behave the same way on the RWL files.

 

Ece

Edited December 1, 2014 by allamande

[allamande]

I will add a new observation:

 

I took a few shots in Monochrome (raw only) mode. Importing the images into LR5, first they looked BW in the preview, after import (using COPY) they showed up in color!

 

Exact same thing happens via PS6. The images show up as BW during preview, but after import, they show up in COLOR in ACR! Is that funny or what?

 

Ece

[elgenper]

I will add a new observation:

 

I took a few shots in Monochrome (raw only) mode. Importing the images into LR5, first they looked BW in the preview, after import (using COPY) they showed up in color!

 

Exact same thing happens via PS6. The images show up as BW during preview, but after import, they show up in COLOR in ACR! Is that funny or what?

 

Ece

 

Nothing untoward.... All raw formats do contain all the colour info that the camera is capable of (that is, none in e g the Monochrom, full colour in almost all other ones).

 

But, all cameras that display the image afterwards do so via a special jpeg preview, which is either a separate file, or embedded in the raw file. When setting the camera in B/W mode, this jpeg file will be in B/W, and so the LCD/EVF will show B/W.

 

The raw processors, however, ignore this preview file (may show it for a few seconds while working on the real thing...), and goes directly to the raw file. You have to convert it to B/W after importing it.

[allamande]

Per, thank you.

By "preview" I was referring to the LR import preview and the cs6 preview. Not the camera Screen or EVF. It is clear that the camera retains the color info. Though I'm not exactly sure as to why.

DL 4, as an example, had this mode and when you downloaded an image that was shot in bw, it showed up in bw in the LR library. I have never seen this behavior before.

 

If I need to convert to bw, then why bother having this "in camera monochrome" mode?

It seems silly. But I do see the flaw in my thinking.

I didn't try shooting raw+JPEG. I assume this is how the in camera bw will be retained after download. In the JPEG file.

 

Thanks again.

 

Ece

Edited December 1, 2014 by allamande

[TEBnewyork]

Per, thank you.

By "preview" I was referring to the LR import preview and the cs6 preview. Not the camera Screen or EVF. It is clear that the camera retains the color info. Though I'm not exactly sure as to why.

DL 4, as an example, had this mode and when you downloaded an image that was shot in bw, it showed up in bw in the LR library. I have never seen this behavior before.

 

If I need to convert to bw, then why bother having this "in camera monochrome" mode?

It seems silly. But I do see the flaw in my thinking.

I didn't try shooting raw+JPEG. I assume this is how the in camera bw will be retained after download. In the JPEG file.

 

Thanks again.

 

Ece

 

If you shoot in RAW + Jpeg you will see the B&W jpeg if you have LR set to treat the jpeg as its own file or you were just importing the jpegs.

 

RAW is the raw capture by the camera. Setting it to Monochrome isn't changing the RAW it is giving you a view of what the monochrome will look like. Generally when I have monochrome in mind, I shoot RAW + jpeg so that i have the monochrome reference file available.

 

Something tells me either your other camera was set-up differently by you. Or your LR setup has changed because the behavior you state in your post is perfectly normal and how it works.

[allamande]

Terry, Thank you!

 

After a bit more experimentation, I now fully see what's going on. I was thinking about "monochrome" mode as BW when in fact this is only referring to screen preview (as you say). This was not available in the previous DLs that I owned.

 

In the DL109, photo filters do the job that used come as a separate shooting (program) mode (in the old DLs). BUT, there is still one big difference between the old and the new cameras.

For example, if I want to shoot in sepia, I choose the sepia filter in DL109 and proceed. However, if the file quality is set to RAW only (my usual setting), then the filter that I choose turns out to be meaningless as I only see the filter effect on the LCD screen preview, but not when I download the file.

 

With the old camera, there was some default at work so that you didn't have to change file type to jpeg to use a mode like BW. Somehow the camera did this automatically. Here, you do have to switch file type (if you have it set to RAW only like I always do), and that's no big deal.

 

So, setting the file size to Raw + JPEG allows one to use the various photo filters with downloadable results. The downloaded file (JPEG) shows the result obtained by using the filter.

 

Thanks again. I am enjoying the camera immensely!

 

Ece

[fotografr]

My initial experiences with the new D Lux have been somewhat different. I've found the colors to be extremely accurate using AWB and exposures have been spot on. I'm shooting RAW, then converting the files to DNGs with the Adobe DNG Converter, version 8.7. Final adjustments (minor) have been done in ACR 6.7 and Lightroom. I couldn't be happier.

[allamande]

Brent, thank you!

 

As I said before I am very happy with the camera and trying to understand its characteristics. I wasn't using the DNG converter but following my usual workflow (i.e. import RWL files into LR5), and the results are along the lines I described.

 

I just tried the DNG converter and the results are identical to direct RWL imports into LR5. As I said in my OP, the outcomes as I'm describing apply to the high contrasty (bright sun with harsh shadows) conditions I was working with on that day.

 

Ece

Edited December 2, 2014 by allamande

[Louis]

Ece, I am glad I ordered mine before reading your observations; otherwise, I would have had double thoughts!

I am working on an old PS (CS2) and I really didn't have much problem for shades and lights. The Adobe DNG converter also shows the monochromes in color; and this is normal. Actually, the colors are not the same as the "real" colors. All I have to do is to push the saturation to monochrome. I have exactly the same with my DSLR!... Few years ago, when I noticed that, I called both Nikon and Leica; they told me it is normal since in reality, nothing in real life is monochrome and we have to change the saturation!...

Can't wait to see more of your photos, dear Ece!

[allamande]

Louis, thank you!

I didn't realize that my first impressuions sounded that negative. It is an accurate assessment and report of my experience and I would definitely recommend the camera.

 

As for In camera BW shooting, if the user cannot have access to the camera's own BW file, then what is the point of having that option?

 

I was referring to various shooting modes like bw, sepia, whatever, of the old Dlux. It turns out, in the new camera these modes are called "filters" and yes you can download the in camera bw as bw.

 

Ece

[Louis]

Louis, thank you!

I didn't realize that my first impressuions sounded that negative. It is an accurate assessment and report of my experience and I would definitely recommend the camera.

 

As for In camera BW shooting, if the user cannot have access to the camera's own BW file, then what is the point of having that option?

 

I was referring to various shooting modes like bw, sepia, whatever, of the old Dlux. It turns out, in the new camera these modes are called "filters" and yes you can download the in camera bw as bw.

 

Ece

 

I am not sure if I understand it right!... Did you try the button that says "F", just next to the zoom? ... It has several B/W options!... I don't know if this is what you were talking about? ... But even in my previous D-Lux cameras (and Nikon), when I was shooting in-camera BW, the downloaded file was in color. A kind of ugly greenish color!

 

But on the other hand, I just can't find "Scenes"! I never use them, but it is nice to know where they are!

[farnz]

… But on the other hand, I just can't find "Scenes"! I never use them, but it is nice to know where they are!

Louis,

 

On the DL109 they're called 'Photo Styles' and they're in the Rec menu. or can be accessed through the Q-menu. They'll be greyed out and and inaccessible if a Picture Effect filter has been selected with the "F" button on the top. BTW, with Photo Effect filters you actually have to select the "No Filter" option, you can't just toggle it on and off.

 

Pete.

[barjohn]

I gave the DL 109 a spin and was disappointed in the results. Color appeared to be accurate but there was no real pop to the images (processed in LR 5 or Iridient Developer). Even at ISO 320 there was a graininess to the images I would not expect at such a low ISO. The images did not compare well to the Fuji XE-2 or Leica T. I was surprised given the many positive reviews. The JPGs were even worse in that Panasonic seems to still apply to heavy a hand on NR, even at low ISOs.

 

The other day I ran across a youtube video done by a professional photographer performing a shoot-out between to high end DSLRs. One of the tests he incorporated was one of the more interesting approaches I have seen. He presented side by side portrait shots taken by each camera to same exposure settings and processed the same way in LR or CS (I can't recall). He presented a series of 20 shots and did not identify which camera took which shot. You were only given a few seconds to look at the images and write down which you preferred (A or . At the end he identified which camera took each image and you could determine your preference by adding up which camera's images scored the highest with you. I was surprised to discover that out of 20 images, I selected those belonging to one camera 18 times as my preference. There was little time to study the images so it was mostly subconscious preference.

 

I mention this because I think sometimes this is what is at work when we say we didn't care for the images produced by camera X. There is criteria that we apply that we are not conscience we are applying and thus when pressed we struggle to say Y or Z was not very good. Was it micro-contrast, pop, noise, grain, color, tonality, dynamic range, contrast, etc.? We don't always know, we just know something is not right or missing. (by the way the two cameras he was using in his shoot out were a high end Canon and a high end Nikon DSLR, both FF with excellent lenses. Going into his test I thought I would prefer the Canon images but the 18 I selected were the Nikon images.

 

Bottom line... DL109 didn't make my cut.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Lux

[Ecaton]

I gave the DL 109 a spin and was disappointed in the results. Color appeared to be accurate but there was no real pop to the images (processed in LR 5 or Iridient Developer). Even at ISO 320 there was a graininess to the images I would not expect at such a low ISO. The images did not compare well to the Fuji XE-2 or Leica T. I was surprised given the many positive reviews. The JPGs were even worse in that Panasonic seems to still apply to heavy a hand on NR, even at low ISOs.

 

 

Bottom line... DL109 didn't make my cut.

 

I went through he same experience with the LX100 which I returned after one week. I enjoyed the user interface and manual controls but was not impressed with the IQ, neither the lens nor the sensor are anything worth mentioning. Maybe my expectations were too high, but the promise of a mft sensor & Leica Vario-Summilx combination (doesn`t this sound great!) created them. The worst Summilux I ever experienced.

The Sony RX100III will remain my pocket P&S, resolution and micro contrast easily beat the LX100 and iso performance is not worse. And its tilting screen and flash on board are nice to haves on top.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Ecaton