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!

GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, the Leica in-camera JPEGs have different default settings, but I've never read anything to suggest that the RAW files are different.
Hi Amin
You are right - however, that kind of smearing isn't really something one normally connects with RAW files.
I'll do some testing - it's my pet enemy (it didn't seem to be a problem with the V-lux), so maybe I've bought the wrong camera without even testing it properly!
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
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.
Thanks Amin,

This is rather disconcerting to me. I don't understand why they would mess with the RAW file by smoothing low contrast shadow detail. :cussing: I am more concerned with the loss of detail than the noise. I shoot mostly B&W so the noise is not a huge problem. You either get a camera with lousy controls or one that smoothes too much detail.:angry:

Like I said, I don't have alot invested in the LX2 so if I don't like it I haven't lost anything. I just don't understand why the camera makers who obviously are trying to make good prosumer cameras (Panasonic, Leica, Ricoh and maybe Canon ) can't get it all together in one camera. As far as the LX2 goes. Why not allow us to turn off the noise reduction if we want? It would seem to be a simple firmware fix and from what I have seen there are many people who want this option. Ricoh is ALMOST there. Just combine the best of the GRDII and the GX100 and they would get my cash.
 

Maggie O

Active member
I've never seen any evidence of smoothing in my RAW files. There is occasionally some loss of detail when the OIS kicks in at sub 1/15 shutter speeds, but otherwise the files are sharp, even at ISO 800.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Thanks Amin,

This is rather disconcerting to me. I don't understand why they would mess with the RAW file by smoothing low contrast shadow detail. :cussing: I am more concerned with the loss of detail than the noise. I shoot mostly B&W so the noise is not a huge problem. You either get a camera with lousy controls or one that smoothes too much detail.:angry:
I was pretty concerned about it as well. Blah blah'd about it quite a bit here :).
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
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.
Amin, with the best will in the world Bjorn is showing results from a two second exposure at ISO 100.

How would a Ferrari feel in gridlock?

It's just not an appropriate or even vaguely relevant test!

T
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Thanks Mitch,
I am hoping that Ricoh decides to update the GX100. Until then I will use the LX2 and limp by w/o a finder and its fragile files. Generally I don't print larger than 16x20 or so. Maybe the LX2 files will work well at that size. It is not in my hands yet (maybe Wed), but I will give it a good testing when it comes. I got it for a great price so if I don't like it I can always get my money out of it.
Hi Chuck,

Fragile would be an overstatement. There's a lot to like about the LX2 files and it is a bargain right now.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Ricoh is ALMOST there.
That's ultimately my feeling too. In fact, if one likes to work with a 28 mm EFOV then the GR2 really is "there" in my mind. Now we need the GR40.

Cheers,

Sean
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
I've never seen any evidence of smoothing in my RAW files. There is occasionally some loss of detail when the OIS kicks in at sub 1/15 shutter speeds, but otherwise the files are sharp, even at ISO 800.
Maggie, but at ISO 1600 there seems to be "smearing" in the D-Lux-3 RAW files, which makes it look like some in-camera processing is being done and which makes this speed virtually unusable on this camera. Nevertheless, as Sean states, and as your pictures show, the D-Lux-3/LX2 is a good camera, with a very good lens, but just not for huge prints.

—Mitch/Johannesburg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
A

asabet

Guest
Amin, with the best will in the world Bjorn is showing results from a two second exposure at ISO 100.

How would a Ferrari feel in gridlock?

It's just not an appropriate or even vaguely relevant test!

T
Tim, I don't agree with this. Long exposure at low ISO is a valid and useful photographic technique. I do, however, think it is possible that the-D-LUX 3 is smearing RAW file shadow detail selectively on long exposures. This is certaainly done with in-camera JPEGs in some cameras. However, Bjorn demonstrated similar if less impressive results using a different RAW converter and with much faster shutter speeds here.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Tim, I don't agree with this. Long exposure at low ISO is a valid and useful photographic technique. I do, however, think it is possible that the-D-LUX 3 is smearing RAW file shadow detail selectively on long exposures. This is certaainly done with in-camera JPEGs in some cameras. However, Bjorn demonstrated similar if less impressive results using a different RAW converter and with much faster shutter speeds here.
Hi Amin
Am I right in thinking that Bjorn is only using Silky Pix? and that he is using an LX2 and not a D-lux3? (just for the record you know).
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
I received the LX2. It is a nicer camera than I thought. It feels nice in the hand, handles well and the controls are pretty easy to get to and use. The LCD is bright and easy to see outside. It shows fingerprints easy though. I haven't had much time to check the image quality but here is one photo. I am not sure about how much I will use the 16:9 format. I have a Panny FZ7 that has it and don't use it much on that camera. It could grow on me though as this will be my carry most everywhere camera. So I will get the chance to use it alot. I know that I am pretty much behind the curve as this is an old camera in the digital age but I am really waiting for the GX200 that I am hoping Ricoh will bring out in a year or so.

From what I can tell Panny doesn't have any firmware updates for anything but their DSLR.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I received the LX2. It is a nicer camera than I thought. It feels nice in the hand, handles well and the controls are pretty easy to get to and use. The LCD is bright and easy to see outside. It shows fingerprints easy though. I haven't had much time to check the image quality but here is one photo. I am not sure about how much I will use the 16:9 format. I have a Panny FZ7 that has it and don't use it much on that camera. It could grow on me though as this will be my carry most everywhere camera. So I will get the chance to use it alot. I know that I am pretty much behind the curve as this is an old camera in the digital age but I am really waiting for the GX200 that I am hoping Ricoh will bring out in a year or so.

From what I can tell Panny doesn't have any firmware updates for anything but their DSLR.
Chuck - you need to eat more - your legs are even skinnier than mine
:)
 

helenhill

Senior Member
Jono- You are totally whacked
you're comment re: his legs had me hysterical
I nearly fell off the chair :grin:
Cheers! helen
 
A

asabet

Guest
Hi Amin
Am I right in thinking that Bjorn is only using Silky Pix? and that he is using an LX2 and not a D-lux3? (just for the record you know).
Hi Jono, Bjorn has posted examples from Silkypix and Adobe Camera RAW (v3.6 IIRC). For the record, he was using an LX2 and not a D-LUX 3. If anyone can show a significant difference between RAW files from those or other PanaLeica pairings, they'd have a nice newsworthy discovery to share =). Bjorn is currently using a GX100 (and a D300 I think?).
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Chuck - you need to eat more - your legs are even skinnier than mine
:)
Good one Jono :ROTFL:. But you wouldn't know it by looking at me! But seriously this is a nice little camera with lots of potential. I will have to find some way to test the smearing issue.

I think that Amin is correct. People have been talking about differences in the Leica vs the Panny siblings since the pairings started and I have yet to see any credible evidence of a notable difference in image quality.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Good one Jono :ROTFL:. But you wouldn't know it by looking at me! But seriously this is a nice little camera with lots of potential. I will have to find some way to test the smearing issue.

I think that Amin is correct. People have been talking about differences in the Leica vs the Panny siblings since the pairings started and I have yet to see any credible evidence of a notable difference in image quality.
Hi Chuck
Well - I think it was pretty well established that the V-Lux used a 'lighter touch' than the panny equivalent - at least for jpgs.

Mind you, after 3 days with a d-lux3 I'm seeing smearing in the raw files as well as the jpgs . . . . . . . but I'm not sure that it's very realistic to go pixelpeeping aggressively with a £400 camera and comparing it with a £3000 camera . . . .

I almost bought a gx100 today to do some real comparisons, and then I had a reality check!

I think the image quality is 'useable' from both of them, my big question is whether the cameras are 'useable'

. . . . . . .but I still think you have thin legs
:)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono- You are totally whacked
you're comment re: his legs had me hysterical
I nearly fell off the chair :grin:
Cheers! helen
Hi Helen
I'm usually whacked (hic)
I hope that no damage ensued (I'm skint from buying Leica lenses and couldn't handle a claim for damages).

all the best
 
Top