ibogost Posted October 29, 2008 Share #61 Posted October 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) The D-Lux 4's exterior design is indeed significantly more desirable, and worth paying extra for, I'll grant that. I think the rub for me, on both models frankly, is the whole proprietary RAW format. What a pain. I don't want to use C1 or Silkypix, I want to use Aperture. I suppose Apple might release a RAW update someday, but I've determined that integration into my workflow is most important to me. In fact, I'd pay the $400 premium for that alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Hi ibogost, Take a look here D Lux 4 Pricing in US. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
steve_l Posted October 29, 2008 Share #62 Posted October 29, 2008 Don't forget the distortion and CA correction built into the included software. IN-camera jpeg processor does it, RAW needs it done by the converter. The lens, by design, trades these flaws for fast and wide..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 29, 2008 Share #63 Posted October 29, 2008 FWIW, I've spent a little time looking at these cameras, and found that Raw Developer supports the LX-3 raw format...and if you change the DLUX-4 file ".rwl" extension to ".rw2", Raw Developer does an excellent job on them as well. I've only looked at these cameras in stores so far. They both seem excellent. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted October 30, 2008 Share #64 Posted October 30, 2008 Don't forget the distortion and CA correction built into the included software. IN-camera jpeg processor does it, RAW needs it done by the converter. The lens, by design, trades these flaws for fast and wide..... At least in Capture One - the CA and distortion correction for D-LUX4 RAW files is off by default. Once the reviews happen it will be seen the lens at 24mm does not have as much barrel distortion as has been indicated here. Best Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted October 30, 2008 Share #65 Posted October 30, 2008 FWIW, I've spent a little time looking at these cameras, and found that Raw Developer supports the LX-3 raw format...and if you change the DLUX-4 file ".rwl" extension to ".rw2", Raw Developer does an excellent job on them as well. I've only looked at these cameras in stores so far. They both seem excellent. Until later, Clyde Clyde I take it you have read the name change will work - somewhere. I don't have access to the LX3 so I can't try this on my own, but very interesting. That said Capture One is an excellent product and I have used with M8 files since Nov. 06. I am impressed with the files coming from the D-LUX4. Best regards. Terry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 30, 2008 Share #66 Posted October 30, 2008 Clyde I take it you have read the name change will work - somewhere. I don't have access to the LX3 so I can't try this on my own, but very interesting. That said Capture One is an excellent product and I have used with M8 files since Nov. 06. I am impressed with the files coming from the D-LUX4. Best regards. Terry Hi Terry, Actually, I've done it and it worked as advertised. We had a local Leica event last weekend, and I took the rep's Dlux-4 outside with my card in it and shot a couple dozen raws. I used Raw Developer to convert all of them to psd's that I've looked over in photoshop. RD doesn't do the barrel distortion correction (I assume C1 does), but conversion color and sharpness were excellent. The Dlux-4 seems to be a great little camera. It very well may become my first compact digital. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted October 30, 2008 Share #67 Posted October 30, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Terry, Actually, I've done it and it worked as advertised. We had a local Leica event last weekend, and I took the rep's Dlux-4 outside with my card in it and shot a couple dozen raws. I used Raw Developer to convert all of them to psd's that I've looked over in photoshop. RD doesn't do the barrel distortion correction (I assume C1 does), but conversion color and sharpness were excellent. The Dlux-4 seems to be a great little camera. It very well may become my first compact digital. Until later, Clyde Me again Clyde, Capture One does have CA and distortion control settings, and by default they are turned off - which I found interesting. All in all I am happy. I was looking for something small, quiet and capable, not perfect and so far all is good. I did try to check-out the LX3 but strangely the remain readily unavailable in the great white north. I think in the end I will be happier with the D-LUX4 price and all. Thank you for reply Clyde. Best Regards. Terry. Terry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted October 30, 2008 Share #68 Posted October 30, 2008 Far be it from me to follow my own advice/arguments, I picked up a DLux4 tonight. So far, after just a few snaps in the dark with mostly default settings, I have to say that I'm impressed. I shot a lot with my DLux3 and loved the look I got out of that camera. The only complaint was very low light situations (I hate flash) were often very challenging. The DL4 seems to be very fast and well behaved in my typical "bad" shooting street situations. What is interesting is that it seems that I don't have to adjust the exposure control down. Almost all small sensor cameras tend to be hot, and I usually am -2/3 with the exposure all the time. This one is spot on at 0. I only shot jpg (using Aperture, haven't installed C1), but also have to say that the B&W modes in camera a very good. The "dynamic" one spits out jpg files that look close to what I would normally end up doing in post with Aperture. And in the end, the aesthetics and feel of the camera won out. The 3 year warranty didn't hurt the decision either. Now to rtfm and figure out how to tweak the little beast... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted October 30, 2008 Share #69 Posted October 30, 2008 Far be it from me to follow my own advice/arguments, I picked up a DLux4 tonight. So far, after just a few snaps in the dark with mostly default settings, I have to say that I'm impressed. I shot a lot with my DLux3 and loved the look I got out of that camera. The only complaint was very low light situations (I hate flash) were often very challenging. The DL4 seems to be very fast and well behaved in my typical "bad" shooting street situations. What is interesting is that it seems that I don't have to adjust the exposure control down. Almost all small sensor cameras tend to be hot, and I usually am -2/3 with the exposure all the time. This one is spot on at 0. I only shot jpg (using Aperture, haven't installed C1), but also have to say that the B&W modes in camera a very good. The "dynamic" one spits out jpg files that look close to what I would normally end up doing in post with Aperture. And in the end, the aesthetics and feel of the camera won out. The 3 year warranty didn't hurt the decision either. Now to rtfm and figure out how to tweak the little beast... Great, I am so happy you got one. Looking forward to sharing thoughts, photos, etc. Best regards. Terry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted October 30, 2008 Share #70 Posted October 30, 2008 A few snaps this am. These are iso 100 indoors (!), f2 1/80s crop Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loko__loko Posted October 30, 2008 Share #71 Posted October 30, 2008 just got my first Leica 2 nights ago... so far sooo good... now off to get a leather case Cases for Leica Digital.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 30, 2008 Share #72 Posted October 30, 2008 Nostatic, any chance of a pixle peeping crop at 100% of the extreme top left corner of the first image? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 30, 2008 Share #73 Posted October 30, 2008 As far as I recall, the D-Lux has a different lens coating than the Pana. I forgot where I read it, but I did. So for those interested in the actual differences, you might want to research that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted October 31, 2008 Share #74 Posted October 31, 2008 Nostatic, any chance of a pixle peeping crop at 100% of the extreme top left corner of the first image? Thanks. be my guest. Here is an 8-bit tif file uncompressed from CaptureOne, no adjustments: http://nostatic.com/photos/L1000041.tif (29.5MB) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyknob Posted November 15, 2008 Share #75 Posted November 15, 2008 has anyone heard anything about whether leica/apple intend to offer native support for their RWL format from the D-Lux 4...? i upgraded from a D-Lux 3 with no clue about the format change and now i'm incredibly disappointed to have to change my workflow, use CaptureOne, etc... any more info (than what's already posted) would be appreciated. thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianho_ Posted November 16, 2008 Share #76 Posted November 16, 2008 As far as I recall, the D-Lux has a different lens coating than the Pana. I forgot where I read it, but I did. So for those interested in the actual differences, you might want to research that. overgaardcom, u r right about the different coatings. I have both LX3 n D-Lux4. Took a look at the lenses under the same light n they really r different. U can see the pic of both lenses here-> http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/716394-post24.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meng8123 Posted November 16, 2008 Share #77 Posted November 16, 2008 has anyone heard anything about whether leica/apple intend to offer native support for their RWL format from the D-Lux 4...? i upgraded from a D-Lux 3 with no clue about the format change and now i'm incredibly disappointed to have to change my workflow, use CaptureOne, etc... any more info (than what's already posted) would be appreciated. thanks! I had same problem with the new format. I never used capture one before and now I have no idea how to do a simple crop in that program maybe I didn't setup up right, however isn't these programs suppose to make things easy not hard? anyway, great camera (d-lux4), I guess I'll stick with jpg for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted November 16, 2008 Share #78 Posted November 16, 2008 I had same problem with the new format. I never used capture one before and now I have no idea how to do a simple crop in that program maybe I didn't setup up right, however isn't these programs suppose to make things easy not hard? anyway, great camera (d-lux4), I guess I'll stick with jpg for now. Do the tutorial video that came on the program CD and/or read the manual. No one has a birthright to immediately know how to use a software program. I had never used Capture One either, and look forward to .RWL support in Aperture, but in the meantime I'm getting on with Capture One, I just invested a little effort to learn how to use it. To answer your specific question (cropping an image), see page 82 of the manual. Best, Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted November 16, 2008 Share #79 Posted November 16, 2008 Re the comments on firmware and raw processing, Tom Hogan (photographer and publisher of many Nikon manuals) encountered issues with the Panasonic software for the LX-3. This is presumably why Leica does NOT just rebadge the camera, but commissions its own firmware/software: "The LX-3 Controversy Nov 10--Sometimes I walk right into the middle of one. When I posted my original LX-3 review in the compact comparison I used a raw converter that output images with quite a bit of barrel distortion. After getting pummeled with Panasonic users claiming there was no such distortion, I decided to re-run the tests using the Panasonic-supplied Silkypix for raw and the in-camera JPEG. The distortion numbers came out much different, and about the same as the Nikon Coolpix in the test. So I changed my review and decided I needed to take another look at what that original raw converter was doing. Well, what it was doing was converting the raw data. My original assessment was indeed correct. So how does Silkypix manage to produce images with less distortion? Well, apparently it's doing silent distortion correction, though why it wouldn't do full distortion correction is another story (did Panasonic just give them their in-camera formula, which doesn't do full correction?). At the moment I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Basically, I'm going to wait for more converters to handle the LX-3's raw files before making another adjustment to my article. However, I can say that I won't be using Silkypix as my raw converter for the camera. No way do I want the converter to do a partial distortion conversion and then apply my own distortion fix to the now far-from-what-was-in-the-file pixels. Repeated pixel-based handling is a good way of getting pixel mush and losing acuity. I was actually impressed with the raw files (despite the distortion) the first time around, less so when using the Silkypix conversion. We really need to get it drummed into camera makers' heads that raw means raw. Don't mess with the data. Let us choose how to mess with the data. That's why we shoot raw." P6000, G10, LX3 Compact Camera Review by Thom Hogan Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carylwithay Posted November 27, 2008 Share #80 Posted November 27, 2008 Leica has just put a $150 rebate on the D Lux 4. Wouldn't it be great if those of us with the M8 coupon for $150 could use that AND the rebate. Would make the Leica competitive with the Panasonic. Most of those rebate coupons do not allow use with any other offers. Caryl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.