Arie1 Posted July 12, 2006 Share #1 Posted July 12, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi there, On the 10th of june I wrote on the old forum that I would return my D-Lux2 camera to the shop because of dead/faulty pixels visible on the raw images. Today I received a new replacement camera that shows the same kind of defects. Black spots on the raw image:eek: . And Leica Germany says they checked the camera before shipping. I don't know what to do and I am thinking about asking for a refund. It is a big disappointment. Am I the only one who gets faulty camera's or do very few people take a good look at the raw images? It is not the you have to look very thouroughly on my images to find them. Did I tell you it is a big disappointment? . regards, Arie1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Hi Arie1, Take a look here Pixel-error of D-lux 2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
biglouis Posted July 12, 2006 Share #2 Posted July 12, 2006 I've just started to play around using RAW images on my D-LUX 2. I can't say I've noticed any dead pixels but then again maybe I have not looked that closely. If you go to the nature section of the picture forum and look for my recent post "Cactus Flower" you'll see my results. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arie1 Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted July 13, 2006 I will post an example of dead pixels of the D-lux 2 in the picture area of this forum. Regards, Arie1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 13, 2006 Share #4 Posted July 13, 2006 Been shooting RAW for six or seven months with D-Lux 2, haven't noticed any dead pixels. Small sensor becomes grainy enough with high magnification that I haven't looked for them to the degree you have. Sorry for your problems. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 14, 2006 Share #5 Posted July 14, 2006 Arjen-- I'm not sure what bad pixels look like. I've never seen any, but acquaintances tell me they are square and black, not shaped like a + surrounded by white squares as in this case. This looks strange to me, but I have nothing to compare it with. You might ask Leica to look at the images you posted and see whether the problem might be something else. Here are a couple questions, not for me because I can't help; but they might be helpful for Solms: What RAW software did you use? What enlargement is the final image? What mechanism for screen dump? (I think Windows and Mac handle it differently.) The D-Lux 2 has a very small sensor and in my opinion you may be trying to push it beyond its limit. I have been delighted with the quality of image I've been getting from my sample of the camera for the past six months or so and I'm sorry you're not as happy with it as I am. But you alone can determine what kind of performance you need. I hope you get it straightened out to your satisfaction! Respectfully, --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arie1 Posted July 14, 2006 Author Share #6 Posted July 14, 2006 Hello HC, I have tried two different camera's (new D-lux 2's). I used RawShooter Premium 2006 to import the RAW images to a windows XP home edition pc. I couldn't get the adobe Elements plugin for RAW images to work. Each camera gave black spots at exactly the same positions in all the raw images that were taken with that specific camera. Between the two camera's the locations of black spots differed. To me this indicates that the 'problem is not generated by the software or datacards. I used PrintKey2000 for the screencaptures. Comprimation to jpg by this program essentially did not alter the image. What you see on the pictures is what I see on the screen. I use an iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 screen of about 9 years old that imho still outperforms modern day lcd-screens. I can send you some of my RAW files if you like (8MB/p) to have a look yourself. What I don't understand, supposing there is nothing wrong with the camera('s), is why Leica Germany swapped the first one for a new one without bothering to ask what I did to acquire the images. Why, in that case didn't they try to solve the real problem? Regards, Arie1 I just posted two more images to show that the black spots are visible at an enlargement that I might want to use. Then I have to correct those black spots at the chin of the boy and on the two arms. Am I being picky? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 15, 2006 Share #7 Posted July 15, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can send you some of my RAW files if you like (8MB/p) to have a look yourself. What I don't understand, supposing there is nothing wrong with the camera('s), is why Leica Germany swapped the first one for a new one without bothering to ask what I did to acquire the images. Why, in that case didn't they try to solve the real problem? I just posted two more images to show that the black spots are visible at an enlargement that I might want to use. Then I have to correct those black spots at the chin of the boy and on the two arms. Am I being picky? Arjen-- In the new set of images, the black spots are obvious; and no, you're not being picky. Your description and their appearance makes me agree that they look like dead pixels. Unfortunately, as I said before, I can't help. Why did Leica swap the camera? I have no idea. I would guess the procedure might have been along the line of: "Well, the customer says it has dead pixels; I don't see them, but if they're there, he'll sure see them if I just send the camera back." In the new picture of the guy with his arm raised--if the camera had been turned a couple degrees to one side or the other, the dead pixels would have been in the background trees and I wouldn't have seen them. That may be what happened when they tested the replacement before sending it. With something like this, as you know, if the pixels are dead, there's no way around exchanging the sensor; and since the camera comes from Panasonic, I doubt that Leica themselves have any way to correct the problem without returning the camera to Panasonic. I understand why you're annoyed; I would be as well. But I know Leica for years, and I've met and respect their personnel. I believe they are trying but some things just slip through. Maybe we expect more of Leica. I've had a scanner off for warranty repair for over a month. No follow-up from the company to tell me status, I need to do all the contact from my side. I wouldn't tolerate that from Leica, but with this other company I just shrug and say, "Hmph. Funny way to do business." As for sending me the images, don't bother; I appreciate the offer, but I see what you're talking about. As for Photoshop Elements, I think you need version 3 (or maybe even version 4) to access the D-Lux 2 images with the current plug-in. I wish you the best, and I'm sorry to have drawn this out without being able to offer some resolution. I use the camera daily and I'm very sorry you're not getting the same satisfaction out of it. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arie1 Posted July 15, 2006 Author Share #8 Posted July 15, 2006 It's allright HC. Thanks for taking the time to look at the pictures. And I wish you all the best and all the fun you can get with your camera. I will take some time now to find out which camera to buy that nears or equals the possibilities of the D-lux 2. Compact camera, manual focus, manual aperture and/or time setting, RAW format shooting, good quality lens and SD-cards, low noise... Doesn't exist? We'll see what comes out of it. Greetings, Arie1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.