D-Lux 3 – sharing familiarisation experiences – comparison with Panasonic LX2 10m

[macgarvin]

Back in November, needing a supplementary small camera, but with as much control as possible over the output as possible, I bought a D-Lux 3. In the course of familiarising myself with it I did various tests. They are not exhaustive, but I'm putting some of them down here In case others might also find the results of interest.

First off, while at the camera dealer, I did some comparisons with the 10mp Panasonic. At the time, because I do a lot of available light photography, I was primarily interested in seeing whether I could shoot hand-held at ISO 100 and for the image, with image stabilisation, to be sharp enough. So these images are shot at 1/8th – 1/13th of a second and with the lens wide open, so this is no test of ultimate lens resolution! (I found I could produce a good-enough image in maybe 1 of 5).

However, with the in-camera processed JPGs, using the same settings, I personally could see no difference in the images produced by the Leica and Panasonic. I’ve attached a reduced full frame image and detail from the Leica and then the Panasonic. These are each the best of about 10 taken with each. So, while there may be differences, I chose the Leica on the assumption that I couldn’t tell that difference. I was prepared to buy the Leica, and pay more for it, primarily because I want Leica to survive with the M8 and lenses (50%?) so I wanted some of the money to go in their direction; partly because I preferred the styling of the Leica (25%?); and partly emotional attachment/ snob value (25%?). I also bought with the assumption that there was no difference in quality control.

Images below D-Lux3 full frame, followed by Panasonic full frame, followed by 100 percent detail comparision

Malcolm

[malland]

Malcolm, thanks for posting this — very interesting. I must also confess that I bought the Leica for its looks, and on the assumption that the image quality would be the same as that of the Panasonic; but I was really concerned about how the jpegs would differ as I work with the RAW files.

By the way, I can't really judge your 100% crops because the sizes of the objects are not the same, which seems to make the Panasonic jpeg look sharper.

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

[macgarvin]

Originally Posted by malland

By the way, I can't really judge your 100% crops because the sizes of the objects are not the same, which seems to make the Panasonic jpeg look sharper.

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

Yes - I was knacked by the time I got to this stage - I had gone in to evaluate the M8+noctilux against my Canon 5D and 85mm 1:1.2 L II, and had been intensely at it for 5 hours so I was swaying backward and forward - my judgement is based on looking at the set of images on the D-Lux and Panny, too much to inflict on everyone here. And the lens was wide open and these were looooong hand held exposures ... pretty damn amazing they are as sharp as they are ... it was the colour rendition that they are more useful for ... but any difference in sharpness certainly didn't jump out at you, and it was interesting how the purple haze adjacent to the white was duplicated in both the D-lux and Panny across images. Never encounted this as an issue in real life use, probably because I'm usually doing RAWs

[malland]

Yes, stick to the raw and have a wee dram laddie. (Couldn't resist it!)

—Mitch/Bangkok