The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

D-LUX 4 at ISO 1600

jonoslack

Active member
OK a little OT but Jono, the G1 is available in Germany. Any signs of it in the UK? We won't have it for a couple of weeks. I'm counting on you for testing. Amin is in the US so he won't have it just yet either.

I was going to order through Panny direct today (we get a corporate discount) however it is strange that they aren't showing the second lens.
HI Terry
Nothing on the horizon here - or on any of the websites that I've seen. Interesting that it seems to be in the shops, but I don't see anyone on dpreview who actually has one. Maybe Louis is right and nobody is buying?
 
A

asabet

Guest
:ROTFL:
Hi Amin - of course - I was only teasing . . . . but maybe there was a compliment hidden in there as well :)
I'm sorry if it seemed like it was for real - my wife always tells me I assume too much from others with my jokes:eek:?
We need a "relieved" emoticon! Sometimes it's hard to tell from the written word.

I'm fighting off a great urge to get a dlux4 or lx3, because my history with small sensor cameras is either dislike or lack of use! (I do like my GX100 for instance, but I almost never use it!). I don't think I'll be able to resist the G1, or the little Oly m43 either . .. whether they'll get used a lot is another matter.
I'm pretty sure that I'll use a m43 camera once that 20/1.7 comes out, unless it's a terrible lens. As you know, it will behave as a 40/3.4 in terms of framing/DOF in 35mm terms, so it will provide unprecedented DOF control for that form factor and working distance. I only wish that the G1 were smaller or the Oly m43 had an EVF like the G1.
 

jonoslack

Active member
We need a "relieved" emoticon! Sometimes it's hard to tell from the written word.
how about:
;):rolleyes::):thumbup:

I'm pretty sure that I'll use a m43 camera once that 20/1.7 comes out, unless it's a terrible lens. As you know, it will behave as a 40/3.4 in terms of framing/DOF in 35mm terms, so it will provide unprecedented DOF control for that form factor and working distance. I only wish that the G1 were smaller or the Oly m43 had an EVF like the G1.
I always feel that the phrase 'DOF control' is a dreadfully emotive expression - it has a real 'value judgement' feel about it . . and anyway, you might as well say that MORE DOF gives you more Control!

I wonder whether the Oly m43 might not have a 'plug in' evf like the Ricoh's do - it's a good idea.

I'm really sad that Leica didn't join in, it seemed to me to be the perfect opportunity for a CL replacement - I would have thought they could have done an optical viewfinder with moveable framelines depending on the zoom (a bit like the Contax G series, but without blacking out the rest of the finder). Oh Well!
 
A

asabet

Guest
how about:
;):rolleyes::):thumbup:
Sounds good to me :):D:rolleyes:;).


I always feel that the phrase 'DOF control' is a dreadfully emotive expression - it has a real 'value judgement' feel about it . . and anyway, you might as well say that MORE DOF gives you more Control
I know what you mean, but when was the last time you wished that your DSLR could give you more DOF? When was the last time you wished your pocket camera could give you less? For me, the answers are "never" and "this morning", respectively.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sounds good to me :):D:rolleyes:;).




I know what you mean, but when was the last time you wished that your DSLR could give you more DOF?
This afternoon (wide angle landscape with foreground)

When was the last time you wished your pocket camera could give you less?
Hardly ever (mind you, my pocket camera doesn't get used that much!)

For me, the answers are "never" and "this morning", respectively.

So I guess I win that one :)

it surely depends on what you're shooting - if it's people and candids, then one would normally want less depth of field - although, to me, 4:3 makes for a good compromise.

On the other hand, shooting nature / plants / macros one often wants as much as one can get.

I'm not criticising people's requirements (especially yours), simply the implication that less is 'better'.
 
A

asabet

Guest
I certainly don't feel that less is better when it comes to DOF. However, I think of larger sensors as providing a choice, and smaller ones not so much. With your DSLR and wide angle landscape with foreground, you can stop down enough to get small sensor-like deep DOF. I don't think you'd ever reach a case where due to high f-number, diffraction and need for high ISO would turn your A900 into a significantly worse option than a small sensor camera (from an image quality standpoint). In theory this could happen, but it would be an extreme situation of very low light, very deep DOF requirement, and lack of suitable stabilization (effective in-camera or tripod).

When I take my D-LUX and set it for max background blurring, I'm using a 12.8mm f/2.8 lens. That's just enough to give a sense of emphasis to certain elements at close distance, but sometimes I want more (less :)).

However, let's say that you're right and I'm wrong about the ability to have more DOF being a significant advantage for some small sensor cameras. The fact is, people who want/need deep DOF have a lot of choices in the pocket camera market. Those who want/need shallow DOF in non-macro, non-telephoto shots have very modest tools for that application. The 20/1.7 for m43 is a significant advance in that respect.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I certainly don't feel that less is better when it comes to DOF. However, I think of larger sensors as providing a choice, and smaller ones not so much. With your DSLR and wide angle landscape with foreground, you can stop down enough to get small sensor-like deep DOF. I don't think you'd ever reach a case where due to high f-number, diffraction and need for high ISO would turn your A900 into a significantly worse option than a small sensor camera (from an image quality standpoint). In theory this could happen, but it would be an extreme situation of very low light, very deep DOF requirement, and lack of suitable stabilization (effective in-camera or tripod).
Well, that is a good point, but actually, getting foliage in the foreground and mountains (well, okay, small pimples with churches on them :() in the background CAN be a problem,
When I take my D-LUX and set it for max background blurring, I'm using a 12.8mm f/2.8 lens. That's just enough to give a sense of emphasis to certain elements at close distance, but sometimes I want more (less :)).

However, let's say that you're right and I'm wrong about the ability to have more DOF being a significant advantage for some small sensor cameras. The fact is, people who want/need deep DOF have a lot of choices in the pocket camera market. Those who want/need shallow DOF in non-macro, non-telephoto shots have very modest tools for that application. The 20/1.7 for m43 is a significant advance in that respect.
It's a non argument really - we want the same things, and I think we both feel the same way about m43 being a really good compromise (at least, that's what I think). I guess I just have a bee in the bonnet about some people's superior attitude to dof (not yours I hasten to say! ;):rolleyes::):thumbup:)
 
A

asabet

Guest
I know what you mean Jono. Anyone who has spent any time in a certain Olympus forum is going to be sick of certain people going on and on about DOF!

Speaking of DPReview - Jono, did you see the Sony A900 review? Strange findings there! Simon concluded that the A900 AA filter is stronger than the D700 AA filter. I think he must have some jelly on his sensor :).
 

jonoslack

Active member
I know what you mean Jono. Anyone who has spent any time in a certain Olympus forum is going to be sick of certain people going on and on about DOF!

Speaking of DPReview - Jono, did you see the Sony A900 review? Strange findings there! Simon concluded that the A900 AA filter is stronger than the D700 AA filter. I think he must have some jelly on his sensor :).
HI there
Wasn't it interesting! Is it the jpg engine? or is it the way he's processing in ACR (mind you, ACR doesn't seem to do very well with the A900).

I thought the studio comparisons were a bit odd as well - I got the impression that the differences were more to do with different point of focus (those paper clips were out of focus weren't they?).

Reading the 'cons' made me realise why I like the camera! It's so very 'un sony' - limited options, easy to use, focusing more concentrating on accuracy than speed - etc. etc.
 

nostatic

New member
neither of you have provided enough rationalization yet for me to spend $400 more for the red dot. Arrghh.... :argue:
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
neither of you have provided enough rationalization yet for me to spend $400 more for the red dot. Arrghh.... :argue:
From what I've seen there doesn't seem to be any major differences despite what a few Leica people have said. The major differences from what I can tell are a more M8 like GUI, Capture One software, different file extension, an extra year of warranty, and a much nicer external body. I'd pay an extra $150-200 for that but asking for an extra $400 is a bit ridiculous (and disconnected) for Leica to do IMO.

The camera is still a bit limited in some regards such as the zoom range. I think I would actually prefer the D-Lux 3 lens with the upgraded electronics of the D-Lux 4 for all around usability. On the other hand though it's hard to argue with the speed and results as well. Asabet got an astounding deal and for the price he paid I think I would've bitten as well. For the full price of the D-Lux 4, I think I would look more toward Micro 4/3 which gives you more flexibility and should have outstanding IQ as well for slightly less money.
 

simonclivehughes

Active member
I fell into the Leica trap on the D-LUX 2, convincing myself that it had to have an advantage over the LX1, and indeed esthetically, I did prefer the packaging better, but when I bought the LX3, I never even considered paying the additional $400 for the "Leica". I don't believe that anyone shooting RAW will see any significant difference whatsoever, regardless of whether the RAW files appear to be different between the two cameras. In fact, I'd be surprised if there was any difference that couldn't be closely simulated by changing camera setting in the jpegs either.

Cheers,
 
A

asabet

Guest
neither of you have provided enough rationalization yet for me to spend $400 more for the red dot. Arrghh.... :argue:
I share Simon's opinions above, but I'll help you rationalize the $400 as follows:

1) Longer warranty is probably worth $50.
2) RAW software is worth 0-$100 depending on whether you like C1. For rationalization purposes, let's say it's worth $50.
3) Cosmetic difference and red dot factor may be worth $100.
4) Possibility that Leica's color/curves applied to in-camera JPEGs are not easy to replicate with LX3 is remote, but if you're obsessive compulsive this may be worth $50.

The above are strictly subjective value judgments. As I've written them, they account for $250 of the $400. The delta of $150 is likely to be recouped in the resale value differential.

Hope that helped :salute:.

Now that was one way of rationalizing. Here's what the things are worth to me:
1) Longer warranty: $25
2) Raw software: $0 (already bought C1)
3) Cosmetic difference: $100
4) Leica claims about colors, etc: $25
5) Higher anticipated resale value: $100

So, it wasn't worth it to me until I found a good deal.
 
Last edited:

nostatic

New member
heh...that's more like it :D

The raw software is a non-issue as I use Aperture (though it apparently doesn't support either camera yet). Warranty is probably a non-issue too...p&s seem to be replacement items rather than fixers (sad). Resale value might be relevant, but I end up giving my older cameras to family or donating to my son's school rather than selling them. The color curves are possibly an issue as sometimes I don't want to shoot raw just based on storage and speed. I hate spending time in post...

Still, $400 is $400. That damn red dot...
 

jonoslack

Active member
Still, $400 is $400. That damn red dot...
Just count yourself lucky that Leica seem to have abandoned m4:3 . . . just imagine having to buy all those leica M lenses for the adaptor, and the Panaleica lenses to make the most of the decent sized sensor.

They've missed an opportunity to bankrupt us all!
 

Joan

New member
Love the B&W version, Amin. Can't wait to see more from the D-Lux 4, the few samples I've seen so far look terrific. I went in another direction and used the Live.com/eBay deal to get the G10 ... limited budget right now, and liked the longer zoom. Wish I could have both, lol.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Thanks Joan, I'm looking forward to seeing your G10 photos! We're spoiled for choice right now in the advanced compact market.
 

nostatic

New member
In a fit of red dot dementia I picked up a DLux4 tonight. Only have taken a few snaps at night on the street and then messing around in the apt while reading the manual. I have to say that I'm *very* impressed so far with the low-light capability. I haven't shot a raw image yet, but the jpgs look quite good, with the "dynamic b&w" looking pretty close to how I'd tweak an image anyway in Aperture.

One interesting thing is that I had my DLux3 at -2/3 ev all the time (as I've done with most small sensor cameras). The DLux4 so far it spot-on at night at 0 ev.

Quick snap from tonight - 2nd one on the camera. I look forward to playing tomorrow...



inside, low light macro



crop

 
Last edited:

nostatic

New member
A few snaps this am. These are iso 100 indoors (!), f2 1/80s







I wish I had another 20mm on the long end, but so far the low light performance is amazing. The downside is having to learn Capture 1 for dealing with the raw files...
 
Top