Leica D-Lux 4 Review part deux

The focal length of the D-Lux-4 varies 5.1-12.8mm, which is the equivalent view of a 24-60mm on a 35mm film.


Equivalent of 24mm:


Equivalent of 60mm:


Equivalent of 240mm (beyond 60mm is digital zoom). The quality is sufficient for the amount I'd use a long focal length on digital p&s.


Separating the subject from the background is very difficult since the focal length is so short. But if you manage to, the bokeh looks rough.

Leica D-Lux 4 Review

The Leica D-Lux 4 is a formidable digital point & shoot. While I generally shoot film, having a digital p&s for one off photos and for the Mrs. I looked at many alternatives and am happy with the pick.

It leads the digital point & shoot world with a fast f/2.0 lens and wide angle lens equivalent to 24mm in the

The different control settings are a better for more advanced photographers than a lot of consumer p&s. Instead of a wheel with choices of "Nightime" and "Sports", there is Shutter Priority, Aperature Priority, Manual, and then a couple options which you can program. It is a bit more intuitive to me and I like having a bit more control. Of course, there is also full Auto.

Cons: Most of what I don't like is common amongst digital p&s.

Another advantage of the D-Lux is low light shooting. Due to it's really short ACTUAL focal length, I can take nice indoor no-flash photos at 1/10 shutter speed, f/2.0 and ISO 400. However, due to that short focal length it's nearly impossible to seperate the subject from the background since the actual focal length is so short.


The Leica vs. Panasonic debate: There is different software and a longer warranty with the Leica. So it is a bit more than a red dot, but not a tremendous amount. I also do like hte Leica finish bit more. However, the current big difference is that availablity of the Panasonic is non-existant. Sure it says $460 at B&H,which is $240 less than the Leica, but they are out of stock. Same with Adorama and every other reputable dealer that I know of. It's available over Amazon... for $699, the same price as the D-Lux4.

Full Evaluation: I'm going to look at the D-Lux along several different aspects

--ISO
--Various Focal Lengths
--Bokeh
--Video

ISO:

ISO setting give good results up to 400, and drops off significantly after that. The camera has a nice setting which will automatically limits ISO.

For the test: below photos are a crop taken wide open at about 20 feet away.

ISO 80: This is the lowest ISO setting.



ISO 400: The quality is still decent.


ISO 800: There is a noticeable dropoff of quality.



ISO 3200: The quality here is unusable. Find a tripod.

Why Film Will Last For A While

Many people envision that film will disappear completely at some point. While it is easy to see that it will dwindle for a long time, the final demise of film may not be in my lifetime.

Film is profitable. Look at Kodak's annual report. While film sales dropped, they were still the most profitable division, having a gross income of $196 million, while the digital group lost $177 MM.

The digital business model is much different that the film world. Digital cameras have a short product life and high R&D costs. A good film could last decades. Now that the capital costs for the film machinery has been long paid, the only cost for producing film is the variable cost. Thus it's profitability is higher.

Despite the advent of the 8-track tape, the cassette tape, the CD, and the MP3, vinyl is still around. It's enjoying a renessance.

The Case for Film

Nothing makes people look at you like you are crazy than having them see that you still shoot film. People cannot fathom why one might still want to use film. We all know the advantages of digital:
--You get a instant results
--There is no cost or time to develop.
--You can switch ISO settings from picture to picture.

1. Ability to upgrade film as film technology improves.The quality of film overall has improved tremedously even in the last 20 years, not to mention the last 50 or 80 years. I put modern film in a 50 year old camera and get outstanding images. Just because I'm using an older camera doesn't mean I am required to use old film. As digital technology improves, you must buy a new camera to take advantage of it.

2. Low cost choice to shoot wide angles.

Since the sensor size of a DSLR is smaller than that of 35mm film, all images are effective croped in the center. So a 24mm focal length gives a similar field of view to a 35mm and 15mm lens acts like a 22 mm focal length.
As lenses get wider they are harder to design and are often slower. So if you want a the same field of view as 35mm focal length, you need to get a more expensive and slower lens. A 35mm f/2 lens is not very expensive. To get the same field of view, you will need a 24/2, when would be expensive if not impossible to find, or a 24/4 which is substaintailly slower. Your other alternative is to get a full frame DSLR, which start at $3000 for the body alone.

To get to 35mm:
Digital = Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 + Nikkor D40 = $360 + $400 = $760
Film = Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 + Bessa R = $240 + $200 = $440

To get to 21mm:
Digital = Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 + Nikon D40 = $1630 + $500 = $2130
Digital = Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 + Nikon D700 = $560 + $2600 = $3160
Film = Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 + Bessa R2m = $1100 + $560 = $1660
Film, used = Voigtlander 21mm f/4 + Bessa L = $300 + $100 = $400 (While used and a stop slower, it is still an available choice).

To get to 15mm:
Digital = Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 + Nikon D700 = $1630 + $2300 = $3930
Film = Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 + Bessa R4m = $400 + $650 = $1050

3. Low cost choice for lower volume shooters
Digital = A Nikon D40 with kit lens = $500
Film = A Vivitar V3800N with kit lens = $170.
Film, used (keh.com) = Pentax MZ30 with 28-105 lens = $77

I can buy and develop Kodak Gold film for $6.50 for a roll of 36. That means that I can take a roll a month for 5 years, equal the cost of the D40.


4. Negative film has better exposure latitude
The exposure latitude for digital is limited. Overexposure leads to blown out highlights, especially with long exposure night shots. Negative film has much greater exposure latitude.


5. Low cost choice for large prints
While 10 MP can print a quality 8x10, it still can't get much larger. 35mm film can reliably go to at least 11x14, while medium format can go significantly larger. A medium format digital SLR costs the same as a nice car, while a quality medium format film camera can be bought for $200.

6. You still can get a digital image from film.
I don't shun the digital world. I scan a lot of my photos. An Espon V500 goes for $150.

7. The digital image scanned from film can improve as technology improves.
I've been scanning photos I took 10 years ago. The resulting digital image. If I had taken a digital photo, I would stuck with the digital image.

8. Paying a small amount for each image may make you shoot with more care.
This is more of a personal choice of how I act with a digital camera and not everyone may not feel the same. Since a digital shot is "free", I often tend take a very high amount of photos. I get 500 poorly composed photos of the same thing. All the photos stay on the camera and I never delete them or print them. It's like I take a machine gun approach when a sniper's approach is favorable.