Jump to content
Jake

Leica CL vs Lumix GX85

Recommended Posts

I've had the CL for over a year now, and have had no complaints. Well made, interface is great, optics are above average, and the sensor is performing wonderfully. 

Recently, my partner purchased a lumix GX85 (size requirement and a mini flash as opposed to the GX8), and I've been playing around with it comparing it to my CL. Although the optics and sensor are superior, the JPG output seems better/ more accurate than the CL under low light conditions. I've played around with white balance and vivid/ standard/ natural settings, but I can't seem to get the CL to be as accurate as the lumix. Sure, I can post process and adjust, but the fact that the CL was touted as having great JPG output, I'm left disappointed. 

Does anybody have any suggestions or information that reconciles my disappointment? 

Edited by Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much you can do. It's personal preference for jpegs, if you've played with the settings. I have a GX9 and prefer the Leica colours out of the box. And I vastly prefer the colours of ANY Fuji to either of them. If you're super fussy you could buy a color checker and use that as a tool to adjust things in post.

I suppose the trick is to stop shooting them side by side and just go take pictures. Differences that appear huge in micro testing don't tend to matter in the field if we don't want them to.

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really relevant for me. I haven't used jpg OOC for the last decade and a half, and the processed CL DNGs are stunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 6 Stunden schrieb Jake:

I've had the CL for over a year now, and have had no complaints. Well made, interface is great, optics are above average, and the sensor is performing wonderfully. 

Recently, my partner purchased a lumix GX85 (size requirement and a mini flash as opposed to the GX8), and I've been playing around with it comparing it to my CL. Although the optics and sensor are superior, the JPG output seems better/ more accurate than the CL under low light conditions. I've played around with white balance and vivid/ standard/ natural settings, but I can't seem to get the CL to be as accurate as the lumix. Sure, I can post process and adjust, but the fact that the CL was touted as having great JPG output, I'm left disappointed. 

Does anybody have any suggestions or information that reconciles my disappointment? 

Some buy a V8 to let it run on 4 cylinders only.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not use Leica jpg. Only DNG. 

CL jpeg are soft on purpose. You can sharpen them later if you like. The other war around is not possible.

CL DNG are super sharp, it is day and night with jpg  

If you want Leica’s jpg look with DNG, just choose in Lightroom the embedded profile. Adobe profile is a ready to post process one. 

 

Life is too short to lose the flexibility of DNG. 😉 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always found this idea of "jpg is more simple than dng" hard to follow. There is no difference in the postprocessing tools between the two. The only benefit might be to communicate the image as directly from the camera as possible. But even then,  if I import the image into my smartphone by WiFi to mail or put on social media, I will use Snapseed. And probably use the phone camera in the first place.

As far as I am concerned, jpg could be dropped from the camera output entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I ever shoot jpg's is if I want some B&W images, so I set the camera to RAW/jpg small, I never shoot ONLY jpg.

If I am using MF lenses then I find it a lot easier to focus peak with a B&W image in the EVF.

The B&W jpg's OOC are very nice even smallest ones, but the DNG is the one I will edit and work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jpeg = positive film. You should not screw up anything during exposure : white balance, shadows, highlights, sharpening, color rendition etc... Otherwise all hope is lost, because, it is not wise to post process. But ready to share. Just think of it as a PDF  

DNG = negative film. Very forgiving, easy to post process. In post process, you can raise shadows, recover highlights, set sharpening to taste, set perfect white balance, change color rendition, etc...  Not really ready to share, export as JPEG before. Just think of it as a Word .doc file. Work it at will, then export it as PDF before sharing. 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand raw images are like a negative, and jpgs "positive" film. 

Lumix GX85 = $500 with two lenses. 

Leica CL with one lens = $4000. 

I get one is professional and the other is a consumer product, but you'd think Leica engineers would at least be able to create a jpg output that would rival cheaper cameras. 

It just adds an additional step - post processing. Especially when most of the reviews and posters here suggested the jpg output was exceptional. 

It  is simply is not accurate. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but you'd think for a $4K camera, it would spit out accurate color temp images for those that don't have nor want to post process in lightroom or whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 32 Minuten schrieb Jake:

I understand raw images are like a negative, and jpgs "positive" film. 

Lumix GX85 = $500 with two lenses. 

Leica CL with one lens = $4000. 

I get one is professional and the other is a consumer product, but you'd think Leica engineers would at least be able to create a jpg output that would rival cheaper cameras. 

It just adds an additional step - post processing. Especially when most of the reviews and posters here suggested the jpg output was exceptional. 

It  is simply is not accurate. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but you'd think for a $4K camera, it would spit out accurate color temp images for those that don't have nor want to post process in lightroom or whatever. 

I wonder now: Do you still have a CL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jake said:

I understand raw images are like a negative, and jpgs "positive" film. 

Lumix GX85 = $500 with two lenses. 

Leica CL with one lens = $4000. 

I get one is professional and the other is a consumer product, but you'd think Leica engineers would at least be able to create a jpg output that would rival cheaper cameras. 

It just adds an additional step - post processing. Especially when most of the reviews and posters here suggested the jpg output was exceptional. 

It  is simply is not accurate. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but you'd think for a $4K camera, it would spit out accurate color temp images for those that don't have nor want to post process in lightroom or whatever. 

Neither are "professional cameras", whatever that means. One is more expensive than the other. And more "professional" often means LESS emphasis on jpegs as they know that the vast majority will shoot in RAW. Get into brands like Hasselblad and you don't even get a jpeg at full resolution let alone a nice one. They actively discourage you from jpegs by not offering them in a usable form.

NO current manufacturer produces a commercial stills camera with "accurate" colour. Not even when shooting raw. All manufacturers impart their own take on what they think "pleasing" colours are. It just so happens your eye/brain combination like the Panasonic GX85 interpretation over the CL Leica version (my brain prefers the opposite). Now if you go and buy a different Panasonic or a different Leica then things will look a bit different again. Different hardware and all that. Even a small change to the manufacturing process of the CFA or to the democcaising algorithm can change colour interpretation. The colours on a G9 are ever so slightly differently represented to the GX85 you own.

Leica has received much criticism over the years for it's jpeg output. It's always been at the lesser end of popular. The CL jpegs are definitely better than some of the older models. M9 anyone? haha. Interestingly enough Panasonic hasn't been much better. I suppose that Leica really want you to use the raw files. More likely Leica just don't care about pretty jpegs. They know there's a better file to be had from a raw capture. If you want pretty jpegs buy a Fuji or an Olympus. It's my understanding that Leica want you to be more involved in the image taking process. That means simpler cameras with less "stuff". And it also means shooting raw to make the files sing.

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jake said:

I understand raw images are like a negative, and jpgs "positive" film. 

Lumix GX85 = $500 with two lenses. 

Leica CL with one lens = $4000. 

I get one is professional and the other is a consumer product, but you'd think Leica engineers would at least be able to create a jpg output that would rival cheaper cameras. 

It just adds an additional step - post processing. Especially when most of the reviews and posters here suggested the jpg output was exceptional. 

It  is simply is not accurate. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but you'd think for a $4K camera, it would spit out accurate color temp images for those that don't have nor want to post process in lightroom or whatever. 

I think your ideal camera is the Zeiss ZX1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way: you pay a lot of money for a camera to produce a large amount of high-quality data. And then you throw half those data in the rubbish bin. Doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Alex U. said:

I wonder now: Do you still have a CL?

Yes. Yes I do. As I said, I think it's a superior camera. Yes, the DNG's need to be processed or "printed." And I'm still waiting for the damn 55-135 to become available. Hopefully in my lifetime. . . 

Yes. The interpretation of every image is subjective, but color correcting to match the human eyeball is supposed to be the goal. Granted, not every eyeball is the same, but when I see yellow and green, something is amiss. I understand my education and background make me a bit more sensitive to color, but the difference is drastic. I just never really realized how drastic is was. I have no issues in daylight. JPG is accurate in the CL. Just never really noticed how off it was in producing jpg's for indoor or low light/ incandescent conditions. 

But I acknowledge the advice here to not compare images as jpgs right out of the camera. Good advice. But I don't acknowledge that there is no such thing as pro cameras and not. It's how the industry has evolved. Prosumer, consumer, and professional categories definitely exist. It's called capitalism.     

I'm curious as to how many of the images in the CL image thread have been post processed. Or processed in snapseed or similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jake said:

.................................

I'm curious as to how many of the images in the CL image thread have been post processed. Or processed in snapseed or similar. 

In my case, all of them processed in  Lightroom or, occasionally, Photoshop. Never posted straight out of the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have to thank everybody for responding or replying to my post. All view points are much appreciated. 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake, I have a T and a TL2 and until the other day shot only jpg.  A couple of weeks ago I got a GX85 (GX80 here in the UK) and a 20mm f/1.7 lens to have a small, easy camera for various things.  I was blown away by how good the jpg output is compared to the TL2, and also how easy it is to get sharp results with the image stabilisation, and it got me wondering what I spent all that money on?! 

People are always saying you need to use the dngs from the Leica but I've never had the software and you can't even get it for a Chromebook, which is my laptop of choice.  So to prove to myself that the TL2 was worth it I got on my son's PC and downloaded a free program called Darktable and took some dngs on the Leica and had a look at them.  And WOW! what a difference.  They say that Leica base their colour profile on Kodachrome, and you can really see that in the dngs.  The colours straight out of the box are stunning.  But also the sharpness is amazing compared with the jpgs.  I always found it quite hit or miss to get really sharp jpgs, but the dngs were fantastic (using 90mm Elmarit M and Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 Ultron, both manual focus, and it's not the easiest camera to focus manually). So I'm an overnight convert to dng.  It also reminded me how much I just like using the TL2 and manual focus lenses, and the brilliant interface, the weight and feel of it.  And now I'm not so much in love with the GX80.  Hope that's helpful. (PS: This shot doesn't look so great at 0.5Mb, but it's super sharp.  The duck is guarding his lady friend nesting in the reeds!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certainly apps to edit photographs on a Chromebook. You only need to look for them and use Google Play Store.

Photoshop Express, Gimp, Polarr, etc...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jaapv said:

There are certainly apps to edit photographs on a Chromebook. You only need to look for them and use Google Play Store.

Photoshop Express, Gimp, Polarr, etc...

 

Yes, Polarr is quite good, but none of them can edit raw files (well maybe Polarr does Nikon ones, but definitely not dng).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...