Maggie O
Active member
I'm sure you'll do fine!:salute:
HI Maggie - I'll do my best, and if I don't, then I'll be running to you for help
But hey, I'm around for a consult, if need be. :salute:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I'm sure you'll do fine!:salute:
HI Maggie - I'll do my best, and if I don't, then I'll be running to you for help
Chuck,I have written about this before but I decided to got with the LX2. Like I said, photos from Maggie and others convinced me to try it. It is inexpensive to find one now and will hold me over until we see a GRD40 or GX200. Maybe even the LX3.
Sean,
I do have a question about the RAW files of the D-Lux3/LX2. There was talk and some examples of the RAW files from these cameras have a smeared quality to them. Especially in the shadow areas. There was a petition going around for a while now that talks about this and I also saw it on Amin's blog. You can see it here. http://aminphoto.blogspot.com/2007/06/gx100-vs-lx2-photos-posted-by-bjrn.html
Did you notice this at all in your review of the camera? Might it be a problem with the RAW converter? I haven't heard any complaints here so I am not sure what to think. Also, I am using PS Camera RAW (the newest version) as my converter. I will try it when I get the camera and see what it looks like.
Sean,I'll call him and ask about it. Stephen was my professor and advisor at Bard College and I worked closely with him for four years. I didn't know, until your post, that he was experimenting with small sensor cameras because we haven't talked in the past few years. But we're friends and I think that I should contact him about doing an article on this. Thanks very much for the heads up. I'm going to your link now.
Cheers,
Sean
The trouble is that Maggie is such a good photographer that she'd squeeze good pictures even out of a Fuji f30 <g>, so her photography doesn't tell one much about the relative qualities of the Ricoh and Pana-leica cameras. I think that what Sean has written in another thread is spot-on: the GRD2 is has cleaner and more robust files than the D-Lux-3 — files that I can "push around" a lot more and still print at a huge size (40x52 inches or 100x133cm). In contrast, I've been able to print only a few D-Lux-3 files at 24x36 inches (60x90cm). So, while the D-Lux-3 camera has a fine lens for my purposes the GRD2 is a lot better, as is the GX100. And I also strongy prefer the handling characteristics of the two Ricoh cameras to the D-Lux-3.I have written about this before but I decided to got with the LX2. Like I said, photos from Maggie and others convinced me to try it...
Ach, I could use some of that common sense right now. I have an LX2, and I love it, but the Ricoh won't leave me alone. I'm weak.I was mightily tempted to get a GRD II, but I channeled my GAS into using my D-Lux 3 more and after several hundred frames, my GAS has passed and I'm confident that I've got a camera that, for me, is more than the equal of the GRD II.
HeyMitch,The trouble is that Maggie is such a good photographer that she'd squeeze good pictures even out of a Fuji f30 <g>, so her photography doesn't tell one much about the relative qualities of the Ricoh and Pana-leica cameras. I think that what Sean has written in another thread is spot-on: the GRD2 is has cleaner and more robust files than the D-Lux-3 — files that I can "push around" a lot more and still print at a huge size (40x52 inches or 100x133cm). In contrast, I've been able to print only a few D-Lux-3 files at 24x36 inches (60x90cm). So, while the D-Lux-3 camera has a fine lens for my purposes the GRD2 is a lot better, as is the GX100. And I also strongy prefer the handling characteristics of the two Ricoh cameras to the D-Lux-3.
—Mitch/Johannesburg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
—Mitch/Johannesburg...My gut sense, and again I haven't compared the two, is that the D-Lux 3 files will appeal to the eye as much as the GR2 files when both are straight from the camera. But I also have a hunch that if one begins pushing both kinds of files, those from the GR2 will hold up better than those from the Leica/Panasonic. I don't know if that's right. The fact that the GR2 files are a bit cleaner than those from other small sensor camera (cleaner as opposed to more smoothed) allows them to have a bit more resilience, a bit more like they came from a camera with a larger sensor...
i completely agree with Mitch! and just to enable you further, if you happen to visit me in lalaland, there'll be two Ricohs or you to play withThanks, Mitch! You just made my night!
Oh, but now I'm feeling the stirrings of G.A.S. and wondering what I could do with the Ricoh...
Tim,Chuck,
I just took a good look through your gallery. It is absolutely inspiring. Profoundly so. Once of the very best I've come across online and I think the reason is that as a whole it appeals to the emotions rather than the brain. It makes me want to go and take pictures!
Tim
Thanks Mitch,The trouble is that Maggie is such a good photographer that she'd squeeze good pictures even out of a Fuji f30 <g>, so her photography doesn't tell one much about the relative qualities of the Ricoh and Pana-leica cameras. I think that what Sean has written in another thread is spot-on: the GRD2 is has cleaner and more robust files than the D-Lux-3 — files that I can "push around" a lot more and still print at a huge size (40x52 inches or 100x133cm). In contrast, I've been able to print only a few D-Lux-3 files at 24x36 inches (60x90cm). So, while the D-Lux-3 camera has a fine lens for my purposes the GRD2 is a lot better, as is the GX100. And I also strongy prefer the handling characteristics of the two Ricoh cameras to the D-Lux-3.
—Mitch/Johannesburg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Sean,Hi Chuck,
I don't recall that, off the top of my head, but I'd have to look back at my own review to be sure. Of course, we can't ever look at RAW files so the question of what's happening to the files in the course of conversions is always interesting to consider as well.
Cheers,
Sean
Thanks Maggie,Chuck, FWIW, I found that Adobe Camera Raw didn't do very well with Leicasonic RAW files. iPhoto and Lightzone seem to be much friendlier.
Chuck, thanks for linking to my blog. Another good demonstration of this issue can be found here. Björn Utpott has demonstrated this in LX1 vs LX2 and GX100 vs LX2 comparisons using identically processed files in at least two different RAW processors (ACR 3.6 and Silkypix). He has also made the RAW files available for analysis.I do have a question about the RAW files of the D-Lux3/LX2. There was talk and some examples of the RAW files from these cameras have a smeared quality to them. Especially in the shadow areas. There was a petition going around for a while now that talks about this and I also saw it on Amin's blog. You can see it here. http://aminphoto.blogspot.com/2007/06/gx100-vs-lx2-photos-posted-by-bjrn.html
iPhoto is Mac only, but Lightzone is not. http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/iPhoto and Lightzone are Mac only aren't they?
Hi thereChuck, thanks for linking to my blog. Another good demonstration of this issue can be found here. Björn Utpott has demonstrated this in LX1 vs LX2 and GX100 vs LX2 comparisons using identically processed files in at least two different RAW processors (ACR 3.6 and Silkypix). He has also made the RAW files available for analysis.