D-Lux 4 noise - beginner question.

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, which is pushing me back to the x1 again. Obviously i prefer a larger sensor - what other options for actual sort of compact with a 1.6 or greater sensor...I'm going to have to do the 35mm trial and see how it suits me because I am finding it hard to photo people with a dslr - they mug for the cam, or get very self conscious.. and going more zoom isn't going to help with any feeling of immediacy. With the DL4, people seem fine with being photo'd.

[farnz]

Yes, which is pushing me back to the x1 again. Obviously i prefer a larger sensor - what other options for actual sort of compact with a 1.6 or greater sensor...I'm going to have to do the 35mm trial and see how it suits me because I am finding it hard to photo people with a dslr - they mug for the cam, or get very self conscious.. and going more zoom isn't going to help with any feeling of immediacy. With the DL4, people seem fine with being photo'd.

Edward,

 

As I feel sure you're aware, choice of sensor type can make quite a difference too. Generally CMOS sensors are less noisy than equivalent sized CCD sensors and the Fovean offers another option. The Sigma DP2, for example has an (APS-C sized) 21 x 14 mm, 14 MP Fovean sensor and is drawing very positive reviews in certain quarters.

 

Pete.

[h00ligan]

Thank you Pete, I've been looking at that one too, but need to read more reviews. The problem with being new is not just technicals but finding out which cam is the cam for me! Perhaps you can answer this. It seems like a LOT of people started on 35mm film cameras and appreciate that avenue as a beginner step because it causes one to think more about the shot and focus within the confines of the zoom range. Do you subscribe to that approach for a beginner? I really don't want to go to film - preferring the immediacy of the digital world - and as such am seriously considering a cmos sensor based fixed range camera as my first. I just haven't found the right cam for me as of now - and yes I realize the equipment doesn't make the art, but I also feel that...

 

a) the dlux while a nice cam doesn't have the sharpness I want

the canon rebel line is large and intimidating - and a pain in the ass to carry round regularly.

 

I realize this is probably a dime a dozen question but I greatly value the opinion of those here on the forum, yourself in particular. I would have never thought I would be so picky, similarly when I started shooting (firearms) I had no idea what I wanted but years later am well aware of that which fits me / is comfortable - which in my case doesn't seem to fit the mold with many other people... in this example polymer firearms do absolutely nothing for me whilst many LOVE them.

 

Part of the issue I think is my rather strange build - 6'5" and a relatively thin 167, hand size, and fit. The dlux 4 makes me feel like I am holding a tic tac box - while the rebel line makes me feel like i'm over aspiring.

 

I'm off to read the dp2 review at dpreview, thanks. (i had to double check that for typos - dp2 at dpreview). Also, part of the consideration is the feedback I get here (although some may wish i'd take my newness elswhere). I don't want to lose the ability to post here - although i have a dlux 3 - i'd probably sell that.

 

edit

 

"The challenge of conquering the camera and the post-processing techniques necessary to get the beautiful images it's capable of will undoubtedly hold a certain appeal for some." - I'm not sure that's me...

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Edward,

 

I found this article quite helpful in reducing and almost eliminating my thinking about cameras instead of photos.

 

While I am not sure I am a fan of Ken Rockwell like many other people are (it's apparently the #1 photo blog/website on the internet), the article is very good because it has lots of examples of great shots by both amateurs and famous photographers taken with all kinds of cameras.

 

I believe that the "best camera" is one that you most enjoy using, handling, shooting, etc. It has to do more with ergonomics and aesthetics than megapixels and zoom factors.

 

For some reason, I never "bonded" with any of my DSLRs. Despite all their speed and technical prowess, they left me cold.

 

The D-Lux 4, re-ignited my passion for photography and the Digilux 2 turned it into a raging fire even though, in many respects, the D-Lux 4 has better specs and more flexibility. The Digilux 2 feels right in my hands, the controls are a pleasure to use and I can't wait for the week-end to take it out for a shoot. I also admit that I feel cool walking around town with this vintage looking thing hanging around my neck. More often than not, some people stop me to ask/talk about it "Hey, is that a Leica?"

 

You mention your height and the D-Lux 4 feeling like a box of TicTacs in your hands (which was a very funny comment BTW.) I might be off on this, but I believe that when a camera feels right for you, you tend to overlook its technical and feature shortcomings. When it does not feel right, you look for excuses to move to another one. (By you, I don't mean YOU specifically, but most people.)

 

In other words, I believe that it's not about the camera's specs or capabilities (see link above) but about the camera+photographer matching in terms of ergonomics, aesthetics, psychology, etc. And it sounds to me that the D-Lux 4 may not be the right match for you. I suggest you go to a camera store and play around with a few different cameras to see what "feels right".

 

Alberto

[h00ligan]

Alberto, that's interesting - and I think you are right.

 

I do agree that skill is the big factor - look at my shots vs Jim Radciffe's with a dlux 4 - so I greatly agree I need to find the cam that's right for me - I'm just not sure the dl4 is it (ergonomically).

 

edit - poking around that site seems there is a wealth of info, so thanks again for the link - the old box cam photos shot in 09 are great. It seems to me that 'less advanced' film still makes better photos in most cases - and digital is playing catch up - the more money, the closer we get, lol.

 

That said, I definitely think he hit on a really key point - the camera should be out of the way, something you don't have to think about.

 

one more edit - I can't say I like a) his writing style his abrasiveness c) he comes across as very arrogant d) the way he uses insults to make his point particularly the line "Avoid the Internet, which is overpopulated by websites made by, as if you'd never guess, computer and technical weenies." which leads me to say not very nice things back in his direction and point out a few mixed media masterpieces not created by anything other than artists who create using technology - such as http://jimcarrey.com/ or http://requiemforadream.com. He definitely comes across as a neophyte, but then goes on to praise the m9 in a site, he puts online which - from a design point of view, sucks. I don't see the need to tear down other artforms - mixed media included - or demean those who embrace technology. He may as well say, I don't get music, so that sucks too. Sorry to go OT, but a few things I read were insulting and contradictory.

[Digitom]

Thomas,

 

Edward mentioned that he shot the photo in raw so changing Noise Reduction and Picture Regulation would have no effect.

 

I agree with you about ISO 400 on the D-Lux 2 and when I had mine I stuck to ISO 80, or if unavoidable, no further than ISO 200.

 

Pete.

 

Oh yes! He shot in RAW, I did not realize that, sorry.

But that brings me to another question: If you look at the noise in D-Lux 4 RAW and the noise in the JPGs of that camera, how is the difference? I just ask because I know that e.g the Digilux 2 puts out a very good JPEG and some users here in the forum did not see an advantage to invest their time in exposing a Digilux 2 RAW-foto. They say JPG is nearly perfect. Is that same with d-Lux 4? Maybe the noise reducing unit in the camera makes a good job?

 

And: is there any simple and easy to handle software for post-processing RAW or JPG to reduce the noise?

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thomas,

 

I also usually shoot jpegs with my D2's but not only because the in-camera processing is good enough to produce exceptional jpegs but more importantly because it speeds up teh camera so much. I got tired of having to wait 5 to 7 seconds for a raw file to write to disk and missing potential shots that I went to jpeg only except where I know I have plenty of time between shots and the light is tricky.

 

For noise reduction, over the years I've used a number of methods such as the standard PS and LR noise reduction tools and plug-ins like Noise Ninja, which produces good results although I didn't find it very intuitive. I now prefer to change the colour space to LAB colour in PS and use the Surface Blur filter on just the A and B channels. You need to know what you're doing but once you understand how it works it's fast and produces good, reliable results most of the time. For more info you'd need to read The Canyon Conundrum by Dan Margulis.

 

Pete.

[Digitom]

Thanks, Pete!

[viramati]

I have quickly flicked through this post and must say I have noticed similar 'high' noise especially in blue skies with D-lux 4 at base iso. I only mention is as I also have the Panasonic LX3 which I originally gave to my wife and now have taken bak as strangely I find that I get better RAW files out of the LX3 than the D-lux 4. I haven't done any scientific research into this and hardly ever use either camera now but it is strange!!!!

[h00ligan]

Well. I returned the t1i. Didn't click with me and took a small road trip to pick up a gf1 with pancake. We shall see what I think of that bs the dl4.

[h00ligan]

I love the Leica brand but I am surprisingly pleased with this camera at the outset - we'll see if it lasts. a pic from the first series... yes it's not Leica (sorry - that's why it's linked)

 

Camp Verde.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4264935573_8875f018d8_b.jpg

[bill]

Edward, two comments, based on what you and others have said.

 

1. I am 5'15 in my socks, with large hands. The D-Lux 4 is swamped in my grip. But I have fitted it with the Leica Grip (which never leaves it) and when shooting for any length of time (as opposed to just pulling it out of my pocket for a quickie) I fit the Pandabase adaptor, thus:

 

 

This not only gives me more to grip, but subconsciously makes me feel and behave like I am using a more substantial camera. I am more prone to slow down and work in a more considered manner rather than take PHD grabshots.

 

2. With regard to noise, I think that this is a very subjective topic (and thank you for bringing it up) One man's "unacceptable" is another man's "texture". If you are to stick with the D-Lux 4 I think you need to appreciate that it will not (firmware upgrade excepted) change. You, on the other hand, can adapt both your style of working (and seeing) and your subject matter to suit the advantages and limitations of this camera. I know you have seen this shot, because you have commented on it, but I think it is worth reproducing it here to illustrate my point:

 

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!

 

I knew what the camera was capable of, so the end result is no surprise to me.

 

You may argue that the perfect tool does not require you to make compromises, but ANY tool when new to you requires you to adapt your way of working to get the best from it. I regularly use four different QWERTY keyboards - laptop, desktop, entertainment machine and 'phone - and each has the "minor functions" grouped differently. I normally use each without a moment's thought, thanks to "physical memory" but I recently killed the entertainment machine's wireless keyboard (death by coffee ) and had to replace it. It has taken me about 48 hours to get used to the "new" layout.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Regards,

 

Bill