Micro 4/3 The official I don't want the LX100 thread

Ray Sachs

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
He almost always writes good and useful reviews. I don't always ultimately agree with him, but I think he presents the facts and the issues and the tradeoffs very well, which is all you can really ask. And he's careful to add stuff like 'what works best for me may not for many others' which to me is key. He doesn't declare winners and losers but lays out the pertinent information to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

-Ray
 
KillRamsey

KillRamsey

Hall of Famer
Moderator
Location
Hood River, OR
Real Name
Kyle
As soon as you try to recommend a camera to a friend, you start to realize all of this... identifying what attributes a person cares about, and to what degrees, completely dictates how well they're going to like a given camera.
 
demiro

demiro

Serious Compacts For Life
KillRamsey said:
As soon as you try to recommend a camera to a friend, you start to realize all of this... identifying what attributes a person cares about, and to what degrees, completely dictates how well they're going to like a given camera.
Click to expand...

So very true, and yet so many posters and reviewers just don't get it.
 
A

Archiver

Top Veteran
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Today, I come to you all a disappointed man.

Over the weekend, I did yet another camera test, this time with the Leica D-Lux 109. All of the operational goodnesses about the camera were confirmed. It felt great in the hand, the command dials were firm, response was very fast and all seemed good. I took quite a range of test photos in the shop and in the streets outside, using various apertures and zoom levels.

When I got the images home, I converted them to DNG and processed them with Lightroom 4.4 and Raw Therapee. There began my disappointment.

At f1.7, the lens is soft and glowy. Really not the level of sharpness I've come to expect from m43 lenses. This was the case throughout the zoom range, too. Focus was not the issue, as I was using Pinpoint focus and aiming very carefully. The lens sharpened up to good levels by f4 or so, but the corners were still kind of smeary. It's fine for daylight camera at f5.6, in fact it's really good, but not if you're shooting in dark areas indoors and want a sharp image. Or even if you're shooting a f1.7 in daylight and want the most shallow depth of field you can squeeze from it.

I do have to say that the colours and dynamic range are very nice. The files can be pulled and pushed quite well, revealing a good lot of shadow and highlight detail. But I am quite disappointed by the sharpness of the lens, which is very unlike the Panasonic LX7, or the GM1 with the Olympus 17/1.8, 25/1.8 or 45/1.8. I had hoped that the LX100/D-Lux could have replaced the GM1 and a handful of primes, but not at the standards of quality I have. Frankly, I am better off sticking with my Ricoh GR, Panasonic GM1 and 25/1.8 and 45/1.8, and the Panasonic LX7.

Yes, nothing else gives this zoom and aperture range. No other pocket/jacket camera is as wide at 16:9 aspect ratio with the exception of the LX7. Nothing else will give me 4k video in with that lens range. But if I am going to be disappointed by the sharpness and clarity of the images like this, then I have to let this one go, too.
 
B

Boompa

Regular
Location
Missouri (and Lake Michigan in the summer!)
Real Name
Steve
Archiver said:
Yes, nothing else gives this zoom and aperture range. No other pocket/jacket camera is as wide at 16:9 aspect ratio with the exception of the LX7. Nothing else will give me 4k video in with that lens range. But if I am going to be disappointed by the sharpness and clarity of the images like this, then I have to let this one go, too.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I regretfully have to agree. :frown:

I had the LX100 for about 10 days but the IQ just wasn't there. I packaged it up and returned it for a refund today. I shoot an XT-1 with several lenses, and have an X100T that is superb. I also own an RX100 for a pocket camera. For outright image quality I've owned several outstanding L lenses with my Canon 5D MkII (now long gone) and used to own a Sony RX1 which was UNBELIEVABLE!! Like Archiver, maybe my standards are too high but the LX100 just didn't do it for me. I kind of miss my old Ricoh GR too!
 
B

Boompa

Regular
Location
Missouri (and Lake Michigan in the summer!)
Real Name
Steve
And *NOW* I have to admit that as I continue reading love/hate user reviews on the LX100's IQ that I'm wondering if I just had a bad copy. Hence- I've re-ordered another one in hopes of better results because I LOVED everything else about the camera: controls, size, feel, etc. We'll see...
 
A

Andrewteee

All-Pro
I have the D-Lux (type 109) and I love it! IQ is really very good, and the camera is such a great balance of size, IQ, controls, etc. As a simple family snaps camera or a quick photo walk camera it almost can't be beat. I managed to lose the flash though : (

The D-Lux/LX100 and GR make a great pair! For travel and for simplicity this is it.

A couple of edits. I use the grip and it helps immensely. Also, I am RAW processing in Iridient Developer, which is giving fantastic results. I recently revisited Lightroom and did some comparisons between Lightroom and Iridient Developer. For several cameras the Iridient Developer conversions were always preferable to my eyes. Of course, I know ID much better than Lightroom so it could come down to that.
 
Biro

Biro

Hall of Famer
Moderator
Supporter!
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
Here's an honest suggestion for Archiver and Boompa... While it is certainly possible that you received bad copies of the LX100 - and you should definitely try another to make sure - I have to wonder if absolute sharpness, at least at wider apertires, is that this camera and lens is supposed to be about.

Have you ever examined old film photos taken with fast Leica lenses, especially in lower light? The images are often nowhere close to ultra sharp and kind of glowy. I wonder if this might be something intentional. As in a sort of designed-in character. Pentax's FA 43mm f/1.9 is another lens that gives markedly different results at different apertures. Many Pentaxians complained when the lens first came out but it didn't take long for most to realize this was not a flaw but a desireable feature.

Now, having typed all of this I have not looked at the results either of you have gotten from your specific cameras and I am not saying you are wrong. Not only do we all have have our personal standards and tastes, it's always possible that early-production digital cameras can have problems. So I'm sorry you've been disapponted and hope you can find solutions quickly.
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
I'm using the D-Lux now, shooting JPEG only (so this may not apply), and while the images don't have as much detail as the Monochrom and Noctilux I was using a few months ago, I'm getting results comparable to my Leica 'T', X Vario, Panasonic GM1, and Nikon Coolpix A.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom