satureyes Posted October 3, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So after just over 6 months with the 109, I put a review together. http://www.satureyes.com/blog/2015/10/review-leica-d-lux-typ-109-six-months-on Hope it's of some value. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Hi satureyes, Take a look here The 109 six months on. My long term review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dhsimmonds Posted October 3, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 3, 2015 A very good real user review. My experiences are very similar with my LX100! A very good little lens and well matched sensor with enough on camera controls for versatile shooting for different situations. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 3, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 3, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 3, 2015 Author Share #4 Posted October 3, 2015 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 4, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 4, 2015 The DLux does shoot as DNG but does this really make a difference these days? I did not know that. How does it work? DNG files are easy to convert and will still be so in 20 years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted October 4, 2015 I did not know that. How does it work? DNG files are easy to convert and will still be so in 20 years. The raw files are just DNG. It's one of the differences between the Panny and the Leica. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 4, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Too bad... Sean Reid did not mentioned this in his review. I will think twice about that next time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted October 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 4, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 4, 2015 Are you sure your err... "Lightroom" (C1 user here ) will still work in 20 years? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted October 4, 2015 Are you sure your err... "Lightroom" (C1 user here ) will still work in 20 years?No but if you convert on import then you have your DNG. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 4, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 4, 2015 Are you sure your err... "Lightroom" (C1 user here ) will still work in 20 years? Will you still be using your 109, twenty years from now? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 4, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 4, 2015 (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 October 4, 2015 by lct Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Braun Posted October 4, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 4, 2015 The DLux does shoot as DNG but does this really make a difference these days? The D-Lux 109 does not shoot DNGs but proprietary RAWs named "RWL". Adobe PSE13 beautifully copes with them. Andreas 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 4, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 4, 2015 Adobe also has a free app which converts raw files of many cameras into DNG files. One obvious solution would be to convert all "foreign" raw files into DNG ones the moment they are copied to your computer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #15 Posted October 4, 2015 The D-Lux 109 does not shoot DNGs but proprietary RAWs named "RWL". Adobe PSE13 beautifully copes with them. Andreas My bad. I thought they were. I just didn't even notice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 4, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 4, 2015 When I import non .dng raw files into Lightroom, no matter what file format they are, they are automatically converted to .dng Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasB Posted October 4, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 4, 2015 So after just over 6 months with the 109, I put a review together. http://www.satureyes.com/blog/2015/10/review-leica-d-lux-typ-109-six-months-on Hope it's of some value. What do you think about the ooc-jpeg performance of the D-Lux in comparision to the Sony R100xyz? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #18 Posted October 4, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted October 5, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 5, 2015 (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 October 5, 2015 by dhsimmonds 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted October 5, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.