D-Lux 5 a real Leica? Yes of course, but...

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seems some folks keep bashing the D-Lux 5. It's just an over-priced Panasonic seems to be the main gripe. Well, it's got a red dot, so it must be a real Leica, right!? But more than that: To me, it comes very close to the Leica ethos, from the age of Oscar Barnack and the very first Leica, of "small camera, big picture." It is certainly very compact. It has a cracker f/2-3.3 24-90 lens which is incredibly versatile (only drawback is if you want bokeh). IQ from a small sensor is remarkable, even at ISO 1600. Digicams really have improved tremendously in this aspect over the last few years -- in terms of overall IQ, dynamic range and noise control. And AF is very fast, a lot faster than the X1 -- though, as with any AF compared with RF, it's hard to know precisely what you are focusing on.

 

So why the "but"? Handling could be better. It's fast, but buttons are tiny (something I find common to just about all digital products). I just leave it on P. Too fiddly to squint into an LCD and try to select shutter or aperture. The X1/Leica M controls are just so much easier! Introduce them onto the D-Lux -- or make the X1 faster and more versatile -- and you would have a real winner! But even so, as an ultra compact take-anywhere camera, the D-Lux 5 takes a lot of beating.

[Advertisement]

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

[A.V.]

..."Oscar Barnack and the very first Leica, of "small camera, big picture." It is certainly very compact."

 

There is something in that concept - that works. For years tried many cameras from huge to small and back - but WHEN it comes to reportage photografy or to natural pix - as if you are THERE - that concept - really works.

 

People do not take it too seriously - rather - they dont take it all - and that is when you take a picture. D LUX cud be a little - tiny bit bigger for better handling - I agree on that.

But even as it is - it is a camera to keep handy - for real LIFE story. Wonderfull.

 

Cheers.

 

AV

[MPJMP]

For some reason, I have less problems seeing the D-LUX 5 as a "real" Leica, whereas something like the V-LUX 2 is, to me, just a rebadged Japanese digicam bearing no resemblance to Leica's heritage. Weird how that works. I guess it's the form factor that influences how we perceive the products.

[StephenPatterson]

I agree the D-Lux 5 is a very "Leica" camera, especially when compared to earlier digilux cameras. I had not shot with a Leica for 25 years, but last November I bought a D-Lux 5 because it reminded me of my old IIIC that I used at school. The experience has been very rewarding and very expensive. I liked the D-Lux 5 so much that after a few months I bought an X1. Last month I added an M8.2. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before I get an M9.

 

I believe the D-Lux 5 is a brilliant camera and a great way to get new (and re-tread) owners into the Leica Owners Family.

[cernobila]

I agree the D-Lux 5 is a very "Leica" camera, especially when compared to earlier digilux cameras. I had not shot with a Leica for 25 years, but last November I bought a D-Lux 5 because it reminded me of my old IIIC that I used at school.

 

I believe the D-Lux 5 is a brilliant camera and a great way to get new (and re-tread) owners into the Leica Owners Family.

 

Similar story for me, the look and shape (from a distance) of the D Lux 5 reminded me of the other badged camera from the past, the Minolta CL, except that this one has the rangefinder.

 

I was not all that blown away with the D Lux 5 when I first used it, I preferred the IQ from the V Lux 20 when taking normal pictures, although the Lux 5 is more versatile......These two affordable cameras have brought me back to get involved with Leicas again after a very long break.

[phancj]

It takes good pictures as a always-on-you compact and thats the important bit. if branding is paramount then thats satisfied too. I do not see why anyone should have gripes with that.

 

I bought my wife one, never regretted it.

[brunop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i carry an m8 and d-lux 4 everyday, everywhere. except for nature (birds and mountaineering), when i pack my canon 50d with lenses. but it's leica gear for me most everyday.

[farnz]

As far as I'm concerned it's a camera.

 

What's written on the box makes no difference to the excellent pictures mine produces. And neither does what anyone else thinks of it.

 

Pete.

[cernobila]

As far as I'm concerned it's a camera.

 

What's written on the box makes no difference to the excellent pictures mine produces. And neither does what anyone else thinks of it.

 

Pete.

 

I learned, partially by experience, that some camera brands produce a better result in JPEG than others. As I only shoot in this way I go with the Olympus and Leica cameras. I had one Panasonic and sold it for this reason.

[NZDavid]

I learned, partially by experience, that some camera brands produce a better result in JPEG than others. As I only shoot in this way I go with the Olympus and Leica cameras. I had one Panasonic and sold it for this reason.

 

But surely Panasonic and Leica are much the same (LX-5/ D-Lux-5)? Or is the software significantly different? Dunno, haven't used the Pana version. But the JPEG results are interesting. Lots of people still maintain RAW gives you the best results. It certainly does give you more options to tweak the image, if that's your thing. But the developers of JPEG in-camera processing have hardly been sitting still. The results of that are better, more useable out-of-the-camera pictures, without the same need for extensive post-processing.

[cernobila]

But surely Panasonic and Leica are much the same (LX-5/ D-Lux-5)? Or is the software significantly different? Dunno, haven't used the Pana version. But the JPEG results are interesting. Lots of people still maintain RAW gives you the best results. It certainly does give you more options to tweak the image, if that's your thing. But the developers of JPEG in-camera processing have hardly been sitting still. The results of that are better, more useable out-of-the-camera pictures, without the same need for extensive post-processing.

 

I have used the GF1 for a few camping trips, I just could not get excited about the photos, technically they were good (other than the colour) I experimented with the various colour options, you know, the standard, dynamic etc. included the + and - in each type.....ended up selling it.

 

I heard more than once from people that sell cameras for a living that the Panasonic Leicas are sent to Germany where Leica "adjusts" the firmware to what they think it should be......other than that the cameras are more or less the same.

 

And yes, I do not like PP, I like pictures to come out the way they meant to be....but that's just me.

[farnz]

...

And yes, I do not like PP, I like pictures to come out the way they meant to be....but that's just me.

In that case there's likely to be disappointment in store for you whether you use film or digital cameras because there's a degree of darkroom or software post-processing involved in replicating pictures as you see them in your mind.

 

If you manage to find, say, a digital camera that does it for you every time then you're fortunate because software developers can't possibly know how you see images in your mind and we all see things differently.

 

Pete.

[cernobila]

In that case there's likely to be disappointment in store for you whether you use film or digital cameras because there's a degree of darkroom or software post-processing involved in replicating pictures as you see them in your mind.

 

If you manage to find, say, a digital camera that does it for you every time then you're fortunate because software developers can't possibly know how you see images in your mind and we all see things differently.

 

Pete.

 

The only processing I ever did was B&W printing, I had no control over Kodachrome 25 once I took the picture and all colour prints small or large are done by lab. When I get larger prints done, all I say, print them to look natural with skin tones being important....they say ok, and that is it.

[farnz]

The only processing I ever did was B&W printing, I had no control over Kodachrome 25 once I took the picture and all colour prints small or large are done by lab. When I get larger prints done, all I say, print them to look natural with skin tones being important....they say ok, and that is it.

So the lab is making adjustment during printing (although you won't see that) and when you "print them to look natural with skin tones" you're again making adjustments outside of the camera. Whichever way you choose to look at it the pictures are not "pictures to come out the way they meant to be (sic)".

 

Pete.

[cernobila]

So the lab is making adjustment during printing (although you won't see that) and when you "print them to look natural with skin tones" you're again making adjustments outside of the camera. Whichever way you choose to look at it the pictures are not "pictures to come out the way they meant to be (sic)".

 

Pete.

 

Prints that I get done look identical to the original images on my computer screen. When I shot Kodachrome, the picture was decided at the point of exposure, no PP available, if you did not get it right the first time then you got it wrong and that is my point. Everything had to work, the light, the lens, the exposure and a steady hand. The sky was the sky, the contrast was what it was......everything was fixed. You either got the picture or you did not. Today you can take an inferior picture, knowing that you can fix it all with your software and keyboard at home.

[farnz]

Prints that I get done look identical to the original images on my computer screen. When I shot Kodachrome, the picture was decided at the point of exposure, no PP available, if you did not get it right the first time then you got it wrong and that is my point. ...

Dodging, burning etc in the darkroom: do you not consider them to be a form of pp?

 

Pete.

[jjonsalt]

And yes, I do not like PP, I like pictures to come out the way they meant to be....but that's just me.

"...but that's just me." Afraid so.

 

Dodging, burning etc in the darkroom: do you not consider them to be a form of pp?Pete.

Doesn't look like he understands what they are.

[NZDavid]

The point with slide film -- which I still like and use when possible! -- is that it's a first generation product and therefore not subject to further manipulation. Unless you scan it -- in which case it is no longer a slide but a digital file. Slides are basically WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get.) You have to get exposure and composition right first time.

 

Of course that doesn't mean slides are an accurate record of reality! There are heaps of film choices, and used to be more, all with their subtle and not so subtle nuances and colors. In this respect, a slide (transparency) could be seen as analogous to an out-of-the-camera JPEG as a first generation image.

 

If you like the results, then great. PP allows you to tweak the picture. Each kind of software produces a different result, just like using different developers and papers when printing from film. But many people have no time to extensively manipulate each and every picture, and nor does everybody want to. So I believe there is plenty of demand for good in-camera JPEG processing software. All credit to the camera's software engineers!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[cernobila]

"...but that's just me." Afraid so.

 

 

Doesn't look like he understands what they are.

 

I do not make judgements on what people like/dislike so I am never afraid......when I take a picture and it needs PP for it to work, then I have not done a good enough job in the first place, maybe I am old school. To most people of today, the actual skill of photography is not as important as the time spent with PP.......Instead of going back to a spot, or waiting for the right light to get what you want, people just snap a picture and put the light in using software at home, with a cup of coffee next to them.

 

Presumptions without correct information can sometimes be quite embarrassing to the person making them.......I went to a college that has the biggest Photography degree course in the Southern hemisphere, at the time when B&W was still king. I will not bother to reply to the second comment.....

[cernobila]

Slides are basically WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get.) You have to get exposure and composition right first time.

 

Of course that doesn't mean slides are an accurate record of reality! There are heaps of film choices, and used to be more, all with their subtle and not so subtle nuances and colors. In this respect, a slide (transparency) could be seen as analogous to an out-of-the-camera JPEG as a first generation image.

 

If you like the results, then great. PP allows you to tweak the picture. Each kind of software produces a different result, just like using different developers and papers when printing from film. But many people have no time to extensively manipulate each and every picture, and nor does everybody want to. So I believe there is plenty of demand for good in-camera JPEG processing software. All credit to the camera's software engineers!

 

Thanks for that......I guess I look at the JPEG software in a camera like looking at the typical results of say Ektachrome 64 as compared to Kodachrome 64 both processed by Kodak lab. I choose a camera that will give me a consistent predictable result that I like in JPEG format. In my own experience, I would compare the Panasonic to Ektachrome and the Leica and Olympus to Kodachrome.

 

A friend of ours, the same age, has started photography only five years ago, she knows nothing outside of digital cameras. Her pictures are now excellent but rely heavily on PP to achieve those results.