The Fuji X-T1 and the Leica D-Lux are not natural bedfellows. But Patrick Leong of FindingRange.com was so impressed with the new Leica compact that he decided to do some back-to-back ISO tests against his regular mount, the Fuji X-T1. He didn’t expect the D-Lux, with its four-thirds sensor, to outperform the APS-C Fuji any more than it would better one of Leica’s crop-sensor shooters such as the X or T, but he was nevertheless surprised how close it came. As he says,
…this wasn’t really about which camera would win, at least for me. I just wanted to show that even though the D-Lux is a point and shoot, the high ISO capabilities are pretty darn fantastic. The fact that the D-Lux comes pretty close to the X-T1’s high ISO capabilities, at least to my eyes, says a lot about this point and shoot. The truth is, tests like this don’t tell the complete story as shooting in the real world will give us even more of what these two cameras are capable of in terms of ISO. But it still tells us something. For one, it tells us that the D-Lux’s ISO capabilities are good enough that the higher ISO range isn’t there just to make a spec sheet look better; one could use the entire ISO range with this camera and produce excellent photos, which isn’t always necessarily the case in this category of cameras.
Patrick has produced some great comparative shots to back up his conclusions. You can read the full story here.
I use the Fujifilm X-T1 (with Leica and Fuji lenses) and the Lumix LX 100 (the exact same camera as the D-Lux) as my travel kit nowadays. I like them both, particularly, as the top plates are perfectly designed for experienced photographers, even better (and I hate to say this) than the M240. The M240 will give better images but not to such a margin that it is worth bringing it on a long journey. As for my Nikon D 800E that is relegated to wildlife and sports which I rarely photograph nowadays. Size and weight and ergonomics do count so far as I am concerned.
As for image quality, I don’t need to photograph rows of books to find out which gives ‘better’ (a subjective matter) photos. I used to do that one time but I am over that now. In my experience, the Fujifilm gives more vibrant and, dare I say it, more substantial images than the LX 100, particularly when Leica M lenses are used. That being said, the Fujifilm lenses are no slouches. As for the LX 100 it will function as a one size fits all camera and will give excellent images. I take it on its own when I don’t want to carry a camera bag with extra lenses and it never fails to deliver excellent images. When I look at the images it delivers, however, I know that in many circumstances the Fujifilm would have produced ‘better’ or ‘more attractive’ images if you wish.
The Fujifilm X-T 1 is not perfect. Focus peaking is still a work in progress for many manufacturers, including Fujifilm, and errors can be made relying on this. Last Thursday Fujifilm produced new firmware which allows magnification when in manual focus and, so far, I find that this gives more accurate focus than the peaking method but it does require two button pushes. The other issue is that Fujifilm RAW images are not really compatible with Lightroom. I have overcome this partially by using Iridient Developer in my work flow. I am hoping that the recently announced X-Pro 2 will overcome these issues.
Finally, I hope that Leica follows the top plate design of the Fuji X series and its own D-Lux in its next iteration of the Digital M. A bit less weight would help too but that may be too much to hope for.
William
Agreed on focus peaking. I find it is often misleading no substitute for the clinical accuracy of the rangefinder. Also your comments on the Fuji and Panasonic/D-Lux top plate layouts are apposite. I fully agree and prefer to see all the vital settings on physical display.