Archiver Posted December 10, 2014 Share #21 Posted December 10, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I went through he same experience with the LX100 which I returned after one week. I enjoyed the user interface and manual controls but was not impressed with the IQ, neither the lens nor the sensor are anything worth mentioning. Maybe my expectations were too high, but the promise of a mft sensor & Leica Vario-Summilx combination (doesn`t this sound great!) created them. The worst Summilux I ever experienced.The Sony RX100III will remain my pocket P&S, resolution and micro contrast easily beat the LX100 and iso performance is not worse. And its tilting screen and flash on board are nice to haves on top. My spin with the D-Lux 109 was similar. I found the lens visibly glowy and soft at f1.7, which disappointed me greatly. The user experience was great, with fast operation and good handling, but I could not get over the glow and softness. When I tested the X 113, I was hoping for image quality in the realm of the Ricoh GR, which was unfortunately not the case. But at f1.7, the X 113 lens is much sharper and clearer than the D-Lux at the same aperture. I am vaguely wondering if the copy I tried was somehow defective. The glow started to go by f2.8, and was very sharp at f5.6, but at those ranges I might as well use one of my m43 cameras with the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. I also have the Olympus 17/1.8, 25/1.8 and 45/1.8, which I find perfectly satisfactory for that sensor size. Wide open, they are sharp and clear and display no glow at all. The image quality of the D-Lux seemed like a step down from that, great handling and convenience notwithstanding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Hi Archiver, Take a look here First impressions with the D-Lux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
WGio Posted December 11, 2014 Share #22 Posted December 11, 2014 Recently I read this sentence A pro always gets pro pictures, with a cheap camera too - a beginner always gets beginner pictures, with an expensive camera too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 11, 2014 Share #23 Posted December 11, 2014 Even at ISO 320 there was a graininess to the images I would not expect at such a low ISO. The images did not compare well to the Fuji XE-2. They compare quite well to my XE-2 as far as my LX100 is concerned. Pity that Capture One is not updated yet but even with Silkypix and CS3, i've got pretty well the results i expected from 200 to 1600 iso so far. I don't shoot much wide though so i may have missed some weakness there, i don't know yet. 200 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3748384222_QCwSdz8-D.jpg 1600 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3748060135_hCTkZGN-D.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted December 11, 2014 Share #24 Posted December 11, 2014 Does this camera have different modes like the D-Lux 5 -- Vibrant, Nature, Dynamic, and so forth? They make a big difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted December 11, 2014 Share #25 Posted December 11, 2014 Recently I read this sentence A pro always gets pro pictures, with a cheap camera too - a beginner always gets beginner pictures, with an expensive camera too. It's the singer, not the song. It's the chef, not the cookware. It's the dominatrix, not the whip. We get it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted December 11, 2014 Share #26 Posted December 11, 2014 Recently I read this sentence A pro always gets pro pictures, with a cheap camera too - a beginner always gets beginner pictures, with an expensive camera too. Reminds me of the stereotype that money does not make happy. My answer: But neither does it make unhappy. And further playing with your logic results in: And the pro gets better pictures with a decent camera than with a lousy one. And the beginner would get lousier pictures with a crappy camera as compared to a decent (expensive) one. And this is why gear matters, to some extent at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 11, 2014 Share #27 Posted December 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does this camera have different modes like the D-Lux 5 -- Vibrant, Nature, Dynamic, and so forth? They make a big difference. Yes it does, David. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted December 12, 2014 Share #28 Posted December 12, 2014 In that case it strikes me as rather unfair for photographers to blame the camera for producing lacklustre colors. Just change the setting! Or do a little PP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2014 Share #29 Posted December 18, 2014 some of my sample images D-Lux 109 http://www.flickr.com/photos/klamihb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartgraef Posted December 26, 2014 Share #30 Posted December 26, 2014 I would like to give a hint of our D-Lux Challenge. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/haeusergesichter-house-faces/357065-d-lux-digi-lux-challenge-haeusergesichter.html#post2845554 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toshack10 Posted December 26, 2014 Share #31 Posted December 26, 2014 My first impression is that I am a lucky chap... Got given one by my beloved yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossAngeles Posted December 27, 2014 Share #32 Posted December 27, 2014 some of my sample images D-Lux 109 http://www.flickr.com/photos/klamihb Really enjoyed them! thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 30, 2014 Share #33 Posted December 30, 2014 They compare quite well to my XE-2 as far as my LX100 is concerned. Pity that Capture One is not updated yet but even with Silkypix and CS3, i've got pretty well the results i expected from 200 to 1600 iso so far. I don't shoot much wide though so i may have missed some weakness there, i don't know yet.200 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3748384222_QCwSdz8-D.jpg 1600 iso: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3748060135_hCTkZGN-D.jpg An Atmos clock ......... always wanted one...... but even used old ones in good condition are quite pricey ....... Runs forever and virtually never needs adjusting ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 30, 2014 Share #34 Posted December 30, 2014 This one doesn't run anymore and was inaccurate from day one i'm afraid. Great subject matter to test cameras though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.