D-Lux 3 –– sharing familiarisation experiences – Macro and overall musings

[macgarvin]

At bottom of this post are some macro shots of a hyrax skull. (Hyraxes (coneys) are rabbit-like critters whose closest living relatives are elephants, given away by the large tusk-like gnashers. Now you know.). Skull size ca 8cm

D-Lux image. Tripod mounted. 2 second self timer delay. ISO 100, 1/50th at f8 (maximum f).

Canon 5D image with EF100mm 1:1.2.8 macro USM. Although not an L series lens it is recognised as being very sharp, even when used as a normal lens. ISO 100, 1/6 at f18, also tripod mounted

Last, 100 percent comparisons. Some modest capture and creative sharpening with Photokit sharpner, and local contrast enhancement was used.


The D-Lux does pretty well. Micro detail of the Canon lens is better, but with this (and even at f32 – not shown( the back edge of skull was soft). I’d use the Canon macro by preference, but the D-Lux would get me out of jail if that’s what I had with me. It works well with food photography eating out.




Overall Conclusions on the D-Lux 3. These comments come from a person for whom cameras are a practical exercise in understanding and accepting, deep in my heart, that life is all about compromises!

I’m lucky. I already have more capable hardware and the software to go with it. But rule number one for taking good photographs is to have a camera, and always carrying a 5D and 85mm f1.2 around in your sporran is not a practical option! I see the Leica blurb says that the D-Lux 3 is intended to appeal to such users.

Starting with the lens, the physical dimension across the lens is about the same as 8x20 Leica binoculars, a high end consumer product with exceptional optics and price to match. I expect the lens to perform as well, and I wasn’t disappointed. If anything it is over-specified for the camera. There is a tiny amount chromatic aberration visible at 100 pc, easily corrected in Adobe Camera Raw. It looks like there is some correction going on for this, internal to the camera, for JPG images. The camera has RAW, and notwithstanding the debate surrounding the Canon G7, this remains essential for me; moreover the save time to card for RAW is good for the camera’s class, and often doesn’t impede workflow. I wouldn’t want the camera to be any bigger than this (thus ruling out the G7). It is a pity that the lens can’t fully retract into the camera body (but when push comes to shove I want what the lens offers more), and that there isn’t an integral lens shield that closes when you turn the camera off. It should come in a soft leather pouch. Personally, I’m not bothered by not having a viewfinder. I understand the flash can be a bit underpowered, but I rarely use it anyway. I personally like the wide format. I use to play around with APS, and I liked, and still like, being able to play around with 6 framing options for composition on site, and I would like the D-Lux even better if there was also an option for the letter box panorama view of APS. If shooting in RAW you get the entire 10 mp image in any case, it is purely a compositional aid. As an aside, I had a series of early Canon IXUS APS a decade ago. It was a great deal, I used them so much that they always broke while under warranty, so I had a succession of free camera upgrades for about 5 years. But the quality of those lens, and of the film-grainy prints, were dreadful. Things have moved on hugely to the advantage of the user - here, within the limitations of light gathering ability caused by the physical size, the Leica lens is excellent, which is how it should be. I don’t want any other compromise other than that forced by size.

And that brings me to the weakest link, widely mentioned elsewhere, the noisy image processing. At ISO 100 it is fine, no need to lose any sleep over it. I have steady hands and there are other tricks that can be used to keep on ISO 100 as long as possible. At ISO 200 I’ll wish I could shoot at 100 but if I need to use it, overall the picture will be better than trying to stay at 100. At 400 and above I will be increasingly aware that I will be doing a lot of post processing, and regretting that I hadn’t brought the Canon 5D along with me. It is clear from the Canon, notably the G7, that almost noiseless processing is possible up to ISO 400 for a consumer camera. Lets hope Panasonic get this sorted, but they haven’t for a long time now. But to put this in perspective, I have had a cover picture published from the 8mp Konica/Minolta A2, and A2 images at ISO 50 are at least as noisy (or more relevant, not noisy in practical use) than the 10 mp D-Lux 3 at 100.

The future for compact cameras is looking very exciting, just a few more years from now. I’m odd. The thought of all that wasted light gathering power (and redundant size and weight) from M series lenses on the reduced size M8 sensor bugs me, though I understand the technical reasons, and have an M8 on order. But I wonder if the M8 will look a distinctly odd hybrid in 20 years time, rather like those diesel railway engines that came out at the end of steam, still laid out with the cab at the rear because that was the compromise for steam. For me having an M8 successor with a body closer to size to the D-Lux, and lens cut down in physical size taking advantage of /live with/ the smaller sensor could be a dream. I would be prepared to pay *more* than the price of an M8 body, and more than the price of M lenses, in order to have this. On the other hand, given my addiction to available light photography, having an M8 successor with the same physical body size, and lens of the same physical size, but routinely going down to f1.0 and below, would also be wonderful if possible.

Finally, if the D-Lux is going to be your main camera and you are stretching your budget, I would have no technically-based reason for advising against the Panasonic. Put the money that you save towards getting (eg) Noise Ninja (for dealing with sensor noise) and Photokit Sharpener plug-ins (having checked that these can be used with the software that comes with the Panasonic, it isn’t the Adobe Photoshop elements that comes with the Leica but I read that it is quirky but good).

Malcolm

PS – here is a link to what I actually enjoy using the D-Lux for:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/nat...tml#post127484

and a couple of JPG fine images as they come out of the camera

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/lan...tml#post127463

[malland]

Originally Posted by macgarvin

...I personally like the wide format...If shooting in RAW you get the entire 10 mp image in any case, it is purely a compositional aid.

Malcolm, when shooting in the 3:2 and 4:3 or formats Camera Raw (and Lightroom which also uses Camera Raw) shows the cropped image only, not the original 16:9 format. On the other hand SILKYPIX, which has great flexibility in everything, has a cropping facility (called "trimming") that also shows the 3:2 or 4:3 cropped image but gives the choice of working with the whole 16:9 image and allows reframing, which can be a useful function. Is there a way to get Camera to show the full 16:9 frame?

...For me having an M8 successor with a body closer to size to the D-Lux, and lens cut down in physical size taking advantage of /live with/ the smaller sensor could be a dream. I would be prepared to pay *more* than the price of an M8 body, and more than the price of M lenses, in order to have this...

Absolutely. I'm with you on this.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Riley]

i think one of the more innovative things is the available formats
can only hope more dSLRs pick up a choice between 4x3 3x2 and 16x9

[malland]

The Ricoh GR-D has the 4:3 and 3:2 formats, with the latter being a crop of the former. I wish that the D-Lux 3 had 4:3 as native format of the sensor, with 16:9 being a crop. While 16:9 can be interesting sometimes, for me, 4:3 is much more useful and more frequently used — and I would have wanted to be able to have it without having to crop and thereby reduce file size. Thus, on the D-Lux 3, the vertical dimension stays at 2376 pixels, with the three formats having the following dimensions:

16:9 — 4224x2376 (10MP)
3:2 — 3568x2376 (8.5MP)
4:3 — 3168x2376 (7.5MP)

—Mitch/Bangkok

[macgarvin]

Originally Posted by malland

Malcolm, when shooting in the 3:2 and 4:3 or formats Camera Raw (and Lightroom which also uses Camera Raw) shows the cropped image only, not the original 16:9 format. On the other hand SILKYPIX, which has great flexibility in everything, has a cropping facility (called "trimming") that also shows the 3:2 or 4:3 cropped image but gives the choice of working with the whole 16:9 image and allows reframing, which can be a useful function. Is there a way to get Camera to show the full 16:9 frame?.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Ah Mitch, you have caught me distributing dodgy gen - as chance has it I have only shot at 3:2 and 4:3 with jpgs ... I'd picked up somewhere along the way that RAW format came up with the full frame regardless of the frame setting in software, but hadn't actually tested it with Camera Raw. `Back in my APS days it was the letter box panorama format that was the second most common for me to shoot with, and as that isn't available ...

About a year ago there was an article and link over on Luminous Landscape for how to recovering all pixels from a RAW file (most camaras apparently have a usually redundant frame of pixels). That might work as a preceeding step to Camera Raw?

Malcolm

[malland]

Malcolm, if you're interested in recovering the 16:9 full size after shooting in 3:2 or 4:3 formats you might want to download SILKYPIX, which allows a 14-day trial. In the View menu select Trimming, a tool with which you can crop of recover the full 16:9 frame.

SILKYPIX is a very good raw developer and, while it allows fine adjustment of almost anything, and provides for saving these settings in the "Cloakroom", the language of some of the tools is a rather quaint translation from Japanese, as is the online manual; but it is a very good program.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[macgarvin]

Mitch, thx, I'll give it a look the next time I have a broadband connection ...

[dito]

Malcolm, thanks for all the interesting infos.
I will order a DL3 and am very interested to get 2 or 3 RAW files from this camera to play and test. I would like to get 100 ASA shots in best can do quality, landscape and still (if possible timer and tripod and a medium F-stop, not too smal because of the defraction). Many wishes in one question:-))

Is it possible, to get some from you or do you or anybody else know of some RAWs in the web?

Thanks and Happy New Year to all of you
dierk

[macgarvin]

Originally Posted by dito

Malcolm, thanks for all the interesting infos.
I will order a DL3 and am very interested to get 2 or 3 RAW files from this camera to play and test. I would like to get 100 ASA shots in best can do quality, landscape and still (if possible timer and tripod and a medium F-stop, not too smal because of the defraction). Many wishes in one question:-))

Is it possible, to get some from you or do you or anybody else know of some RAWs in the web?

Thanks and Happy New Year to all of you
dierk

Hi Dierk

I'm on dial-up so its not practical for me to send you some RAWs as they are 19MB - is anybody else able to help out?

In the meantime I suspect the D-Lux 3 shots taken and compaired on the other thread with the shift and tilt Canon lens don't get much better - see the 100% blow ups comparing jpg, unprocessed RAW and processed RAW - they were on a tripod, time delay for exposure and set for the anticpated f stop sweet spot. You could probably improve on contrast, white balance, as I was primarily interested there in looking at resolution and depth of field

best
Malcolm