Leica Elpro-D E69

[elgenper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used the 500D and it worked excellently.

 

Sure it will work well optically; being weaker than the 250, it would degrade the image even less. And it can be had in sizes that don´t vignette (but I managed to get my 250D in 58 mm mount; it doesn´t vignette above 50 mm zoom setting, and for closeups, one would mainly use 90 mm).

 

What I meant by ´doesn´t make sense´ is that the extra focussing range is far smaller. When the lens is set at infinity, with the 500D the focus is on an object 50 cm in front of the lens, and with the 250D, the focus lies 25 cm in front.

 

Since the lens by itself focuses down to 30 cm from the sensor plane, it would be somewhat less than 25 cm in front of the lens front, so there is hardly any overlap in range if one then adds the 250D (the resulting focal length would be slightly shorter, so the field of view would be a little wider, but not by very much).

 

When the lens is set at its closest focussing distance, there is a corresponding difference. Let´s look at the image width available, since this is more relevant than the distance when doing closeups. I just made a quick test with my Digilux, and these are my results (lens at 90 mm, manual focus set at close limit in all cases):

 

No extra lens: 13 cm image width

250D added: 7 cm image width

2 diopter lens added: 10 cm image width

 

I don´t own a 500D, but its strength is exactly 2 diopters too, so it should give the same result.

 

Going from 13 to 7 is almost doubling the scale, while going from 13 to 10 is a factor of 1.3. Personally, I wouldn´t take the extra trouble with an add-on lens for those 30 %, but I will when it allows for doubling the scale.

[Advertisement]

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

[jrethorst]

I have both the Elpro and the Panasonic . . . I can't see significant difference between the 2 in terms of IQ

This answers my question. Thank you.

[carlosecpf]

Actually quoting only that part of my post can be misleading. To be truthful to my opinion/experience, you should have quoted the following as well:

 

It is worth saying that I never did extensive comparison testing between them... just a couple of shots.

 

If I have done extensive testing and shared the sample pics with you guys then, and only then, you could form your own opinion and answer your own question properly... Until someone does a systematic comparison, one can only rely on subjective opinions, not facts.

 

So, don't rely on my subjective opinion based on an informal testing done by photographing objects on top of my desk during a middle-of-the-night insomnia!!

[jrethorst]

Could you share some sample pics with us?

[carlosecpf]

I could not find the pictures... I will do a better comparison test if I have free time in the next days.

[Overgaard]

It's not the same. I only have the ELPRO, but with the trouble getting them these days (no matter the price you are willing to pay they are scarce), I would try the Panasonic.

 

But from pure look of them it's obvious it's not the same.

 

So the Panasonic may work, but the ELPRO is the state of art and one of the few lens attachments existing in the world that actually make a lens into another just as good lens.

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I echo Thorsten's wise words. He hit the nail on the head!

[elansprint72]

Could you share some sample pics with us?

 

I think that any comparison will be invalid (unless there is a huge difference) when looking at a reduced-sized image on the web.

 

Glad I got my Elpro when the price was reasonable. Nearly bought the Pana version but one came up on e-bay.

[carlosecpf]

I agree. No doubt they are really different pieces of glass. I guess the question one should try to answer is that: "Which adapter produced the image I like best?" Some might like the image rendered by the Elpro better, some might like the one from Lumix better and some might not even be able to tell the difference. I will try to post some samples and then who is interested in this discussion could come up with their own conclusions.

[jrethorst]

I agree. No doubt they are really different pieces of glass. I guess the question one should try to answer is that: "Which adapter produced the image I like best?" Some might like the image rendered by the Elpro better, some might like the one from Lumix better and some might not even be able to tell the difference. I will try to post some samples and then who is interested in this discussion could come up with their own conclusions.

 

Another question is which one, if either, renders an image more like the D2 without either adaptor. Could you thus take three sample shots (or sets of threes)? These will be very interesting -- thanks.

[John Thawley]

I think that any comparison will be invalid (unless there is a huge difference) when looking at a reduced-sized image on the web.

 

Glad I got my Elpro when the price was reasonable. Nearly bought the Pana version but one came up on e-bay.

 

And we have a winner!!!!

 

Of course you are right. Just the algorithms applied in image reduction AND additional (compiled) compression of a new JPEG is going to be far more destructive to the IQ than either piece of glass.

 

At the end of the day, on the individual's personal choice/preference/opinion.

[John Thawley]

I agree. No doubt they are really different pieces of glass. I guess the question one should try to answer is that: "Which adapter produced the image I like best?" Some might like the image rendered by the Elpro better, some might like the one from Lumix better and some might not even be able to tell the difference. I will try to post some samples and then who is interested in this discussion could come up with their own conclusions.

 

Shoot RAW. If you do this, one step to reduce the variables would be to simply crop1/4 the frame.... rather than re-size the image. Saving is another issue. Even if you save it at the highest quality JPEG, it will still be taking hit of compression.

 

Also, working as a TIFF may help.

 

For those that may not understand the process of JPEGs, you can open and close a JPEG all day long... nothing will change. But the minute you edit one tiny thing, saving again will re-compress the image. Hence there is loss.

 

JT

[John Thawley]

Another question is which one, if either, renders an image more like the D2 without either adaptor. Could you thus take three sample shots (or sets of threes)? These will be very interesting -- thanks.

 

Wonder if Carlos' hourly rate is going to exceed the cost of an ELPRO?

 

He should probably shoot RAW.... might neutralize some of the rendering done at the JPEG level.

[carlosecpf]

Wonder if Carlos' hourly rate is going to exceed the cost of an ELPRO?

 

He should probably shoot RAW.... might neutralize some of the rendering done at the JPEG level.

 

Hey John! The ELPRO is MUCH more expensive then my hourly rate!!

I am sorry I did not post the test yet but I had to travel abroad for unplanned business. I will be back home next Monday morning an then I will have the time to perform some tests. Any ideas or suggestions for this test are super welcomed!

I will definitelly shoot RAW! I did not know that JPEGs are recompressed after any changes made to it. I started shooting RAW with my D2 last weekend and I must say I liked the experience, despite the low writing speed.

[John Thawley]

Hey John! The ELPRO is MUCH more expensive then my hourly rate!!

I am sorry I did not post the test yet but I had to travel abroad for unplanned business. I will be back home next Monday morning an then I will have the time to perform some tests. Any ideas or suggestions for this test are super welcomed!

I will definitelly shoot RAW! I did not know that JPEGs are recompressed after any changes made to it. I started shooting RAW with my D2 last weekend and I must say I liked the experience, despite the low writing speed.

 

 

Well... just be forewarned there are going to be a lot of caveats to this... NO MATTER how you conduct the test.

 

Here would be my recommendations, though.

 

First, do the comparisons as quickly as possible to hopefully avoid lighting variables.

 

Early morning would probably be best and if you shoot a flower or something... try to block any potential breeze.

 

Tripod

Remote release cord or use the timer

Aperture preferred at f/5.6 - f/8 (assuming you can block the breeze)

ISO 100

RAW

90mm

 

Those would be my parameters... obviously, a hardcore test would be every aperture and multiple zoom ranges... but if you can get a comparison at an optimal configuration... that's probably the best benchmark anyway.

 

JT

[carlosecpf]

Hi John,

 

I am heading to my garden in a few moments to finally do the comparison test following your suggestions. I know there will be caveats, but I believe that almost every camera test has some as well! Nonetheless, I think it will be fun. I am also performing the same test with my V-Lux 1, D-Lux 4 and Digilux 3 (this one with a dedicated macro lens). Again, just for fun!

[carlosecpf]

Hey guys,

 

I am sorry for not posting earlier, but last saturday was pretty windy and I could not get one single steady macro shot in my garden. All of them came out blurry. I was hopeful to redo the test on sunday, but it was raining non stop in NYC until yesterday. So I decided to do an indoors test tonight.

 

Using the 2 macro lens right after the other, it was clear that the Elpro a little more magnification of the subject at the same minimum focusing distance (15cm). However the Spot AF was a little erratic with the Elpro. Sometimes I needed to AF a couple of times (without moving the camera) before getting the camera to lock focus. The Lumix LC-69 lock the Spot AF quicker and 100% accurately all times.

 

There is no doubts the Elpro D 69 and the Lumix LC-69 are different lenses. However, are the results they produce VERY different under this close to identical situation?

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional camera tester, so this test probably was not done under optimal conditions. However, I tried my best to maintain all test variables constant during the test.

 

Methodology details:

 

- Camera: Lumix LC-1 (has the same RAW file as a Digilux 2)

- Focusing distance: 15cm

- Focal length: 90mm

- f/stops tested at 90mm: f/2.4, f/5.6 and f/11

- RAW pictures

- ISO 100

- Spot AF

- Tripod

- Self-timer

- Spot AF point: the screwdriver's tip

- Lightening conditions and subjects position were maintained the same throughout the test

 

You can download the RAW files here:

 

RAW: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8018089/Macro_Test/Macro_Test_RAW.zip

 

Download the files, analyze them and share your opinion!

[carlosecpf]

Here are the 100% crop (resized for upload) pictures from the RAW files. I used Photoshop CS5. For a better analysis, however, I strongly recommend you downloading the original RAW files linked in my previous post.

 

1) Leica Elpro 69 D @ F/2.4 90mm

2) Lumix LC-69 @ F/2.4 90mm

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[carlosecpf]

1) Leica Elpro 69 D @ F/5.6 90mm

2) Lumix LC-69 @ F/5.6 90mm

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!

[carlosecpf]

1) Leica Elpro 69 D @ F/11 90mm

2) Lumix LC-69 @ F/11 90mm

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!