Official Talk Leica thread

Topsy said:
If I could only have 1 lens between those 2 it would be the 35mm for flexibility, I find a 50 a bit too narrow for a lot of general photography.
Click to expand...

+1

Personally I really like 50, when the frame's right it's my fav - but 35mm offers a lot more flexibility for 'out and about' type photography
 
I don't own a Leica. I know nothing about them technically. I have a friend who has been lusting after one. I am wondering if there is a compact, autofocus 24-70 like my Panosonic LX100ii which has the traditional dials as well as the manual options. I hope he has not infected me with GAS! :D
 
Chipper said:
I don't own a Leica. I know nothing about them technically. I have a friend who has been lusting after one. I am wondering if there is a compact, autofocus 24-70 like my Panosonic LX100ii which has the traditional dials as well as the manual options. I hope he has not infected me with GAS! :D
Click to expand...
The sister to the Panasonic LX100II is Leica's D-Lux7 (Typ 109 for the original LX100), they are basically the same camera with the same functionality but in a slightly different body with (of course) a Leica badge and price tag. I had the original LX100 and now have the D-Lux Typ109.
 
Topsy said:
The sister to the Panasonic LX100II is Leica's D-Lux7 (Typ 109 for the original LX100), they are basically the same camera with the same functionality but in a slightly different body with (of course) a Leica badge and price tag. I had the original LX100 and now have the D-Lux Typ109.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That is interesting. Can you tell me what else is better / less good about the D-Lux?
 
Chipper said:
Thanks. That is interesting. Can you tell me what else is better / less good about the D-Lux?
Click to expand...
They are basically the same camera in terms of practical use, the Leica body style feels a bit better quality but it doesn't have the rubber grip that is on the LXs. As for photo quality no difference they both have the same sensor ans have the same aspect ratios via the switch on the lens. I'd say apart from the branding/style there are no differences in use. I took the rubber grip off my LX100 and fixed it to my D-Lux (wish Leica had provided this as an option) my daughter still uses my old LX and loves it. For a walkabout compact camera you can't go wrong with either, the newer variants have more megapixels but on the M4/3 sensor I'm not sure they make for significantly better IQ.
 
Hi, flaring ... (M9 - ZEISS Biogon 4,5/21) all at f 8:

1)

L1010191_DxO-zb-8.jpg



2)

L1010196_DxO-z35b-8.jpg



3)

L1010195_DxO-z35b-8.jpg


Flaring in 1) and 2), not in 3). All my 21mm lenses (Leica Elmarit 2,8/21 asph, VOIGTLÄNDER Skopar 4/21) can show flaring.

I shall have to live with this and try to avoid it.

Things have changed over the years. When I took my first pics in the 1950s with my sister's BALDA 6x9 there was the rule never against the sun !

Now, we discuss flaring when taking pics directly into the sun. -

One could say this is a luxury-problem. - On the other hand, I like luxury-problems better than scarcity-problems ... ---
 
Topsy said:
They are basically the same camera in terms of practical use, the Leica body style feels a bit better quality but it doesn't have the rubber grip that is on the LXs. As for photo quality no difference they both have the same sensor ans have the same aspect ratios via the switch on the lens. I'd say apart from the branding/style there are no differences in use. I took the rubber grip off my LX100 and fixed it to my D-Lux (wish Leica had provided this as an option) my daughter still uses my old LX and loves it. For a walkabout compact camera you can't go wrong with either, the newer variants have more megapixels but on the M4/3 sensor I'm not sure they make for significantly better IQ.
Click to expand...
Have to admit I’ve long wanted the D-Lux 7. Not even sure why..
 
Topsy said:
Until you add the equivalent of the 24-75mm f1.7 zoom lens which the nearest Fuji would be 16-55 f2.8.............. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
Ya had me reaching for the buy button. Until I noticed it’s not f1.7 through the range.. I guess the Fuji 18-55 is closest.
 
trevorbray said:
Ya had me reaching for the buy button. Until I noticed it’s not f1.7 through the range.. I guess the Fuji 18-55 is closest.
Click to expand...
It only goes down to f2.8 so I still say the 16-55 is comparable, 24mm equiv at the wide end and f2.8. ;)

P.S. It's a Leica lens too. :D
 
Last edited:
Topsy said:
It only goes down to f2.8 so I still say the 16-55 is comparable, 24mm equiv at the wide end and f2.8. ;)
Click to expand...
Stop it…can’t afford it anyway…;)
 
trevorbray said:
Stop it…can’t afford it anyway…;)
Click to expand...
Tomorrow I shall be taking my GFX 50Ss out for a Photowalk, I'll also have along an X-T2 for those on the fly shots but in my pocket for the drive and anything random I'll have my D-Lux Typ109, that I shal also use as a framing device (4x3) to check compositions before getting a GFX out and setting up. Very versatile tool, did I mention it has a really great close focus for macro stuff as well. Just saying................. :sneaky:
 
I mainly use my LX100 for the occasional macro… it didn’t enter my mind to pay a lot more for the Leica version!
 
Dudewheresmybrain said:
How does the original Q hold up today? Seen one, pretty beat up, for £1300 area and extremely tempted
Click to expand...

Hi, I have no personal experience, but some time ago I met a mature Leica owner (with Ms and a Q) in the "Leica-town" Wetzlar,
who was extremely satisfied with his Q.

For me, long-term Q quality I would look into ...
 
Topsy said:
If I could only have 1 lens between those 2 it would be the 35mm for flexibility, I find a 50 a bit too narrow for a lot of general photography.
Click to expand...

Adam Bonn said:
+1

Personally I really like 50, when the frame's right it's my fav - but 35mm offers a lot more flexibility for 'out and about' type photography
Click to expand...

Thanks for your advise (y)

I spent a bit of time with the 50 SL Summilux & 35 SL Summicron, and decided on the 35 SL cron, the images are so seductive and have a beautiful look to them, being wider and only having one lens makes sense, plus its a little lighter, the images from the 50 SL Lux were superb but i think the extra weight and size, plus focal length of the lens would be a bit restrictive in a 1 lens setup..... I would love to add the 50 SL Lux at a later date.

So for now I have the SL2-S and a 35 SL Summicron :):):):):)
 
Last edited:
Dudewheresmybrain said:
How does the original Q hold up today? Seen one, pretty beat up, for £1300 area and extremely tempted
Click to expand...

IIRC (…) I think I heard on Hugh Brownstone’s YT channel that the original Q (that doesn’t have weather sealing) can suffer from dust ingress.. and that this dust can reach the sensor, which is a tough clean on a fixed lens body (this affects other fixed lens cameras too)

Certainly something to check no matter the external condition or price
 
Hi, my dear alma mater Ruhr-Universiät Bochum ... (M9 - VOIGTLÄNDER Super Wide-Heliar 4,5/15 v3 ; f 8 ; crop):



L1010130_DxO-v152-8-c.jpg
 

Attachments

  • L1010130_DxO-v152-8.jpg
    L1010130_DxO-v152-8.jpg
    387.4 KB · Views: 0
Hi, Nibelungenbrücke at Worms/D ... (M9 - Elmar-M 3,8/24 asph. f 5,6 ; crop) :


L1010255_DxO-L3824-56-c.jpg
 

Attachments

  • L1010255_DxO-3824-56.jpg
    L1010255_DxO-3824-56.jpg
    359 KB · Views: 0
Hi, the Nibelungenbrücke, in the background Worms/D ... (M9 - Elmar-M 3,8/24 asph. f 5,6 ; crop) :

L1010247_DxO-L3824-56c.jpg


Scaled up from 445 to 1024 K : the Dom (cathedral), (where Luther defended himself at the Reichstag) :

L1010247_DxO-L3824-56-cc.jpg
 

Attachments

  • L1010247_DxO-L3824-56.jpg
    L1010247_DxO-L3824-56.jpg
    366.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top