D-LUX 4 at ISO 1600

[asabet]

My D-LUX 4 arrived today. Initial impressions are very good! I think the D-LUX 4/LX3 is the new low light champ amongst pocket cameras, at least for color photography. The Fuji F31 would be the closest competition, but that camera is a stop slower, and I don't recall ISO 3200 on my F31 looking as good as ISO 1600 on the D-LUX.

I haven't had time to make any good photos yet, but I thought I'd share a quick high-ISO sample. This was taken at the dinner table with Philip sporting a fresh milk moustache. Handheld, 60mm equivalent, f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/60s. Processed from RAW.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Nice capture, Amin, I agree with you, I'm really loving the LX3 and it does remarkably well at the higher ISOs.

Cheers,

 

[asabet]

Thanks Simon. Feels really good to zoom all the way out and still have f/2.8 available in a compact. Almost reminiscent of the D2, though that camera goes to 90mm equivalent and is a bit faster at f/2.4. It's also much larger though!

Here's the same shot processed to black and white with no noise reduction whatsoever:

 

[iiiNelson]

Looks great... I originally had been debating getting the D-LUX4/ LX3 or waiting on Micro 4/3. I'm still leaning Micro 4/3 at this point but this definately gives me more indecision.

 

[nostatic]

Looks great. I think I'm going to give my D-Lux 3 to my g/f (she's always lusted after it), and will replace it with either an LX-3 or D-Lux 4. Having a tough time justifying the almost $400 difference though...I'm not sure that I believe that the raw files are *that* different between the two (beyond file suffix).

 

[Per Ofverbeck]

Looks great...
Having a tough time justifying the almost $400 difference though...I'm not sure that I believe that the raw files are *that* different between the two (beyond file suffix).

On the Serious Compacts blog (where Amin is one of the main contributors), there are downloadable files from the D-Lux 4.

According to what´s said there, however, one just has to change the file extension (from .rwl to .rw2) to use the same software (Raw Developer) for them. No idea whether this would work with the bundled softwares, but it does seem the files are essentially the same.

If so, I´m afraid it blows one of the main reasons to pay those $400... Would be really interestin if somebody could try this with either of the bundled softwares!

BTW, almost forgot to say this is a stunning ISO 1600 shot! My D-Lux 3 400´s don´t look as good!

 

[asabet]

Thanks all. I should add that I have some underexposed ISO 1600 results that look worse. Here there was some decent light coming from the window behind me, which really helped with the noise performance.

Changing the file extension allows Raw Developer to read D-LUX 4 files. However, I'm told that changing the extension in the other direction does not allow C1 to read LX3 files. Despite this, I personally doubt that the RAW files are different in any meaningful way. C1 probably just checks the EXIF to make sure the camera is a D-LUX 4.

If the RAW files were different, Leica would want to say something about it. Instead, what they say is "Leica Camera AG has developed its own unique colour matching, contrast and picture definition profile which produces digital characteristics complimentary to Leica M film photography." That sounds like in-camera JPEG processing to me.

I would not have been willing to pay $400+ extra for the Leica. I ended up getting the D-LUX for $750 in "like new" used condition on Ebay, which came down to $561 shipped with the Microsoft cashback deal. Applying the same Microsoft cashback deal to a "like new" used LX3 on Ebay would bring that price down to around $275-300, so I still paid a premium, but a lesser one.

 

[nei1]

Its still double the price Amin,but you did get a very good deal,we dont have the discount here in europe.I have to say that it is a beauty and despite my doubts over the differences between the two,it is a tempting camera.As always am interested in your opinions and tests and a belated thanks for the work you do for us viewers.All the best,Neil.

 

[asabet]

Thanks very much Neil. I hope to have some good tests up in the coming weeks.

 

[mazor]

asabet, nice pics using ISO1600.

All digital cameras when underexposed will perform alot worst than when perfectly exposed, hence why in studio setups, ISO performance is so much better.

Still, I think the LX-4 does admirably for a compact camera, and indeed is a milestone for the Panasonic sensor.

Mazor

 

[Jack]

Looks superb Amin!

 

[asabet]

Thanks Mazor.

All digital cameras when underexposed will perform alot worst than when perfectly exposed, hence why in studio setups, ISO performance is so much better.r

True, though that photo also benefited from a balanced light spectrum. Under typical yellow incandescent lighting, no small sensor compact is going to have a good ISO 1600 performance.

Just to give another example, here's a shot that was taken at f/2.2, 1/25s, ISO 1600 in miserable incandescent lighting coming from behind my wife to the left. The highlights and mids were pushed quite a bit during processing, so this is about as noisy as it gets for this camera at ISO 1600. Usually I'd apply some NR to a photo like this, but for informational purposes I'll show you the resized black and white from RAW with no noise reduction whatsoever:

 

[wbrandsma]

Thank you for you information, Amin. And that first ISO 1600 photo looks amazing. And I think it helps to overexpose to enhance the image quality of small sensor cameras.

 

[jonoslack]

HI Amin
I'm afraid that it's your duty to buy a LX3 and do a proper comparison of the raw files . . . .further than that, you'll need a panasonic G1 to do a proper comparison with that camera (and then the little Olympus afterwards).

Otherwise we'll all stop talking to you


Nobody else can tell it like it is!
:ROTFL:

 

[Arne Hvaring]

Hi Amin,
have you tested the D-Lux at infinity (i.e. landscape shots)?. I ask because I had a Lx-3 on loan recently that didn't perform particularly well at distance. The edges (both sides) were rather soft, the softness extending inwards some 15-20% of the image. This was generally true at all focal lengths I tested.

I just downloaded the RAW file and looked at it in C1 and it seems very good right into the corners. But here the subject is at a distance of only 2-3 meters.

Hopefully (!) I had a poor sample, as otherwise this camera is looking quite attractive.

 

[asabet]

Thanks Jack, I missed your comment earlier!

Hi Wouter, it definitely helps exposing to the right, though that first one was actually a bit underexposed during capture.

Hi Jono, you're a bad influence, know that ?

Hi Arne, I haven't had a chance yet to check. I'll take a look and let you know what I find plus upload a few RAW files.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, you're a bad influence, know that ?

What kind of an answer is THAT?

Here is us (or do I mean 'here are we'), all relying on you for definitive information on small cameras, and you call me a bad influence

 

[asabet]

What kind of an answer is THAT?

Here is us (or do I mean 'here are we'), all relying on you for definitive information on small cameras, and you call me a bad influence

I hope you know I was kidding !

I joked that you were a bad influence because I was already thinking of getting an LX3 and a G1, and perhaps the little M43 Oly to test... then I heard my wife's voice telling me to save money.... and then you came and reinforced my first thoughts.

Now do you see where I was coming from ?

 

[Terry]

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.

 

[jonoslack]

I hope you know I was kidding !

I joked that you were a bad influence because I was already thinking of getting an LX3 and a G1, and perhaps the little M43 Oly to test... then I heard my wife's voice telling me to save money.... and then you came and reinforced my first thoughts.

Now do you see where I was coming from ?

: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?

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.