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-lux4 vs Sony A900

jonoslack

Active member
Silly, I know, but I'm using (and liking) both of these cameras at the moment, and I wanted to get a handle on the real difference in image quality. Of course, it's just one shot, so it isn't very representative, but I thought it was an interesting reality check.

This is the basic shot:



The A900 shot was at f8, and ISO 200, the D-lux4 at F4 and ISO 80 (which seemed to be about as good a level playing field I could get).
The D-lux 4 was processed in Capture 1 v4, and the Sony in Aperture.

I took the same area from the shot, the leica is at 100%, and the Sony is scaled down to match - Leica first:



and here is the Sony

 

jonoslack

Active member
With so many variables, I don't see how you can compare anything....
sorry, I don't get it....
Oh - I can compare it.
Same area of shot - best ISO for each, good f stop for each.

As I said - it's personal - but others might be interested. Printing, it's tough to tell at A4 (but possible), but really easy at A3.
 
M

meilicke

Guest
I love crazy stuff like this, and think it is facinating that the dlux does as well as it does, even considering the idealized conditions. Thanks Jono!
 
W

weinglas

Guest
Hi Jono,

interesting comparison. Thanks a lot.

I am not surprised by the file quality of the Sony, but i thought that the Dlux at base ISO would perform better. No structure in the wood and it is not even near the corners. Maybe the focus was not perfect? Does it look better a little bit more sharpened?

Best regards,
Claus
 

mazor

New member
10Mp vs 24Mp, small optic vs bigger 35mm optics, and smaller vs bigger sensor. It is obvious which would be better here. But in saying that, the D-lux 4 and the A900 have very similar color representation.

I personally find the images from the LX3/D-lux4 a little softer out of camera, for both RAW and JPGs. So applying some USM to the D-lux 4 crop can help tighten up the image.

Here is your cropped image from the D-Dlux4 with some USM applied and the difference would be less.

USM applied d-lux 4 crop


Mazor
 
A

asabet

Guest
Here is your cropped image from the D-Dlux4 with some USM applied and the difference would be less.
Not much less. However, Jono's crop is not representative of the detail I came to expect from the D-LUX 4. It's probably just that C1 isn't pulling out the detail, which is why I asked to play with the RAW file.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Interesting. I also asked myself if the shot could be slightly out of focus? If not I find the difference quite obvious.
I did a comparison between my D3 and a Mamiya ZD some time ago and was first blown away by the difference but found out later that the D3 focus was slightly of in the one image.
Cheers, Tom
 

Howard

New member
Jono,

B&H's prices are $849 vs $2,999 for DLux4 and the A900, respectively. The price of the A900 is nearly 4 x the DLux4. Based on price alone, I would expect the IQ of the A900 would be better than the small sensored DLux4. I do not understand the comparison as it is comparing a very good P&S to a FF DSLR (apples vs oranges???).

After I gave you a bad time about comparing a FF camera and a small sensor camera, I remembered that Luminious Landscape compared prints made with a Canon G10 and a Hasselblad H2 with a P45 back (comparing a $500 camera to a $20,000 or $30,000 camera). The writer wrote that under certain optimum lighting conditions (bright sunlight where the G9 could use low ISO) with 13x19 prints, professional photographers could not differentiate which camera made which print. The writer used a tripod for each camera. Did you use a tripod for your test or were both handheld? If it was hand held, possibly some of the softness (at 100%) of the DLux4 could be a result of movement.
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

B&H's prices are $849 vs $2,999 for DLux4 and the A900, respectively. The price of the A900 is nearly 4 x the DLux4. Based on price alone, I would expect the IQ of the A900 would be better than the small sensored DLux4. I do not understand the comparison as it is comparing a very good P&S to a FF DSLR (apples vs oranges???).
Hi Howard
Absolutely - apples and oranges - the reason I was comparing is that both are cameras I'm very fond of . . . the Dlux4 is often more convenient, and I was interested to find out how much I was losing

What I certainly wasn't planning was to be negative about either camera . . . I'm sure that anyone who has used either of them will agree that they're both excellent cameras.

Anyway - I'm setting up a folder where you can get three RAW files from each camera to play with.

Give me half an hour
 

jonoslack

Active member
Not much less. However, Jono's crop is not representative of the detail I came to expect from the D-LUX 4. It's probably just that C1 isn't pulling out the detail, which is why I asked to play with the RAW file.
HI Amin . . . and everyone else who would like to play.

I've done no sharpening (at least, not intentionally). So, the obvious answer is, as you say, to let everyone else have a play with the raw file(s).

Because 3 is better than one, I've put up three files . . . and because it would be fine to remove my pp skills (not that they were applied) I though it would be better to supply the A900 files too . . . as they are big, I've used DNG files for them (I can't easily tell the difference).

So, there are three pairs of RAW files:


L1000135.RWL and _DSC3096.dng
L1000137.RWL and _DSC3098.dng
L1000138.RWL and _DSC3106.dng

you can get them at:

3 pairs of RAW Files
 

Howard

New member
Jono,

I own the LX3 and I think it is an excellent camera: 24mm zoom, f2 lens, raw, very good interface, small and light weight, a very good to excellent lens -- a great little package.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Jono, L1000135.RWL makes me wonder whether your D-LUX has some decentering. The right edge is softer than the left. Not sure whether your other tests show a similar result; it may just be the way that shot was taken.

With regards to the crop you chose for this thread, here is how it looks processed in Raw Developer on the right, compared with your unsharpened C1 version on the left:



Regardless of processing, the D-LUX 4 file has less detail than the A900 file, but that was never in question. Meanwhile, sharpening the C1 version will make the available detail more apparent in that file, but some of it has been lost in the process of barrel distortion correction, which is applied automatically (without option to disable) in C1.
 
W

weinglas

Guest
Hi,

Amin's version looks much better. Now there is structure in the wood and in the rusty metal and the difference to the A900 is not that much for small prints.

Best regards,
Claus
 

mazor

New member
Wow, amin that is imprressive. how did you get the color so rich? must be alot of USM appled there, but it does look alot sharper and somewhat 3D. i am impressed.

Mazor
 

jonoslack

Active member
Regardless of processing, the D-LUX 4 file has less detail than the A900 file, but that was never in question. Meanwhile, sharpening the C1 version will make the available detail more apparent in that file, but some of it has been lost in the process of barrel distortion correction, which is applied automatically (without option to disable) in C1.
HI Amin
thank you for that - I'll check up on the decentring when I get home tonight.

As I said, I did no sharpening, and you've done a much better job, however, I'm worried about the barrel distortion correction - partly with respect to this camera, but also with respect to the G1 and it's lenses. It seems to be a pretty bad idea if it's going to produce smeary results to quite such a big extent . . . better to have barrel distortion and an option to correct it later.

Incidentally, did you have a look at the other pair of files, with the old farm equipment?

Claus - as you say - a good compromise for small prints . . . mind you, that particular shot would not have been so good without the barrel distortion correction. Actually, with the detail that Amin has squeezed out of that crop I'm sure a 19x12 print would be excellent. (not so small then).
 
Top