Jump to content

D-Lux 3: Initial views and results


Guest malland

Recommended Posts

Guest malland

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had the D-Lux 3 for a week now and fine that I like the way it handles. As I stated in another thread I bought it because I wanted a camera that would shoot at 40-50mm-equivalent, since my Ricoh GR-D is limited to 28mm/21mm-equivalent. One problem I have is moving between the two cameras, because they operate somewhat differently; but the D-Lux joy stick is a good feature in that it allows easy and quick control over things like ISO, focus pattern, metering pattern.

 

Shooting in JPG form is useless at anything more that 100 ISO because the over-agressive noise reduction of the jpeg engine results in awful, smeared images. Accordingly, I've been shooting only in RAW, whose writing speed is subtantially faster than that of the GR-D.

 

I've made some test shots at 400 and 800 ISO, and the results were good; but keep in mind that I like grain and I'm shooting only in B&W. I'll have to try 1600 ISO as well. If the results at 1600 are good, I'm likely to keep the camera because I want it for low-light shooting at 40-50mm. (There are two people who may buy it off me because it still seems hard to find one at dealers).

 

As some people ask to see some of the results, I've posted 10 photos here:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning, first post...

 

Mitch's observations re his D-Lux 3 prompted me to pass along my own impressions.

 

I'm using a D-lux 3 along with my old M6. Like the M6, the DL3 lets me QUICKLY lock focus on one area and then lock exposure on a different area without having to hold any buttons down. I can then shoot as many shots as I want without the settings changing. This ability is very valuable to me as I often am working hurriedly in backlight with off center subjects. I'm not aware of any other small digicam that can do this basic job without switching to full manual exposure mode and a lot of fiddling. I also really like the DL3's optional flashing highlight clip area indication.

 

With its tiny size, wide lens, and efficient controls, I think the DL3 is a uniquely capable compact camera, if you don't mind the noise (and I don't, as long as I can shoot RAW and the noise is grainlike).

 

But, and it's really a major problem, it locks up for 5 seconds while it writes each RAW file. Almost but not quite a deal breaker for me. I'm very glad it can shoot RAW, but I would have paid more to get a RAW buffer. As it is, the DL3 is tiny, portable, and about as fast shot-to-shot as a 4x5 view camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

At least the 5 seconds you refer to is a lot faster than the 12-14 seconds that the GR-D takes to write RAW files; but the GR-D produces excellent JPGs, which are a lot better than those of the D-Lux. Although I don't like the how slowly either camera writes RAW files, it hasn't affected my photography.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your post you said...

 

"the DL3 lets me QUICKLY lock focus on one area and then lock exposure on a different area without having to hold any buttons down. I can then shoot as many shots as I want without the settings changing."

 

How do you do that? I can see how to do either one, but not both together... especially without holding any buttons (ie, the shutter halfway) down... and without the settings changing after one shot (other than what's locked in through the AE/AF lock button).

 

Thanks,

 

Sebastian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

I also have a d-lux-3. More or less very pleased with it. In color at higher ISO's I sometimes have a hard time getting the green/yellow tone out of shadow noise, mostly in tungsten lit shots. NN does a better job of clean up than ACR. I mostly go after color noise and not luminence noise to save detail. I too like grain but not yellow shadows and sometimes I do print color.

 

Working with NEF's (Nikon) their Capture and NX convertors are far better than ACR at ISO 800 and up. This colored noise is neutral and better cleaned up.

 

So I know you are a B&W guy but I am just curious which convertor you are using? Since the M8 comes with C1 I wonder if the DL3 files would do better in C1.

 

Thanks

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No matter how much you jump up and down shouting hey photo do the right thing, your GRD images are so much better than the luxie stuff.

Though with what I have seen and taken ( borrowed a camera ) colour is better on the panaleica

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your post you said...

 

"the DL3 lets me QUICKLY lock focus on one area and then lock exposure on a different area without having to hold any buttons down. I can then shoot as many shots as I want without the settings changing."

 

How do you do that?

First aim for focus, lock AE/AF temporarily using a half-press, and slide the lens switch from auto to manual focus. Then aim again for exposure and press AF/AE Lock button. Exposure will be locked until camera is turned off. Focus will be locked until switch is set back to auto (don't forget about it...).

 

A nice feature is that the AE/AF button can be programmed to lock AE, AF, or both. When used this way it should be set up to lock AE or both. It will lock only AE in either case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
...So I know you are a B&W guy but I am just curious which convertor you are using? Since the M8 comes with C1 I wonder if the DL3 files would do better in C1.

 

Neils, I'm using mainly Lightroom and, once in a while Raw Developer, as Mac-only program. Tonight I tried out Silkypix, which does look very good, I suspect particularly for color. PhaseOne lists only the DMR and the M8 for Leica cameras, so I assume it doesn't work with the DL3.

 

BTW, I do color as well, but just not right now.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
The camera is working for you already. I think the longer focal lengths are working out as well.
Sean, my conclusion is that it's quite a nice camera, although I still like the Ricoh GR-D a bit more. I've found that I can get usuable shots at ISO 1600, although this can be a hit-or-miss affair,which also is the case with the GR-D. Perhaps when I get better with both cameras I'll be able to get more predictable results at 1600 — I attach an example of a 1600 shot: it's only a test and, hence, not a good picture. However, I like ISO 800 with both cameras.

 

Although many people like the 16:9 format feature, this is not a format that I particularly like; and it seems to me like a gimmick: I would have preferred for the sensor to be in 4:3 format, like the GR-D, and cropping for 3:2 and 16:9, rather than the way it is.

 

As you know, I got the D-Lux 3 so that I would have a small-sensor camera with which I could shoot at 40-50mm-equivalent. I must say that I find that I prefer a prime to a zoom lens: it's a lot better to take a few steps forward for backward rather than zooming in or out to frame — I find that a prime lens gives you more fluidity or looseness in framing style. I'll have to discipline myself to set the lens at around 40-50mm-equivalent and stop zooming. As it is, I've tended so far to shoot the camera at the wide setting, which for the 4:3 format is about 34mm.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, my conclusion is that it's quite a nice camera, although I still like the Ricoh GR-D a bit more. I've found that I can get usuable shots at ISO 1600, although this can be a hit-or-miss affair,which also is the case with the GR-D. Perhaps when I get better with both cameras I'll be able to get more predictable results at 1600 — I attach an example of a 1600 shot: it's only a test and, hence, not a good picture. However, I like ISO 800 with both cameras.

 

Although many people like the 16:9 format feature, this is not a format that I particularly like; and it seems to me like a gimmick: I would have preferred for the sensor to be in 4:3 format, like the GR-D, and cropping for 3:2 and 16:9, rather than the way it is.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

Hi Mitch,

 

Its no more a gimmick than any other format ratio is, which is to say - not a gimmick at all.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, and it's really a major problem, it locks up for 5 seconds while it writes each RAW file. Almost but not quite a deal breaker for me. I'm very glad it can shoot RAW, but I would have paid more to get a RAW buffer. As it is, the DL3 is tiny, portable, and about as fast shot-to-shot as a 4x5 view camera.

 

Hi Preston et al

 

There may be hope - perhaps the five seconds delay is due to the card you have rather than the camera - I have an Extreme III 2 GB card in it and saving to RAW takes some 2 - 2.5 seconds rather than five.

 

As an aside, the multiple exposures, unlimited exposures setting, saves at around 2 per second, with the full frame 10mp, high quality JPGs and short exposures. I find this very useful - I use the D-Lux 3 a lot in low light conditions using available light, where I wedge myself in as firmly as I can, (elbows on table or similar) use the image stablisation set at option 2, use ISO 200, and find I get anough keepers - the first and last shots are usually the most blurred for obvious reasons. Maybe one in 15 shots is a keeper (ie sharp enough at 100 percent. ... that sounds dreadful - another way of putting it would be one shot every long burst!). My exposures are often slow (1/4 second) that the next shot comes immediately. The other shots in the sequence, though blurred due to motion of the subject, often tend to capture something of the character of the person, which I'll include as thumbnails along with a larger image of the best shot in the sequence.

 

Worth playing with if you haven't tried it

 

Malcolm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of examples from the low iso/multiple unlimited exposure technique mentioned above: best of 4 and 7 exposures respectively - ( edit: and 1/5 and 1/3 second exposure)

 

Malcolm

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
Its no more a gimmick than any other format ratio is, which is to say - not a gimmick at all.
Sean, you're right it's a format ratio rather than a gimmick; but I find that I like the 4:3 format for most of my shooting: when I first got my Ricoh GR-D I wasobsessed about making pictures look like 35mm shots and used the cropped 3:2 forma; but after relaxing I realized that most of the time it was easier to compose in a 4:3 than a 3:2 frame, particularly for "portrait"-orientation photographs.

 

Someone referred to 4:3 dismissiley as the format of his TV, but if you think about great master paintings you have seen, from, say, Giotto to Picasso, most of them are close to the 4:3 format. I saw a survey on the web, that I can't seems to find again, of paintings in museums that concluded that something like almost 90% averaged at 1.35:1, which is close to the 1.33:1 of the 4:3 format.

 

Of course 16:9 can be used effectively; but I use it very little and therefore would have preferred that the D-Lux 3 sensor had been in the 4:3 format rather than 16:9, because, now to use 4:3, I have to reduce the real estate. Indeed, I would have preferred the M8 to have a native format of 4:3 and 3:2 as a crop, as the 3:2 format of 35mm is only a historical accident engendered by the use of movie film sideways.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcolm:

 

As the results at ISO 400 and 800 are quite nice, even in color, in my view there is no point for using the technique you describe at ISO 200 — unless you want a lot of softness and some motion blurring, like in the woman's portrait above.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

 

Hi Mitch,

 

I do use higher ISOs with the D-Lux 3 where I need to - the reduced full frame and 100 percent detail below are of ptarmigan on the top of a Scottish mountain just after sunset - RAW (significantly more detail retained to work with than any of the JPG options) ISO 400, 1/160th, and f4.9. I use noise ninja with my own custom profiles, and typically knock it back to one third of NN's default settings, so as to just knocking the edge off the noise without loosing too much detail, followed by some subtle sharpening using Photokit Sharpener, again at around 40% of the default setting - as you will know, but others may not, sharpening always looks dreadful viewed at 100 percent. However, the hint of the ring around the bird's eye, visible in some of the birds at 100 percent, is almost invisible in the unprocessed RAW image. I was jogging at the time, so there was no way I would have had any of my 'serious' equipment with me and therefore no photo, which is the whole point of why I got the D-Lux. Not shown here, I then cropped tighter to the birds for my 'final' version.

 

However I think I may have mislead you - the blur in the image of the woman is post-processing, using a gaussian blur (radius 9) both to get rid of background distraction and because - to my mind - having skin details is distinctly unflattering and in a way not true to perceptions. I then blended in detail of the eyes, mouth and some of the hair, though not a total restoration. The originals of both the woman and the man were sharp enough for purpose - I've added a sample at 100 percent below. Given the option, I prefer to start off with maximum sharpness and minimum grain from the camera, and for it to be my choice how much of this is taken over to the final image.Here, the woman concerned was surprised and delighted with the result, so you could say the picture fulfilled its intended purpose.

 

So in some circumstances, where it is practical and suits the occasion, I do prefer to do multiple shots at 200 for the reasons given in my original post, so I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. You are evidently working a rich and enjoyable seam of shooting at high ISO, but should you feel you are get stale, or just want to try a new take, I do urge you to give it a go at some point.

 

I guess when and if a camera can rattling off 20 fps that will remove the skill of capturing the decisive moment. I'm reminded of a camera review of 20 years or more ago 'At last, the camera that takes the guess work out of making your photos look exactly the same as everyone else's'. But for the moment this technique, with the camera not necessarily brought up to the eye, adds an interesting random element on occasions when I'm primarily looking forward to engaging in conversation (and eating!).

 

All the best

Malcolm

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

Malcolm, very interesting.

...I prefer to start off with maximum sharpness and minimum grain from the camera, and for it to be my choice how much of this is taken over to the final image...
I do that sometimes as well in terms of adding grain, but my preference, if possible, is to use the grain from the camera because it adds to the immediacy of the picture, although I often do a lot of burning and dodging.

 

Any chance that you'd like to share your Noise Ninja profiles?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...