mrware Posted September 19, 2014 Share #41 Posted September 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Correction: it should be "....is as good as that of D-Lux 4 or at least D-Lux 5. I am not happy with that of D-Lux 6. Thomas, in my opinion the jpgs will look like that of Panasonic's other recent m4/3 cameras which to my eyes will be different than the D-Lux 5 and 6 for sure. I can't speak to the D-Lux 4 never having owned it. I never really cared for the jpg colors of the 5 and 6. I found them too punchy, the skies either unrealistically blue or leaning too cyan and the foliage a brilliant green color that I've rarely seen in real life. I'm interested in this camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Hi mrware, Take a look here New Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jamiewednesday Posted September 19, 2014 Share #42 Posted September 19, 2014 Gone for it with Red Dot. With a grip (£55 in UK) It may persuade me to lose the Digilux 2... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted September 20, 2014 Share #43 Posted September 20, 2014 I never really cared for the jpg colors of the 5 and 6. I found them too punchy, the skies either unrealistically blue or leaning too cyan and the foliage a brilliant green color that I've rarely seen in real life. I'm interested in this camera. Thanks for comment. I agree with you. As I only PP files created by M or R lenses, files come out of D-Lux 5 are always used as straight JPEG. The tendency of cyan and briliant green or even red is more prominent on 6 than on 5. That's the reason why I seldom use 6. It is fortunate that type 109 offers the option of selectable sRGB or AdobeRGB color space. I think that color gradation distribution can be smoother on an AdobeRGB enabled monitor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onceuponatime Posted September 20, 2014 Share #44 Posted September 20, 2014 Dlux may well be the camera to get me back into digital photogrpahy. I was done with having to change lenses (on FF & Apsc) & missing the moment. I was done with shallow dof (only a dozen out of 200 my fave shots have shallow dof) I was done with slow lenses (F3.5-5.6 eg XVario) I was done with small sensors (I made do with 2/3 of Digilux 2, 1/1.6 1/1.7; 1/1.8) I was done with having no built in evf, no decent evf. I was done with carrying big bodies (main reason Digilux 2 went to a good home). I was done with slow manual focus, slow af on compacts & bridge cameras as Xvario Dlux has solved these for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicatraveller Posted September 20, 2014 Share #45 Posted September 20, 2014 Impressive how leica simplify make elegant. I would take the Dlux 109 for the look & leica after sales service, warranty. for me the LX100 look better....to be true i see more a poor design...or better an attempt (without luck) of minimalist design much better the Panasonic look... and i remember how was slippery my old dlux without any grip and with such flat (and again slippery) surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted September 21, 2014 Share #46 Posted September 21, 2014 There is no noticeable build quality in-between, however, form factor difference always exist. The attachment tells the major deviations are: 1. built-in handgrip for Panny, 2. logo, and 3. right/left end taper-off at the upper edge in the front view for Panny, 4. menu, 5. maybe somewhere in the firmware, who knows? .... In the image, you have LX2 paired with D-Lux 4. If I remember correctly, LX2 was the sister camera for D-Lux 3 which was somewhat smaller than D-Lux 4. I had DL3 and DL4, and then LX7 ("equivalent" of DL6). LX7 was a LOUSY camera, from cheap buttons, dials to lousy DNG and JPEG output. I never compared it to DL6 but I know that it was far inferior, both in build quality and in terms of output, to my older DL 3 and DL4 versions. Of course, all of this means nothing since we are now talking about a newer generation (that none of us have actually seen and used yet). But I am biased toward the Leica version and am willing to pay the extra. It looks like this D-Lux will be the perfect companion to my Ms. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted September 21, 2014 Share #47 Posted September 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the image, you have LX2 paired with D-Lux 4. If I remember correctly, LX2 was the sister camera for D-Lux 3 which was somewhat smaller than D-Lux 4. Ece Sorry, LX2 is the only LX currently available in my hand. Thank you just the same. I did compare then the output (JPEG) between D-Lux 3 and LX2 and found no much difference, thus picked up the cheaper one. With the advent of D-Lux 4 in 2008 Lecia at the official site claimed the it is of the "M-like" image quality, and I did confirm its capability and made sure the claim is true. Ironically, Leica never make such a claim for D-Lux 5 and 6. Hopefully Leica may do it again with D-Lux type 109. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markrune Posted September 21, 2014 Share #48 Posted September 21, 2014 I think I will wait to see what happens to the Panasonic LX100's price before making a decision. I have an LX3 and LX7 and have been impressed by them both and as a big chap like the built in grip of these models. However I have to say if the small price differential is maintained then the small premium for the Leica version, is for the first time not matierial and the fact that depreciation , lightroom being included and the waranty are attractive. I do love Leicas and haver a number of M's as well as a III and an original C-lux (which directed me to the Panasonics) so this could be interesting. I am in no rush as I love the LX7 as a go anywhere camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 21, 2014 Share #49 Posted September 21, 2014 In the UK the Leica and Panny are very similar in price. As the Leica looks better, has better guarantee and Lightroom plus the most important thing is Leica cache , it's a no brainer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DrPix Posted September 21, 2014 Share #50 Posted September 21, 2014 In the image, you have LX2 paired with D-Lux 4. If I remember correctly, LX2 was the sister camera for D-Lux 3 which was somewhat smaller than D-Lux 4. I had DL3 and DL4, and then LX7 ("equivalent" of DL6). LX7 was a LOUSY camera, from cheap buttons, dials to lousy DNG and JPEG output. I never compared it to DL6 but I know that it was far inferior, both in build quality and in terms of output, to my older DL 3 and DL4 versions. Of course, all of this means nothing since we are now talking about a newer generation (that none of us have actually seen and used yet). But I am biased toward the Leica version and am willing to pay the extra. It looks like this D-Lux will be the perfect companion to my Ms. Ece Did you say D-Lux 6 (Pana as well) was a lousy camera? Really?' Here are some shots (DNG developed in LR). I think they´re quite OK.. Or? Leica-camera.dk | LEICA D-LUX 6 Andrzej i Lanzarote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted September 21, 2014 Share #51 Posted September 21, 2014 Dr. Pix, I was only talking about LX7, I never used the DL6. But I did own the earlier DLs 3 and 4 and they were both great. Maybe I had a lousy copy of the Panny LX7 but it just was nowhere near the experiences I've had with my earlier DLs. There has been long running discussions over the years in the fora regarding the question DL=LX? Some argue strongly that they are identical inside; but, unless somebody runs proper comparative tests between these pairs (using equivalent models), I will believe, quite subjectively, that they are not the same inside or outside. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted September 23, 2014 Share #52 Posted September 23, 2014 I sold my Digilux2 long after I sold my R9/DMR as it was well obsolete but still great to use. Nothing I have seen since from Leica has even tempted me but the type 109 DLux just might! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 4, 2014 Share #53 Posted October 4, 2014 Any info about the "rainbow" artefacts of the EVF? Panasonic Lumix LX100 review : preview | Cameralabs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 4, 2014 Share #54 Posted October 4, 2014 Rainbow artifacts are caused by the pixels alternating between red, green, and blue in rapid succession. Over the years there have been many cameras using this technology, by Panasonic, Fuji, and others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 4, 2014 Share #55 Posted October 4, 2014 Thank you Michael but i can't seem to have seen such artefacts in my Fuji X-E2's EVF so far. Do you know how they look like and how disturbing they can be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 4, 2014 Share #56 Posted October 4, 2014 The Fuji X-E2 has an OLED panel that is free of these artifacts, as are normal LCD panels. Most types of panels have some kind of colour pattern, like RGBRGBRGB RGBRGBRGB RGBRGBRGB So if a panel has 921,000 pixels, for example, there are 307,000 pixels for each colour which means that the actual resolution is 307,000, not 921,000 pixels. Some panels sport different patterns, some have white pixels for increasing the contrast etc.. The panel Panasonic and Leica uses in the LX100/D-Lux is probably of the ferroelectric kind; these have very fast switching speeds so each pixel can display all three primary colours, just not at the same time but in rapid succession. Normally that is of no concern but if you tilt or swivel the camera you might notice that the red, green, and blue channels don’t get updated at the same time – the three channels of the image are trailing behind each other rather than moving in synch. At high contrast edges you get a rainbow effect that vanishes once you hold the camera steady again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayewing Posted October 10, 2014 Share #57 Posted October 10, 2014 For those interested Sean Reid has just posted a review of the new D-Lux typ 109 on his (paid for) website. There are also new reviews appearing of the Panasonic LX100 which include RAW sample files Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review | PhotographyBLOG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 10, 2014 Share #58 Posted October 10, 2014 Interesting thanks. Any idea to convert the raw files? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayewing Posted October 10, 2014 Share #59 Posted October 10, 2014 Interesting thanks. Any idea to convert the raw files? Well the only software I have that works is RawTherapee. Interestingly it does not do any software lens correction so you can see some impressive barrel distortion at the wide end. Presumably Lightroom will be updated to accept the raw files and the distortions will not be apparent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 10, 2014 Share #60 Posted October 10, 2014 I just read Sean Reid's review and he noted that he "believes" the Leica version has no AA filter. However, I read a Panasonic review that said the LX100 has an AA filter. It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that the Leica version would be different in this regard. It also seems unlikely that they would go without the AA filter on a 12 Megapixel camera. Does anyone know if one or both versions of the camera are without an AA filter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.