ScottM Posted January 18, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've had the camera for months now, tried different settings, but the pictures look soft on the computer, and they they print soft. I replaced a stolen Casio Z750 (7 mp) that took what I considered great photos, but was enticed by the 16:9 and 10 mega pixels. In 3:2 they look a tad better, but overall, I'm really not happy. Has anyone else noticed this, and is there something obvious I'm missing? I love so many features on this camera for point and shoot, don't want to get rid of it. Â Thanks, Scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Hi ScottM, Take a look here D-Lux 3 looks soft. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
philipotto Posted January 18, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Scott, I dont own a D-LUX 3 so I don't know how much help I can be, but if you could post some samples in this thread it would be helpful to all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 18, 2007 Share #3  Posted January 18, 2007 Scott,  I don't think softness is a problem with the D-Lux 3. Are you shooting JPGs or RAW? What shutter speeds are you shooting with? How are you focusing? Perhaps you should post a sample of the problem.   —Mitch/Lubumbashi http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Par70 Posted January 18, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Scott... Â I had the exact same problem.... Since I've had the camera I have been reading all I can about the D lux 3, all the photography bulletin boards and looking at all the images I can find posted...I've found that almost all the images that look good ...and I've seen a bunch..are shot at iso 100....RAW ...Close up...or all three..... Â I've also seen a lot of post processing to sharpen images... Â Mitch has some very good looking B&W images...and I've seen some real good Color too....but...obviously they post what works and looks good.. Â I loved the camera but it lacked the sharpness I wanted in low light situations... ...Hope this helps...at least someone else feels as you do... Good luck... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 18, 2007 Share #5  Posted January 18, 2007 Yes, I do a lot of post-processing, as I would in the darkroom as well. Here is a shot at ISO 800 and another one in color at ISO 100. As I said, I don't find sharpness to be a problem. Grain can be a problem for some users, but I like generally like grain. Perhaps there was something wrong with your camera if the pictures were always soft.  —Mitch/Lubumbashi http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/   Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 18, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Scott--I have D-Lux 2, not D-Lux 3. Â After a year of dissatisfaction with the OIS, I decided to test the three operative modes (1, 2 and OFF) and found that they all worked the same. Â Sent the camera in for checking, and sure enough, the OIS was non-functional. Leica NJ repaired it and all is well. Â It is great at lower ISO settings in relatively bright light. Low light is not its forte and ISO 200 is about as high as I want to use it. I shoot RAW with ISO AUTO, do almost no postprocessing and virtually never any sharpening. Â I say if your D-Lux 3 images look soft, there is either something wrong with your sample or something you could improve in your usage of it--exactly the question you asked, of course. Â RAW or JPG? Compression? ISO? Shuter speed, aperture and focal length? Manual, Macro, or AF? What image processor on the computer? Etc. We need more info as Philip said. Â Also, it doesn't make sense that images should look better at 3:2 since that reduces the number of pixels used. 16:9 should maximize quality. Â Something is definitely weird, because the camera is a great performer IMHO. Â --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECliffordSmith Posted January 18, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Scott, Â I own the D-Lux 2 but as the lens is the same as the one on your camera I hope this may help. Â Generally I find the lens to be very sharp. The exception is with infinty focus and small apertures. In these circumstances I lock the focus on a closer subject (I suspect the problem is that with a very distant subject the focus does not lock properly) and use an aperture around 5.6. I find this aperture can give a full DOF. Â I have a load of sample images on my pbase site below and you can perform camera searches on the main pbase page to look at the results of others. Â I always use the lowest ISO possible and never above 200 and use either AP, SP or M modes. I never perform any PP (although I am sure I should) besides resizing and compression and shoot in the low compression JPEG mode. Â I work in IT so have a real aversion to computers outside of office hours! Â As others have mentioned, please post some of your results as this will help a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted January 18, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted January 18, 2007 I'm looking at purchasing the D-Lux 3, but was also considering the GRD. DPReview just ripped the GRD as having noisy and soft images lacking in detail. Â I can expect the noise from any of these smaller chipped cameras, given their limitations, but the lack of "image detail" does not get better with post process sharpening. Â How would the members compare image detail from the GRD files @ 100 & 200, with the Lux @100 and 200, shot raw. Â Thanks! Â CD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 18, 2007 Share #9  Posted January 18, 2007 Chris:  Don't believe everything you read in reviews, which are geared to the needs of the mass market, while these two cameras are more for experienced photographres, especially the GR-D. Your question can be anwered by looking at my pictures taken with these cameras, here:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/  —Mitch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
preston Posted January 18, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted January 18, 2007 I compared my D-Lux 3 at ISO 100 to my old Nikon F2 / 55mm macro / ISO 160 color neg / scanned at 5400 dpi. Both were printed at 13x19". The D-lux 3 was set to 3:2 aspect ratio. Not same subject, two different outdoor scenes taken at different times, both on tripods. Â The D-Lux 3 raw file was sharpened carefully with a small radius but not to the point where any artifacts could be seen; I also removed the chromatic aberration using Camera Raw. The film scan, however, could not be sharpened much due to the grain. Â To my complete surprise, the D-Lux 3 file was both less noisy and noticeably sharper. Â Caveats: of course the Nikon could give much better results if I had used low speed transparency film and could then probably apply some more sharpening. Also, scanning with a higher res Imacon and downsampling might produce less visible grain than the 5400 dpi Minolta scanner. And the subject differences and local contrast differences mean it's not a scientific comparison anyway. But it sure looked convincing. I can't imagine the D-Lux being called "soft" after seeing it. Â One thing to note... because of diffraction limits, the optimimum aperture of the Nikon lens is around f5.6-f8 but the optimum aperture of the D-lux is more like f4 at most. I would guess you might actually get softer results from the D-lux if you use typical smaller apertures due to diffraction which sets in much earlier on smaller formats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Par70 Posted January 18, 2007 Share #11 Â Posted January 18, 2007 Mitch... Â I understand that you like the noise you see at higher than 100 ISO....and you make it work in your images...but....I don't think that either the D lux 3 or the GR-D were looking for that when they manufactured these cameras...In fact they both tout their High ISO low noise ability... Again...you make it work and like the resulting grain... and thats fine...but I would have to think of that noise as a negative......It would be better to have the choice...grain or no grain.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 18, 2007 Share #12  Posted January 18, 2007 ...but....I don't think that either the D lux 3 or the GR-D were looking for that when they manufactured these cameras...In fact they both tout their High ISO low noise ability...but I would have to think of that noise as a negative......It would be better to have the choice...grain or no grain..Michael:Going by the pictures that Ricoh and Leica/Panasonic use in their advertising for these cameras, I think that you're quite right. But I think of small-sensor cameras as a new type of format — the idea comes from Sean Reid — that has huge depth of field and grainy pictures, at least in the current sensor technology situation. And it is the existence of grain (or noise) that allows me to pursue the "35mm aesthetic", rather than the "medium format" aesthetic with these cameras. Perhaps in the future, as the technology develops, small sensor cameras will produce files with much less noise — and I'll have to find another way to pursue the 35mm aesthetic — or maybe, by then, I'll learn to love the medium format look.  But I'm rather incorrible in liking grain, as in these color pictures by Harry Gruyaert, as Magnum photographer:  http://www.magnumad.com/detected.php?page=&pass=  It'll take a few seconds for the page to load. Under photographers, click on Harry Gruyaert. Click on Portfolio and you'll be able to see his "Rivages" series. They're beautiful grainy seascape/horizon images.  —Mitch/Lubumbashi http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share #13 Â Posted January 19, 2007 I don't use RAW (for now). It's like what Ed said in an earlier post, trying to keep it simple, don't want to do a lot of post production, do enough of that at work (television news cameraman). I would expect this camera to take sharp photos with fairly little adjustment. I shoot at 100 ISO. Â Perhaps the devil is in the focus. There seem to be a bunch of auto focus settings. Â As far as grain, it works for b/w, and the great pictures by Mitch. Don't need it for my camping trip. Â Scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share #14 Â Posted January 19, 2007 Almost forgot. Want to post some examples, but my photos are about 3.8 mb, how do I reduce to 244.1 KB for this site?? Trying to learn all this at my old age!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 19, 2007 Share #15  Posted January 19, 2007 If you have Photoshop, go to Image and set the resolution at 72ppi and the width at, say, 8 or 9 inches for a "landscape" orientation shot; or for a "portrait" orientation shot set the height to 8 or 9 inches. And then save the file as JPG.  —Mitch/Lubumbashiu http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 19, 2007 Share #16 Â Posted January 19, 2007 ppi is totally meaningless for an image to be viewed online. Save it as say 800-900 pixels wide and then use 'save for web' to adjust the image size. If it's a colour image make sure it's in sRGB mode before saving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share #17  Posted January 23, 2007 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!   Here are my samples, thanks for your help. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!   Here are my samples, thanks for your help. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13753-d-lux-3-looks-soft/?do=findComment&comment=149911'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 23, 2007 Share #18 Â Posted January 23, 2007 Scott-- I like both pictures; beautiful child and dog both. Â But you're right, they strike me as soft as well. Â Only guessing from first glance: this looks like camera movement to me because there's nothing sharp in either image. Are these typical? Best-case? Worst-case? Â What shutter speed? What OIS mode? Autofocus or manual? What ISO? RAW or JPG? If RAW, did you need to do any gross exposure adjustments? Â Do you press the release v.e.r.r.y slowly, so that it's almost a surprise when the camera fires? That's especially important with a camera this small that has to be held at arms' length to use. Â I had had my D-Lux 2 for just over a year before I realized the image stabilization was not working. If you're doing everything else right, I would run a test of the OIS: Â I chose an evening just after sundown and made 4 exposures in each OIS setting, viz Mode 1, Mode 2, and OFF. I chose that time because with the lens at its widest I could get exposures around 1/15 to 1/20 at ISO 100. When I did that, I found that in each of the three sets one image was barely usable and the other three were completely unsharp. In other words, I had the same results whether the OIS was on or off. Â First thing we need to do is figure out whether it's you or the camera. If it's the camera, it will need to go for repair, but if we can tell them "check AF" or "focus off" or "check image stabilization," we can point them in the right direction. (Though as for that, they've probably got a probe that will tell them what's wrong without our help.) Â See if others agree that the images don't look crisp; I'm just a voice in the crowd. Â Good luck! Â --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Par70 Posted January 23, 2007 Share #19 Â Posted January 23, 2007 Scott... Â I don't think your image stabilizer is broken...I don't think you arent pushing the shutter release correctly....I think its the camera...I had the exact same problem....I eventually sent my d-lux 3 back to Leica to evaluate it...They checked it out and wrote me that they set the camera to Factory specs....I tried the camera out and it still looked soft to me.... I found that up close ..it seems to take nice sharp images....as you move away...the pics seem soft....I felt this was somehow due to the noise reduction....I have found that using some posp sharpening improves the images.... I was dissapointed with this...but if you look on this website ..you will see good images....Shot at iso 100 close up and most with pp.... If that works for you great...if you want to be able to take pics on your camping trips with your family and have the pics look good with not much pp...then I would get another camera.. You will have people post pics here to show you how good the camera is...but they will probably be B&W....and fairly close up.. Id like to see some pics of people, family,in color....from about 6-7 feet not in bright sunlight...and not iso 100....and no pp... They will look soft... I don't want to bash the camera ....I like it..it is an interesting camera and can take some great images..but it isn't perfect and it isnt for everyone... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter41951 Posted January 23, 2007 Share #20 Â Posted January 23, 2007 Howard, I don't agree - the top photo has bits in focus, doesn't it? Could the problem be that the camera hasn't been focussed on the target? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.