MPJMP Posted October 22, 2012 Share #21 Posted October 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I had the 4 and upgraded to the 5, but have no interest in upgrading to the 6. Since the 5 came out, the CSC market has really developed and I am now more inclined to spend just a little more and get something like the Sony NEX-7, Fuji X-E1 or Panasonic GX1. While these cameras with lenses are a little bigger than a D-LUX, it's not so much as to be significant, as the D-LUX was never a true "pocket camera" to begin with. The larger sensor and ability to accept (with adapter) my M lenses make these types of cameras a more attractive option, in my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Hi MPJMP, Take a look here Anyone tempted by D-Lux 6?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
metalic mud Posted October 23, 2012 Share #22 Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Had a LX7 last week, then sold it. Great camera, but just didn't feel right. The camera is very front heavy, it sort of feels like the body is empty! Very unnerving. Perhaps. With the grip, the Leica will be more balanced. But that's going to cost around £660. The LX7 i Had, sold for £275. £660 nearly gets you a s/h X1. (I would sell one of my Black X1's for a little more than that.) Edited October 23, 2012 by nickmarshall Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share #23 Posted October 23, 2012 Folks might like to check out some Leica compact pictures here: http://blog.leica-camera.com/topics/photography/compact-cameras/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feudal1 Posted November 4, 2012 Share #24 Posted November 4, 2012 I had tried an LX7 back when it first came out a month or two ago, but was unimpressed by it. Ended up returning the camera. However, with the D-LUX 6 that I purchased yesterday, I'm really liking the first handful of shots that I've taken, much more than the LX7. In shooting JPG, I'm finding the sharpness to be much better, and the color more accurate and properly saturated than the LX7 JPGs I shot. I'm starting to think that the LX7 I tried was faulty in some way, as this D-Lux 6 produces much better results. A quick macro shot from yesterday. Going to get out and shoot with this today hopefully. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewelch Posted November 7, 2012 Share #25 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Yep, I thought about some others. The Lumix even has 11 fps, which I guess could be good. But I have a grandbaby on the way and I need a point-and-shoot. My Nikon D800 with the MBD-12 grip and 14-24 and 35-70 2.8s are just too big to lug around on my days off. And video is going to be important. After adding things up, with the warranty and Lightroom (which I use at work, but need at home) plus the video features in Photoshop CS6 (yes, Photoshop CS6 has great video features for people who shoot mostly stills) I think I'll have a lot of fun with this baby. And it shipped today, so I'll have it soon! Edited November 7, 2012 by ewelch typo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikonandLeica Posted November 23, 2012 Share #26 Posted November 23, 2012 I'm interested in a D-Lux 6. My present compact camera is a Canon Digital IXUS 110 IS 12.1 MP. Do you people think the picture quality of the D-Lux 6 is better than my Canon's? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 23, 2012 Share #27 Posted November 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Don't forget that the D-Lux 6 is NOT Made in Germany. This was important to you yesterday. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted November 23, 2012 Share #28 Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) Why do people buy a camera such as this and shoot jpg? Is there something I have missed? -- what's the uptick here? Edited November 23, 2012 by sfage Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikonandLeica Posted November 23, 2012 Share #29 Posted November 23, 2012 Don't forget that the D-Lux 6 is NOT Made in Germany. This was important to you yesterday. It's still important today. But I guess because that camera carries a Leica logo the quality control will be better than with the Panasonic range. What can I do anyway, nowadays everything is produced in the East, even my beloved iPhone and iPad. I was in the marked for Lightroom 4 - the price for this software is +- 100 EUR, one gets it for free when purchasing the D-Lux 6! Quite a good deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitom Posted November 23, 2012 Share #30 Posted November 23, 2012 Why do people buy a camera such as this and shoot jpg? Is there something I have missed? -- what's the uptick here? I shoot JPG mostly and I think these pics are really excellent. Frankly say I do not want to spend (and have really no time) shooting outside for - e.g.- 2 hours and then spending 5 hours for post processing. OK, If I would use an M9 I would do Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 23, 2012 Share #31 Posted November 23, 2012 ...What can I do anyway, nowadays everything is produced in the East, even my beloved iPhone and iPad. So...? Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikonandLeica Posted November 24, 2012 Share #32 Posted November 24, 2012 I shoot JPG mostly and I think these pics are really excellent. Frankly say I do not want to spend (and have really no time) shooting outside for - e.g.- 2 hours and then spending 5 hours for post processing. I connect the camera to the MacBook Pro and the RAW images are instantly there, no processing needed at all. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 24, 2012 Share #33 Posted November 24, 2012 Raw images need processing - full stop. Getting them on your laptop is the easy bit - and not processing. Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikonandLeica Posted November 24, 2012 Share #34 Posted November 24, 2012 Raw images need processing - full stop. Getting them on your laptop is the easy bit - and not processing. Mac's iPhoto does it automatically. I should know it 'cause I do it constantly. The RAW pictures look great most of the time. I only have to increase the sharpness now and then. Maybe I missunderstood you but with Apple's Mac there is no difference between JPG and RAW as far as processing is concerned. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 24, 2012 Share #35 Posted November 24, 2012 Yes there is. I think that you are misunderstanding what processing means. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikonandLeica Posted November 24, 2012 Share #36 Posted November 24, 2012 Yes there is. I think that you are misunderstanding what processing means. Anyway, in most cases the RAW pictures I get out of iPhoto are excellent, I have very seldom to work on them. Whether JPG or RAW, I do precisely the same. Because I'm using now RAW instead of JPG I'm not spending a second longer in front of the computer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mija1789 Posted November 24, 2012 Share #37 Posted November 24, 2012 Anyway, in most cases the RAW pictures I get out of iPhoto are excellent, I have very seldom to work on them. Whether JPG or RAW, I do precisely the same. Because I'm using now RAW instead of JPG I'm not spending a second longer in front of the computer. There is no such thing as a raw image (btw raw is not an acronym and therefor implies lower case letters). What you see with iPhoto is a JPEG rendering by iPhoto of the raw file. A raw file contains luminance information only. Color is obtained during the rendering process by applying the Bayer mapping together with other information such WB. Saying that using raw instead of JPEG saves time is a non-sense. You may not be familiar with raw technology, hence I would suggest some reading (plenty of information available with Google). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikonandLeica Posted November 24, 2012 Share #38 Posted November 24, 2012 There is no such thing as a raw image (btw raw is not an acronym and therefor implies lower case letters).What you see with iPhoto is a JPEG rendering by iPhoto of the raw file. A raw file contains luminance information only. Color is obtained during the rendering process by applying the Bayer mapping together with other information such WB. Saying that using raw instead of JPEG saves time is a non-sense. You may not be familiar with raw technology, hence I would suggest some reading (plenty of information available with Google). Hi Michael, thanks, you are right, I don't know much about raw. It's only irritating that with iPhoto those images are called RAW. Until recently I only did JPGS now only NEF (Nikon). IPhoto calls them RAW. I suppose you are working with a Mac too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitom Posted November 24, 2012 Share #39 Posted November 24, 2012 Yes, there was misunderstanding. Getting the RAW from the camera is of course quickly done (tecchnical). With post processing I mean the digital workflow (exposing the RAW data on the computer in a program like Lightroom). If one prefer doing this, to take RAW is a must. To get most out of the photos, also this "post processing" (manual done by exposing the photos) is also a must, because the JPG algorithm inside a camera is not always the best (the JPGs out of M8 are really not so good, compared to the photos after digital workflow done on the RAW data, of course). But sometimes there is no need for "digi-exposing", mean e.g. the JPG engine of Digilux 2 is excellent. I think also the algorithm of D.Lux 5 is. So for me, I do mostly not want to handle RAW data. At the moment. Maybe at a later time (with more free time ) I will do so. That was, what I wanted to explain. Sorry, if misunderstandings occured 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mija1789 Posted November 24, 2012 Share #40 Posted November 24, 2012 ... I suppose you are working with a Mac too. ... Hi NikonandLeica, Yes, a MacBook Pro, a Nikon (D200 for macro and animals) and a Leica (Digilux 2 for the rest). Did I say welcome to the forum? If not, welcome and feel at home 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.