Nikon vs Leica images - the "Leica look" vs Nikon

<p>A few days ago, I posted on the digital camera forum here about why I felt justified spending more to get a Leica D-Lux 5,<br /> http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00YEaC<br /><br />and, for the most part, I was slammed for having more money than common sense for getting a camera which is ostensibly a Leica-rebranded Panasonic Lumix LX5.<br /><br />So I had a simple shootout between my Nikon D300, 16-85 DX and the Leica D-Lux 5. Nothing too complex.<br /><br />Here's how I tried to create a level playing field:<br /><br />- Nikon at widest zoom setting of 16 mm, equivalent to 24mm FX versus Leica at widest zoom setting also equivalent to 24mm FX.<br /><br />- both lenses set at one stop below widest, hence Nikon at f5, versus Leica at f2.8<br /><br />- both set at Aperture Priority mode<br /><br />- both set for Deep Shade color balance<br /><br />- both focused on the left-hand side of the large green bush<br /><br />I attach 3 photos, and you should be able to tell which by my description.<br /><br />1) Nikon JPEG, no post processing except slight sharpening. I consider a sharpened Nikon JPEG to be a level playing field compared to an unsharpened Leica JPEG because Nikon JPEGs are reputed to be slightly soft, as I've heard.<br />2) Leica D-Lux 5, darkening to match Nikon image, and extra saturation to try to match Nikon's green in the grass lawn.<br />3) Leica D-Lux 5, no post processing<br /><br />The Nikon D300's color seemed almost artificial and heavy. Look at the part underneath the large tree - it is virtually dumped into black. Look at the other dark areas - underneath the left tree, and underneath the central bush. Whereas in the Leica image you can make out shadow detail in those same areas.<br /><br />For me, the Leica with saturation post-processing captures the ambient light that I saw when standing in the garden, whereas the Nikon seems ... almost garish. In the dark shade areas in the Leica photo, you can see plenty of shadow detail.<br /><br />Sure, with some post processing of RAW Nikon files, I'm sure you could draw out the shadow detail - but this quick test compares the Nikon vs Leica JPEGs using the barest amount of post-processing.<br /><br />I've had a series of Nikon DSLRs from the D70, D80 and D300 - am have been accustomed to seeing that sort of color, but now that I've seen the Leica colors, I don't think I can go back to using the D300.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the slightly post-processed Leica D-Lux 5 image. Remember this is from a pocket camera with far smaller sensor.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the Leica image without any post-processing straight out of the camera.</p><div></div>

<p>Not really a scene that asks any DSLR capabilities, so the downside of the small sensor will not be too apparent like this. As for the colours, it's a point of personal preference, I guess. So what is there to discuss here? If you cannot go back to a D300, by all means, starting saving for a M9, I am sure that will blow your socks off.<br>

I shoot RAW anyway, so I do not really see the point. Handling of most compact cameras to me is such a nuisance that I'll already prefer my DSLR just for those reasons alone. </p>

<p>I have several camera bodies, from small to large (in both body size and sensor size) and enjoy all of them. Each has areas where it excels. IQ (in good light) is never an issue with any of them. I briefly owned a Lumix 16x P&S - IQ, as with your camera, was absolutely excellent.</p>

<p><em>With regard to color only:</em> your unprocessed Leica image has less color than the Nikon image. The Nikon image has more detail when put under the microscope. The Leica image appears to be sharper than the Nikon which is probably due to its smaller sensor/much larger DOF (typical for small sensor cameras). Colors can be adjusted through picture controls in-camera or during post processing. In the end, both images can be made to look pretty much identical color and exposure wise. I find I get more natural looking colors, especially greens, when I shoot with aRGB with my Nikon bodies. Try it - you may find the colors more appealing. If you are not getting the color saturation you want, try adjusting the saturation a bit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>dude, get over it. it's a panasonic.</p>

<p>also, you're comparing a slightly-processed DSLR shot with a heavily processed P&S shot. proof that the mind can fool the eyes into thinking anything it wants. IMO, the nikon shot has better colors compared to the unprocessed LX5+red dot shot, er, i mean D-Lux5 shot. the comparison is pointless. however, you could redeem yourself by donating your unused nikon gear to a local high school.</p>

 

<p>Leica: 1/50s, f/2.8, ISO 100<br /> Nikon: 1/60s, f/5, ISO 200 - so at ISO 100 this would be 1/30s, f/5 which is equivalent to 1/50s at f/4 - a full stop under the Leica exposure<br /> Or alternatively for the Leica: 1/100s, f/2.8, ISO 200 which is equivalent to 1/30s at f/5 - a full stop over the Nikon exposure.<br /> You are comparing to images whose exposure is a full stop apart - with the Leica image tending toward over-exposure and the Nikon image tending towards underexposure and wonder about color differences and less shadow detail in the underexposed image (or about more shadow detail in an overexposed one)?<br /> I am also wondering if the Leica applies some "lifting" of the shadows by default, similar to Nikon's Active D-Lighting?<br /> Though the images as presented don't allow to draw conclusions about this anyway - due to their difference in exposure.</p>

<p>PS: since you cannot go back to using the Nikon, would you mind packing it and shipping it to me? I take whatever lens you want to include as well.</p>

<p>They probably both look great and will make you happy with prints.</p>

<p>You got a camera that makes you happy. That's awesome.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You got a camera that makes you happy. That's awesome.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the most important thing.</p>

<p>At a first sight my sister`s Leicasonic pics were more pleasant to my taste than those on my own D200 (or it was D300?). One day I copied a pair of them to my computer to see the reason... no way. It was only matter of settings.<br /> I`m a bit dense today to translate my thoughts but format differences related to DoF should be compared taking lens`aperture into account. Needless to say about tripod, mirror, etc., etc.<br /> The Leica look... I like it. When I want it I use my Nikon gear instead of Leica. My 35/1.4 Nikkor have more "Leica glow" than my modern Summicrons.</p>

 

<p>BTW, there is a comment from the other thread that I like... </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... I like the more plain appearance of the Leica branded camera better, and I enjoy having the red dot."</em> Michael J Hoffman</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too, sincerely.</p>

<p>Part of being a photographer is looking cool. I have to admit that having nice leica hanging around my neck would look a lot cooler than my beat up and duct-taped D300, especially when I am shooting at the Calatrava where people come from all over the world to ooh and ahh over the architecture. Even the security guards there seem to be more deferential to Leica owners, although it could be my slovenly appearance and not my hacked up camera that makes them appear to disdain me. </p>

<p>I am lost...can somebody explain?...what is the point of comparing dull, boring, untalented images???</p>

<p>Arnulfo, this thread isn't about photos, it's about cameras. It's also apparently the second one of this thread.</p>

<p>And I'd like to point out that there is something people refer to as the "Leica look" but it's caused by lenses, not the JPG processor, and the image posted does not appear to have any.</p>

<p>To the OP, stop taking photos in your front yard and talking about your cameras on the internet and <strong>just go shoot some photos</strong>!</p>

I'm still as mystified as I was at your previous post: Why would anyone (other than a photojournalist) who cares about

photography want in-camera-processed JPEGs?

 

Both cameras are at their best shooting raw so you can process the image properly, using the right tools.

<p>As they say, money cannot buy happiness, but if owning a Leica makes you happy, even though it might be just for a short while, I think it is worth it. In particular, a digicam is not that expensive. It is not like the OP is pouring multi-thousand dollars on some M body and lenses.</p>

<p> I have never heard about this Leica before since I do not follow the point and shoot models however it looks like a very nice camera, well laid out and with a sensible focal range and pretty fast lens for a P&S camera. I would think it should prove to be a real nice camera and I understand Leica is great about repairs on their camera's. I do not think the cost is to much for a long term camera such as this. I did not view the photos as they are pretty large but I believe the camera will take great pictures. I think I will check it out for a possible purchase for my own use. It seems like it would be a great travel camera. I would not shoot it in RAW however. I would want a camera that produces nice images straight up as I would rather not have to photoshop pictures all the time. </p>

<p>Roger,<br /> I'm not surprised by your findings. Most of casual family/vacation photographers are better off using good p/s compacts instead of a DSLRs. Getting superior results from a DSLR requires knowledge and effort and few more things. Too many people are getting DSLRs instead of o good compacts expecting "the" camera by itself will take better pictures. Don't go back to the d300, use your Leica and be happy.</p>

<p>Shoot in low light with the Pan. . .er..Leica and compare the results to the image from a D300 shot in the same light. There is no comparison. The smaller sensor simply cannot handle that sort of situation as well as a DSLR --any brand--can. If you are willing to trade quality of smaller size and weight the Pan. . .er..Leica may be just the ticket. If that is your only criteria you might want to check out the IPhone. It's even smaller.</p>

<p>To really achieve the Leica look it is important to always wear a tie when shooting. Also I believe your images will become more distinct if you rub a fine grade sandpaper on the lens. The look will become so distinct that you won't have to bother with good lighting, composition, or the emotional quality of your subjects - Now thats a Leica! To achieve the sort of color that is Leica Vision try using any type of color sharpie. <br>

In all seriousness, I love my LX3 for it being very capable and ability to shoot RAW. After shooting RAW I can adjust my contrast and color to be perfect. Still if I had to choose, I'd take the Nikon. <br>

Don't forget the sandpaper!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Do what makes YOU happy - Forget brand names and choose the hardware that works best for you. Nikon, Canon, Leica, Panasonic are all superb cameras and in the proper hands will take superb photos. I never could understand the splitting of hairs when it comes to evaluating photos. I have seen unbelievably beautiful shots from a $100 point and shoot in the hands of someone that knows how to use it. If you like the 'look' of the Leica (aka Panasonic), then go for it and be happy. <br>

Have fun!</p>

<p>Hi Roger! I'm the obnoxious guy. WHERE ARE YOUR PICTURES? The above waste-of-bandwidth shots all look like snapshots of a front lawn with a hose on it. No mystical qualities at all. Show me some evidence that you know about photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was slammed for having more money than common sense for getting a camera which is ostensibly a Leica-rebranded Panasonic Lumix LX5.<br /><br />So I had a simple shootout between my Nikon D300, 16-85 DX and the Leica D-Lux 5. Nothing too complex.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes absolutely no sense. The answer to the Panasonic vs. Leica comment is to do a Panasonic vs. Leica shoot. The Nikon vs. Leica is meaningless in that context.</p>

 

<p>I am not sure what qualities as an acceptable scene or subject for a test shot, but I do know that no matter what use for a test subject, it is never the right one either!!!</p>

<p>Charles, I always test my new cameras regardless of make (including Nikon) or type to the current Nikon bodies I own because I know what results they give me. So what. </p>

<p>For anyone interested, here is an interesting review on the Leica (there are numerous on the web, and they all seem to be favorable):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/09/28/the-leica-d-lux-5-review/">http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/09/28/the-leica-d-lux-5-review/</a></p>

<p>Seems like a pretty cool and capable camera. And while it is based on a Lumix model, it is not identical and comes with a 3 year warranty and Adobe Lightroom amongst other things. IQ at higher ISOs appears to be pretty darn good too!</p>

<p>I don't recall reading that the OP traded in his Nikon DSLR for this body - looks like he is adding this to his collection. I think that is a great idea!</p>

<p>I'd suggest that if you want the "real" leica experience--get yourself an M9 and 0.95 Noctilux.<br>

Then you get to see some real bokeh...:-) :-)</p>