Kirk Posted December 12, 2006 Share #21 Posted December 12, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) How about the new Canon G7? Small and unobtrusive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Hi Kirk, Take a look here D-Lux 3 disppointing at ISO800 & 1600 even in RAW . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
carstenw Posted December 12, 2006 Share #22 Posted December 12, 2006 Sorry for butting in, but I think what might do the trick is the upcoming Leica 25mm f/1.4 D, combined with shooting at ISO 400-800 in raw, and using either noise ninja or neatimage to clean it up. Leica D SUMMILUX 25mm ASPH lens Silly me, I read D-Lux 3 as Digilux-3. Just ignore, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted December 12, 2006 Share #23 Posted December 12, 2006 Mitch, not sure if you saw the side-by-side comparisons of photos of identical scenes shot by LX1(DL2) versus LX2 (DL3) at pbase.com see the following <http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/camera_specs> <http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/66843621> there is about 10-20 shots on that site with ISO 80 to 800+ Both show noise at high ISO, but the DL3 seems to smear and lose detail. It was for this reason I bought a LX1(DL2) and not a DL3. I've given it to my daughter to use as a backup to an L1 I just bought, as we head to Paris next week for Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 13, 2006 Share #24 Posted December 13, 2006 Mitch, the photo of yours taken from iside a shop window, GRD, where a woman was turning round to face the camera... was that taken via the electronic finder? I find that the lag-time between on screen is stopping me from getting that moment... maybe it's just practise? I like forward to seeing what you come up with. Meantime, check out Jim Radcliffs photos on dpreview. He has sold a few dlux3s singlehandly I think. Oh, and I think the meter in the dlux3 is excellent... and rarely worry about exposure using it apart from obvious blow out situations, especially with RAW. Enjoy your camera- Andy Andy: All my GR-D pictures were taken by framing with the LCD: sometimes I just glance at it to frame and then just at the scene while deciding when to press the shutter and this is the shooting "looseness" that I referred to. The only thing is to set the focusing mode either to spot focus and snap focus (pre-focusing) to avoid delay from the autofocus. —Mitch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 13, 2006 Share #25 Posted December 13, 2006 How about the new Canon G7? Small and unobtrusive. KIrk, the G7 only produces jpegs and no RAW files which can be rather limiting. —Mitch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted December 13, 2006 Share #26 Posted December 13, 2006 Silly me, I read D-Lux 3 as Digilux-3. Just ignore, please. Same here - please ignore my earlier remarks about 4:3 sensors. :?| Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 13, 2006 Share #27 Posted December 13, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Silly me, I read D-Lux 3 as Digilux-3. Just ignore, please. Carsten, not really your fault: it seems to me it ain't exactly the height of marketing savvy to call one D-Lux 3 and the other Digilux-3 and expect people to remember which is which, at least in the case of poeple who have other things to do in life. On the other hand, Panasonic, which is supposed know a lot more about marketing calls one LX and the othe L: not much better. —Mitch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted December 13, 2006 Share #28 Posted December 13, 2006 hi mitch, looks like we're destined to disagree forever! here's a session with the f30 at mostly 800, a bit of neat image and sharpening supplied. fuji f30 nightwalk (800 iso) Photo Gallery by wayne pease at pbase.com after shooting with the d-lux 2 for a year it's a relief to be able to do lowlight, despite no raw. (got the larger 6000fd with the same sensor. it does have raw.) wayne 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/11210-d-lux-3-disppointing-at-iso800-1600-even-in-raw/?do=findComment&comment=117112'>More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 13, 2006 Share #29 Posted December 13, 2006 The GRD is about all there is ......then I don't mind a medium size camera as being discreet is not an issue with me Tried a friend's Pentax a K100 and a 21 pancake(32 in SLR terms) looks the goods, small and mobile though the distortion is a little more than expected on a lens of this nature. It fits in a large trouser pocket. He showed me the Pentax 31mm (46), great lens a bit bulky shallow bokeh though, unless one shoots f8 and that kills the reason of having a f1.9 lens. great in the suburban areas. Could try a small old Pentax 28mm (42), the Oly 400 could work but no small primes in the 18 or 25 (35-50 SLR) zone. Generally the market is bare in this catagory with raw, a 2/3 sensor at 1600 would work, no such animal in compact size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 13, 2006 Share #30 Posted December 13, 2006 Imants: You're right: except for the GR-D, there just isn't any other small sensor compact camera with a fast prime lens — and I suppose that there may not be one in the future because this segment of the market is viewed as supplying consumers, for which a zoom lens is mandatory. That is really too bad because, as Sean Reid has written in an article, small sensor digital cameras are a new format, that "draw" in a sketchier way than a camera like the M8, which draws like a medium format film camera, the same way 35mm was a new format when the first Leicas were produced. It happens that I like this sketchier look more than the "exquisite" medium format look, the same way as I like the 35mm aesthetic. On the other hand, if Ricoh do well enough with the GR-D perhaps they could come out with a 40-50mm-equivalent version. Incindentally, it's not the discreeteness or the stealth aspect that I'm primarily interested in: it's more the possibility of always having the camera with me and the looseness of the shooting style that framing through an LCD display encourages. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 13, 2006 Share #31 Posted December 13, 2006 in a market of so much sameness, there really is a gap for a digital rangefinder at the low end of the market panasonic are the logical choice to make that step i think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 13, 2006 Share #32 Posted December 13, 2006 Ricoh is going to strike again this year but I'm not sure what it is ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Maio Posted December 13, 2006 Share #33 Posted December 13, 2006 Sorry for butting in, but I think what might do the trick is the upcoming Leica 25mm f/1.4 D, combined with shooting at ISO 400-800 in raw, and using either noise ninja or neatimage to clean it up. Leica D SUMMILUX 25mm ASPH lens Boy is this confusing - and its Leica's fault The D-Lux-3 and the DigiLux-3 are two different cameras entirely. This forthcoming lens is for the DigiLux-3, which can already use lenses from Olympus and Sigma. I wish Leica had been a little more creative in naming the two because actually, The DigiLux-3 with its interchangeable Vario-Elmarit 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 does pretty well at ISO 800 and 1600, much to my delight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 14, 2006 Share #34 Posted December 14, 2006 D-Lux-3 goes to 10mp when is already bat 8,4mp D-Lux-2 in 400-ISO. Puts more mp on same size of sensor makes more noise, this is just fact. Need to change Venus engine else only can be worst. D-Lux-2 and D-Lux-3 I think make for Leica guy buy something gift for his wife What you're saying negates the whole direction of this thread, which is that small sensor cameras are not toys but a new type of camera that draw in a different way: huge DOF and and a "grainy" look at higher ISOs; and I must say that I don't much care for the sexism of the statement. Not everyone is interested in the medium format look of the M8, and I have pretty much found what I want in the GR-D, except that I also want a camera that draws in a similar way with a 40-50mm-equivalent lens; and, from some more test shooting, I think I'll get the D-Lux 3 to do what I want it to. As I stated earlier, one of the problems is that I started by using the same post-processing as for the GR-D. Now with a fresh approach the results are getting interesting, but nothing to post yet because these are still test shots of no artistic merit. —Mitch/Bangkok http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 14, 2006 Share #35 Posted December 14, 2006 yes, i think that there is quite a lot of attention given to bokeh, almost as though in focus is diseased photography. i like/need deep DoF, it is usefull too for street shooters with improvements in the sensor technology the iso will improve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 14, 2006 Share #36 Posted December 14, 2006 D-Lux-2 and D-Lux-3 I think make for Leica guy buy something gift for his wife shows up an incredible level of insecurity and immaturity...... Oly were on the path with the 5050, 7070, 8080 series which got canned in order to live in DSLR land. Oly owners were quite vocal about smaller fixed lens versions but to no avail, the market has just been too small. What all this leads to is a small fixed lens B&W dedicated camera....... Mitch I am sure you can post process to a GRD feel with the D-LUX, it is quite easy with the D2 at 200iso (seems to work better than 400) which unfortunately is too slow for the cities but a wonder in open market areas. In a market of so much sameness, there really is a gap for a digital rangefinder at the low end of the market panasonic are the logical choice to make that step i think .. unfortunately panasonic are not a photographic company so the want to do go there is not part of the equation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 14, 2006 Share #37 Posted December 14, 2006 i have a C7070, it is a very well featured and more importantly rubust camera, that has held its value well s/h....with good reason. but it is incredibly noisy at times, and i despise all that menu plugging. i think i might flog my C7070 and pick up a D2 as a backup where as you say, the D2 noise signature is flat across 100 - 200 iso, (this was identified well at luminous landscape) but gets pretty ugly at 400 iso Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 14, 2006 Share #38 Posted December 14, 2006 Rob that is why I got rid of my 7070, but they love them in the states, bought mine for AU$500 and sold it for 850 Aussie pesos. The 400iso on the D2 are crap not even worth the conversion to B&W, I used it for colour market shots throughout Asia, India etc where it excelled and paid for itself many times over and more. Mind you one had to get the light readings spot on for a double page spread in a book I used a DSLR as a backup........ too much dof for my liking and needs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 14, 2006 Share #39 Posted December 14, 2006 ...Mitch I am sure you can post process to a GRD feel with the D-LUX, it is quite easy with the D2 at 200iso (seems to work better than 400) which unfortunately is too slow for the cities but a wonder in open market areas... Imants, I'm sure you're right; and, actually, I have no problems with the D-Lux 3 at ISO100 and 200, even with 400. My initial gripe was that 800 was not as nice as 800 with the GR-D, which often, not always, looks like very attractive film grain. 1600 on the GR-D is a matter of chance (or skill), sometimes looking great; other times, awful. But, now, that I stopped trying to post process D-Lux 3 files the way I did GR-D files, I feel I can get the look I want. Last night I tried the D-Lux 3 at ISO 3200, which is one of the jpeg "Scene" modes: it's got awful "smeared" smoothing that is really overdone; but I was able to get the look I want. I gues "D2" means Digilux 2, right? —Mitch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 14, 2006 Share #40 Posted December 14, 2006 Yea..... D2 is the old Digilux2/LC1........ I also am talking about raw files as the venus is a pain, the noise in raw can be translated to a film grain type, jpegs I find a lot more processing and loss in image. I threw away sense of urgency,missed the shot mentality and shoot the GRD raw as well catch ya later off to see Paul Kelly and a few dusk shots in town with the GRD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.