Jump to content

The 109 six months on. My long term review

satureyes
 Share

Recommended Posts

lct

lct

Posted
Posted

Interesting review thank you. LX100 user here. The Panny is much nicer and better than the Leica if you ask me. Just kidding. ;) I share most of your comments except that the EVF lag after shots is way too long for me and the auto lens cap provides little protection vs water and sand projections. In my dreams, the camera would be a bit smaller, the EVF a bit larger and the EVF lag much shorter after the shots. It is also a pity that the raw files are not in DNG format. Great little camera though. The best compact camera with zoom lens i've used so far.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
satureyes

satureyes

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Interesting review thank you. LX100 user here. The Panny is much nicer and better than the Leica if you ask me. Just kidding. ;) I share most of your comments except that the EVF lag after shots is way too long for me and the auto lens cap provides little protection vs water and sand projections. In my dreams, the camera would be a bit smaller, the EVF a bit larger and the EVF lag much shorter after the shots. It is also a pity that the raw files are not in DNG format. Great little camera though. The best compact camera with zoom lens i've used so far.

The DLux does shoot as DNG but does this really make a difference these days?

Link to post
Share on other sites
satureyes

satureyes

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Too bad... Sean Reid did not mentioned this in his review. I will think twice about that next time.

Unless I've lost my mind. I will double check tomorrow. To be honest tho it's not a deal breaker anymore. If you're using Lightroom you can import and covert to DNG anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted (edited)

It is not a matter of camera but of pic files folks. What will you do with your raw files from 2015 if LR24 or whatever raw converter cannot read them in 2030? I know that most raw files can be converted by LR right now but my question was to know if the raw files of the DL109 are in DNG format or not. I've been answered that "The raw files are just DNG. It's one of the differences between the Panny and the Leica" at first, then that "No but if you convert on import then you have your DNG". So i understand that there is zero difference between DL109 and LX100 from this viewpoint, somewhat expectedly, and that contrary to M cameras, the raw files must be converted by LR or another software in the first place. That's what i wanted to know folks and i thank you much for having shared that piece of info with me.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites
satureyes

satureyes

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What do you think about the ooc-jpeg performance of the D-Lux in comparision to the Sony R100xyz?

 

Never shoot JPEG, can't see the point. Never shot on the RX100 mk1, 2 or 3 that I owned. I don't know why people bother UNLESS you need to share to social networks immediately, then I see no reason to shoot JPEG ever. 

 

The only time I do see a JPEG is when i'm doing a panoramic on the Dlux, but I can't compare because I never did on the RX. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dhsimmonds

dhsimmonds

Posted
Posted (edited)

Never shoot JPEG, can't see the point. Never shot on the RX100 mk1, 2 or 3 that I owned. I don't know why people bother UNLESS you need to share to social networks immediately, then I see no reason to shoot JPEG ever. 

 

The only time I do see a JPEG is when i'm doing a panoramic on the Dlux, but I can't compare because I never did on the RX. 

A valid argument some years ago but many brands have improved their finest setting jpeg output to the point that many are now just as good or better than the same camera's raw converted to jpeg.   I know of a number of pro photographers who, very confidently, only shoot jpeg. Particularly busy wedding photographers and photojournalists.    Of course, the camera's jpeg settings need to be finely tuned first.  I find that my LX100 produced beautiful jpeg images and even though I also have the raw images, I have very rarely needed to use them to "salvage" a poorly exposed shot.

Edited by dhsimmonds
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
satureyes

satureyes

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A valid argument some years ago but many brands have improved their finest setting jpeg output to the point that many are now just as good or better than the same camera's raw converted to jpeg. I know of a number of pro photographers who, very confidently, only shoot jpeg. Particularly busy wedding photographers and photojournalists. Of course, the camera's jpeg settings need to be finely tuned first. I find that my LX100 produced beautiful jpeg images and even though I also have the raw images, I have very rarely needed to use them to "salvage" a poorly exposed shot.

Oddly I know of none who shoot JPEG. Regardless of how good the rendering engine has become the RAW file will always contain more data. I assume these professionals shoot JPEG to cut down on export time because I don't really see the advantage to shooting a lossy compression unless delivering images at speed and quantity are the priority over quality. Storage is cheap, most modern computers can process RAW at a system level, so I can't see any real advantage in the JPEG argument.

Plus- I doubt many pro photographers would be using cameras like the DLUX for work anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...