Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

Friday, 7 October 2011

Replacement therapy

More thoughts on the GXR and the M Module...

LinkThe more I use this combination with Leica lenses the more I am growing accustomed to it and the more it resonates with an earlier experience. As I said in my last, it is not a replacement for an M, or a Barnack. It could never be that. What it is, however, is very evocative of my first "real" digital camera, the Panasonic LC-1. The LC-1 was of course the sexy black bodied version of the Leica Digilux 2, which was otherwise only available with a "silver chrome" top-plate. The estimable Thorsten Overgaard's views on this remarkable camera can be found here. Thorsten refers to the camera as a "New Classic" and I have to say that I understand where he was coming from with those words. The LC-1/Digilux 2 was an oddity in many ways - although both variants were manufactured by Panasonic the Leica DNA was clearly evident from the shape and handling to the remarkable "28-90"mm Vario-Summicron that to this day knocks more recent lenses into a cocked hat with its rendition.

I loved my LC-1, which worked like a dream up to the day that it suffered the dreaded sensor death (and subsequent resurrection after a bit of a barney with Panasonic UK). But it is a number of generations behind the curve now - something that matters far more with digital cameras than film - and I regretfully sold it on last year. The LC-1/D2 was one of those cameras that comes along occasionally that is more than the sum of its parts and thus becomes the perfect tool by supporting and encouraging the realisation of the photographer's vision rather than by acting as a lump of plastic that simply gets in the way. This is an experience I have only had a few times in my life; the M Leicas, of course, share this attribute by virtue of their handling and their pellucidly clear viewfinder. My Leica II is also a pleasure to use in the same way (although strangely enough not my IIIc which it replaced). Otherwise the only other camera that I can think of that has ever fallen into this category for me was my Contax RX.

LC1/D2... sheer enjoyment - in the old style

What made the LC1/D2 great was not one thing, it was a combination of things, mostly related to handling and rendition, as I have already said. It felt balanced in the hand, and was light enough to be carried around all day without getting a stiff neck. The shutter - effectively silent - was almost sensual with its soft, caressing snick to tell you - if you were listening carefully - that the shot was in the bag. And that lens... The fact that the zoom was manual was pleasurable enough, but that you also got an aperture ring and a manual focus ring that felt like those on a "real" camera were the icing on an already admirable cake. Digital snapping suddenly felt less like using a computer with a bottle on the front and more like "real" photography.

Finally, a word on the outputs. The raw files were a delight - easy to work on and immensely rewarding - but more importantly the LC1/D2 delivered jpegs straight out of camera that were not only usable but delicately beautiful in their own right.

As an aside I have a real issue with the school of thought that says jpeg is for cissies and real men use raw - it harks back to the "good old days" when "amateurs" had their photos developed in Boots the Chemist and "real photographers" spent all their time in the darkroom and smelled of hypo. The modern equivalent is those photographers who spend all their evenings using Lightroom, endlessly twiddling sliders and polishing their pixels - I can only conclude that they are the children of those men who avoided speaking to their wives by spending their leisure time in the bathroom and under-stairs darkrooms of the 1960s - which does make you wonder how they were conceived in the first place... What I think is lacking these days is the digital equivalent of Kodachrome - so much better than the prints from Boots but without the hassle of self-developing.

But enough of that, back to the plot. The more I have used the GXR the more I have found myself settling back into the metre and rhythm of those halcyon days spent with my LC-1. The controls fall easily to hand, the viewfinder, although irritatingly detachable and about as discreet as Quasimodo's hump, is a leap ahead from that of the LC-1. The handling is similar - well it is bound to be with a lump of Leica glass stuck on the front. Most similar in that respect is the 60mm Elmarit-R 2.8 which of course equates to approximately 90mm on the APS-sized sensor once the crop factor is taken into consideration. In fact the physically more bulky R lenses in general are more evocative of the handling of old than the M glass, even the smaller 28mm Elmarit-R.

R-glass, Leitax, Novoflex... very reminiscent

But what, I hear you say, about the output? Well, it is still early days but... the more I use this combination the more that the sheer quality of the Leica glass shines through. The much bigger sensor (5mp vs 12mp) makes a huge difference of course, but I am increasingly impressed by the quality of the out-of-camera jpegs. I shoot raw+jpeg at the moment but there has so far been only one shot that has cried out for the slider twiddling treatment.

The journey continues, but the scenery thus far is most enjoyable...

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.



Friday, 5 June 2009

D-Lux 4 and Beyond....

I'll start this blog with a review. Please don't think that this is going to just be another review microsite - oh no... I intend to cover a range of subjects in future, that will all have one thing in common - they interest me. But I have been meaning to publish my thoughts on this for some time, and there is no time like the present.

--o-0-o--

I have had a Leica D-Lux 4 since Christmas (2008) and very happy with it I am too. It follows both the Panasonic FX-1 and FX-2 as my carry-around digital and improves significantly on both in terms of image quality and handling. Since I have large hands I have added the Leica Grip to the base of my D-Lux - something you cannot do with the Panasonic FX-3 and a boon to handling. Combined with a simple wrist-strap (in my case an old Olympus one) it enables secure and stable one-handed operation.

D-Lux 4 with Leica Grip:

Now, I am not an accessoriser by nature, or just for the sake of it - I seldom wear a tie these days. But the ability of the D-Lux 4 to take an an adaptor ring on the front, which in turn allows the mounting of tele- and wideangle converters adds to it's flexibility. The trade off of having a wider, faster (24-60mm f2.0) lens than it's predecessors is that it runs out of reach at the top end. so far I have got around this by the simple expedient of carrying another camera - in my case a Canon G7 with the RAW hack. This has some advantages - not least being a general backup - but there are times when I would like to just carry one camera, one lens and work in a simple and uncluttered manner.

My first buy was an adaptor. The Pandabase LA-PLX3 to be exact.


This is a well-made, black anodised tube, with a 46mm female thread on one (the camera) end and a 52mm female thread on the other. It is provided with a robust 52mm snap-cap and a cap-keeper thread. I quickly dispensed with that last - I hate such things and would rather buy a new cap than have it flap around when I am trying to shoot. It is fitted to the D-Lux-4 by removing the black ring on the front around the lens then screwing it to the threads thus revealed.

Once fitted, the Pandabase adaptor is secure and solid, and provides a decent grip for two-handed shooting. In fact, this setup together with the grip makes the D-Lux 4 feel much more like a larger and more substantial camera. The adaptor alone provides other benefits too - it protects the lens once extended from accidental knocks, and at the 60mm end acts as an effective lens shade. I have added to the front a 52mm sky filter for added protection from dust and grimy fingers.


When not in use the Pandabase adaptor, together with a 46mm snap-cap forms a suitable home for my Leitz SBOOI 50mm viewfinder. This viewfinder approximates the field of view of the 60mm lens very well, and is a real boon to anyone who wants to use the camera at full-tele in bright sunny conditions, or simply not rely on the rear display to compose.

So. As already mentioned, the one real drawback of the D-Lux 4 is that it runs out of steam at the tele- end. There are a number of "teleconverters" available through eBay and the like, so I decided to spend the princely sum of nineteen pounds to get hold of one.


The Fujiyama 2.5x Teleconverter is a substantial item, weighing roughly as much as the D-Lux alone. It comes with a rear screw cap,a front push-on cap and a faux suede pouch. It appears well-made and mounts readily to the front of the Pandabase adaptor, adding significantly to the bulk and heft of the camera. By it's nature it is totally useless at the wideangle end, vignetting to the point of providing an interesting circular image.


It is clearly designed only to be used at 60mm, giving, in theory, a 150mm tele equivalent.


Where the wheels come off the wagon is in the results that this combination delivers. Welcome to my "test rose" in my back garden. I'd like to tell you that I have grown it specifically for this purpose but I would be lying like a cheap Swiss watch if I did. Suffice to say that it kept still long enough to be a subject for this test. I altered the camera to subject difference to keep the bloom approximately the same size in each image. No Photoshop changes have been made.

Without teleconverter:

With teleconverter:

100% crop without teleconverter:

100% crop with teleconverter:


Now, I freely admit that I am not a professional reviewer, but I think the results speak for themselves. In a simple test (I have only reproduced one set of results here, for the sake of space and brevity) - believe me the results were consistent - the Fujiyama degrades the image noticably. Apart from a touch of fuzziness there is a colour shift that may or may not show up on your monitor, but is clearly present.

Conclusion - reluctantly - is that, in very simple terms, you gets what you pays for. If you put a £19.00 adaptor on the front of a £600.00 camera you will get £19.00 worth of results. In other words, avoid. There may well be better teleconverters out there - in fact I dont doubt that there are - but this is a lemon of the first order, not even fit for use in a jug of cheap sangria. I'll continue to use the Pandabase adaptor - a simple, elegant and effective add-on that earns it's keep- but for now at least if I want more reach I'll continue to carry a second body.

Bill
--o-0-o--

Notes:

This review has been updated on the 11th June with new test shots.

All images shot on D-Lux 4 with add-on equipment as specified.

No D-Lux 4s were harmed in the making of this review.

To see larger versions of all these images and others please visit:
Review Images

All images are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any form without permission.