Digilux 2 ISO 200 & 400

[IcemanYQQ]

I am taking one on an assignment with me, just as an additional camera.

I was just curious about the noise when shooting in RAW. Is it really an issue, or does it look fine in print.

If someone has a link to some higher ISO images, or could email me a couple, I would appreciate it. thanks.

[flatfour]

I have been experimenting with my Digilux 2 using all the options from ISO100 to ISO400 and from Raw to minimum jpeg. At 10x8 prints there is little between all the images. I have blown some up to A3, and ISO400 is slightly worse than ISO100. Raw I have found to be little better than minimum jpeg compression. In fact last week-end I took 50 pictures in dull rainy weather at ISO400 and jpeg and am more than satisfied at 10x8 and happy at A3.

[etanguero]

It has been suggested quite often on the net that one better shoots ISO 100 in RAW format and underexpose by two stops and later pushes theses pictures by two stops in the RAW-developer-programm of choice (like ie. RAW shooter essentials).
Noise levels seems to be lower this way than exposing at ISO 400.

eT

[sean_reid]

Allan,

I did some ISO comparisons in my review of the Digilux 2 that you might find useful:

Leica Digilux 2 Review. Part Two

Cheers,

Sean

[IcemanYQQ]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

Allan,
I did some ISO comparisons in my review of the Digilux 2 that you might find useful:

Leica Digilux 2 Review. Part Two

Cheers,
Sean

Thank you Sean, I am confident it will not be a problem. I have tried to locate one real quick before I leave for an assignment in North Korea next week.

[IcemanYQQ]

Thanks to everyone else as well, I am looking forward to working with this camera rather than lugging around an SLR system for certain assignments.

[ulphoto]

I used the DigiLux 2 in Iraq last year. I'm now putting together a large exhibit. A great number of the photos I'm using were made with the camera. The ones made at 400 iso are rather noisy in the shadows, as were the iso 200 images but to a much lesser extent. I've found Noise Ninja to do a good job of eliminating it. Though the images can have a plastic too smooth look - backing off the amount of noise removal restores some of the grainy texture, giving a more "natural" photographic look. Its a great people camera, rather un-intimidating to most subjects.

[bradreiman]

ive had the d2 for a couple years now and have never been satisfied with anything over 100iso. its gorgeous at 100 but beyond that i find the noise unbearable. i do use iso 50 film so im not a big grain lover.

[davephoto]

Originally Posted by bradreiman

ive had the d2 for a couple years now and have never been satisfied with anything over 100iso.

i am in full agreement here.

[stnami]

..I am partial to rice

[kobold]

I use the LC-1 alongside the 5D for some kinds of work all the time. I remember I was shooting a coffee caravan for an advertising image once and a bystander remarked to my brother who was idling by "that guy needs to get into the 21st century and go digital". Agree too that most people find it completely unintimidating.

I only use it at 100 ISO too. It is really really good there. Prints are excellent and Qimage resizing to the 600 dpi that the printer (HP) needs can make excellent A3 prints.

BTW, stnami, the Tibetans buddhists refer to the grains as "the three worms"; by this they mean the foods that attack the head, heart and gut. Just passing it along—these buddhists eat meat and the only grain they do like is barley.

[stnami]

Last time I was in Tibet the rice "crop' was weak, though the monks in their monastery in Xia never said no to a bowl of rice, the kids find it difficult to skateboard on the cobblestones but manage.
Mind you maize (as it is a marginal crop) was popular in China until the south was well and truly conquered

I use 100 raw and at a pinch I will use 200, if I can't. I don't take the photograph

[kobold]

All true, re. rice—but remember, that current attraction is partly the result of 30 year's persuasion!

The quote re. the three worms was from the ancient texts. Cheers, KL

[etanguero]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

I did some ISO comparisons in my review of the Digilux 2 that you might find useful:
Leica Digilux 2 Review. Part Two

Sean, in your review you write the following:

Originally Posted by sean_reid_review

Clearly, JPEG mode on the Digilux 2 is a bit problematic at ISO 200 and very much a problem at ISO 400. Fortunately, the camera fares much better in RAW mode.

Just to help me with my limited level off understanding:
? Does this mean that shooting ISO 400 in RAW gives also better results - and for all: less noisy - than shooting ISO 400 in JPG ?

This would actualy be very good news! Could you confirm?

eT

[flatfour]

Sean - I'm new to this digital thing but I can only say as I find. However your expertise clearly shows that I am missing something. Is there a sort of guide for getting the best out of the Digilux 2. I don't mind a little grain - I only use 400ASA film (chromogenic) so I'm not too fussy but I would like to know how to get the very best quality out of my Digilux 2 using Photoshop 7. Sorry to be a nuisance.

[stnami]

One of the things about the D2 is that if you get your light readings smack on and your subject doesn't have too much contrast or is too dim the results are quite amazing for a small sensor camera. It is all about learning your craft and using the camera where it performs the best which are situations that do not require high ISO

[jackart]

I see, that people have done elaborate tests. My personal Opinion is, that 400 is much-much worse in terms of correct color reproduction and noise than 200. So, mainly I use 100, sometimes whan required, 200; never 400.

-Jaak

[flatfour]

I have put some motor sport pictures on Photo Forum - Sport and Leisure and they were all taken last Saturday using ISO400 and minimum jpeg compression. Any comments ?

[sean_reid]

Hi Christian and Anthony,

To quote from the review (with respect to your questions):

"At ISO 200, the Leica applies a smoothing filter (which cannot be switched off in JPEG mode) to, presumably, mask the noise in the files. The very fine detail given to us by that excellent zoom lens is partly destroyed by the smoothing of that in-camera processing. The file still looks very good but the detail which is lost to the smoothing cannot be recovered in subsequent sharpening....

At ISO 400, the Leica’s aggressive in-camera smoothing obliterates a large amount of fine detail and creates an overall kind of “waxy” look to the file which, combined with what’s left of the noise, creates a rather ugly and artificial looking file when viewed on screen at 100%. Reducing the in-camera sharpening (in the hopes of reducing artifacts) doesn’t help matters at all."

In my experience, the D2 is at it's best recording RAW files at ISO 100. ISO 100 JPEGs are certainly very useable as well. Above ISO 100, the RAW files from the D2 are actually quite good so long as they're not under-exposed at all (as Imants mentioned above). At ISO 400 in particular, the files really do not tolerate underexposure.

When I've worked with the D2, I've almost always used it in RAW mode (at all ISO levels) and converted the RAW files in Photoshop. With ISO 400 files, I tend to manually filter just the chrominance noise and leave the luminance noise as is (so as to not destroy detail).

Best,

Sean

[etanguero]

Sean,
thanks for your reply and sharing of your experience.

Only thing: I am even more confused now!
As mentioned I thought I understood from different sources on the net it's better to underexpose with the Digilux 2 and "push" it later by software than to use higher ISO.
Reading your posting I'd conclude that this is only true for the ISO100 mode (but not for 200 or 400 ISO), right???

I took some night shots tonight with full moon at different ISO-settings (RAW and JPG): hope to find the time these days to carefully check them out concerning noise levels.

Greetz
eT