D-lux4 vs Sony A900

[ecliffordsmith]

Jono,

An interesting comparison thanks. I understand your reasons for the test as the question for me when I go out is whether to take the M8 for the best image quality versus the pocketability of the GRD2 or D-Lux 2. Usually the M8 wins as it not that big compared with the gulf in difference in image quality.

How do you feel about this camera in general please compared to previous compacts (D-Lux 3, GX200 etc)? Is there a dramatic jump in performance and/or image quality?

 

[Amin]

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

Hi Mazor, thanks. The color in my crop is the default result from Raw Developer (Iridient Digital), which is a Mac only RAW converter. With noise reduction disabled in Raw Developer, even ISO 80 files will show noise, which sometimes requires cleanup, especially in deep blue skies. However, for textured surfaces like this, the combination of no noise reduction and Richardson-Lucy deconvolution sharpening in Raw Developer really emphasizes the detail.

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.

Yes, I share your concerns. I'm also guessing that the upcoming Panasonic 20/1.7 will have a decent amount of barrel. Panasonic has persuaded the software developers of LR/ACR, Silkypix, and C1 to implement this sort of mandatory lens correction, and none of the those options can pull all the detail out of an LX3/D-LUX 4, or I suspect G1, file. They also cannot use the full angle of view captured in the RAW file, since part of that is cropped out during correction of distortion. For this reason, when I really want to make the most of the files, I convert in Raw Developer and use PTLens as needed to correct the distortion. It takes longer, but the result is superior to my eye (for shots in which distortion correction is not critical). It remains to be seen how Aperture will handle these files.

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

Not yet. I'm going to take a look now.

 

[Amin]

Okay, I just took a look at the pair of old farm equipment photos. There are quite a few differences, including the color, exposure, depth of field, etc.

As expected, the A900 has a stunning amount of detail in the in-focus regions, and it also has far cleaner shadows than the D-LUX file. Once again I think the D-LUX file will look pretty good even in a large print, but the A900 will have the edge, even in a moderate sized print.

I upsized the D-LUX file to 6048 pixels wide, the same size as the A900 file, and then downsized both files to 50%. This gives a rough idea of how they'd compare in a moderate sized print. Here is a crop comparison:

If you want to see how they both look at full res after the D-LUX file has been upsized to match, you can download them here. The D-LUX file has that weird Genuine Fractals artifact look, but it would take quite a large print at close viewing to be bothered by that.

 

[jonoslack]

Okay, I just took a look at the pair of old farm equipment photos. There are quite a few differences, including the color, exposure, depth of field, etc.

As expected, the A900 has a stunning amount of detail in the in-focus regions, and it also has far cleaner shadows than the D-LUX file. Once again I think the D-LUX file will look pretty good even in a large print, but the A900 will have the edge, even in a moderate sized print.

Hi Amin
I'm seriously impressed by the amount of detail you've got out of the D-lux4 file (not so much the A900 - it's what I've got too!). I think it goes to prove that lens correction should be done later - so much so that I've downloaded a trial of Raw Developer from Iridient. I need another raw developer like I need a hole in the head, but the results you are getting seem to me to be splendid. (the other problem is that it seems pretty expensive).

Incidentally - did you still think the D-lux4 lens looked decentred?

 

[Amin]

Hi Jono, it's hard for me to say whether the D-LUX 4 lens is significantly decentered. It really only looked that way in the one shot, but that was the best shot of the three for evaluation. If your landscape type shots don't show a significantly softer right edge, I wouldn't worry about it. I've come to expect a small bit of decentering in compact camera zoom lenses, and for sometimes unknown cause (to me) it seems like more than it is in certain photos. Unless there are significant problems which are consistent from one shoot to the next, I ignore it.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, it's hard for me to say whether the D-LUX 4 lens is significantly decentered. It really only looked that way in the one shot, but that was the best shot of the three for evaluation. If your landscape type shots don't show a significantly softer right edge, I wouldn't worry about it. I've come to expect a small bit of decentering in compact camera zoom lenses, and for sometimes unknown cause (to me) it seems like more than it is in certain photos. Unless there are significant problems which are consistent from one shoot to the next, I ignore it.

Hi Amin
Thanks for that - I shot a few brick walls in Norwich at lunchtime to give it another look, and also looked back at some of my older shots with it. Generally speaking I think it's pretty much okay (certainly not worth losing sleep about).

I think it's brought up a whole can of worms about RAW conversion / DNG files and lens correction information. So much so that I used my simple brick wall shot as a starter for a new thread.

 

[jonoslack]

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 There Amin
I just thought that, in fairness to capture 1, I'd have a bash at doing a better job with capture - to that end I've linked my original (top left) and your much better Raw Converter version (top right). This one still isn't as good as yours , but it's certainly a lot better than the original.

 

[nostatic]

I am totally happy with my DLux4. It is especially good in low light...no substitute for fast glass (even if it is tiny). I think this comparison shows how good the DL4 actually is.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi There

I am totally happy with my DLux4. It is especially good in low light...no substitute for fast glass (even if it is tiny). I think this comparison shows how good the DL4 actually is.

I quite agree - There are the differences you might expect, but it's definitely a tribute to the D-lux4

 

[nostatic]

But sadly you're pushing me back towards an a900 again. Seems that a DLux4/a900 combination would cover most anything you'd need to do. DL4 for pocketable street, a900 for more serious crops and detailed work.

I just can't get past that $5K price of entry at the moment. I suppose if I sold all my Pentax stuff but I do love the small limited primes and wanted to keep a body, two primes and sell everything else. Arrgghh...why can't the Sony stuff drop in price from msrp like the Nikon and Canon have? Of course rumor has it that everything is going significantly *up* in price soon due to currency fluctuations, but seems that would be suicide in this economy. We'll see...

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi All,

Looking at these again it really is quite impressive what this small camera can actually do. While nobody was expecting it to be up to the A900, in suitable conditions it does a very respectable job.

What are the files like at higher ISO's please? F2 or F2.8 plus OIS plus a highish ISO could make for a very nice carry about.

 

[jonoslack]

But sadly you're pushing me back towards an a900 again. Seems that a DLux4/a900 combination would cover most anything you'd need to do. DL4 for pocketable street, a900 for more serious crops and detailed work.

I just can't get past that $5K price of entry at the moment. I suppose if I sold all my Pentax stuff but I do love the small limited primes and wanted to keep a body, two primes and sell everything else. Arrgghh...why can't the Sony stuff drop in price from msrp like the Nikon and Canon have? Of course rumor has it that everything is going significantly *up* in price soon due to currency fluctuations, but seems that would be suicide in this economy. We'll see...

HI Todd
Yes indeed - an excellent combination, it gets you from near MF quality to something in your pocket. I guess that your Pentax gear is in the same situation as my Olympus gear . . . endangered:ROTFL:

As for the price of the Sony - yep, it's expensive, but it's 90% of the D3x, at 1/3 price (and actually most of that 10% I wouldn't want anyway!).

I also feel that, unless you really want better high ISO (and it is good to 3200 with care), then the A900 represents something of a watershed; I know it's all been said before, but I wonder whether one will be able to squeeze much more than 24mp out of 35mm lenses, on all other fronts the camera is quite 'good enough'.

You know it makes sense

 

[jonoslack]

Hi All,

Looking at these again it really is quite impressive what this small camera can actually do. While nobody was expecting it to be up to the A900, in suitable conditions it does a very respectable job.

What are the files like at higher ISO's please? F2 or F2.8 plus OIS plus a highish ISO could make for a very nice carry about.

Well, these are actually only at ISO 400, but the fast lens and the OIS meant that they could be shot at very low shutter speed. With most other small cameras you would have had to shoot either at an even lower shutter speed, or at higher ISO.

Worth mentioning that, with all those dark areas, they are just the kind of shots that can look horrid.

These are converted in C1 and have no noise reduction added.

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi Jono,

Thanks for posting those, My last D-Lux was/is a D-Lux 2 and at ISO 400 it is a very different story to these!

As you say, if you can get the shot at ISO 400 due to the fast lens and OIS then why increase the ISO.

I am not sure if I will be holding out much longer ...

 

[nostatic]

Another quick and dirty, DLux4 at 60mm vs K20d at 64mm (43/1.9)

The DL4 was shot jpg, the K20d raw, and the K20d is the first example in each pair. I think there were some AF issues with the K20d shot, but it was point, AF, and shoot. The bottom line again being that the DL4 is *very* good imho. I do have other shots where the file from the K20d outperforms but it isn't as night/day as you might expect.