Type 109, travel camera after 5000+ images

[kwa_photo]

For this review, i'll follow with the DPR "Detailed Scoring" method as noted as part of their template. Also, I started this review in the Leica forum and the system automatically moved it here with a message it would do so as soon as I started typing. So, no comments on "wrong forum" please

BACKGROUND: I've had the 109 for about 4 months. I've been a Fuji shooter since Nov 2011, starting with the original X100 and now the X100s/X-T1. I've also used 4/3 sensors a lot in the past. pre-Fuji I was an Olympus E-1/E-3 and then moved to m4/3 with the GF1 and GH1. I knew what I was getting, overall, with the 4/3 sensor size. I also have a 1" sensor Sony RX10. I recently took the 109 as my only camera on a family vacation to Disney in Florida (with small children). My review is colored by this trip, as well as my other experiences in the months of use leading to it.

DETAILED SCORING EXPLANATIONS

• Kids/Pets (GOOD): AF keeps up pretty well, face detection works well too. No complaints but not spectacular. A solid performer in this category.
• Action/Sports (ACCEPTABLE): Not the intention of the 109/LX100 of course. With that in mind, it's okay for things close to you where the 70mm of wider is sufficient. Buffer with a fast SD card is good and the AF is quick enough for some things....not all, of course.
• Landscapes/Scenery (GOOD): Here, the sensor MP can be a limiting factor when it comes to absolute resolution. However, judging the image as a whole, in good light, is performed well enough. It doesn't keep up with my Fuji's or even what I see when looking back at the old E-3, but it works and travels very well.
• Portraits (GOOD): The zoom range and aperture are ideally suited for all but tight headshot IMO. Skin tones (jpg & RAW) both leave something to be desired IMO, especially compared to Fuji and Olympus. They have a distinct orange cast to them that I have a LR6 preset to deal with. I'd rather not deal with it. For what the camera is though, it's "good"
• Low Light (without flash) (MEDIOCRE): This is my bread and butter, what I love the most and where I live in the Fuji's. I have no issues taking them to ISO 6400 in auto-ISO and never worry about it, ever. With the 109, I keep it below 1600 and even then 800 is getting to the point where I'm not thrilled with performance. It's a sensor limitation and I'm not sure why. I didn't feel that way about the E-3 performance or even the GH1. I'm a little lost on it. No, it's not going to beat a Fuji or any other APS-C in the $1000+ range, but I sort of expected it to best my older 4/3 and m4/3 files. Not that it's bad, it's just not what I'd expect in 2015 from a 4/3 sensor.
• Flash Photography (WEAK): Let's start with the clip-on flash. It's a pain and more so than the one on my Fuji X-T1. At least that one flip down and has a lower profile. I did find myself needing fill flash on the trip. It's not a very sophisticated system for that and it was a lot more trial and error than I'm used to using TTL with Fuji's or my days with Olympus. With that out of the way, it's not horrible, just not up to spec. I'd like to see a built in little flash in the next version, very similar to the X100 series.
• Studio/Still Life (GREAT): Give this little guy great light and a tripod and it will do well. It's macro is really fantastic for an all-in-one camera/lens and it's done well for me in this role.

NOTES OUTSIDE OF DPR'S SYSTEM:

First, this was a FUN little camera to take. It was NEVER in the way and was always ready to do the job. The battery life was great!!! AF spot on about 95% of the time and the other 5%, I'm sure 50% of that was my error. I didn't want to drag along a full kit and wanted some mild zoom options compared to my X100s. On the trip, I was thrilled with this little gem.

Build quality of the 109 it great, no complaints except the flash issue mentioned above. Ergonomics, pretty good, I was very comfortable with it.

Video: fun! I love the 4K and pulling still from it later. This was great for capturing those special moments with the family....video and images together, you can't beat that! The 1080p, I find I like the output more for what I needed the video for, but I'll take the 4k. The OIS with the video is pretty poor compared with the still side. It's poor even compared to the video OIS on my Fuji 18-135mm WR lens. That surprised me quite a bit. I didn't notice in camera or when viewed on the iPad on the trip. However, on my 27" Thunderbolt monitor, it was pretty noticeable. Even in 1080p. Not a deal killer. I'd give it 3.5/5 stars. -0.5 for the OIS and -1.0 for the lack of audio input/monitoring...I just love that on the RX10.

Here's the big one....Image quality: Above, I stated that I was really happy with it on the trip. I was backing them up via my iPad Air and making some basic edits/sharing from there. The images looked great. However, now that I'm viewing them on my desktop (not even at 100%, more like in the 50-75% range), I really wish I had taken along the X100s or even my old X-E1 while the X-T1 was in the shop for a repair (door/weather seal issue) under warranty.

Why? It's not the MP at all, I could care less. I don't mind the 10-12MP range at all. My original X100 was 12mp and it served me very well and I still have it. It's not even the resolution in good light, it was fun. Nor was I disappointed in the high ISO performance (I call it "high" at 3200+). I didn't expect it to shine there.

Where I DID expect it to shine over a compact like a LX5/7, a Fuji X10/X30, etc. was in the mid ISO range of 400-1600. This was where I lived about 50% of this trip. This was a big disappointment. I shot both jpg/RAW and no matter what, detail at ISO 800 was obliterated with NR or just plain lack of sharpness. In jpg, i had the NR dialed all the way down. In RAW, I used LR6 which usually does a nice job. It's not that the images were bad, but they sure required A LOT more work that want to take on images in this range to be acceptable. Even compared to my RX10 in this area, it loses out. ISO 200-400 is very good

I'm really split on this camera. On one hand, it's the ultimate form factor for me. Manual controls, EVF (even though it's pretty rough compared to new ones, but it works pretty well), fast operation, solid AF, video with 4k is solid, etc. Then it has the IQ issues...which, face it, is the point of a camera I suppose. I don't need a camera like this to blow away or even match my X100s or X-T1 or even the old E-3. But I would expect a 4/3 sensor camera to at least beat a 1" sensor (RX10) most of the time and really old 4/3's like the GF1/GH1.

In the end, I'll probably part with it. I'd rather have the IQ than the convenience I suppose. Maybe someday, the IQ will be there to match the rest of the greatness of this little camera. Here are some 100% crops of unedited jpg's (I know, RAW will give better results). I'm not posting any full images to protect the privacy of my family.

DO NOT VIEW INLINE, VIEW "ORIGINAL IMAGE" as DPR's image resizing does some really weird things unless you view it this way.


ISO 1250, indoors, decent light, no flash. Notice lack of detail in the hair and iris. The noise isn't terrible, but more than I'm used to at the medium ISO level.


ISO 1600, same notes as the 1250 shot above, same location and time. Yes, face detect AF was on and all 50+ images in the series where like this. At ISO 1250 and 1600, I haven't had to use flash for years at this light level. The IQ reminds me of 3200 on the GF1 from many years ago.


ISO 1000, indoors, decent light, I was shocked to see this. They were all like this. Compare to the Fuji ISO 1000 below from indoors at a my home the month before.


X-T1, ISO 1000

more images coming soon to this OP in the thread.

--
Ken
FujiFilm FinePix Moderator (Please PM vs. a public post if you have concerns or questions about the forum)
http://www.kwaphoto.com

 

[Boss of Sony]

I notice considerable noise even at ISO 100, unless NR is applied.

 

[MountainEnthusiast]

Thank you for your review.

Regarding your comment on "shine over LX5/7":

(Especially sharpness on big screens >= 2560x1600)

I had the same expectation but I have also issues with the LX100 (I've tested two LX100, I still have one, 3000+ images):

Sharpness is not consistent due to AF: I'm currently shooting a least 4 images of a scene, typically only 50% are tag sharp. (Pixel level)

Sharpness varies between different apertures: sometimes F2.8 seems best, sometimes F5.6, still some experiments are necessary, depends on focus distance and focal length

I turned off image stabilization because it disturbs the bokeh considerably.

Summary: I find it much more challenging to shoot with LX100 compared to LX7.

But If I nailed all parameters to the situation and have lucky AF, result is very good (especially dynamic range) (but since I also have a D7100 there is still some disapointing when viewing the LX100 results on screen, but LX100 is biggest usable camera for me during climbing and hiking)

 

[Bangers and Mash]

At ISO 1000, there appears to me a lot more available light in the image made by the Fuji. That will effect the outcome of the image IQ wise.

 

[Ed B]

For this review, i'll follow with the DPR "Detailed Scoring" method as noted as part of their template. Also, I started this review in the Leica forum and the system automatically moved it here with a message it would do so as soon as I started typing. So, no comments on "wrong forum" please

BACKGROUND: I've had the 109 for about 4 months. I've been a Fuji shooter since Nov 2011, starting with the original X100 and now the X100s/X-T1. I've also used 4/3 sensors a lot in the past. pre-Fuji I was an Olympus E-1/E-3 and then moved to m4/3 with the GF1 and GH1. I knew what I was getting, overall, with the 4/3 sensor size. I also have a 1" sensor Sony RX10. I recently took the 109 as my only camera on a family vacation to Disney in Florida (with small children). My review is colored by this trip, as well as my other experiences in the months of use leading to it.

DETAILED SCORING EXPLANATIONS

• Kids/Pets (GOOD): AF keeps up pretty well, face detection works well too. No complaints but not spectacular. A solid performer in this category.
• Action/Sports (ACCEPTABLE): Not the intention of the 109/LX100 of course. With that in mind, it's okay for things close to you where the 70mm of wider is sufficient. Buffer with a fast SD card is good and the AF is quick enough for some things....not all, of course.
• Landscapes/Scenery (GOOD): Here, the sensor MP can be a limiting factor when it comes to absolute resolution. However, judging the image as a whole, in good light, is performed well enough. It doesn't keep up with my Fuji's or even what I see when looking back at the old E-3, but it works and travels very well.
• Portraits (GOOD): The zoom range and aperture are ideally suited for all but tight headshot IMO. Skin tones (jpg & RAW) both leave something to be desired IMO, especially compared to Fuji and Olympus. They have a distinct orange cast to them that I have a LR6 preset to deal with. I'd rather not deal with it. For what the camera is though, it's "good"
• Low Light (without flash) (MEDIOCRE): This is my bread and butter, what I love the most and where I live in the Fuji's. I have no issues taking them to ISO 6400 in auto-ISO and never worry about it, ever. With the 109, I keep it below 1600 and even then 800 is getting to the point where I'm not thrilled with performance. It's a sensor limitation and I'm not sure why. I didn't feel that way about the E-3 performance or even the GH1. I'm a little lost on it. No, it's not going to beat a Fuji or any other APS-C in the $1000+ range, but I sort of expected it to best my older 4/3 and m4/3 files. Not that it's bad, it's just not what I'd expect in 2015 from a 4/3 sensor.
• Flash Photography (WEAK): Let's start with the clip-on flash. It's a pain and more so than the one on my Fuji X-T1. At least that one flip down and has a lower profile. I did find myself needing fill flash on the trip. It's not a very sophisticated system for that and it was a lot more trial and error than I'm used to using TTL with Fuji's or my days with Olympus. With that out of the way, it's not horrible, just not up to spec. I'd like to see a built in little flash in the next version, very similar to the X100 series.
• Studio/Still Life (GREAT): Give this little guy great light and a tripod and it will do well. It's macro is really fantastic for an all-in-one camera/lens and it's done well for me in this role.

NOTES OUTSIDE OF DPR'S SYSTEM:

First, this was a FUN little camera to take. It was NEVER in the way and was always ready to do the job. The battery life was great!!! AF spot on about 95% of the time and the other 5%, I'm sure 50% of that was my error. I didn't want to drag along a full kit and wanted some mild zoom options compared to my X100s. On the trip, I was thrilled with this little gem.

Build quality of the 109 it great, no complaints except the flash issue mentioned above. Ergonomics, pretty good, I was very comfortable with it.

Video: fun! I love the 4K and pulling still from it later. This was great for capturing those special moments with the family....video and images together, you can't beat that! The 1080p, I find I like the output more for what I needed the video for, but I'll take the 4k. The OIS with the video is pretty poor compared with the still side. It's poor even compared to the video OIS on my Fuji 18-135mm WR lens. That surprised me quite a bit. I didn't notice in camera or when viewed on the iPad on the trip. However, on my 27" Thunderbolt monitor, it was pretty noticeable. Even in 1080p. Not a deal killer. I'd give it 3.5/5 stars. -0.5 for the OIS and -1.0 for the lack of audio input/monitoring...I just love that on the RX10.

Here's the big one....Image quality: Above, I stated that I was really happy with it on the trip. I was backing them up via my iPad Air and making some basic edits/sharing from there. The images looked great. However, now that I'm viewing them on my desktop (not even at 100%, more like in the 50-75% range), I really wish I had taken along the X100s or even my old X-E1 while the X-T1 was in the shop for a repair (door/weather seal issue) under warranty.

Why? It's not the MP at all, I could care less. I don't mind the 10-12MP range at all. My original X100 was 12mp and it served me very well and I still have it. It's not even the resolution in good light, it was fun. Nor was I disappointed in the high ISO performance (I call it "high" at 3200+). I didn't expect it to shine there.

Where I DID expect it to shine over a compact like a LX5/7, a Fuji X10/X30, etc. was in the mid ISO range of 400-1600. This was where I lived about 50% of this trip. This was a big disappointment. I shot both jpg/RAW and no matter what, detail at ISO 800 was obliterated with NR or just plain lack of sharpness. In jpg, i had the NR dialed all the way down. In RAW, I used LR6 which usually does a nice job. It's not that the images were bad, but they sure required A LOT more work that want to take on images in this range to be acceptable. Even compared to my RX10 in this area, it loses out. ISO 200-400 is very good

I'm really split on this camera. On one hand, it's the ultimate form factor for me. Manual controls, EVF (even though it's pretty rough compared to new ones, but it works pretty well), fast operation, solid AF, video with 4k is solid, etc. Then it has the IQ issues...which, face it, is the point of a camera I suppose. I don't need a camera like this to blow away or even match my X100s or X-T1 or even the old E-3. But I would expect a 4/3 sensor camera to at least beat a 1" sensor (RX10) most of the time and really old 4/3's like the GF1/GH1.

In the end, I'll probably part with it. I'd rather have the IQ than the convenience I suppose. Maybe someday, the IQ will be there to match the rest of the greatness of this little camera. Here are some 100% crops of unedited jpg's (I know, RAW will give better results). I'm not posting any full images to protect the privacy of my family.

DO NOT VIEW INLINE, VIEW "ORIGINAL IMAGE" as DPR's image resizing does some really weird things unless you view it this way.


ISO 1250, indoors, decent light, no flash. Notice lack of detail in the hair and iris. The noise isn't terrible, but more than I'm used to at the medium ISO level.


ISO 1600, same notes as the 1250 shot above, same location and time. Yes, face detect AF was on and all 50+ images in the series where like this. At ISO 1250 and 1600, I haven't had to use flash for years at this light level. The IQ reminds me of 3200 on the GF1 from many years ago.


ISO 1000, indoors, decent light, I was shocked to see this. They were all like this. Compare to the Fuji ISO 1000 below from indoors at a my home the month before.


X-T1, ISO 1000

more images coming soon to this OP in the thread.

--
Ken
FujiFilm FinePix Moderator (Please PM vs. a public post if you have concerns or questions about the forum)
http://www.kwaphoto.com

I came very close to buying an LX100 when they first came out but was very disappointed by reviews that compared its image quality to cameras that have the smaller 1" sensor.

The LX100 seems like a great compact camera and I can understand why so many people love it but I just can't understand why the sensor doesn't perform at least as well as a mirrorless camera with a four thirds sensor.

I'm like you and never expected it to match the lens or the sensor on a camera like the X100S but I did hope that it would be a little better than it is.

I doubt that we'll ever see a zoom lens on an X100 series camera so here's hoping Panasonic can improve the next iteration of the LX100, just a bit.

 

[camfan1]

My guess is that if Panasonic would have put the GX8 sensor into the LX100/Typ 109 it would truly show its colors. The awesome 109 may be a bit limited by a previous generation sensor.

Advanced sensors are now BSI, now even for FF etc.

 

[AndreasBraun]

Just a suggestion: to really judge the sharpness and noise of an image it should be subjected to adequate processing. Since sharpness and noise are kind of opposite directed the balance between them can be tricky. 100% crops in particular can be compared only if the images have been carefully processed.

With the D-Lux 109 I've got very good results with these Adobe Camera Raw settings:

Sharpening: Amount 70, Radius 0.7, Detail 50, and Masking 10

Noise reduction: Luminance 70, Luminance Detail 30, Luminance Contrast 0, Color 30, and Color Detail 30

These settings will result between ISO200 and ISO1600 in very satisfying images. Even scarcely illuminated sceneries are yielding appealing results.

Andreas

 

[Bangers and Mash]

Just a suggestion: to really judge the sharpness and noise of an image it should be subjected to adequate processing. Since sharpness and noise are kind of opposite directed the balance between them can be tricky. 100% crops in particular can be compared only if the images have been carefully processed.

With the D-Lux 109 I've got very good results with these Adobe Camera Raw settings:

Sharpening: Amount 70, Radius 0.7, Detail 50, and Masking 10

Noise reduction: Luminance 70, Luminance Detail 30, Luminance Contrast 0, Color 30, and Color Detail 30

These settings will result between ISO200 and ISO1600 in very satisfying images. Even scarcely illuminated sceneries are yielding appealing results.

Andreas

I have thought about getting Adobe Camera Raw quite awhile ago, and every now and then someone talks about the software on these forums. Right now I'm using Light Room 4 with a need to upgrade since purchasing the 109's equivalent the LX100. I'm wondering whether or not to upgrade LR or just Get Adobe Camera Raw.

Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?

Thanks

Wayne

Edit: I was just looking at it, and I read that it will only work with the full version of Photoshop CS5. I'm only using Elements.

 

[Boss of Sony]

Not sure why high ISO is an issue though. Even indoors at night, you rarely need to go above ISO 400 with the LX100. I can get sharp images handheld at 1/2 a second due to the brilliant image stabilization. Also, don't forget Fuji cheats with its ISO. It might say ISO 3200, but it's giving you a shutter speed that another camera would give you with ISO 1600. So Fuji ISO 3200 is really ISO 1600.

 

[camfan1]

Indeed BoS, the 109's is able to take great pictures indoor and at night without going into high ISO when using the camera's fast lens.

But even @ISO1600 pictures are OK (and clean well with high end NR softwares).

Teide At Night event ... hand-held 1/2 sec @ISO 3200 and F1.7

(d*mn, didn't bring my tripod!)

The sky on Mount Teide, Tenerife 2015 ...


As expected, there is some noise


I intend to test this again soon. But next time ... with a tripod !

 

[AndreasBraun]

Just a suggestion: to really judge the sharpness and noise of an image it should be subjected to adequate processing. Since sharpness and noise are kind of opposite directed the balance between them can be tricky. 100% crops in particular can be compared only if the images have been carefully processed.

With the D-Lux 109 I've got very good results with these Adobe Camera Raw settings:

Sharpening: Amount 70, Radius 0.7, Detail 50, and Masking 10

Noise reduction: Luminance 70, Luminance Detail 30, Luminance Contrast 0, Color 30, and Color Detail 30

These settings will result between ISO200 and ISO1600 in very satisfying images. Even scarcely illuminated sceneries are yielding appealing results.

Andreas

I have thought about getting Adobe Camera Raw quite awhile ago, and every now and then someone talks about the software on these forums. Right now I'm using Light Room 4 with a need to upgrade since purchasing the 109's equivalent the LX100. I'm wondering whether or not to upgrade LR or just Get Adobe Camera Raw.

Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?

Thanks

Wayne

Edit: I was just looking at it, and I read that it will only work with the full version of Photoshop CS5. I'm only using Elements.

Hello Wayne,

I'm using PSE13. The embedded ACR is fully operating with only some features less as compared to the PS/LR-embedded versions. The RAW processing is the same.

"Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?" Yes, of course.

As a remark: the D-Lux/LX100 have a very nice feature with in-camera RAW processing. One can process a RAW file over and over again with different settings in order to find out the best settings for ooc JPGs. I've executed that quite thoroughly and arrived at very appealing JPGs. However, even the best ooc JPGs will not be up to the JPGs processed from the RAWs on the PC.

Bottom line: the ooc JPGs are very good already. But the final verdict about this cam can by no means derived from the JPGs, in particular NOT from comparing the JPGs with JPGs from other cams.

Andreas

 

[kwa_photo]

Not sure why high ISO is an issue though. Even indoors at night, you rarely need to go above ISO 400 with the LX100. I can get sharp images handheld at 1/2 a second due to the brilliant image stabilization. Also, don't forget Fuji cheats with its ISO. It might say ISO 3200, but it's giving you a shutter speed that another camera would give you with ISO 1600. So Fuji ISO 3200 is really ISO 1600.

I strongly disagree. I rarely shoot static images. I need at least 1/80 - 1/100th for image of people, otherwise there is motion blur from the subject (not that camera, typically). I agree, with the OIS for still and static objects, you are spot on. However, I typically shoot at 1/100, wide open and auto ISO. 1/2 second is not possible, nor is 1/30th with people IMO.

 

[MountainEnthusiast]

Not sure why high ISO is an issue though. Even indoors at night, you rarely need to go above ISO 400 with the LX100. I can get sharp images handheld at 1/2 a second due to the brilliant image stabilization. Also, don't forget Fuji cheats with its ISO. It might say ISO 3200, but it's giving you a shutter speed that another camera would give you with ISO 1600. So Fuji ISO 3200 is really ISO 1600.

I strongly disagree. I rarely shoot static images. I need at least 1/80 - 1/100th for image of people, otherwise there is motion blur from the subject (not that camera, typically). I agree, with the OIS for still and static objects, you are spot on. However, I typically shoot at 1/100, wide open and auto ISO. 1/2 second is not possible, nor is 1/30th with people IMO.

I absolutely second this statement! With the D7100 and a very sharp lens, 1/1000th is needed to achieve sharpness of moving kids. LX100 is not so much "better", 1/500th starts do get tricky, with 1/100th you need a lot o luck to get the calm moment of the Kids.

But again I want to bring focus to AF: for ISO 400 to ISO3200, the LX100 is about 1-2Stops better than LX7. There should be noticeable improvements in you images. But when you AF did not hit perfectly (small in front or behind) you also get this soft images you describe.

 

[Bangers and Mash]

Just a suggestion: to really judge the sharpness and noise of an image it should be subjected to adequate processing. Since sharpness and noise are kind of opposite directed the balance between them can be tricky. 100% crops in particular can be compared only if the images have been carefully processed.

With the D-Lux 109 I've got very good results with these Adobe Camera Raw settings:

Sharpening: Amount 70, Radius 0.7, Detail 50, and Masking 10

Noise reduction: Luminance 70, Luminance Detail 30, Luminance Contrast 0, Color 30, and Color Detail 30

These settings will result between ISO200 and ISO1600 in very satisfying images. Even scarcely illuminated sceneries are yielding appealing results.

Andreas

I have thought about getting Adobe Camera Raw quite awhile ago, and every now and then someone talks about the software on these forums. Right now I'm using Light Room 4 with a need to upgrade since purchasing the 109's equivalent the LX100. I'm wondering whether or not to upgrade LR or just Get Adobe Camera Raw.

Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?

Thanks

Wayne

Edit: I was just looking at it, and I read that it will only work with the full version of Photoshop CS5. I'm only using Elements.

Hello Wayne,

I'm using PSE13. The embedded ACR is fully operating with only some features less as compared to the PS/LR-embedded versions. The RAW processing is the same.

"Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?" Yes, of course.

As a remark: the D-Lux/LX100 have a very nice feature with in-camera RAW processing. One can process a RAW file over and over again with different settings in order to find out the best settings for ooc JPGs. I've executed that quite thoroughly and arrived at very appealing JPGs. However, even the best ooc JPGs will not be up to the JPGs processed from the RAWs on the PC.

Bottom line: the ooc JPGs are very good already. But the final verdict about this cam can by no means derived from the JPGs, in particular NOT from comparing the JPGs with JPGs from other cams.

Andreas

Thank you Andreas. I find that the JPEGS of the LX100 are quite good with quite a bit of info for doing PPing, but RAW is always the best way to go for an optimum image. I would, though, like to try processing the LX100's RAW files, but a software upgrade or new purchase is needed.

Yes, one can process RAW over and over again, but one can also process JPEGS in Lightroom without loss, unless you overwrite the file.

Can I assume PSE13 that you are using will process the LX100's RAW files?

Thanks again for your response.

Cheers

Wayne

 

[AndreasBraun]

Just a suggestion: to really judge the sharpness and noise of an image it should be subjected to adequate processing. Since sharpness and noise are kind of opposite directed the balance between them can be tricky. 100% crops in particular can be compared only if the images have been carefully processed.

With the D-Lux 109 I've got very good results with these Adobe Camera Raw settings:

Sharpening: Amount 70, Radius 0.7, Detail 50, and Masking 10

Noise reduction: Luminance 70, Luminance Detail 30, Luminance Contrast 0, Color 30, and Color Detail 30

These settings will result between ISO200 and ISO1600 in very satisfying images. Even scarcely illuminated sceneries are yielding appealing results.

Andreas

I have thought about getting Adobe Camera Raw quite awhile ago, and every now and then someone talks about the software on these forums. Right now I'm using Light Room 4 with a need to upgrade since purchasing the 109's equivalent the LX100. I'm wondering whether or not to upgrade LR or just Get Adobe Camera Raw.

Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?

Thanks

Wayne

Edit: I was just looking at it, and I read that it will only work with the full version of Photoshop CS5. I'm only using Elements.

Hello Wayne,

I'm using PSE13. The embedded ACR is fully operating with only some features less as compared to the PS/LR-embedded versions. The RAW processing is the same.

"Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?" Yes, of course.

As a remark: the D-Lux/LX100 have a very nice feature with in-camera RAW processing. One can process a RAW file over and over again with different settings in order to find out the best settings for ooc JPGs. I've executed that quite thoroughly and arrived at very appealing JPGs. However, even the best ooc JPGs will not be up to the JPGs processed from the RAWs on the PC.

Bottom line: the ooc JPGs are very good already. But the final verdict about this cam can by no means derived from the JPGs, in particular NOT from comparing the JPGs with JPGs from other cams.

Andreas

Thank you Andreas. I find that the JPEGS of the LX100 are quite good with quite a bit of info for doing PPing, but RAW is always the best way to go for an optimum image. I would, though, like to try processing the LX100's RAW files, but a software upgrade or new purchase is needed.

Yes, one can process RAW over and over again, but one can also process JPEGS in Lightroom without loss, unless you overwrite the file.

If you PP a JPEG - no matter what program you are using - you will have to save it after tweaking as a new JPEG again. With other words: you are applying a JPEG compression to an already compressed JPEG from the camera. This will of course cause additional losses. But more important is the fact that the original JPEG is an 8-bit/pixel file where the RAW is an 12-bit/pixel file. The latter allows for way more room for corrections, which is in particular seen with the colours. And the JPEG compression is applied only once after all changes. You can even decide to not compress at all with TIFFs or PSDs.

One more remark: each JPEG will benefit from PPing. No question. But because the effort for PPing is the same for JPEGs and for RAWs it is highly recommended to PP the RAWs. As an alternative it's reasonable to enjoy the ooc JPEGs without any PPing. These are - as mentioned often - very acceptable. But PPing should better be applied to the RAWs.

Can I assume PSE13 that you are using will process the LX100's RAW files?

Yes, PSE13 will process the RW2-files from the LX100 including the lens corrections.

Thanks again for your response.

Cheers

Wayne

There are tons of discussions (sometimes resembling a crusade) about Lightroom or PSE. I prefer PSE for the simple reason that PSE uses my own folder structure without the need (like Lightroom) for creating a parallel structure (libraries). But that's of course a matter of taste.

Hope it helps.

Andreas

 

[Bangers and Mash]

Just a suggestion: to really judge the sharpness and noise of an image it should be subjected to adequate processing. Since sharpness and noise are kind of opposite directed the balance between them can be tricky. 100% crops in particular can be compared only if the images have been carefully processed.

With the D-Lux 109 I've got very good results with these Adobe Camera Raw settings:

Sharpening: Amount 70, Radius 0.7, Detail 50, and Masking 10

Noise reduction: Luminance 70, Luminance Detail 30, Luminance Contrast 0, Color 30, and Color Detail 30

These settings will result between ISO200 and ISO1600 in very satisfying images. Even scarcely illuminated sceneries are yielding appealing results.

Andreas

I have thought about getting Adobe Camera Raw quite awhile ago, and every now and then someone talks about the software on these forums. Right now I'm using Light Room 4 with a need to upgrade since purchasing the 109's equivalent the LX100. I'm wondering whether or not to upgrade LR or just Get Adobe Camera Raw.

Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?

Thanks

Wayne

Edit: I was just looking at it, and I read that it will only work with the full version of Photoshop CS5. I'm only using Elements.

Hello Wayne,

I'm using PSE13. The embedded ACR is fully operating with only some features less as compared to the PS/LR-embedded versions. The RAW processing is the same.

"Regarding ACR, you mention the settings in your post for the D-Lux 109, so am I right in saying that you can set various parameters for each camera in the software itself?" Yes, of course.

As a remark: the D-Lux/LX100 have a very nice feature with in-camera RAW processing. One can process a RAW file over and over again with different settings in order to find out the best settings for ooc JPGs. I've executed that quite thoroughly and arrived at very appealing JPGs. However, even the best ooc JPGs will not be up to the JPGs processed from the RAWs on the PC.

Bottom line: the ooc JPGs are very good already. But the final verdict about this cam can by no means derived from the JPGs, in particular NOT from comparing the JPGs with JPGs from other cams.

Andreas

Thank you Andreas. I find that the JPEGS of the LX100 are quite good with quite a bit of info for doing PPing, but RAW is always the best way to go for an optimum image. I would, though, like to try processing the LX100's RAW files, but a software upgrade or new purchase is needed.

Yes, one can process RAW over and over again, but one can also process JPEGS in Lightroom without loss, unless you overwrite the file.

If you PP a JPEG - no matter what program you are using - you will have to save it after tweaking as a new JPEG again. With other words: you are applying a JPEG compression to an already compressed JPEG from the camera. This will of course cause additional losses. But more important is the fact that the original JPEG is an 8-bit/pixel file where the RAW is an 12-bit/pixel file. The latter allows for way more room for corrections, which is in particular seen with the colours. And the JPEG compression is applied only once after all changes. You can even decide to not compress at all with TIFFs or PSDs.

One more remark: each JPEG will benefit from PPing. No question. But because the effort for PPing is the same for JPEGs and for RAWs it is highly recommended to PP the RAWs. As an alternative it's reasonable to enjoy the ooc JPEGs without any PPing. These are - as mentioned often - very acceptable. But PPing should better be applied to the RAWs.

Can I assume PSE13 that you are using will process the LX100's RAW files?

Yes, PSE13 will process the RW2-files from the LX100 including the lens corrections.

Thanks again for your response.

Cheers

Wayne

There are tons of discussions (sometimes resembling a crusade) about Lightroom or PSE. I prefer PSE for the simple reason that PSE uses my own folder structure without the need (like Lightroom) for creating a parallel structure (libraries). But that's of course a matter of taste.

Hope it helps.

Andreas

I just read some reviews of the newest version PSE14, and there are quite a few that don't care for it and wished they stayed with a later version. I watched a short tutorial on it, and I find that Adobe changed the interface to look rather childish looking compared to older versions. Version 14 sells for less than version 13, so perhaps that explains why it's more Mickey Mouse looking.

For me, I prefer Lightroom as I feel it allows me to make many more adjustments to an image than PSE allows, but then again, it's a personal choice. I also like the many presets that are available for LR. I can make numerous changes to an image and simply reset at any time, even though I have worked on other images after, without altering the original file. As far as setting up a library, I can also set up my own libraries with LR or have the program do it for me. I personally like to have control of that.

Yes, there are tons of discussions bantering back and forth as to which is better, but after many years of using the programs, I find, for me, LR works fine. I do like using PSE after PPing my images in LR as I prefer the way one can crop and set up files for printing which I think PSE does a better job.

Cheers

Wayne