Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 58

Thread: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Evening all!

    I purchased a GRII last week having read and heard much on the subject of its virtues. I was hoping to trade up, quality wise, from my LX2. As it happens, I don't think the comparison is as clear cut as I'd hoped.

    I posted some thoughts and examples in another thread, here:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...p?t=220&page=8

    Those comments refer to a bit of testing at ISO 100 and 400. The only reason I took to testing at all was that I was frankly rather disappointed with the initial results from the GRII. Now, in an attempt at curbing buyer's remorse, I have tested it at 800 and 1600 ISO versus the LX2 and found the hint of a silver lining.

    The following examples were taken on a tripod with both cameras with F4 and 'all other things being equal' apart from the fact that the two cameras meter differently, so I used the same shutter speed for both and made minor exposure adjustments in Lightroom. All shots were otherwise developed from RAW in LR at LR defaults.

    The order of these is displayed under each image. 100% crops only are shown since the full frame is rather boring. Shots indoor under incandescent light. The LX2 FOV is slightly narrower than the GRII at the same apparant 35mm equiv of 24mm so its images are slightly larger.


    Attachment 1289
    GRII at 800

    Attachment 1290
    LX2 at 800

    Attachment 1291
    GRII at 1600

    Attachment 1292
    LX2 at 1600


    So the silver lining is this: though frankly the results are pretty nasty from both cameras, in B&W at ISO 800 they could both be made to look acceptable, even 'what I was after' if I were after a certain kind of rendition. But though the same could, just, be said of the GRII files at 1600, the LX2 has banding, clearer in the full frame, and that counts it out for any serious use at that ISO.

    I've made some useability observations in the original thread referred to above and they marginally favour the GRII but I have to say that the more I use it, the less convinced I am that its ergonomics are so far ahead of the pack. In particular I find the external finder so inaccurate at anything other than close range that I have to use the LCD to compose accurately.

    But it's never all bad! It's not as good all round as the LX2 even if its ISO 1600 is better. Its lens isn't as sharp, I think... but I've still had some nice shots out of it... and that's what it's all about, eh?! I use it as a carry around for when I can't take an M8 and glass, or for when I want a rough rendition. And here's one I like from this afternoon. A shot I would otherwise not have got at all, and it looks rather nice printed at 20cm wide. With apologies to Mr. Steichen...

    Attachment 1293

    Best

    Tim

  2. #2
    Senior Member Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Near London
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    That is a very beautiful shot!

  3. #3
    Lewis
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Great shot! I had a D Lux 3 and recently sold it only to replace it with the GRD 2. I have to say that I personally find the GRD more satisfying to use, in terms of the layout of the controls etc, but I think the lens on the Leica is slightly sharper though. I still seem to get better results overall with the GRD II though...
    I don't regret selling the Leica as such, but I still wouldn't mind another one again...

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Thanks Lewis and Will,

    I have to say that I'm now of an age where I'm usually more interested in eating the pudding than proving it but sometimes you need to sanity check what you think you're seeing, and I did expect the GRII to be noticeably better, judging from all I've heard. However, they are both pretty impressive cameras and I'd happily use either!

    Best

    Tim

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Hey Tim, that photo looks like 2.5 million bucks! Steichen would be proud.

    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.

    And besides, it's a Leica! I loves me some red dot.

  6. #6
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Hi Tim,

    They're both great cameras. What are you processing the RAW files with? If it isn't C1 try the GR2 file in C1 4.0 with a JFI profile like XP2. Give it full on color noise filtration in the C1 settings. Also run a few with Silkypix using their first monochrome settings, also full-on color noise filtration. Default sharpening in both RAW programs is a good starting point.

    You have to frame outside the frame lines with the GV2, just like with an M8. Or, shoot 3:2 and use the CV 28 metal finder.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  7. #7
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    Hey Tim, that photo looks like 2.5 million bucks! Steichen would be proud.

    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.

    And besides, it's a Leica! I loves me some red dot.
    Thanks Maggie - as long as I don't get sued for passing off!

    You do such good work with your DL3 that I can't see any reason to change! Have you seen Jim Radcliffe's work with it over on the DPreview Leica forum? He's pretty darn good too!

    Best

    T

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    Hi Tim,

    They're both great cameras. What are you processing the RAW files with? If it isn't C1 try the GR2 file in C1 4.0 with a JFI profile like XP2. Give it full on color noise filtration in the C1 settings. Also run a few with Silkypix using their first monochrome settings, also full-on color noise filtration. Default sharpening in both RAW programs is a good starting point.

    You have to frame outside the frame lines with the GV2, just like with an M8. Or, shoot 3:2 and use the CV 28 metal finder.

    Cheers,

    Sean

    Thanks for the tips Sean - I might well give that a try but it does raise an issue: if I am running three or four different cameras and want to keep my sanity, as well as a reasonably clear grasp on my digital assets, I like to be able to round trip everything from my main catalogue (which is Lightroom) easily. In reality that means that I mainly use LR and PS CS in tandem, and try to avoid other developers. I have C1 v4 and Aperture, and the version of Silkypix I have works only with the Pannie. I am not man enough to know for every file which RAW processor will squeeze the last drop, nor do I have sufficient skill in all the RAW developers on the market to be able to do them all justice... so I stick with LR unless the shot is really screaming out for something else!

    Best

    Tim

  9. #9
    Eric
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    I almost got caught up in the GRII/GX100 frenzy and like Maggie I started to use my D-Lux 3 more often instead. I actually carry it around along with my M8 because of the d-lux 3's 16x9 format which I miss from my x-pan days. I'm not questioning the quality of the Ricoh cameras but one small sensor camera is enough for me. While its amazing the quality one can get out of such small machines, the file quality (not just noise) still is noticeably less than ultimately I'd like. Like others, I tend to do a lot of pp on small sensor files so the small differences between cameras doesn't seem worth all the effort and cost of switching now. Stephen Shore has done some impressive (IMO) work with small sensor cameras and I suspect he used neither Ricoh nor pannie-leica cameras for the work. At the end of the above article on Shore is a link to download a free Shore pdf "book" made with a small sensor camera.
    Last edited by Eric; 28th January 2008 at 10:42. Reason: added last sentence to clarify reason for link

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Stephen Shore has done some impressive (IMO) work with small sensor cameras and I suspect he used neither Ricoh nor pannie-leica cameras for the work. At the end of the above article on Shore is a link to download a free Shore pdf "book" made with a small sensor camera.
    thanks for that link Eric, it was really interesting to read. Just one question: how do you know that the photobook was made with a small sensor camera?

    Best

    t

  11. #11
    Eric
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    thanks for that link Eric, it was really interesting to read. Just one question: how do you know that the photobook was made with a small sensor camera?

    Best

    t
    I think I first read about Shore's use of small sensor cameras on Alex Soth's now defunct blog or at least a link off of it. As he mentions in the linked article above, Shore has been experimenting with the immediacy of digital work and particularly the idea that he himself controls the whole process from shot to layout to finished books. As he mentions in the article he takes his digital shots and makes books in iPhoto. In Flohmarkt he truncates the process to a pdf (I don't believe that Flohmarkt has been published except maybe self-published as above. He's also had published by Nizraeli Press at least one book that I'm aware of (I own it) called Witness Number One which is made with a small sensor camera. The premise is that on any day that the NY Times runs an 8 column banner headline he takes his digital (small sensor) camera with him everywhere on that day and documents the minutia of his day in a spontaneous manner and then creates a book from that day. Over time he has a collection of daily books triggered by these NY Times headlines. He likes the interplay between the randomness of the stimulus for the book (the NYTimes headlines) with the time capsule like quality of documenting visual aspects of his day.

    So I guess the short answer would be he hasn't called me on the phone to confirm it but experimenting with digital small sensor work is an ongoing project for him and flohmarkt came out in that context. And as far as I know he continues to work with his 8x10 camera but I think a lot of that is architecturally based these days from what I've seen. I don't believe these photos are in the style of his 8x10 work.

    Cheers,
    e

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Hi Everyone
    Well, I've read and looked and read and looked and thought and decided and changed my mind.

    I wanted to get a small sensor camera for those moments when even an M8 was too big, and I was rather inspired by Sean Reid's discussions about removing shutter lag by using manual focus. I was even more inspired by work by Maggie and Jim Radcliffe and others, both here and at the other place. I was also given serious pause for thought by Tim's observations and tests.

    I didn't really know what I was going to buy until the last moment. I'd decided against the GRII because I really did want a zoom lens, so it was between the GX100 and the d-lux3.

    Anyway, I found a good deal, and bought the d-lux3. I may be right and I may be wrong, only time will tell whether it suits my style, but one thing I AM sure of is that if I can't make it work . . . . then it's my fault!

    Just this guy you know

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Everyone
    Well, I've read and looked and read and looked and thought and decided and changed my mind.

    I wanted to get a small sensor camera for those moments when even an M8 was too big, and I was rather inspired by Sean Reid's discussions about removing shutter lag by using manual focus. I was even more inspired by work by Maggie and Jim Radcliffe and others, both here and at the other place. I was also given serious pause for thought by Tim's observations and tests.

    I didn't really know what I was going to buy until the last moment. I'd decided against the GRII because I really did want a zoom lens, so it was between the GX100 and the d-lux3.

    Anyway, I found a good deal, and bought the d-lux3. I may be right and I may be wrong, only time will tell whether it suits my style, but one thing I AM sure of is that if I can't make it work . . . . then it's my fault!
    You'll like it buddy! And if you can't make it work, it's broken...

    t

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Have fun, Jono!!

  15. #15
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Thanks for the tips Sean - I might well give that a try but it does raise an issue: if I am running three or four different cameras and want to keep my sanity, as well as a reasonably clear grasp on my digital assets, I like to be able to round trip everything from my main catalogue (which is Lightroom) easily. In reality that means that I mainly use LR and PS CS in tandem, and try to avoid other developers. I have C1 v4 and Aperture, and the version of Silkypix I have works only with the Pannie. I am not man enough to know for every file which RAW processor will squeeze the last drop, nor do I have sufficient skill in all the RAW developers on the market to be able to do them all justice... so I stick with LR unless the shot is really screaming out for something else!

    Edit: Just saw your newer post, enjoy the D-Lux 3.

    Best

    Tim
    Hi Tim,

    I understand the appeal of that which is why I standardized on C1 (because, with most cameras, it still gives the best output I've seen from any program). That said, you might want to try the conversions I suggested just to get a feel for what's possible. As you know, not every RAW conversion program does the best job with every camera.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 28th January 2008 at 17:19.

  16. #16
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I think I first read about Shore's use of small sensor cameras on Alex Soth's now defunct blog or at least a link off of it. As he mentions in the linked article above, Shore has been experimenting with the immediacy of digital work and particularly the idea that he himself controls the whole process from shot to layout to finished books. As he mentions in the article he takes his digital shots and makes books in iPhoto. In Flohmarkt he truncates the process to a pdf (I don't believe that Flohmarkt has been published except maybe self-published as above. He's also had published by Nizraeli Press at least one book that I'm aware of (I own it) called Witness Number One which is made with a small sensor camera. The premise is that on any day that the NY Times runs an 8 column banner headline he takes his digital (small sensor) camera with him everywhere on that day and documents the minutia of his day in a spontaneous manner and then creates a book from that day. Over time he has a collection of daily books triggered by these NY Times headlines. He likes the interplay between the randomness of the stimulus for the book (the NYTimes headlines) with the time capsule like quality of documenting visual aspects of his day.

    So I guess the short answer would be he hasn't called me on the phone to confirm it but experimenting with digital small sensor work is an ongoing project for him and flohmarkt came out in that context. And as far as I know he continues to work with his 8x10 camera but I think a lot of that is architecturally based these days from what I've seen. I don't believe these photos are in the style of his 8x10 work.

    Cheers,
    e
    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
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 28th January 2008 at 17:22.

  17. #17
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    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
    I'd love to get the skinny on that Sean - please do let us know if you write it up at reidreviews!

    Best

    t

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    You'll like it buddy! And if you can't make it work, it's broken...

    t
    Flattery will get you everywhere!
    I'll report back - I think it's interesting that the GRII seems to have got your version out of mothballs.
    It's a funny old world!

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    Have fun, Jono!!

    HI Maggie - I'll do my best, and if I don't, then I'll be running to you for help

    Just this guy you know

  20. #20
    Chuck A
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    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/2007/0...d-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.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    HI Maggie - I'll do my best, and if I don't, then I'll be running to you for help
    I'm sure you'll do fine!

    But hey, I'm around for a consult, if need be.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    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.

  23. #23
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    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/2007/0...d-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

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    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/produc...oduct_id=26252
    http://shopping.icp.org/store/produc...oduct_id=26762
    http://shopping.icp.org/store/produc...oduct_id=27396
    Last edited by Terry; 28th January 2008 at 18:48.

  25. #25
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Thanks very much Terry.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  26. #26
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    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

  27. #27
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    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/[email protected]/

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    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...

  29. #29
    helgipelgi
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    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 by helgipelgi; 28th January 2008 at 23:30.

  30. #30
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    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/[email protected]/
    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

  31. #31
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    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/[email protected]/

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    belgïe
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    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

  33. #33
    Chuck A
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    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.

  34. #34
    Chuck A
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    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/[email protected]/
    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.

  35. #35
    Chuck A
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    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.

  36. #36
    Chuck A
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    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 by Chuck A; 29th January 2008 at 08:16.

  37. #37
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    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/2007/0...d-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.

  38. #38
    wbrandsma
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    iPhoto and Lightzone are Mac only aren't they?
    iPhoto is Mac only, but Lightzone is not. http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  40. #40
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

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

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  42. #42
    Chuck A
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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. 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.

    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.

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    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.

  44. #44
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    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. 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.
    I was pretty concerned about it as well. Blah blah'd about it quite a bit here .

  45. #45
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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

  46. #46
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    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

  47. #47
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck A View Post
    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

  48. #48
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    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/[email protected]/

  49. #49
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    I certainly won't argue that ISO 1600 is worthless, as I've been saying for a while now.

  50. #50
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •