In my last post, I asked what if I hadn't bought Lili, my Leica X-U, on 20th August?
Well, I'd now be £1,749 richer. (Actually £75 more, as I bought a spare battery - the only extra expense needed)
On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the pleasure of using Lili since August. Over 12,000 shots. In just over four months. Really, I think that demonstrates something about this camera.
Lili is fast to use, and gets me excellent pictures. I particularly like the wonderfully rich colours, the subtle tones, the astonishing detail captured. And, crucially, the very good low-light performance. I've taken many shots after sunset, or in dim interiors, that have come out really well. I often take such shots. I'm a great one for evening pictures around towns. And even in daytime, the interiors of country churches are usually sombre. As I take more and more pictures in churches and similar places, I can justify buying Lili simply to get better pictures when there isn't much light.
It's a bonus that Lili is waterproof, and laughs at wet conditions. It's a further bonus that Lili is covered in rubber, and is therefore grippy to hold and can take an accidental knock or two.
My previous favourite camera, the little Leica D-Lux 4 - still used a bit, as much as the camera on my phone is used anyway - isn't waterproof or knockproof, and although the little Leica has a zoom lens, and can take wider-angle pictures than Lili can, it can't handle poor lighting conditions. Which is a major limitation. In good light, especially for nearby subjects, the little Leica gives me results that are almost on par with Lili's. It's got an excellent lens. But the little Leica's sensor lets it down. After sunset, or in shadowy interiors, the results are questionable by any modern standard.
Lili's even faster lens - and more capable (and larger) sensor - do so much better. Lili has extended the scope of what I can successfully do with a camera, in terms of where and when I can expect to secure pictures that I want to keep.
Here's an example of what I mean. I took shots with both cameras in my study. It was mid-afternoon yesterday, and the daylight was past its best. The cameras were pointing towards the main window, so were shooting into the light source, and everything in front of the lens was therefore backlit, or in shade.
This was the scene, first with Lili, the Leica X-U; then (below) with the little Leica D-Lux 4:
Lili's fixed '35mm' lens (top) is only semi-wide-angle, and so the scene doesn't include so much: everything seems a bit closer. The little Leica's '24mm' lens is wider-angle, and so gets more into the picture, but it all seems further away. (I could adjust the little Leica's zoom to simulate a '35mm' setting, but the camera performs best in low light when set at 24mm, and low-light performance is what I'm looking at here.
Let's crop these pictures, to simulate the same degree of magnification. As before, Lili is top, the little Leica bottom:
The detail in the little Leica's shot (bottom) looks slightly indistinct, and the picture is darker overall. Lili's shot (top) isn't perfect, but reveals much more shadow detail, and the colours are closer to real life.
Let's crop again, once more simulating the same degree of magnification:
In Lili's shot (top) you can still make out the stitching on the footrest, and read the wording on many of the books. Remember, this was taken against the light, and everything facing the camera on the bookshelves under the window was in shadow. The little Leica (bottom) has caught the main items - steps, footrest, hat - but everything else has become murky, with all detail turned to mush.
I appreciate and enjoy studying detail more and more, because it is so interesting, especially if you regard your pictures as historical documents. You can see why Lili is nowadays my preferred camera for a dull day or a dark street.
Lili is of course defeated by deep darkness. She may have been very good when newly-launched in 2016, but in 2022 she is outmoded. Even so, I got these town-centre shots in Worthing on Boxing Day with her. All it needs is a few bright light sources somewhere in the scene:
And on New Year's Day, on the Isle of Harty in Kent, I took these pictures with Lili inside the lonely church there. It was a murky late afternoon, and the church interior was very dim indeed - discouragingly so. It was so dark I couldn't clearly see my feet, and tripped when stepping through the screen. I've pumped up the shadow detail to make everything brighter than it really was. But then that reveals the details - which, though not perfectly rendered, come out well enough to get a good impression of what this hop-strewn (and rather aromatic) space was like.
The elderly little Leica would have recorded just blackness for all these church shots, with the windows showing up as white shapes. It's only a daytime camera, I'm afraid, good though it still is.
