D-Lux 3

[doctorlol]

Originally Posted by intramind

I recieved my D-Lux 3 four days ago, and I have really put it through it's paces. It's a fabulous camera. I love the functionality of it. The camera is easy to use, has tons of great options, including an unbelievable degree of available customization. For instance I can tweek the color balance easily in any situation, can alter the contrast of black and white images, etc. I've been a serious professional and semi-professional photographer for several decades, and have shot with everything you can imagine. My standards are very high, let me put it that way... I don't have a single complaint about this camera. The image quality is outstanding! Leica really seems to have nailed the color and contrast. As for noise above ISO 100, that's easily solved with a 50 dollar program that can be downloaded in minutes, so I'm not the least concerned about that. I use it at ISO 100 anyway, and with a tripod when I want to get really serious about quality. An M-3 was my daily shooter for several years, and I feel that the D-Lux 3 is yet another expample of Leica elegance and functionality. it's beautiful. As a landscape artist I new from the moment that I read the specs (16:9 aspect ratio with a 28mm lens!!!! and10 megapixals) that this was the camera for me. I'll stop. I could go on...

Steve has responded to my initial question with the views of a professional photographer. It is with trepidation that I ask him about using the real stuff ie film. What film does he still use or has the time come for us amateurs to use it as an acknowledgement to the past?

Some confusion over Digilux and D-Lux? Having both means I can use the latter to travel light and the former with its fabulous lens. If I had to pick just one then it would be the Digilux 2 over the D-Lux 3. You guys will all shout M8.

Laurence from a very rainy London.

[macgarvin]

I did some testing of the D-Lux 3 a while back and put some of the results on this forum, e.g. the remarkable depth of field e.g. against Canon 5D and 24-mm shift and tilt L series lens

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...d-against.html

If interested, if you do a search for posts by macgarvin you will find others.

For overall conclusions see

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...periences.html


It is a remarkable camera, especially if you are interested in artistic result rather than technical perfection. When and if noise levels can be be brought down to those achieved by Canon, and perhaps with an f2.0 lens (the lens barrel has plenty of room for one ) it would be a miracle of miniaturization.

FootbridgeBelowHouse.jpg

[farnz]

Originally Posted by macgarvin

... and perhaps with an f2.0 lens...

Malcolm,

With an f2.8 Vario-Elmarit lens and OIS providing an additional 2 stops you effectively have an f1.4 Vario-Summilux lens anyway.

Pete.

[farnz]

In terms of noise I've seen worse. Much, much worse, although I don't venture above ISO 100. The image below was shot with my D-Lux 2.

Pete.

Whitianga-beach.jpg

[macgarvin]

Originally Posted by farnz

Malcolm,

With an f2.8 Vario-Elmarit lens and OIS providing an additional 2 stops you effectively have an f1.4 Vario-Summilux lens anyway.

Pete.

I know Pete. I know - I didn't say I was being reasonable, just what was required for a miracle I'm a tough person to please, in reality am happy with it, this from the other day

L1020165_960ht.jpg

The aspect ratio is wonderful, the blue here is pretty much spot on to reality (reality = as I remember it!). Ignore the noise in the blue - that was exaggerated when I did a bicubic sharpen when cutting the image down to 960px for the forum


I do a lot of shooting in dingy places, (on the Canon the f1.2 85mm L is much used), so I am just being greedy and demanding - I want to have the option to get to at least 1/60 to freeze motion rather than camera shake, more if zoomed in, and I know that I often have to get up to ISO 800 to do that currently, if I am realistic and the quality of ISO 200 becomes what ISO 100 is at the moment ... I need more light!. (Incidentally, sometimes I don't - that one of the leaves above was taken in pouring rain and dark cloud, the lens was at f2.8 and I think 1/15 sec, iso 200 - the lack of focus on some of the leaves is wind! If the foliage hadn't been saturated, the colours wouldn't have been so saturated either)

Seriously, if they could do less noise and an even wider aperture lens the development phase would be over for me, I would then expect to have a sporting chance of replacing a camera because it had worn out, not because I was excited about the potential of a new technical development, like the film Ms

Malcolm

[farnz]

Originally Posted by macgarvin

I know Pete. I know - I didn't say I was being reasonable, just what was required for a miracle I'm a tough person to please, in reality am happy with it,

Fair enough, Malcolm. If Leica manages it I will but one and thank you for it.

Originally Posted by macgarvin

Ignore the noise in the blue - that was exaggerated when I did a bicubic sharpen when cutting the image down to 960px for the forum

I know what you mean, the bicubic sharpening kills me too!

Pete.

[intramind]

[quote=doctorlol]Steve has responded to my initial question with the views of a professional photographer. It is with trepidation that I ask him about using the real stuff ie film. What film does he still use or has the time come for us amateurs to use it as an acknowledgement to the past?

Hi Laurence,

I just donated my entire darkroom to a local school, which is something I would not have done two years ago. I have always stuck to low ASA films, primarily Kodak, such as Plus-X and Ektachrome 100 or Fujichrome 100. Agfapan 100 was also a favorite. I would have told you a couple of years ago that I would never go digital. And then the prices started to come down on digital darkrooms and cameras, and most importantly, quality came up to my standards. I suddenly was face with the possiblity of making museum quality archival prints using my computer. Now I am learning that with digital so much more is possible than with film. Or I guess I should say more technique is easily accessable. Incidentally, I wouldn't use PhotoShop on a bet! PictureWindow Pro does it all for a fraction of the cost, and is intuitive to use.

Steve