Le Chef Posted October 26, 2018 Share #1 Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) What is almost certainly the next Leica DL, to replace the current 109, gets a good review in Amateur Photographer. The question is, is it enough to upgrade from the 109, or should you push on up to the CL/TL2 or Q, or just stick with what you have? Edited October 26, 2018 by Le Chef Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 Hi Le Chef, Take a look here LX100 II review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wda Posted October 26, 2018 Share #2 Posted October 26, 2018 Don't upgrade; keep the 109 and add a CL. Lens choice is your preference, but the standard zoom works very well for many owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 26, 2018 Share #3 Posted October 26, 2018 « The effective resolution is 17 million pixels in 4:3 crop, and the sensor does away with an optical low pass filter, which should see it render slightly sharper, more detailed images at the possible expense of image artefacts such as false colour moiré and maze-like aliasing ». Should... Possible... Not sure that Amateur Photographer has any experience with this camera. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted October 26, 2018 Author Share #4 Posted October 26, 2018 Well they've been testing it for about 3 months, and as publication they've been around almost since the birth of photography. So I'm guessing they know what they're doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 26, 2018 Share #5 Posted October 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, Le Chef said: Well they've been testing it for about 3 months, and as publication they've been around almost since the birth of photography. So I'm guessing they know what they're doing. Then why "should" they see more detailed images? Did they see them or not? Why don't they show them? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share #6 Posted October 27, 2018 (edited) I guess you know best - why don’t you tell Amateur Photographer how to do camera reviews? I’m sure they would welcome your professional expertise. Edited October 27, 2018 by Le Chef Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 27, 2018 Share #7 Posted October 27, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, Le Chef said: I guess you know best - why don’t you tell Amateur Photographer how to do camera reviews? I’m sure they would welcome your professional expertise. I know nothing but they hardly prove that they know better than i do on this camera. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted October 27, 2018 Share #8 Posted October 27, 2018 AP are no better or worse at reviewing cameras as any other professional reviewer. I like reviews where the reviewer has used the camera in a number of different scenarios and weather conditions and can provide a warts and all summary. I definitely shun reviews where there is an established interest to the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. AP and other publications should not be affected by any of these, but of course manufacturers and distributors spend a lot of cash on advertising.......just saying, nothing implied. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trivette Posted October 28, 2018 Share #9 Posted October 28, 2018 The 109 does exactly what I wanted it to do. I have no reason to purchase an "upgrade." For interchangeable lenses I have an excellent M8.2 for more serious work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted November 8, 2018 Share #10 Posted November 8, 2018 Much as I like my Leica Ms, what is actually different between a type 109 and an LX100. It looks like the EXACT same camera. Are there menu differences or some other difference between the two cameras? I have to admit I'm looking for a small pocket camera and the LX100 (or the LX100 II) are pretty tempting. It has a Leica lens and it seems to have Leica build quality (not surprising since it's essentially a sort of joint venture right?). Are there reasons (beyond the red dot) to prefer the Leica version? I'm not trying to troll anyone here, I really want to know because I'm thinking seriously of buying one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 8, 2018 Share #11 Posted November 8, 2018 Higher resale value. Lasting pride of ownership. Leica after sales support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted November 8, 2018 Share #12 Posted November 8, 2018 The nearest Leica support is in New Jersey. My Leica dealer even shut down here in Atlanta a few years ago. Plus I tend to buy used, so support really isn't much of an benefit. Also I tend not to resell. I have pride of ownership in the Leica Ms, but I'm not sure that's enough if they are completely identical. Either way you're still getting the Leica lens right? Or are there differences? I'm also considering an X1 or X2 on the basis of yes they're a little bigger but supposedly about the same weight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 8, 2018 Share #13 Posted November 8, 2018 They are not completely identical. Never been since Digilux 1 / Pana LC5 in 2002. Out of camera colors are not the same. Significant difference for jpeg users but not for raw users though. Ergonomics are not the same either. I much prefer the hand grip and thumb support of the LX100 personally also its ever-ready case but it is a matter of tastes obviously. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted November 8, 2018 Share #14 Posted November 8, 2018 Ok, so the same menus, different color science for the jpegs, and how are the ergonomics different? The grip is different? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted November 8, 2018 Share #15 Posted November 8, 2018 Ok, I see. The Lumix has a grip in front and a slightly different shape for the thumbrest in back and all the buttons are a different shape. The LX100 II has a touchscreen and more resolution but is basically the same camera otherwise. Since Leica seems to have discontinued the X1 and X2, I'm guessing there will be a later version of the D-Lux based on the new LX100 II ... eventually. This kind of reminds me of the old Leica/Minolta CL. Basically a Minolta camera with Leica design influence and a Leica lens mount and Leica designed lenses. This is a Panasonic camera with Leica design influence with a Leica designed fixed lens. Pretty close to the same size too. The control layout seems very Leica like, which is why it works as a Leica. Looks like a great camera, in any of the three versions (I, II, or 109). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xelor Posted November 9, 2018 Share #16 Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) Am 8.11.2018 um 19:18 schrieb carbon_dragon: Ok, so the same menus, different color science for the jpegs, and how are the ergonomics different? The grip is different? No - the menus are not 100% the same - the LX even has more options which are not available at the 109 - e.g. remote control of external flash units. Here the LX does have more options/possibilities. Leica has "cleaned up" the features a little bit and swiped out features which are not relevant for the target group. You can download the manuals of both cameras and compare them is needed. A plus argument for the 109 at least in Europe is the warranty time of 3 years compared to LX (which has 2 years - standard in Europe). In the past there was also a Lightroom licence coming with the 109 - this has beed changed to a (i believe 90 days) trial. Ergonomics and body design by Audi are IMHO more less customer preference. Edited November 9, 2018 by Xelor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 19, 2018 Share #17 Posted November 19, 2018 Interesting comparos between LX100 and LX100-II pics here:DPR studio shot comparison Disappointing at 1600 iso: LX100 vs LX100-II @ 1600 ISO Better at 200 iso but hard to justify the upgrade IMHO: LX100 vs LX100-II @ 200 ISO (Raw files, same post processing, no sharpening, LX100 files upsized to match the LX100-II's resolution) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 19, 2018 Share #18 Posted November 19, 2018 Although seemingly of the same lineage, they are two quite different cameras intended for different purposes. I see no reason to replace my D Lux with its successor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 19, 2018 Share #19 Posted November 19, 2018 I would say quite similar as far as Panasonic bodies are concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 19, 2018 Share #20 Posted November 19, 2018 Other interesting comparos here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM Same observation as above at 1600 iso:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sLJt2d2/0/fa9dbd13/O/i-sLJt2d2.jpg Looks like a bit more softness is the price to pay to get less digital noise out of the LX100-II. Lesss moiré also apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now