wlaidlaw Posted June 15, 2018 Share #1 Posted June 15, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just seen the new C-Lux with 20MP 1" sensor 24-360mm equivalent lens. I have a feeling this might be one for Mrs.L to replace her ageing V-Lux 20. She is one of these old fashioned people like me who doesn't like taking photos with her phone and her iPhone 6 is in such a state of decrepitude, that it may not actually be capable of taking photos. It looks like it has been through a war zone. The spec looks very good. The only sad omission compared with the V-Lux 20 is GPS. Having had it on my M240 (albeit not very good) and SL (excellent) it is something I really miss on the CL and I am surprised that Leica and Panasonic have seen fit to omit it on the new C-Lux. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here New C-Lux 20MP 1" sensor 24-360mm equivalent lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wlaidlaw Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share #2 Posted June 15, 2018 I have just read Jonathan Slack's review of the camera and it is all very positive (can it really be that good?) My only worry is that currently the RAW format is the Panasonic proprietary RWL format, which few raw conversions can read and none of them well. Lightroom can't read them and the Capture One conversion is not great. This is supposed to be changed to DNG for the production versions with a firmware update. I would be surprised if this was firmware updatable. I have been caught on this before. The C112 was supposed to be updated from RWL RAW to DNG RAW with a firmware update........but it never happened and I am stuck with RWL. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemgb Posted June 15, 2018 Share #3 Posted June 15, 2018 I have just read Jonathan Slack's review of the camera and it is all very positive (can it really be that good?) My only worry is that currently the RAW format is the Panasonic proprietary RWL format, which few raw conversions can read and none of them well. Lightroom can't read them and the Capture One conversion is not great. This is supposed to be changed to DNG for the production versions with a firmware update. I would be surprised if this was firmware updatable. I have been caught on this before. The C112 was supposed to be updated from RWL RAW to DNG RAW with a firmware update........but it never happened and I am stuck with RWL. Wilson The D-Lux 109 also saves raw images in the RWL format, I can open and work on them in both Photoshop and Lightroom. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share #4 Posted June 16, 2018 The D-Lux 109 also saves raw images in the RWL format, I can open and work on them in both Photoshop and Lightroom. Mike, I don't know if there are different versions/generations of the RWL formats but Jono also commented that they would not open in LR. I have to admit to not trying for a long time to open the RWL images from my C112 in LR and they may well do now. I barely use the C112 and then only for taking quick JPEG's for posting online. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted June 16, 2018 Share #5 Posted June 16, 2018 The spec. looks good to me and I like the 1"sensor using it with both my FZ1000 and Sony RX10iv. On the subject of LR and PS6 for processing RAW images I am unable to process later RAW camera images with my early edition of PS6 so I assume the same would apply to LR if downloaded some time ago. My understanding is that Photoshop stopped updating their software on downloaded editions at least a year ago as they now only update their hired cloud photo software. I suppose that this is part of their protection against fraudulent copies that have circulated for years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share #6 Posted June 16, 2018 Dave, My copy of LR is the latest on the Adobe subscription basis, Classic CC V.7.3.1. I just tried again and it does not seem to open C112 images. The odd thing is the Photoshop and ACR, which I am sure uses the same RAW engine as LR (Camera RAW CC 10.3) will open them. I will query this with Adobe as I think there is something not working as it should here or my copy of LR Classic CC is corrupt. Even so I am not going to buy a new C-Lux for my wife until such time as it does DNG RAW not RWL. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim-St Posted June 16, 2018 Share #7 Posted June 16, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is it not possible to use "Copy as DNG" in the LR import screen to get the files imported and workable in LR? Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share #8 Posted June 16, 2018 Jim, It may well be but as I use the C112 so little and then really only for taking quick JPEG's it is not a huge worry to me. I have the CL, SL and M240 for serious digital work. However if the new C-Lux does not take DNG's, as my wife would be using it as her only camera, that would be a concern. Capture One will handle and convert the RWL format from the C112 but to be blunt, I thought the out of camera JPEG's were better than the C1 conversions. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted June 16, 2018 Share #9 Posted June 16, 2018 I have and use the c112 and the rwl files can now be opened by any modern imaging program. I recall old my dLux4 used the same extension and it took a long time for programs to be able to open them. There was a work around that if I remember correctly required renaming the files. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted June 16, 2018 Share #10 Posted June 16, 2018 Dave, My copy of LR is the latest on the Adobe subscription basis, Classic CC V.7.3.1. I just tried again and it does not seem to open C112 images. The odd thing is the Photoshop and ACR, which I am sure uses the same RAW engine as LR (Camera RAW CC 10.3) will open them. I will query this with Adobe as I think there is something not working as it should here or my copy of LR Classic CC is corrupt. Even so I am not going to buy a new C-Lux for my wife until such time as it does DNG RAW not RWL. Wilson I no longer utilize the LR subscription I have moved on to a stand alone program—but most certainly my installation opened the c112 and my Q files equally easy. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 16, 2018 Share #11 Posted June 16, 2018 Won't the camera ship with software to convert the RAW files? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted June 16, 2018 Share #12 Posted June 16, 2018 Won't the camera ship with software to convert the RAW files? I am sure it will—- it may not be the program of choice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share #13 Posted June 16, 2018 Jono says in his review and I would have thought he was likely to have got it correct, that one of the differences between the Panasonic TZ2000 and the C-Lux was going to be that its RAW files were the more universal format of DNG rather than Panasonic's proprietary RWL. However the pre-production version of the camera he was using was still RWL and they would not open in LR. He went on to say that this was going to be changed by a firmware update. My own feeling is that if the production camera is to output in DNG, this would be a hardware not firmware change. After all the RAW output is generated just after the sensor output amplifier/auto gain control, analogue to digital convertor and de-mosaicing, and I have always assumed was hardware coded. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmschuh Posted June 16, 2018 Share #14 Posted June 16, 2018 The production process of the file format of RAW files is always part of the firmware (software). De-mosaicing is not part of the RAW creation process, unless you first create a JPG file. Jonos review isn't a real review. That's too superficial and too much euphemism for me. Other testers attest that the camera has a relatively soft lens with too little resolution over the entire focal length range compared to competitor products. A comparison with other cameras with 1" sensor can be seen at DPReview. The comparison to other 1" models from Panasonic is also interesting. At the same time, three different cameras complain that the series scattering in the quality of the optics seems to be very high. Since in my experience the Leica-labelled Panasonics never differed from the real Panasonic in optical performance or software (color, sharpness, contrast) in recent years, I believe that the results can be transferred 1:1 to the Leica model. And then I'm quite sceptical. Furthermore, the Panaleicas have installed far too many gimmicks in the software, which I don't like at all. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share #15 Posted June 16, 2018 The production process of the file format of RAW files is always part of the firmware (software). De-mosaicing is not part of the RAW creation process, unless you first create a JPG file. Jonos review isn't a real review. That's too superficial and too much euphemism for me. Other testers attest that the camera has a relatively soft lens with too little resolution over the entire focal length range compared to competitor products. A comparison with other cameras with 1" sensor can be seen at DPReview. The comparison to other 1" models from Panasonic is also interesting. At the same time, three different cameras complain that the series scattering in the quality of the optics seems to be very high. Since in my experience the Leica-labelled Panasonics never differed from the real Panasonic in optical performance or software (color, sharpness, contrast) in recent years, I believe that the results can be transferred 1:1 to the Leica model. And then I'm quite sceptical. Furthermore, the Panaleicas have installed far too many gimmicks in the software, which I don't like at all. I did wonder if I might be better getting my wife a Sony RX100 mk.6 but then what might raise its ugly head would be........"I see - you get Leica cameras but I get Sony" My wife has always had Pana-Leicas. Also the Sony is more expensive than the Leica (not often I say that) €1300 against €970. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmschuh Posted June 16, 2018 Share #16 Posted June 16, 2018 I would wait until there is a comparison of the two cameras on any website, as long as the focal length range above 200mm is not totally important for you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotofool Posted June 16, 2018 Share #17 Posted June 16, 2018 Intuitively the idea of a super-compact super-zoom sounds likely to be optically super-bad. Unless DPReview had *multiple* bad samples of this product it is. "The lens on our first ZS200 was very soft in the center. We tried two other cameras which had their own optical problems." https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs200-tz200/5 If you really want a does-it-all point-and-shoot that literally fits in your pant pocket then this might be your least bad option. But realize that each of those constraints necessitate the lens designer to trade image quality off at each turn. I'm very disappointed in Leica for putting their brand name on this thing. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjans Posted June 16, 2018 Share #18 Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) Intuitively the idea of a super-compact super-zoom sounds likely to be optically super-bad. Unless DPReview had *multiple* bad samples of this product it is. "The lens on our first ZS200 was very soft in the center. We tried two other cameras which had their own optical problems." https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs200-tz200/5 If you really want a does-it-all point-and-shoot that literally fits in your pant pocket then this might be your least bad option. But realize that each of those constraints necessitate the lens designer to trade image quality off at each turn. I'm very disappointed in Leica for putting their brand name on this thing. There is not much choice at Panasonic to have a Leica branded version. If Leica uses a Panasonic it’s most a top level like the little C112. In my country a consumer organisation rated in 2013 and following years the Panasonic equivalent LF-1 as best buy for an advanced compact camera.Considering DPReview I admit to read their reviews with a certain reservation... . Now considering this new member of the family, I’m still happy with my C typ 112. Will I buy a new compact digital compact camera? Not soon, but maybe a new smartphone with advanced camera functions. The Huawei Pro 20or an iPhone X are two I would consider at this moment, but here also, I have no need yet for a new smartphone. Just my two cents. Best Edited June 16, 2018 by rjans Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 16, 2018 Share #19 Posted June 16, 2018 Intuitively the idea of a super-compact super-zoom sounds likely to be optically super-bad. Unless DPReview had *multiple* bad samples of this product it is. "The lens on our first ZS200 was very soft in the center. We tried two other cameras which had their own optical problems." https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs200-tz200/5 If you really want a does-it-all point-and-shoot that literally fits in your pant pocket then this might be your least bad option. But realize that each of those constraints necessitate the lens designer to trade image quality off at each turn. I'm very disappointed in Leica for putting their brand name on this thing. Indeed any superzoom lens is going to be compromised. A cheap superzoom is even more so. It's a snapshot camera, nothing more, fighting for customers who are mostly happy with their smartphone images. Obviously the zoom lets them get closer photos at shows/gigs and animals at the zoo. For some people that will be enough to justify the outlay. It's not a camera for Leica photographers. Not to say it can't produce some decent results, but why would any of 'us' want to compromise this much? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted June 16, 2018 Share #20 Posted June 16, 2018 To me the jury is still out. I love my Q I love my C112 I have 5 20” x 30” sizes metal prints taken with my c112 along with a plethora of 24”x36” taken with my Q and truly don’t need th C-Lux although I put my name in for a pre-order. I may wait a bit before pulling the trigger. 1 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.