Jump to content
Jake

Leica CL vs Lumix GX85

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Shall we start a new topic ? GX85/80 is dead now. Long live to GX90/91/95/99 or whatever the stupid Panasonic naming convention is calling the new camera. 

This new Lumix can be a good companion to CL, they share the same batteries as a start. 

I don't think there is any sensor difference between the 8 series and the 9 series, so the relevant remarks will still be valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oups sorry I was confused with Panasonic naming. I was thinking about the newly announced G90/91/95/99 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They still have the same 20.3 MP sensor and Venus engine, so they are completely comparable to the GX 8 and 85 in image rendering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 5:43 AM, nicci78 said:

Shall we start a new topic ? GX85/80 is dead now. Long live to GX90/91/95/99 or whatever the stupid Panasonic naming convention is calling the new camera. 

This new Lumix can be a good companion to CL, they share the same batteries as a start. 

The GX80/85 has a 16mp four thirds sensor. The current GX9 has a 20mp four thirds sensor. Do they really share the same battery with the CL? I'm always attracted to the idea of having cameras that share batteries. The Leica Q has the same battery as the Panasonic FZ2500 superzoom, from what I understand. The same battery has been used across the 2006 Fuji F30 pocket camera, the Fuji X100/S/T, and the Ricoh GXR. Panasonic uses the same battery in the LX10 pocket camera and the GM1/5 m43 cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake in that case. I thought the GX85 had the same 20.3 MP sensor as the GX8. I use the batteries I have (6 of them of three different brands) indiscriminately between my GX8 and CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 9:43 PM, jaapv said:

And don’t heckle. 

I'd like to know what you mean by this before I even respond. It sounds a lot like a request to censor myself and NOT respond. Or I have been "heckling" in the sense like an audience member heckles a comedian or performer. 

Edited by Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still no response? 

It leaves my argument intact. Unless you want to talk about linguistics and culture. From Wiki in regard to your supposition that some cultures can't differentiate between blue and green :

Quote

Many languages do not distinguish between what in English are described as "blue" and "green" and instead use a cover term spanning both. To describe this English lexical gap, linguists use the portmanteau word grue, from green and blue, which the philosopher Nelson Goodman coined in his 1955 Fact, Fiction, and Forecast to illustrate the "new riddle of induction".

The exact definition of "blue" and "green" may be complicated by the speakers not primarily distinguishing the hue, but using terms that describe other color components such as saturation and luminosity, or other properties of the object being described. For example, "blue" and "green" might be distinguished, but a single term might be used for both if the color is dark.

Interestingly, a google translation in Japanese shows two distinct words for "blue" and "green." What does that make of your argument? And don't heckle. 

Share this post


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

Still no response? 

It leaves my argument intact. Unless you want to talk about linguistics and culture. From Wiki in regard to your supposition that some cultures can't differentiate between blue and green :

Interestingly, a google translation in Japanese shows two distinct words for "blue" and "green." What does that make of your argument? And don't heckle. 

Yes, at present. Originally the word for Blue-Green was Ao, but nowadays, as Japanese culture opened up to the western world, the word Midori was added to differentiate.

And where is the authority for your assertions? Please quote your sources more specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smokes I was ornery in this thread. Must've had a stick placed where it didn't belong. 

Apologies all around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a B&W image with grid lines added, the brain makes it colour. you may need to squint, I found it interesting considering current discussion about brain rendering of colours.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157229378753823&set=a.10151122699113823&__cft__[0]=AZV63zIhB9QadXX4ikdZGt1AObY9X2r7v3S7S4143b9vYK3NXZihdnV6uggdU_4daZGr4sSngEWvU0b3gyGGe_3G342ziCQ17gnbzMdDCAfEqIS1-ZfV3am8X-doskVYlod9gzSke4es3ZYeTxJhWcr6&__tn__=EH-y-R

 

 

Edited by Marac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and the funniest thing is that you can flip your brain to see the B&W image with lines by enlarging it maximally and shrinking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't I also remember reading about some guy wearing glasses that made everything upside down, then after wearing them for about a week the brain turned everything the right way up.

A truly amazing processor.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 9:50 PM, 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. 

All of them, probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:52 AM, Viv said:

All of them, probably.

surely not

my aim when taking a photo is to not have to do anything to them later and assumed that to be the rule rather than exception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, huwm said:

surely not

my aim when taking a photo is to not have to do anything to them later and assumed that to be the rule rather than exception?

I believe that it is the exception, not the rule.

Why should it be a rule?

For me, the finished image is that which comes from the camera (which camera applies its own processing), improved and perfected by post-processing.

It's all part of the process of photography.

Edited by Viv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, huwm said:

surely not

my aim when taking a photo is to not have to do anything to them later and assumed that to be the rule rather than exception?

Just like with film (darkroom), a digital image comes in two parts. Taking a photograph and processing it. Both are equally important for a good result. Using the OOC JPG is like leaving the processing and printing of your film to a street corner printing machine. You <might> strike it lucky, but mostly not, and proper darkroom/postprocessing work will always be better.

I think  that the vast majority of our forum members are aware of this.

Share this post


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

Just like with film (darkroom), a digital image comes in two parts. Taking a photograph and processing it. Both are equally important for a good result. Using the OOC JPG is like leaving the processing and printing of your film to a street corner printing machine. You <might> strike it lucky, but mostly not, and proper darkroom/postprocessing work will always be better.

I think  that the vast majority of our forum members are aware of this.

Ok, fair enough 

I'm being a bit purist I suppose 

But, if you need to do anything much more than 'tweak' then maybe take a bit more time on the actual 'moment'

It's the reason I tend to take out just one lens, often a prime, despite having them all, to impose some 'mindfulness' 

But of course we are all into this photography game for our own reasons and I sometimes forget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before changing to digital a good few years ago I used to shoot mainly colour slide film and therefore had to impose "mindfulness" at the time the photo was taken as no post processing was possible.  Many of my digital shots are done the same way, although post processing does tend to enhance the finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MJA said:

Before changing to digital a good few years ago I used to shoot mainly colour slide film and therefore had to impose "mindfulness" at the time the photo was taken as no post processing was possible.  Many of my digital shots are done the same way, although post processing does tend to enhance the finished product.

The advent of the digital age has changed everything. The ability to shoot 4-500 pics in one day without a film autowinder (which made it exorbitantly expensive for most people anyway), has changed the way people engage in photography  image capture. 

Before, you would be more calculated in your shot choice. You'd be more discerning. Today? Who cares. Shoot 200 frames in half a day and pick the top 1%. Process later, when you have 5 f/stops leeway, sliding levers and software that creates the craft for you. You don't need to have a good eye, you need volume. Youtube will tell you how to compose, and 1000 users on flickr will compliment you on your work, inflating your ego.

Hand 100 monkeys typewriters and eventually they will come up with T.S. Elliot. 

Edited by Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going back to the original subject. 
Have you notice, that if you crop 24MP CL into m4/3 size. You still retain 14MP. Really close to 16MP m4/3 that Olympus and Panasonic still sell nowadays. 

 

 

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy