Anyone tried D lux 4?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't know if this properly goes on this M8 forum, but let me know if not.

 

I'm looking forward to Sean Reid's upcoming review of this camera. As a former black and white "Tri X guy," I might like an alternative to my upcoming 8.2 to carry around and, from time to time, get that old "gritty" bw look rather than the smooth medium format-like quality from the M.

 

I've read reviews about the D lux 3, which seem appropriate in this regard. But, it doesn't have a finder option and there are some other "limitations." Based on a quick search, it seems version 4 will have more capabilities...optional finder, 3:2 lcd screen rather than 16:9, better lens, etc. I wonder specifically, though, if the new aspheric lens will instead make this a "mini M8" in terms of smooth rendition rather than a rougher, grittier image, which I want as an alternative without having to rely so much on Photoshop and/or plug-ins.

 

I appreciate any feedback from bw shooters out there.

 

Jeff

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Jeff,

 

Crank up the ISO a bit and set the camera to dynamic B&W and you will get a very believable B&W out of the camera.

 

Do remember this is not a rangefinder and the optional viewfinder only frames correctly when you leave the camera at wide, there is no frames for the zoom setting.

 

Aside from that, the camera have a wonderful rendering, personally I prefer shooting at lowest ISO to get the best possible raw files out of the box.

 

I did put my opinion of the camera on my website a while ago http://bophoto.typepad.com/bophoto/2008/10/leica-d-lux4---lovely-camera.html

 

 

.

[bill]

Don't know if this properly goes on this M8 forum, but let me know if not.

 

I'm looking forward to Sean Reid's upcoming review of this camera. As a former black and white "Tri X guy," I might like an alternative to my upcoming 8.2 to carry around and, from time to time, get that old "gritty" bw look rather than the smooth medium format-like quality from the M.

 

I've read reviews about the D lux 3, which seem appropriate in this regard. But, it doesn't have a finder option and there are some other "limitations." Based on a quick search, it seems version 4 will have more capabilities...optional finder, 3:2 lcd screen rather than 16:9, better lens, etc. I wonder specifically, though, if the new aspheric lens will instead make this a "mini M8" in terms of smooth rendition rather than a rougher, grittier image, which I want as an alternative without having to rely so much on Photoshop and/or plug-ins.

 

I appreciate any feedback from bw shooters out there.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff - there is intelligent (and friendly ) life outside the M8 Ghetto - go up one "level" to the Digital Forum and all your queries will be answered. There is an active and vocal community of D-Lux 4/FX-3 users there. You have just missed the D-Lux 4 Challenge, but you can see the entries - currently being voted upon - here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/d-lux-4-challenge/

 

In short, there are a number of big differences between the D-Lux 3 and 4 (FX-2 and 3) that make the latter a more usable camera in many respects. As has already been said, set the b&w to "Dynamic", dial in 1/3 to 2/3 stops of overexposure to taste, set ISO to 400 and you have a halfway decent approximation of Tri-X.

 

Of course the biggest difference doesn't come in the box... It is simply that people don't whine about it - they just shoot with it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[markgay]

From what I've read, widely, there are two things to consider (if you want to distinguish between products look for the differences not the similarities).

 

1) It is not an M.

 

No amount of marketing talk about "son of M" or happy purchasers stroking their "baby M" will convert a capable compact with a small sensor (bigger than most of its counterparts, a key selling point) that operates like most other compacts, with a rangefinder (The rangefinder-viewfinder is the key reason for buying the M, along with the most downright honest, get-what-you-pay-for, range of top quality 35mm optics available).

 

2) there are still arguments for the D-lux-3 (which I have, along with the M8) (ie at least for keeping it rather than buying the Dee-Lucks-Fowah).

 

The 3 has one of the best zoom lenses available in compact cameras. It performs best in the f4 region, so doesn't actually lose out much in having an f/2.8 maximum aperture compared to the D-lux-4's f/2.

 

And the 4 offers a shorter range of focal lengths - approx 24-60mm.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to buy the 4 but, God bless Panasonic and Leica, it is a different beast than the 3. I love choice! (real choice is offering 5 different cameras rather than 30 near-identical ones, which is merely what passes for marketing in this sad world).

 

The 4's sensor is reported to be much better at iso 200-400 than the 3 but that's massively relative when you are talking about small sensor cameras.

 

So if you must buy the latest Leica offering to have been modestly upgraded - as I will - at least know what you are buying and that you are simply losing some features and gaining others.

 

It's a game of swap, not zero sum.

 

If I could, I would ban senseless comparisons of the Doh-Lux 4 and the Erm-8 but this is the Leica forum and my favourite company markets both!

 

Regards,

Mark

[farnz]

Jeff,

 

I find that my DLux 4 is a worthy companion for my M8 and happily fills in the bits that the M8 can't quite reach. For example, the DLux 4 offers excellent macro opportunity with the 24 mm lens and close focus down to 1 cm and f/2 isolates the subject very effectively if desired. My DLux 4 usually rides shotgun in a case on my belt when I'm out with my M8 because it's light enough, unintrusive enough and well enough behaved to just sit (hang?) there minding its own DLux 4 business (or humming quietly to itself) until it's needed.

 

Another area where the DLux 4 can go but the M8 can't is video - and HD at that. Now I'm not prone to suddenly whipping out a video camera and instantly playing Stanley Kubrick but I have to say that it's come in quite useful once or twice (the first 2 video clips I've ever shot mind you) and the ability to do that is quite attractive. Neither the BBC nor YouTube have commissioned me yet but I feel it can only be a matter of time (centuries ).

 

In terms of gritty B&W, I echo what Bill said about Dynamic mode but ultimately, if you're looking for the camera to produce Tri-X type shots out of the box instead of using PS aren't you just substituting PP at your PC for PP in the camera? And surely you must have more latitude and flexibility at your PC to produce the look that appeals to you?

 

Pete.

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

 

Crank up the ISO a bit and set the camera to dynamic B&W and you will get a very believable B&W out of the camera.

 

Do remember this is not a rangefinder and the optional viewfinder only frames correctly when you leave the camera at wide, there is no frames for the zoom setting.

 

Aside from that, the camera have a wonderful rendering, personally I prefer shooting at lowest ISO to get the best possible raw files out of the box.

 

I did put my opinion of the camera on my website a while ago BoPhoto.com: Leica d-lux4 - lovely camera

 

 

.

 

Thanks, Bo. I appreciate your feedback...and for letting me know about your site...gives me another place to explore.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jeff - there is intelligent (and friendly ) life outside the M8 Ghetto - go up one "level" to the Digital Forum and all your queries will be answered. There is an active and vocal community of D-Lux 4/FX-3 users there. You have just missed the D-Lux 4 Challenge, but you can see the entries - currently being voted upon - here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/d-lux-4-challenge/

 

In short, there are a number of big differences between the D-Lux 3 and 4 (FX-2 and 3) that make the latter a more usable camera in many respects. As has already been said, set the b&w to "Dynamic", dial in 1/3 to 2/3 stops of overexposure to taste, set ISO to 400 and you have a halfway decent approximation of Tri-X.

 

Of course the biggest difference doesn't come in the box... It is simply that people don't whine about it - they just shoot with it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I need to get out more...thanks for pointing me to the right part of the forum, which I should have been able to figure out. And, thanks for your comments on the D 4, despite my ignorance.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

In terms of gritty B&W, I echo what Bill said about Dynamic mode but ultimately, if you're looking for the camera to produce Tri-X type shots out of the box instead of using PS aren't you just substituting PP at your PC for PP in the camera? And surely you must have more latitude and flexibility at your PC to produce the look that appeals to you?

 

Pete.

 

Thanks for the comments, Pete. Regarding the PP issue...keep in mind that I haven't done anything digitally yet; just now migrating from the film world...my thinking was that no PP, or very little, is usually better for the digitally produced print than if there's been a lot of manipulation. And, if the D4 does it easily in the camera (perhaps without special dynamic modes, etc), then I don't have to do as much later. Am I missing something?

Jeff

[farnz]

Thanks for the comments, Pete. Regarding the PP issue...keep in mind that I haven't done anything digitally yet; just now migrating from the film world...my thinking was that no PP, or very little, is usually better for the digitally produced print than if there's been a lot of manipulation. And, if the D4 does it easily in the camera (perhaps without special dynamic modes, etc), then I don't have to do as much later. Am I missing something?

Jeff

Jeff,

 

No, not at all. I quite understand if you're new to digital; my question was posed against the backdrop that many proponents of digital B&W are very particular about the look of the completed image and there can be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about micro contrast, the look of grain/digital noise, detail in the shadows etc and many want full flexibility and control, which jpegs out of the camera won't necessarily offer.

 

In your situation it makes good sense to start with a camera that can instantly produce a look that is near to what you would expect from a brand of film and work from there.

 

Pete.

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

 

.

 

In your situation it makes good sense to start with a camera that can instantly produce a look that is near to what you would expect from a brand of film and work from there.

 

Pete.

 

Thanks. Your suggestion makes sense...but I'm probably going to live dangerously and get the M8.2 first...and consider also buying the D lux as a separate "pocket" camera that I can have around all the time, which (maybe ironically) might more easily create the film look I sometimes want.

 

The good news is that, for now, I don't know enough to go crazy with PP...and I hope to eventually spend more time taking pics than sitting by a computer all day.

 

J.

[JEFS]

My experience with the DLux4 was not as good. I am much happier with the M8 and if I felt the need to go with a P&S again, I think I would get the DP1 or 2.

[stevem7]

The D-Lux 4 is the BEST P&S currently on the market IMO. No other small sensor, pocket digicam can surpass the size, IQ and features of this camera. I have my review of it on my site here:

 

THE LEICA D-LUX 4 DIGITAL CAMERA REVIEW

 

It was purchased for my wife but has mainly become a companion for my M8. Great combo!

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

The D-Lux 4 is the BEST P&S currently on the market IMO. No other small sensor, pocket digicam can surpass the size, IQ and features of this camera. I have my review of it on my site here:

 

THE LEICA D-LUX 4 DIGITAL CAMERA REVIEW

 

It was purchased for my wife but has mainly become a companion for my M8. Great combo!

 

Steve

 

Thanks, Steve. After I was rightly advised that my post could have gone to the digital forum (maybe the administrator will move this and save me the embarrasment), I checked the numerous posts already made there on the D lux 4, including yours. Your site is always informative, and I appreciate your review of this little guy as well.

 

Since I'd like a grainy (Tri-X-like) look from time to time), I'm also considering the D lux 3 (or 2?) as opposed to the 4. While this might seem crazy, I wonder if the new version might be a little too good, i.e., too "pristine" in its rendering, given the asph lens (I think), etc. Since I'll use an M8.2 as well, having a pocket camera with a different grainy (noisy, I suppose) look is fine with me.

 

Jeff

[ashwinrao1]

I have had the D-Lux 4 for 2+ months, and I love it. I have found the accessory grip to be a must-have for my hands, and the viewfinder helpful for certain circumstances. I ported this camera as a back up on a recent trip to Vietnam but found that I had obtained nearly as many keepers with this as I did with my M8...and I was only planning for it to be a back up.

 

Positives:

1. LENS: Big positive: f/2-2.8 across its focal length range (24-60 mm equiv)

2. Form factor: a nice pocketable complement to a M; plus, nearly un-noticed, even in Vietnam, where not all areas are techy...people just thought it to be an ordinary p & s...good to catch moments without being observed

3. As for film grain look, try either dynamic B&W at ISO 1600, and tweak image settings. Alternatively, I have used the "Film Grain" setting as a viable option and actually got some nice keepers with this setting. I think it has that tri-X look to it.

 

Negatives

1. Limited zoom range; sometimes I yearn for a longer lens

2. Don't push your ISO too much, unless for effect; typically, I set my iso limit on the camera to 400, unless I want the grain effect (and digital grain is not film grain, no matter what one says. That being said, the graininess at ISO 1600 for B/W shots is passable for effect, and enjoyable in some circumstances

3. Small sensor....and all of those limits...Depth of field is limiting....not much of a bokeh camera, unless you go into macro mode and get really close...

4. Top mode dial: loose from the get go...alas

 

Overall, I agree with Steve. This is the BEST compact, in terms of useability, portability, and IQ, on the market. Maybe I am stating blasphemy, but for certain circumstances, it produces better images than the M8. In fact, I recently had my Vietnam portfolio reviewed for a show at a local medical clinic. All 4 images selected from the show were D-Lux 4 images...They are now blown up to 11 x 14, printed, matted, and framed...and look really nice.

 

GET THIS CAMERA. You won't regret it....

[fotografr]

The proof is in the results. While the D-LUX-4 is no substitute for the M8, it's an excellent P&S camera with a very good b&w function. These two images are straight out of the camera--no adjustments. Both were shot using the Dynamic b&w setting.

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!

[epand56]

Brent, in spite of being examples to show the D-Lux4 capabilities these are two excellent pictures. The second one has a great movement.

[jimbo035]

Brent says that "The proof is in the results. While the D-LUX-4 is no substitute for the M8, it's an excellent P&S camera with a very good b&w function." I wholeheartedly agree, but as the price of an M8/.2 is (to me at least) astronomical, my D-Lux 4 is in effect a substitute. Buying an M6 with pre ASPH 35 and 90mm lenses (to replace those now long gone) might be feasible, but in the meantime the D-Lux 4 is as near as dammit to just what I need, and to add an M6 would be the icing on the cake..