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

Maggie O

Active member
Chuck, FWIW, I found that Adobe Camera Raw didn't do very well with Leicasonic RAW files. iPhoto and Lightzone seem to be much friendlier.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I have written about this before but I decided to got with the LX2. Like I said, photos from Maggie and others convinced me to try it. It is inexpensive to find one now and will hold me over until we see a GRD40 or GX200. Maybe even the LX3.

Sean,

I do have a question about the RAW files of the D-Lux3/LX2. There was talk and some examples of the RAW files from these cameras have a smeared quality to them. Especially in the shadow areas. There was a petition going around for a while now that talks about this and I also saw it on Amin's blog. You can see it here. http://aminphoto.blogspot.com/2007/06/gx100-vs-lx2-photos-posted-by-bjrn.html

Did you notice this at all in your review of the camera? Might it be a problem with the RAW converter? I haven't heard any complaints here so I am not sure what to think. Also, I am using PS Camera RAW (the newest version) as my converter. I will try it when I get the camera and see what it looks like.
Chuck,

I just took a good look through your gallery. It is absolutely inspiring. Profoundly so. Once of the very best I've come across online and I think the reason is that as a whole it appeals to the emotions rather than the brain. It makes me want to go and take pictures!

Tim
 

Terry

New member
I'll call him and ask about it. Stephen was my professor and advisor at Bard College and I worked closely with him for four years. I didn't know, until your post, that he was experimenting with small sensor cameras because we haven't talked in the past few years. But we're friends and I think that I should contact him about doing an article on this. Thanks very much for the heads up. I'm going to your link now.

Cheers,

Sean
Sean,
I also have the Witness books. There are now three. ICP has them at the bookstore. I bought Witness Number I this summer when I was doing my "Roll a Day" class as it was a similar experience to what I was doing. Witness II is Daido Moriyama. In each book The featured photographer is the editor and introduces you to young up and coming less known photographers. They are $40 each and a series I plan on collecting. In responding to this I see that number 3 is now out so back to the bookstore for me...

http://www.nazraeli.com/nazraeli/frameset.html

terry

edit: here are links to each:

http://shopping.icp.org/store/product.html?product_id=26252
http://shopping.icp.org/store/product.html?product_id=26762
http://shopping.icp.org/store/product.html?product_id=27396
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Chuck,

I don't recall that, off the top of my head, but I'd have to look back at my own review to be sure. Of course, we can't ever look at RAW files so the question of what's happening to the files in the course of conversions is always interesting to consider as well.

Cheers,

Sean
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
I have written about this before but I decided to got with the LX2. Like I said, photos from Maggie and others convinced me to try it...
The trouble is that Maggie is such a good photographer that she'd squeeze good pictures even out of a Fuji f30 <g>, so her photography doesn't tell one much about the relative qualities of the Ricoh and Pana-leica cameras. I think that what Sean has written in another thread is spot-on: the GRD2 is has cleaner and more robust files than the D-Lux-3 — files that I can "push around" a lot more and still print at a huge size (40x52 inches or 100x133cm). In contrast, I've been able to print only a few D-Lux-3 files at 24x36 inches (60x90cm). So, while the D-Lux-3 camera has a fine lens for my purposes the GRD2 is a lot better, as is the GX100. And I also strongy prefer the handling characteristics of the two Ricoh cameras to the D-Lux-3.

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

Maggie O

Active member
Thanks, Mitch! You just made my night!

Oh, but now I'm feeling the stirrings of G.A.S. and wondering what I could do with the Ricoh...
 
H

helgipelgi

Guest
I was mightily tempted to get a GRD II, but I channeled my GAS into using my D-Lux 3 more and after several hundred frames, my GAS has passed and I'm confident that I've got a camera that, for me, is more than the equal of the GRD II.
Ach, I could use some of that common sense right now. I have an LX2, and I love it, but the Ricoh won't leave me alone. I'm weak.

Current justifications include:
- Ergonomics (LX2 is too small)
- Pocketability (LX2 is too thick)
- Control (LX2 is too 'digicam' like)
- I want one

I really love the 16:9 aspect ratio though, and the results I've been getting with it are awesome. So if I end up getting the GRDII I'll probably need to take twice as many photos to keep up (another clever justification, see).

A great little 1st world dilemma
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
The trouble is that Maggie is such a good photographer that she'd squeeze good pictures even out of a Fuji f30 <g>, so her photography doesn't tell one much about the relative qualities of the Ricoh and Pana-leica cameras. I think that what Sean has written in another thread is spot-on: the GRD2 is has cleaner and more robust files than the D-Lux-3 — files that I can "push around" a lot more and still print at a huge size (40x52 inches or 100x133cm). In contrast, I've been able to print only a few D-Lux-3 files at 24x36 inches (60x90cm). So, while the D-Lux-3 camera has a fine lens for my purposes the GRD2 is a lot better, as is the GX100. And I also strongy prefer the handling characteristics of the two Ricoh cameras to the D-Lux-3.

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

Just so as you know, Sean didn't say that - I don't want to reveal his whole story but his comparisons were with other cameras than the LX2/DL3 and though he did mention them, they were not the focus (pardon the pun) of his comparisons - which is why I added my 2 cents!

Best

T
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
T, I wasn't referring to Sean's review of the GRD2 but, rather, to the following statement that he made in another thread:

...My gut sense, and again I haven't compared the two, is that the D-Lux 3 files will appeal to the eye as much as the GR2 files when both are straight from the camera. But I also have a hunch that if one begins pushing both kinds of files, those from the GR2 will hold up better than those from the Leica/Panasonic. I don't know if that's right. The fact that the GR2 files are a bit cleaner than those from other small sensor camera (cleaner as opposed to more smoothed) allows them to have a bit more resilience, a bit more like they came from a camera with a larger sensor...
—Mitch/Johannesburg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 

cam

Active member
Thanks, Mitch! You just made my night!

Oh, but now I'm feeling the stirrings of G.A.S. and wondering what I could do with the Ricoh...
i completely agree with Mitch! and just to enable you further, if you happen to visit me in lalaland, there'll be two Ricohs or you to play with ;)
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Chuck,

I just took a good look through your gallery. It is absolutely inspiring. Profoundly so. Once of the very best I've come across online and I think the reason is that as a whole it appeals to the emotions rather than the brain. It makes me want to go and take pictures!

Tim
Tim,

You are very kind. Thank you so much for looking and the nice critique.
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
The trouble is that Maggie is such a good photographer that she'd squeeze good pictures even out of a Fuji f30 <g>, so her photography doesn't tell one much about the relative qualities of the Ricoh and Pana-leica cameras. I think that what Sean has written in another thread is spot-on: the GRD2 is has cleaner and more robust files than the D-Lux-3 — files that I can "push around" a lot more and still print at a huge size (40x52 inches or 100x133cm). In contrast, I've been able to print only a few D-Lux-3 files at 24x36 inches (60x90cm). So, while the D-Lux-3 camera has a fine lens for my purposes the GRD2 is a lot better, as is the GX100. And I also strongy prefer the handling characteristics of the two Ricoh cameras to the D-Lux-3.

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

I know that you have tested these cameras and are a good source of info. I definitely take what you say about these cameras seriously.

My problem is that if I am going to spend between $650-$1000 on a camera and accessories I want something I can be happy with. I have tried numerous small sensor cameras, all with fatal flaws. The Ricohs are the closest yet but I am not ready to pull the trigger on them. If I could take the RAW speed and firmware of the GRDII and put it in the GX100 I would be a happy camper and spend the money. 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.
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Hi Chuck,

I don't recall that, off the top of my head, but I'd have to look back at my own review to be sure. Of course, we can't ever look at RAW files so the question of what's happening to the files in the course of conversions is always interesting to consider as well.

Cheers,

Sean
Sean,

Did you look at the tests on Amin's site? The difference in RAW files is huge.
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
Chuck, FWIW, I found that Adobe Camera Raw didn't do very well with Leicasonic RAW files. iPhoto and Lightzone seem to be much friendlier.
Thanks Maggie,

I will try a few different RAW converters with the LX2 files and see what I get. Your input is appreciated. iPhoto and Lightzone are Mac only aren't they?
 
Last edited:
A

asabet

Guest
I do have a question about the RAW files of the D-Lux3/LX2. There was talk and some examples of the RAW files from these cameras have a smeared quality to them. Especially in the shadow areas. There was a petition going around for a while now that talks about this and I also saw it on Amin's blog. You can see it here. http://aminphoto.blogspot.com/2007/06/gx100-vs-lx2-photos-posted-by-bjrn.html
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.
 

jonoslack

Active 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.
Hi there
Just to toss another wild card into the equation, the only convincing difference between the D-lux3 and LX2 files I have seen mentioned is that the leica files have less inherent noise reduction, and therefore less 'smearing' than the Panasonic equivalent. I've only had my d-lux for a day, and I don't have an LX2 to compare. I did do some comparisons with the V-lux and the . . . .forgotten what the panasonic equivalent was called . . and it certainly seemed that the Leica parameters were one step less brutal, for contrast, saturation, but especially for noise reduction.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Jono, the Leica in-camera JPEGs have different default settings, but I've never read anything to suggest that the RAW files are different.
 
Top