Which one for casual everyday snaps, X1 or DL 109?

[rivi1969]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering now that I been looking to get a small, carry everywhere camera, if you have experience with both the D-Lux 190 and the X1, both can be found roughly for the same money... which one would you pick? I had an X1 and even though it was a little slow to operate, the files were pretty amazing, I have no experience with the 109. Thank you!

[elgenper]

Just going through all this myself...  I own both the X1 and X2, as well as the DLux 7 (which should be very similar to the DLux 109), and am right now going through a series of "test shootings" to try to establish just which one I should grab when the M9 is just too much to carry...  Here are a few of my comments about the contestants.

Both X1 and X2 give better image quality than the DLux; the X1 is just a teeny bit better than the X2.  But they are SLOW, and the X1 controls keep changing with the slightest touch, eg when taking it out of a pocket.  So, for me the X1 is out of the race.

The one BIG problem with both X-es is that it is all but impossible to see the image on the screen in bright daylight (I just don´t want to fiddle with an extra finder, so I don´t own any).

The DLux has a far better screen, as well as a built-in EVF, so that problem is solved, at least.  Also, it is way faster in its responses (and has image stabilising).  The BIG problem here is the plethora of unnecessary and silly "extras" that complicate the handling for more serious shooting.  It takes days and weeks to get ti configured so the nonsense features are out of the way.

But, the DLux does the work when you come to terms with it, no doubt.  It doesn´t have that "real Leica" feeling that the X2 has, but I miss fewer shots with the DLux on a typical day.  So right now the X2 is also out of the race, sadly.  Only, now I´m starting to ask myself if the M9 with a tiny 35 mm is really that much more trouble to carry, after all?  🤔

Edited August 22, 2020 by elgenper

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wda]

I essentially agree with Elgenper.  However I have overcome the X1 LCD brightness problem by adjusting brightness in the menu. At the slight expense of  lens speed, the zoom lens does offer considerably more flexibility, a point in favour of the D Lux typ.109, which I have. The Summilux is a super lens. 

[rivi1969]

Agree too. My former X1 was extremely slow to focus and that would be my only real negative. I have 3 dogs and I like to take pictures of them all the time and for that task my M9 is also useless lol, that's why I am looking for alternatives for a carry-everywhere camera other than my iPhone. 

[rivi1969]

6 hours ago, elgenper said:

Just going through all this myself...  I own both the X1 and X2, as well as the DLux 7 (which should be very similar to the DLux 109), and am right now going through a series of "test shootings" to try to establish just which one I should grab when the M9 is just too much to carry...  Here are a few of my comments about the contestants.

Both X1 and X2 give better image quality than the DLux; the X1 is just a teeny bit better than the X2.  But they are SLOW, and the X1 controls keep changing with the slightest touch, eg when taking it out of a pocket.  So, for me the X1 is out of the race.

The one BIG problem with both X-es is that it is all but impossible to see the image on the screen in bright daylight (I just don´t want to fiddle with an extra finder, so I don´t own any).

The DLux has a far better screen, as well as a built-in EVF, so that problem is solved, at least.  Also, it is way faster in its responses (and has image stabilising).  The BIG problem here is the plethora of unnecessary and silly "extras" that complicate the handling for more serious shooting.  It takes days and weeks to get ti configured so the nonsense features are out of the way.

But, the DLux does the work when you come to terms with it, no doubt.  It doesn´t have that "real Leica" feeling that the X2 has, but I miss fewer shots with the DLux on a typical day.  So right now the X2 is also out of the race, sadly.  Only, now I´m starting to ask myself if the M9 with a tiny 35 mm is really that much more trouble to carry, after all?  🤔

Elgenper, could you do some tests to see which one gives you shallow DoF at the 35mm field of view? If you could share your findings will be very helpful. 👍

[rivi1969]

1 hour ago, wda said:

I essentially agree with Elgenper.  However I have overcome the X1 LCD brightness problem by adjusting brightness in the menu. At the slight expense of  lens speed, the zoom lens does offer considerably more flexibility, a point in favour of the D Lux typ.109, which I have. The Summilux is a super lens. 

David, I see you also have a Digilux 2, do you still using it? I wonder how do you like the files it produces vs the X1. I had a couple of D2 years ago and (also) regret selling them... you know, for the sake of chasing the latest and greatest.

[elgenper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

Agree too ... I have 3 dogs and I like to take pictures of them all the time and for that task my M9 is also useless lol....

Now I´m really surprised... Dogs are a frequent subject for me, whole flocks of them romping around unleashed on a large field.  And, just for that, I feel that everything BUT an M Leica (M9 in my case) is useless! I don´t need AF, but I do need a camera that exposes exactly when needed!  So, M9 rules the canines... This one is with the 75/2 Apo.  And, those 3 guys didn´t wait for me...

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!

 

 

PS. I´ll get around to those test shots for DoF later this evening, I hope...

Edited August 22, 2020 by elgenper

[rivi1969]

26 minutes ago, elgenper said:

Now I´m really surprised... Dogs are a frequent subject for me, whole flocks of them romping around unleashed on a large field.  And, just for that, I feel that everything BUT an M Leica (M9 in my case) is useless! I don´t need AF, but I do need a camera that exposes exactly when needed!  So, M9 rules the canines... This one is with the 75/2 Apo.  And, those 3 guys didn´t wait for me...

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!

 

 

PS. I´ll get around to those test shots for DoF later this evening, I hope...

Great shot and beautiful models! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

 I like to use wide apertures, f1.4 or f2 and closer distances, (maybe as close as the lens allows)so DoF is extremely critical, for that I don't think and M would excel, -or not me-, for that I use my Fuji XT3 with tracking AF and 20 frames per second capture. I don't want to miss any moment lol

[wda]

35 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

David, I see you also have a Digilux 2, do you still using it? I wonder how do you like the files it produces vs the X1. I had a couple of D2 years ago and (also) regret selling them... you know, for the sake of chasing the latest and greatest.

Rivi, very occasionally, for nostalgic reasons. It is difficult to compare the two cameras. The image quality is better with the larger sensor of the X1. But the X1 loses out when using the fast f2.2 Summicron lens  for 90mm portraiture. I still get a lot of pleasure revisiting old digital files from both cameras. Until yesterday (see thread in X forum) my X1 saw regular service. The Digilux less so, but it is charged and ready to go.

[elgenper]

OK, so here are those DoF shots.  I assume you didn´t want just shots of a ruler, but something with OOF background.  For these 2, I focussed on the stack of prints on the table; the interesting part is the window and the potted plants.  Both are f/2.8, with 35 mm equivalent, shot in raw, and the exposure adjusted to make them match.  The DL7 lens does allow for f/2.3 at that setting, but the DoF difference when opening all the way is small indeed.

As you can see, the amount of background blurring is very similar for those 2, but IMHO the X2 gives a far smoother and more beautiful bokeh; the DL7 is much "busier", and not as pleasant at all, at least not while looking at the originals on a large screen.

H-ll, I´m almost beginning to feel for returning to the X2 after all.  It´s just BEAUTFUL (even with this horrible subject...)!

  😊

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!

This is the X2 image...

 

...and here´s the DL7 one.

Edited August 22, 2020 by elgenper

[wda]

11 minutes ago, elgenper said:

OK, so here are those DoF shots.  I assume you didn´t want just shots of a ruler, but something with OOF background.  For these 2, I focussed on the stack of prints on the table; the interesting part is the window and the potted plants.  Both are f/2.8, with 35 mm equivalent, shot in raw, and the exposure adjusted to make them match.  The DL7 lens does allow for f/2.3 at that setting, but the DoF difference when opening all the way is small indeed.

As you can see, the amount of background blurring is very similar for those 2, but IMHO the X2 gives a far smoother and more beautiful bokeh; the DL7 is much "busier", and not as pleasant at all, at least not while looking at the originals on a large screen.

H-ll, I´m almost beginning to feel for returning to the X2 after all.  It´s just BEAUTFUL (even with this horrible subject...)!

  😊

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!

This is the X2 image...

 

...and here´s the DL7 one.

Should we be too surprised? They do not share same size sensors. I agree with your findings. 

[elgenper]

47 minutes ago, wda said:

Should we be too surprised? They do not share same size sensors. I agree with your findings. 

Well, I wasn´t out to surprise anyone.  The thread starter asked for a comparison, and here it is.  Since I´ve owned and used both cameras for almost a year, this is just about what I expected.  I´ve long since concluded that smooth bokeh isn´t the forte of the DL7.  I was just reminded how much of a difference it is.

BTW, nice to hear you keep that Digilux 2 going!  It was my "main camera" from 2004 until I got the M9 in February 2010, but now it rests in peace (just cannot sell it...).  Here is an old studio shot with my Digilux 2; amazing camera indeed!

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!

Edited August 22, 2020 by elgenper

[wda]

Quite stunningly beautiful. Now dust off that Digilux 2.

[rivi1969]

5 hours ago, elgenper said:

OK, so here are those DoF shots.  I assume you didn´t want just shots of a ruler, but something with OOF background.  For these 2, I focussed on the stack of prints on the table; the interesting part is the window and the potted plants.  Both are f/2.8, with 35 mm equivalent, shot in raw, and the exposure adjusted to make them match.  The DL7 lens does allow for f/2.3 at that setting, but the DoF difference when opening all the way is small indeed.

As you can see, the amount of background blurring is very similar for those 2, but IMHO the X2 gives a far smoother and more beautiful bokeh; the DL7 is much "busier", and not as pleasant at all, at least not while looking at the originals on a large screen.

H-ll, I´m almost beginning to feel for returning to the X2 after all.  It´s just BEAUTFUL (even with this horrible subject...)!

  😊

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!

This is the X2 image...

 

...and here´s the DL7 one.

Interesting findings.

The DL7 looks a tad wider, specially at the horizontal plane, you have more information in that shot. And I agree, the X2 shot looks more interesting, more 3D, and with better tone transitions I think! 

Thanks for sharing