finding my way between M,Q & T

[bdn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

new member here.

 

The D-Lux is nice modest camera.  I'm especially pleased by it's capabilities to shoot in "dark" conditions (f1.7 on a 4/3 sensor), it's macro capabilities and it's zoom range (+/- 23 - 75mm, if I'm not mistaken).

 

I'm currently on the outlook for a "better" camera and am currently considering the following options:

 

 * T + visoflex + 23mm (2nd hand)

 * Q (new)

 * M9 + 35 or 50mm Summilux (2nd hand)

 

Some of my (trivial) considerations:

 * the T and M9 offer more flexibilty in terms of lenses.

 * the Q and M9 offer a full frame (supposedly better performance in darkness)

 * the Q has a better resolution or more pixels

 

 * framing and focusing with an M9 is completely different (and most likely troublesome with some zooms).

 

I'm interested in additional considerations which I should take into consideration before making a choice (I should perhaps ask this question in the M9 and Q forum as well).

 

regards,

Bruno.

 

[earleygallery]

Welcome.

 

First question - why do you want to 'upgrade' your D lux, what is it that the D lux is preventing you from doing?

 

Also, what type of subjects/use do you have for your camera?

[dkCambridgeshire]

A secondhand T would be the most versatile - especially if you add a 'Leica M-Adapter T' …  which would then enable use of e.g.:  Nikon F to M, Canon FD to M, Minolta MD to M, Olympus OM to M, M42 to M, Leica R to M, Contax to M … or any other ' … to Leica M' adapter … to enable use of hundreds of legacy lenses - some of which you might already have. Have a look through the Leica T sub-forum and the Leica T images posted - many of which were taken with legacy lenses via the adapters. And the 'Leica M -Adapter T' would also enable use of all Leica M lenses - and LTM lenses via necessary adapters.

 

dunk

[bdn]

@earleygallery

 

The goals of taking photographs (to me) is to capture

• persons in not always bright conditions.
• texture of surfaces, foliage, feathers of bird, the feathers of a bird, waves, grass, etc.
• city-constructions (churches, statues, etc)
• parks, trees, nature in general
• colors

you might have a look at 500px.  profile: brunodenys.

 

regards,

Bruno.

 

 

 

 

Welcome.

 

First question - why do you want to 'upgrade' your D lux, what is it that the D lux is preventing you from doing?

 

Also, what type of subjects/use do you have for your camera?

[ropo54]

Cannot speak to the M, but I can vouch for the Q.

The built in viewfinder and fast and accurate autofocus are wonderful. The images are terrific. The Q is a vast improvement over the D Lux, the X series, and likely the T as well. If you are okay with the 28mm fov you'll be ecstatic with the output and ease of use.

[earleygallery]

@earleygallery

 

The goals of taking photographs (to me) is to capture

• persons in not always bright conditions.
• texture of surfaces, foliage, feathers of bird, the feathers of a bird, waves, grass, etc.
• city-constructions (churches, statues, etc)
• parks, trees, nature in general
• colors

you might have a look at 500px.  profile: brunodenys.

 

regards,

Bruno.

 

Your D lux should be able to do all of that for you. 

 

Photography is about capturing light, and no camera will change the light for you. 

 

Maybe you need to invest time into learning more about technique and maybe taking a short course somewhere, rather than just spending money on gear. 

[Manoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

new member here.

 

The D-Lux is nice modest camera.  I'm especially pleased by it's capabilities to shoot in "dark" conditions (f1.7 on a 4/3 sensor), it's macro capabilities and it's zoom range (+/- 23 - 75mm, if I'm not mistaken).

 

I'm currently on the outlook for a "better" camera and am currently considering the following options:

 

 * T + visoflex + 23mm (2nd hand)

 * Q (new)

 * M9 + 35 or 50mm Summilux (2nd hand)

 

Some of my (trivial) considerations:

 * the T and M9 offer more flexibilty in terms of lenses.

 * the Q and M9 offer a full frame (supposedly better performance in darkness)

 * the Q has a better resolution or more pixels

 

 * framing and focusing with an M9 is completely different (and most likely troublesome with some zooms).

 

I'm interested in additional considerations which I should take into consideration before making a choice (I should perhaps ask this question in the M9 and Q forum as well).

 

regards,

Bruno.

Hi & Welcome.. why not Post say 6 or 8 images from your current camera.. This will give us an idea about your abilities.. Believe me, we are all different in our views and ideas..  The D-Lux can offer excellent IQ.. L

[Adam]

I own a d-lux (109) and a MP-240 (15, 35, 75, 130mm). The IQ due to the lens construction and sensor is superior in the M, this applies to M9 or M240. For me the d-lux is a carry anywhere camera. I put it in my bag wherever I go. The M is for more planned excursions.

I would go for the M9 simply because the two systems complement each other. D-lux is portable and flexible and can provide fantastic regular prints/images (anything around 10") The M system is top of the line, CCD will give you more contrast, the lens will be better, less distortion, more sharp. This is a camera that you take when you know that you will be taking images that you want to be perfect technically. The d-lux is great at capturing memories, spontaneous situations.  The M when used properly will give magnificent results. But the system is not easy to get used to, less automation, less ISO, manual focus.

 

I would go with the T, if you just want a better version of d-lux and sensor limitation does not bother you, or top of the line lens.  I go with the Q if you find that 28mm is what you use most and you like doing macro. 

 

One thing, the M will not be better at low light, for that go with the Q.

 

If you want to shoot 90 and above at some point, go with the T

 

IF you need AF do not go with the M, obviously. But I think if you need really fast AF then the Q is best.

 

To see how you get along with fixed focal length, set the dlux at one and just shoot with it all day. I immediately saw which lengths work for me and which do not. If you need a wide range the T is your choice. The M9 is going to be fine between 28 and 50 if you practice manual focus.

 

If you find yourself most of the time happy with 28 go Q.

 

If you are zoomer and keep wishing you had more than 75mm on the d-lux, go with the T.

[Ecaton]

If file quality & low light performance is priority, it`s the Q out of the options you listed.

[bdn]

Thx all for your comments.

 

I could make a variant of my original question in another, more analytical way:

for a (fictitious) given collection of scenes or compositions, what would be the differences if taken with the following different combinations* :

• iPhone
• D-Lux
• T + 23mm or T + 23-55
• Q
• M9 + 35

But that is a difficult exercise to execute.  Many of you can make sound speculations based on experience.

 

* assuming one would crop to obtain the same focal length or change distance to the subject to obtain the same composation (yes, I know that the perspective changes if you move closer...)).  And only modifying ISO/aperture/shutterspeed (in order to obtain comparable DOF or smearing effect depending on the composition or the effect one initially would like to obtain). 

 

@Earleygallery: regarding "Maybe you need to invest time into learning more about technique[...]".  Let me correct you: it is not "maybe" but "surely".  You needn't convince me of that (but thanks anyway).  In simplistic terms, a good photograph is determined for X percent by how good the subject is, Y percent by how good the photographer is and for Z percent by how good the gear is.  I assume that X + Y + Z = 100.  Your comment is about the Y percent.  And Y is indeed definitely bigger than Z, so your remark is definitely correct.  But my question was about the Z.  I've had similar discussions on HiFi and Cycling fora: riding a more expensive bike will not necessarily make you ride faster.  Having a "better" amplifier will not necessarily make the music sound better if the speakers are low quality, etc...

 

@Manoleica: you asked for some examples.

Example 1: in the next picture you may see the grass and the bird as decor with the ice as the main subject.   I am happy with the composition.  What I like the most is the texture of the ice.  I actually would like to be able to compare that picture when taken with (say) an iPhone, the D-Lux and one of the options I mentioned.  I'd like to know which of the mentioned options (it is a hypothetical exercise of course) would produce in the best way the texture of the ice

.   

Example 2: this picture (you'll notice that it has undergone some post-processing but that was an experiment).  I am happy with the composition.  You'll see it was shot in low-light conditions by hand (I guess it was at +/- ISO1200).  I would have liked for instance to see more detail of the hair.  Once again I wonder how a more advanced camera/lens combination would impact the result (all parameters being the same and only by changing exposure/aperture.  I don't mind having different DOF for this one).

 

Example 3: in the next picture, I wanted to capture the white/red rectangle on the tree in the center. I am happy with it's composition but I missed focus by a meter or so.  So indeed, a lack of technique (as earleygallery mentioned).  But assuming that the focus would have been correct, I wonder whether the photograph would noticeably benefit from a "sharper" camera/lens combination.

Example 4: the next picture is a crop.  How would the picture benefit from using the another combinations (I am aware that reducing shutter speed would reduce the smearing of the tram)?  The picture misses detail, to my liking.

 

[Manoleica]

This is just MHO""   bdn..  I would stop finding excuses as to why or where your images could/should be better.. The best camera"" in the world cannot make up for lack of being able to translate the photographers "eye" into a visual image... A suggestion, go and find a Location that is quiet/photogenic.. Take a tripod, spend a good few hours standing at the same "Spot" and use All the lens, shutter & Fstop variations (not forgetting EV) Write down WHAT you expect from each Frame.. The when you see them on your monitor you can tell whether you have succeeded or not..

At the end of the day, it's what you like that matters.. As a Pro, it's what the client likes/wants...

These 2 images where the first out of the Safari/35mm Cron ASPH.. Apart from a little tidy & crop they are as out of the camera.. I spend a lot of time @ Railtown Ca

the area allows lots of ideas" to flow.. ---  

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!

[mija1789]

@bdn,

 

- Given the very small size of the pictures and the lack of information on aperture, speed, ..., it's close to impossible to give you any sensible advice. So you could maybe upload a larger version.

- however, on the "ice" picture, despite the very small size, a bit of clarity and sharpening adjustments with LR5 already improves the texture. Have you tried that ?

[Adam]

I agree that knowing how to take pictures is a prerequisite to any discussion about best camera. The M system is the worst choice if you feel you need to learn a lot and you are discouraged by bad results. On the other hand, if you are like me and seeing that my pics are not as good as some by others using the M system forces you to make an effort to learn about good photography, then M is a great motivator. It is also a great system to force one to learn about composition, focus. Other systems have AF and there is the temptation to just press the shutter - I know that is what I did. The M will force you slow down and think about your pictures before you take them.

 

As far as the examples. An M will always give you the sharpest results if you use recent Leica glass. Neither T or Q can compete with a new version of the M summicron or summilux, and in most cases also the summaron. and some elmarit or elmar glass is also more than excellent. The M glass on average is superior. The Q is a close second. But that is just what the camera can do, provided  you know what you are doing.

 

Aside from composition, focus, etc. I needed to re-learn my post processing when I switched to raw. What I did is shoot both jpeg and raw. Play with the raw until I got better results than the jpeg. The d-lux has very nice jpeg rendition. For example, the grass and the bird. In order to make it more visible, pop out, I used layers/masks to compensate for the too short focal length. I would use color to make the subject stand out. (see attached modified photo)

 

I played a bit with the image, it a jpeg so post processing will give you artifacts. But I sharpened the subject, blurred out the rest, got rid of the blue ice to make the bird stand out more. I hope you do not mind.

 

With a Q or M you will have more flexibility playing with the DNG files than the rwl ones in d-lux. This is because of the sensor.  I don't know about the T, but I presume that the sensor size will allow you to do more cropping. I don't know what focal length was used here looks like 75, or aperture, looks like around 3-4, but shoot with a 50 mm at f.2 on an M and you would isolate the subject more clearly. The lens are sharper so you would get more detail. The sensor is larger so you can crop to 75. But without proper post processing, this would have not mattered much. 

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!

[Adam]

Here I played with the tree pic. Two masks: desaturated the rocks, mask over the opening sharpened, less green spacial maks on the red/white plaque more saturation light.

 

The PP software is very powerful, and there is a learning curve.  I am by no means an expert. I use C1, but Lightroom is just as good for most tasks. If you are not into PP, then I would even more recommend the M system. Use jpgs generated by the camera.

 

But I would invest some time to learning the PP software, especially using layers/masks before getting a new camera.

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!

[Adam]

OK, and here is the last one. I think with the right PP you would more happy with the files the D-lux generates. It is an excellent camera. Wonderful lens, and a great sensor, all for a $1000.  You might want to still move up, and that is great, but I think you are not utilizing to the max what the d-lux has to offer. You will encounter similar problems with out of the box DNG files with the M or Q or T. Localized PP is inevitable if you want better results. If you just shoot jpg with minimal PP then you will see an improvement with a bigger sensor and better lens with any of the three choices. But correctly PP'ed d-lux files will often look better than out of the box files from an M.

 

Good luck!

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!

[Manoleica]

Hi Adam, I think you did a great job in both PP & extolling the virtues of the camera.. With digital photography I think we all need to be not only masters of the camera we now have to add PP.. It could just be that bdn has a bad case of the GAS! (As we all do at times)..

Maybe a basic course in PP might be a good route to go, together with a thorough know how of the camera..L

[Adam]

Hi Adam, I think you did a great job in both PP & extolling the virtues of the camera.. With digital photography I think we all need to be not only masters of the camera we now have to add PP.. It could just be that bdn has a bad case of the GAS! (As we all do at times)..

Maybe a basic course in PP might be a good route to go, together with a thorough know how of the camera..L

Thank you, I appreciate the comment. I got a bit carried away, once I started PP, I had to do all three.

I think that your remarks were spot on, that even the best camera will not do much if do not know how to translate what you want to show into a visual image. I just wanted to show the OP that you can actually improve the images without a new camera, and that the d-lux is a fine tool. Having said that, we both know the M is a joy to use, and, as you have shown in your post, it can give fantastic images with minimum processing. You just need to know what you want, and how to do it. On average for me, the M needs less PP than the d-lux. It just depends what you want as a result.

 

As far as GAS, we both know how addictive the M can be, but it is not just quality of pics, it is the way you do photography with it. In my case, once I got it into my head that I want an M, I was lost...

[bdn]

Thanks all for your comments.  I'll explore the different suggestions you made.