tom0511 Posted March 29, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted March 29, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am evaluating a d-lux3-camera to use it for taking images when paragliding. Now I have read some threads here and would like to find experience regarding the folowing questions: 1) people say that the d-lux2 is more noisy but shows more detail because of less agressive noise reduction. Is this also true for 100ISO and shooting raw? Which camera would give me more detail when shooting at 100 ISO and using raw? 2) is the display of d-lux3 wider than the d-lux2 and therefore better for shooting 16:9 Â I dont need higher than iso100 often-so if the d-lux3 works as good or better than d-lux2 at 100iso it would be my camera. thanks a lot, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Hi tom0511, Take a look here d-lux3 (vs d-lux2) and other questions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
losta Posted March 30, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 30, 2007 I was just looking at the Leica News magazine which has an article on the C-Lux 2 it did not mention RAW. I know the original C-Lux doesn't shoot RAW. I know the D-Lux 2 and 3 both shoot RAW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted March 30, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted March 30, 2007 The Lux2, and the panasonic Lx1 both give you 80iso RAW. Lx1 might still be available round the traps. Doubt the Lux3 or Lx2 give you anything more than just more pixels crammed into the same size sensor, hence the more noise comment you heard. Â Nothing wrong the files you get from 80iso RAW. Havent used LX2 or Lux3 Â Search strings for Wayne Pease, I think he has used both Lux2 and 3 rather than just kept them in billingham bags. If its him have a sqiz at his pBase? site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted March 30, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted March 30, 2007 In answer to your second question, the D-Lux 3 does have the wider LCD. I love mine - although I can't speak directly to the D-Lux 2/3 comparison. Â Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chap Posted April 2, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted April 2, 2007 I have a D-Lux 2 and ordered a D-Lux 3 to upgrade. I ran a set of comparison shots in RAW format. After looking at the images at 100%, I saw no dramatic difference in detail shown by the 6MP D-Lux 2 and the 10MP D-Lux 3. I'm sure someone more astute would disagree, but I ended up sending the D-Lux 3 back to the dealer as I believe the D-Lux 2 was just as good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted April 2, 2007 Author Share #6 Â Posted April 2, 2007 thank you guys for the feedback. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsmithor Posted June 1, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted June 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) These are questions about the d-Lux3... (it's really about any digital camera without an eye viewer) I'm having a dilly of a time holding the lux-3 screen a good distance away when shooting and framing a shot... while still trying to keep things steady... (the auto anti-motion can only work so much) This was my first dig camera after shooting 20yrs with a fine rangefinder. I really miss holding the camera steady with my head and peering through the eye piece. And then there's the glare issue with the screen in bright sun light. (yes i know about the screen contract settings) Any suggestions regarding simple picture shooting techniques with digital cameras. Wearing glasses is no help... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesh Posted June 1, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted June 1, 2007 There's no doubt that in certain conditions the glare issue is a big problem. Have found myself guessing at what's in the frame. A proper viewfinder in a new model would be nice. Isn't that why some go for the Canon G7 or the Ricoh with the attached finder? But in any event there are compromises everywhere - there's a limit to what you can expect in such a pocketable bundle. It's still a great wee camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrique Santa Posted June 5, 2007 Share #9 Â Posted June 5, 2007 Chap dlux 2 is 8mp:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share #10 Â Posted June 5, 2007 Finally I went for the GX100 and really like it: great grip great user interface 24mm I dont see anything where the d-lux would have an advantage over the Ricoh. I am sure both are rgeat cameras. cheers, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneath Posted June 12, 2007 Share #11 Â Posted June 12, 2007 These are questions about the d-Lux3... (it's really about any digital camera without an eye viewer) I'm having a dilly of a time holding the lux-3 screen a good distance away when shooting and framing a shot... while still trying to keep things steady... (the auto anti-motion can only work so much) This was my first dig camera after shooting 20yrs with a fine rangefinder. I really miss holding the camera steady with my head and peering through the eye piece. And then there's the glare issue with the screen in bright sun light. (yes i know about the screen contract settings) Any suggestions regarding simple picture shooting techniques with digital cameras. Wearing glasses is no help... It's true, adjusting to the absence of a viewfinder is difficult. Over time your brain will retrain itself it accept the LCD screen and you will find your arms gain muscle memory in their attempts to hold steady in the new viewing position. In extremely bright sunlight, I'm usually wearing a hat. I hold the hat to shade the screen when necessary. When in doubt, I shoot several captures of the same shot and delete all but the best frame. I still miss the viewfinder, but I love the freedom of always having my camera with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonladd Posted June 12, 2007 Share #12 Â Posted June 12, 2007 The D-Lux 3 has a true 16x9 10mp sensor. When you shoot at 4:3 the camera crops the ends to take the smaller pic (and less mp). If you want to shoot 16:9 in a point and shoot its a great camera. I would have thought it would have been great for paragliding. At 28mm the lens seems wider at 16:9 too. JL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.