D-Lux3 "Performance Proof" ???

[ckthual]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I wonder if this has been discussed here already, if it's the case, please forgive this pointless thread.

I've been looking for a compact P&S camera I could always have in my bag with me, and after all the bad things I've heard so far, I was still waiting to see files coming from the D-Lux 3 (yes, I know about the Panasonic, I wanted to see pictures from the Leica branded final product) before I take a decision (which is hard to take : the Ricoh GR-D is so full of noise too, there's no date announced for the new SIGMA DP1, I would love a 28 or 35mm "35mm equi" lens - now if it really isn't possible, give me a zoom with it... ;o( ).

Tonight I came across what Leica calls on their website D-Lux 3 Performance Proof which can be seen here :

Leica Camera AG - Downloads

Now, I need your opinion... IT CAN'T BE THAT BAD ????? My last hope comes from the jpeg destruction type on the top Leica logo, as some text and logo was added, maybe the file wasn't saved properly... but if the image really came that way??

I don't understand how Leica can call this a Performance Proof ? It is so terrible it should be called a Performance SPOOF...

Opinions, anyone ?

 

Cedric

www.thual.net

[Guest stnami]

All small digicams make noise, but if you don't know how to use the camera as a photographic tool and understand its limitations your results will reflect this.

Remember images over the net are not accurate as it also depends how well you have calibrated your monitor and other variables

That download looks great on my screen for a P&S, remember you cannot expect top DSLR performance for a digicam price unless you own the company.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sebastian]

For a better idea of how this camera will perform, go to dpreview.com and read their review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2... the "sister" camera to the D-Lux 3. (It's mixed). After the concluson of the review, there are some sample images you can examine on-screen or dowload and print. I've printed some of these (on an Epson R1800) at up to about 12.5 X 17 inches, and was very impressed with the results... far better than what I saw from the D-Lux 2. The site gives you the opportunity to see a variety of images taken under different conditions, and reach your own conclusions.

[erg]

Hi Cedric:

 

Since I'm a dedicated Leica user, I already owned three of Leica's rebadged Panasonic digital cameras: Digilux 1, Digilux 2 and the D-Lux. Already six months ago, I placed my order for the M8. I paid 800 € for the D-Lux, which is designed refreshingly different from the Panasonic DMC-FX1. I was satisfied with the performance of all cameras. I was also planning to buy the D-Lux 3 (black) as an everyday compact camera, until today. Here's why:

 

What always bothered me about Leica's compact digital cameras was, that they really weren't different from Panasonic in terms of materials and built quality. The silver color of the plastic buttons wears off. Materials get scratched easily. Several users in the forum wrote about captions on the Digilux 2 lens that wear off. The black D-Lux 3 is a really sexy looking camera but I don't expect any major improvements. I was always looking for a camera made of solid materials, with a clean user interface and a slick design. A digital Leica CM (Titanium Body !), made in Germany, would have been a nice option.

 

Recently the SAMSUNG NV10 recieved my attention. DP review reports about both, the DMC-FX07 (D-Lux 3) and the NV 10. Both were reviewed similar in picture quality. Today I had the chance to get my hands on this little black beauty, called NV 10. It's made of metall ("superb build and finish") and you can really feel it's build quality. It's a slimline camera and also has an innovative ("Smart Touch") user interface that makes Panasonic's multiple button press menu look very poor.

 

Looking at the options for compact digital cameras, I feel dissapointed about Leica's current line. I'm looking forward that Leica hopefully takes build quality and design of small digital compact cameras more into their own hands. By then, I'm going to try the NV10.

[truando]

Yes, the quality is bad. It sure looks like an jpeg compression problem to me, not noise.

[hawkeye_a]

the camera is only as bad as a similarily priced canon compact. Thats what ive heard several times from my friends who are photograhers. I think people have come to expect way too much of the leica brand....they expect an M8 in the D-Lux sorta mentality. the D-Lux is probably in the top 3 compacts around, and that means a lot.

 

here are some shots i took in lowest-compression-jpeg and exported in iPhoto for the web. you be the judge. If you need something better....get a DSLR.

 

Link1

Link2

Link3

 

 

Cheers

[smokysun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it's the only one to shoot raw, if you wish.

 

the samsung nv3 feels like a tank and very, very substantial. expect the the others to be the same.

 

the nv10 review on dp didn't make me want to buy it. same noise problems.

 

i would suggest going for the cheaper panasonic. the warranty and leica service worth a lot, but not sure $160 worth. (and the vu lux going to be 400 more than the fz50).

 

i too would love leica to go the ricoh and sigma route and create a special compact.

[ckthual]

@ stnami : Thanks for your reply. I'm not so surprised by the noise of the image, I know that's the price to pay for the increasing number of pixels coming from the same small area, but by the terrible jpeg compression that seems to have happened long after taking the original image... I was just wondering how Leica can put such an image online, it is the far worse image I've seen by a LX2/D3.

My monitor has been calibrated two days ago when I offered myself a Spyder 2 Express, so I wouldn't blame it. If you don't see that compression horror I'm talking about you're either not looking at it at 100% or it is your monitor that wasn't calibrated correctly.

You can find a 100% crop at the end of this message...

 

@sebastian : thanks, i've read the review that hasn't really convinced me... You may agree with me that images don't look so bad, and I'm right to be confused when looking at Leica's promoting choice?

 

@erg : Thanks for your reply. Of course I would love a digital Leica CM (with 35mm equiv and APS size sensor of course ;o) ) but... maybe someday?

The Samsung caught my attention too, the only detail that I don't like a bout it is that it doesn't shoot raw. Once you start shooting raw (I have), it's hard to go back to jpeg... like watching a VHS when you own a DVD player ! ;o) But I agree with you, i looks like a fine camera, and the sample images look quite fine.

 

@truando : Thanks, I'm glad your eyes agree with mine )

 

hawkeye : I've seen Canon samples from the latest compacts... they're not that bad, and to be honest, if a Leica digital compact could produce such images, there wouldn't be a discussion about image quality, everyone would be thrilled... Yes, I agree and confess I expected way too much of this camera... I know it's not an M8, but I would have loved to be happily surprised, and finally get the tool I dreamed of. Do you remember the first Konica Hexar? It was such a great tool, I would really love to have a digital version of it.

Thanks for the samples you posted, it looks fine to me too, considering it's not 100% and I'm still having problem with that 16/9 format, I wouldn't know how to shoot my pictures, I'm so drawn to my 3/2.

By the way, I have a DSLR, and I'm very pleased with my Canon 5D, I'm just looking for a lighter tool to keep with me all the time...

 

@smokysun : You've got a point here, it shoots raw... NV3 has a captor too small, a darker lens, NV10 looks quite OK to me, but still doesn't shoot raw, and I really don't like the Panasonic's design, I'm OK to pay a little more for the Leica if it's the tool I'm looking for.

I hope that Leica will hear us someday and make Ricoh / Sigma competitor.

 

Here is a 100% crop of the image we've been discussing :

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!

[Guest stnami]

That download looks great on my screen for a P&S,

.. like I said for a point and shoot. It's not made to do this shoot this stuff so why expect better. Its a jpeg for the punter with a pocket full of noise, They are selling these cameras to Joe public not to guy who needs to do this for a living, Joe is in the market for a new camera next model so noise is not a problem

[hawkeye_a]

I got my D-Lux 3 last week, and i must admit im a little disappointed with the image processing going on when shotting in JPEG. The compression algorithm must be terrible in my opinion. you get noise, which eats away at the image detail when compressing into JPEG and so you get the watercolor look, which becoms even worse at high ISOs. Having said that, the reason i chose this camera is the ability to shoot in RAW.... i got myself an UltraII 1GB card that can hold about 40 shots in RAW and it takes about 3-4 seconds to write a 10MP image to the card which is very aceptable.

 

I'd like Leica/Panny to update the software used in the image processing and compression into JPEG ASAP to address these concerns. Most P&S customers, who this camera is geared towards, dont want to fumble around with RAW, they want to shoot in JPEG and get a good image. thats it. there's a little too much image processing going on imo. hopefully a firemware update can fix it.

 

As far as the aspect ratio. i love the addition of 16X9, as it justifies the increase in MP without the loss in resolution for 3X2 or 4X3 (which are also available if you want to shoot in those ratios). 16X9 makes a lot of sence for most Mac users who have widescreen displayes (like me) and people who have widescreen TVs, and want to show off their photobooks and slideshows on a home theater system.

 

Cheers

[neils]

I've had my black D-Lux3 for about 2 weeks now. It is my first small sensor camera ever. I also have a DSLR (Nikon D2HS) and I've been scanning negs for a few years since a move took away my wet darkroom. I like low light, the D2HS is very very good at that. I am still a fan of TX and TMZ 3200. I don't mind grain. I've used Leica Ms for over 20yrs.

 

Though my wife has a Canon 540?, 450? something she never makes prints. I did make some prints from it last week and it was really very good. So far I haven't seen a print from my DL3 that is as good. But............

 

I've been shooting misc stuff, not wonderful scenes on vacation, and that may have something to do with it:-)

 

I did dome DL3 prints yesterday. Epson 2200, RAW from DL3 and one thing I found is that I need to sharpen a file from a 10meg camera more than I'm accustomed to or I should maybe say that a small sensor RAW image with camera sharpening set to low needs more USM than I'm used to. The image looked better as I adjusted it as again these were the first prints from the DL3.

 

I made an ISO 400 print. It was shot in low light, IS on, 1/5? of a second. I mean everything I could do to push what any camera could do I did. Final print was OK. There was noise.

 

I did a straight print w/o any PP, a print with Noise Ninja default smooth and sharpen, a print with CS2 NR set to remove color noise but not all lum. noise and that was the print I liked best. NN made it too smooth at default. No PP at all had too much color noise. The CS2 print with some NR had little to no color noise but was "grainy". Fine by me as I like grain and it was a low light portrait.

 

Again I'm new to small sensor cameras but not to digital. I guess you could say I'm learning what to expect. As for JPG quality there are more options than I'd like for size of the image and they are again different with each of the 3 formats. More choice than I need.

 

I will keep trying this thing out. As I said I am learning what to expect. The options with this camera, manual exposure and EV correction for flash and ambient, the DOF scale that appears with manual focusing makes zone focusing very very easy. The 3 formats etc. It offers an awful lot. Maybe too much is expected of a SS camera.

 

 

 

Neil

[harmsr]

I'll through in my brief $.02 and then post some pictures later in the photo forum.

 

I have always wanted a nice small to pocket sized camera. In the past I have owned several Canon film P&S, the Minilux, and the CM. The CM was the pinnacle, but it is film and I wanted to move to digital for this type of camera. I have tried some of the pocket Sonys (horrible), and a GR-D (two slow in RAW with no buffer - 14 second write time, and fixed 28 mm lens which is two wide for my only lens, good build quality, so-so on noise). I looked at the Dlux2 when it first came out but the file quality was not up to me changing from the CM.

 

I finally sold the CM about a month ago, and bought the DLux3 a week and a half ago. I was given a trial time to see if it was going to work for me.

 

The DLux3 went to an old western/mining town here in Arizona with me last weekend, along with the M5. Here are my thoughts:

 

- Write time in RAW was about 3-4 seconds (perfectly acceptable in this type of camera)

- Controls were easy to use.

- Metering was excellent - EV comp was one button accessible when needed.

- ISO changes required entering the menu to change - A pain in the #$% but useable.

- File size was large - about 20 MB for the 16:9 RAW files - No option to not simultaneously record a JPEG of about 2.5 MB

- The new 16:9 screen was GREAT. It was of good resolution, reflected the actual files, and was easy to see in bright daylight.

- I can't really comment on the Jpegs as I concentrated on the RAW files.

- RAW at ISO of 100 and 200 was good, 400 had noise but was useable (easily fixed with Noise Ninja without much loss of detail), 800 has significant noise (really only useable after Noise Ninja and conversion to B&W), 1600 was not useable.

- The files had reasonable DR and texture for a P&S digital.

- Macro range works for reasonable closeups - not true Macro flower shots though. Fine for my uses on a P&S.

- Image stabilization does help for slow shutter speeds (example was underground in the mines - obviously it does not compensate for bigger aperture and DOF)

- Easy to use shooting modes of Shutter priority, Aperture priority, Manual, and Program.

- Auto focus was fast and accurate. Manual focus brought up a zoomed patch and range scale to focus which was easy to use.

 

 

Overall, I am very happy with the camera. The size factor is perfect. They did a good job with ease of use, that still allows some creative control. File quality is better than the GR-D and the DLux2. No it is not a 5D, D200, 1DSMKII, D2Xs, etc... It is a very small P&S that does an excellent job for its size and limitations. Mine is going to be a constant companion and go along even when the M8 (Hopefully not much more time to wait) or M5 is in the bag.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[ckthual]

@ neils + harmsr

Thanks for your in depth reports, I read your opinion with great interest.

PS/ If any of you had the possibility of posting a raw file, I'd be glad to see how it looks.

 

Regards

[harmsr]

Cedric,

 

The RAW files are 20MB, and way too large for the forum or most email servers. Sorry.

 

Ray

[ckthual]

@harmsr : You are right, it's way too big for e-mail or forum, but if you're OK with the idea, there are other ways, like yousendit. I just tried the service, it's very easy, all you have to do is put your e-mail, the recipient e-mail and chose the file :

http://www.yousendit.com/

Then if you wish, I could put it on my ftp server so other people on this forum may download it too.

 

Kindest regards

 

PS/ My e-mail adress is info@thual.com

[NickR]

I'll add that I found that Silkypix2, the RAW processing software included with the Pana version of the camera, very useful. I received the camera Friday and took it to an affair I had that night along with my M6. It's my first digital P&S. I locked the ISO at 200 and set the antishake to poition 2. The antishake really helped, esp. at low zoom, as I had plenty of usable shots. I used the high quality jpeg setting because I had never shot raw before, but I took a bunch of RAW shots over the weekend and I'm really surprised how much info you can get out of the images.

 

I'm very impressed with this little camera. I really like how you can manually set every conceivable function from the menu system. Today I took it on a nature hike and used it to preview shots before I used my film camera. In that sense, I think it can be the perfect adjunct to my film cameras, but not that it didn't take plenty of usable shots in its own right.

 

One last thing, I love the wide view. It seems more natural to me, maybe because I grew up going to movies every weekend; it's like the difference between letterbox and pan-and-scan. It just seemed to open up the groups of people I shot at the party.

[harmsr]

Who can help me get 3 RAW files posted on an FTP so that we can link to them in this thread. I have tried from my office and my home to use (yousendit.com), but I get an ajax server error every time (??????????).

 

The three files are 20.1 MB, 19.6 MB, and 19.6 MB.

 

If someone can accept them by email to upload on an FTP site, my server allows me to email a file of that size.

 

Ray

[rvincent]

Ray,

 

You can email them to me. My email server handles large attachments. Just tell me where to FTP them.

 

Robert

 

p.s. Your old 'Lux is one incredible piece of glass.

[harmsr]

Robert,

 

Glad the Lux is working out for you.

 

Relative to the files. I need someone who can accept the files and also who has an FTP site to upload them on. For some reason the http://www.yousendit.com site is giving me an error when I try to upload.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rvincent]

Sorry, Ray. I misread your post. Right now I don't have a public server to put it on.

 

I bought the D-Lux2 for my father-in-law, and he likes it a lot. Of course, he always uses 100 iso. Since it doesn't have a viewfinder, I'm just not interested.

 

Not to get too far off topic, but if Leica would make a compact 4/3rds camera with a fixed 25/1.4 and optical viewfinder I would be all over it.

 

Cheers,

 

Robert