supperman Posted July 24, 2006 Share #21 Posted July 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Where do you see noise reduction, Max?Thanks to show me that. You can see from the 100% crop of the ISO 400 photo that the figurine looks somewhat fuzzier than ISO 100 samples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Hi supperman, Take a look here LEICA D VALIO-ELMARIT 14-50mm F2.8-F3.5 ASPH + Panasonic L1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
davephoto Posted July 24, 2006 Share #22 Posted July 24, 2006 thanks very much for taking the time to reply and sharing your first hand perceptions with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share #23 Posted July 25, 2006 You can see from the 100% crop of the ISO 400 photo that the figurine looks somewhat fuzzier than ISO 100 samples. You can find sample of noise reduction is developed by Rawshooter. Therefore it is Olympus E-1, E-330 and LEICA DMR+R9. This noise reduction level is 20 (100 is max). This noise reduction is same as ISO100 and ISO400. The purpose of noise reduction is reduce pattern noise. The sample of L-1 has no noise reduction, is is same ISO100 and ISO400. You can find soft image on Rawshooter result. This result is caused by design of development software. My opinion that , Sylkypix is focused on spatial frequency, and Rawshooter is focused on Color balance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share #24 Posted July 25, 2006 thanks very much for taking the time to reply and sharing your first hand perceptions with us. I posted new sample :-) http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/2161-new-sample-raw-picture-leica-d.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prince_alfie Posted July 25, 2006 Share #25 Posted July 25, 2006 Okay, can you compare the Leica D lens on a Olympus E1/E300/E330 combo relative to the Panny version. That will show the lens in different bodies and vindicate the optical quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share #26 Posted July 25, 2006 Okay, can you compare the Leica D lens on a Olympus E1/E300/E330 combo relative to the Panny version. That will show the lens in different bodies and vindicate the optical quality. I will ... but next week, may be. Because I have business trip now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 25, 2006 Share #27 Posted July 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) You can see from the 100% crop of the ISO 400 photo that the figurine looks somewhat fuzzier than ISO 100 samples. There's a bit of noise in the blue channel (see below) but i can't seem to view any trace of noise reduction. Where do you see this, Max? 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/2029-leica-d-valio-elmarit-14-50mm-f28-f35-asph-panasonic-l1/?do=findComment&comment=19143'>More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted July 25, 2006 Share #28 Posted July 25, 2006 Calvados I have used Silkypix for well over a year now, always up-dating to their latest and frequent up-dates. BTW I use an LC1 with Raw format. I find that Silkypix compares very well with RSP in everything except the browser, which is non existent. Silkypix allows cropping and printing and the actual development to Tiff from Raw is excellent with many quite advanced user settings and facilities..............but Oh, I wish for a decent browser as well please! The Panasonic L1 will ship with Silkypix 20ME which is essentially the same software as the current update Silypix2020 according to the latest Silkypix newsletter. Hope this helps. Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share #29 Posted July 25, 2006 Calvados I have used Silkypix for well over a year now, always up-dating to their latest and frequent up-dates. BTW I use an LC1 with Raw format. I find that Silkypix compares very well with RSP in everything except the browser, which is non existent. Silkypix allows cropping and printing and the actual development to Tiff from Raw is excellent with many quite advanced user settings and facilities..............but Oh, I wish for a decent browser as well please! The Panasonic L1 will ship with Silkypix 20ME which is essentially the same software as the current update Silypix2020 according to the latest Silkypix newsletter. Hope this helps. Cheers, Dave Hi, Dhsimmonds Thank you for your response. I agree with you about browser function, because I use to Silkypix 2.0 early version, but I can’t chose Silkypix. The reason why that color is not natural and no browser function. Panasonic raw format has very few supports by raw development software venders, and Panasonic has no plan about original raw development system, because I talked by phone with Panasonic development leader about this point. Silkypix is valuable product for Panasonic users, because they support all of Panasonic digital cameras. But if you can try other development software, you can find more useful functions and accurate color. Currently I have used Rowshooter, Olympus Studio, Flexcolor and Adobe camera raw (I hate this, because result constantly strange for me)with Adobe Photoshop. Almost software has good browser function (Rowshooter and Flexcolor can’t support jpeg and tiff) and background raw conversion (except Olympus Studio). Panasonic L1 includes Silkypix, but this is limited version, based on 2.0.14.13, this product can develop only Panasonic. Therefore I can’t update by Ichikawa soft laboratory. I belive no upgrade path in the future, if Windows Vista will ship. Currently I meet Silkypix trouble, I contacted Panasonic support center, there response is very quick and kindly, but they can’t solve problem. They contacted with Ichikawa software laboratory, they say our support is no problem. But they has no response for me. No response area disgusting, because function is limited by this problem, I wish quick solution. I agree with you about good point of Silkypix, but I can’t believe this vender. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
supperman Posted July 26, 2006 Share #30 Posted July 26, 2006 There's a bit of noise in the blue channel (see below) but i can't seem to view any trace of noise reduction.Where do you see this, Max? You don't need to isolate the channels to see that the outline of the face and the details in the hair looks somewhat fuzzy. It's not the normal watercolor patches you see with Panasonic/Leica digicams because the noise should not really get that bad even with 4/3", but the loss of details and crispness is a result of a combination of noise and noise reduction. In any case, the blue channel picture you showed looked choke full of blocky artifacts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share #31 Posted July 26, 2006 the loss of details and crispness is a result of a combination of noise and noise reduction.. Some time misunderstanding is this point. I already post noise reduction level information. You can find sample of noise reduction is developed by Rawshooter. Therefore it is Olympus E-1, E-330 and LEICA DMR+R9. This noise reduction level is 20 (100 is max).This noise reduction is same as ISO100 and ISO400. All of posted pictures is develop from raw data. All of camera has no algorism for noise reduction for raw data. The Canon has noise reduction system for raw data, this special case. Therefore, noise reduction is explicit only on development software, not camera image engine. Cause of loss of detail area 4 point, in my opinion. 1. This is your talking point, noise reduction and false color reduction. 2. “bokeh” by optical system or CCD/NMOS pixel size. You can find this situation in occur on DMR + R3 sample or E-1. 3. Algorism 0f raw development process. Because all of pictures CCD/NMOS is Bayer array model, therefore R and B has 25% pixels only. The development process need complement this situation, and you can find lots of difference abuts those point, and different result. Silkypix is concentrate this point, therefore result feel high spatial frequency this mean is not “the loss of details and crispness”. 4. CMOS/NMOS linearity. This point is one of important view point. This point is combination with raw development algorism, may be you can understood by color curves and outline complement process. I believe this result is not caused by noise reduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
supperman Posted July 26, 2006 Share #32 Posted July 26, 2006 Some time misunderstanding is this point. I already post noise reduction level information. All of posted pictures is develop from raw data. All of camera has no algorism for noise reduction for raw data. The Canon has noise reduction system for raw data, this special case. Therefore, noise reduction is explicit only on development software, not camera image engine. Cause of loss of detail area 4 point, in my opinion. 1. This is your talking point, noise reduction and false color reduction. 2. “bokeh” by optical system or CCD/NMOS pixel size. You can find this situation in occur on DMR + R3 sample or E-1. 3. Algorism 0f raw development process. Because all of pictures CCD/NMOS is Bayer array model, therefore R and B has 25% pixels only. The development process need complement this situation, and you can find lots of difference abuts those point, and different result. Silkypix is concentrate this point, therefore result feel high spatial frequency this mean is not “the loss of details and crispness”. 4. CMOS/NMOS linearity. This point is one of important view point. This point is combination with raw development algorism, may be you can understood by color curves and outline complement process. I believe this result is not caused by noise reduction. When you convert RAW photos on your computer, it will have some level of noise reduction, just a different one, although I agree that the different RAW programs do have better algorithms jpg/tiff conversion and noise reduction. And in this case, it is not at all impressive, especially if it was shot RAW, but maybe it might be considered pretty good for a 4/3" sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 26, 2006 Share #33 Posted July 26, 2006 When you convert RAW photos on your computer, it will have some level of noise reduction... Most raw converters have some noise reduction capabilities i guess but i have never heard that one cannot disable them if they wish to. In the 400 iso pic above there was no noise reduction, as i suggested, and the level of digital noise and artefacts does not look much higher than what i'm used to get out of my Nikon and Epson raw converters at 400 iso. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted July 26, 2006 Share #34 Posted July 26, 2006 Why cannot you use the raw converter in Aperture or Lightroom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffshen Posted July 27, 2006 Share #35 Posted July 27, 2006 Why cannot you use the raw converter in Aperture or Lightroom? I'm able to use Aperture for my Digilux2 RAW... not sure if it's the same on L1... But I kind of want L1... Maybe I'll wait until 25 Summilux is out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
supperman Posted July 27, 2006 Share #36 Posted July 27, 2006 Most raw converters have some noise reduction capabilities i guess but i have never heard that one cannot disable them if they wish to.In the 400 iso pic above there was no noise reduction, as i suggested, and the level of digital noise and artefacts does not look much higher than what i'm used to get out of my Nikon and Epson raw converters at 400 iso. Argh... LCT, the fuzziness is the artifact of noise reduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 27, 2006 Share #37 Posted July 27, 2006 Fuzzi.. what Max? Don't see anything special here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share #38 Posted July 27, 2006 maybe it might be considered pretty good for a 4/3" sensor. I feel you have some prejudice about 4/3 sensor and digital technology. May be, you believe that, 4/3 sensor is smaller than full size, small pixel size, therefore noise is big. Why this picture has small noise, must be processed by noise reduction result. Do you know one of cause of noise is photo diode size, not pixel size. Almost CMOS technology must make lot of circuit on chip, therefore photo diode size is only 30-35 % on cell/pixel. Kodak full frame CCD or Matsushita new-myvicon(Live Mos Sensor) is specialized this point, therefore 50% is photo diode. 4/3 sensor(exp. Kodak KAF-5101CE, Matsushita new-myvicon etc) and DMR sensor(Kodak KAF-10010CE) is similar noise performance with APS size or Full Size. But you can find more low noise performance at Canon camera. Canon has lot of noise reduction patent for CMOS, this performance is based on noise reduction technology, not real low noise. Why Canon CMOS is full size, it is simple, the circuit is big, and therefore important keyword is cell size for keeping photo diode size. Size of photo diode is normal and good noise reduction on chip/image engine, this result is low noise. Not cell size. This sample is not noise reduction max, and almost development software has explicit noise reduction, not implicit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
precsmo Posted July 28, 2006 Share #39 Posted July 28, 2006 ok, out of the iso questions now, can the owner kindly tell us how is the feel of the shot to shot performance? is it as responsive as the competing brands, and is it as good as the E-330? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvados Posted July 28, 2006 Author Share #40 Posted July 28, 2006 can the owner kindly tell us how is the feel of the shot to shot performance? is it as responsive as the competing brands, and is it as good as the E-330? It is good question. LEICA D VALIO-ELMARIT + Panasonic L1 has some good point and weak point. Good Point 1. Auto focus at dark situation, it is accurate more than E-330. 2. This lens is very good performance, and available short range shot same as Macro. 3. Light weight. 4. You can share some accessory of OLYMPUS. Exp Magnifier Eyecup ME-1 5. Live view is very useful. Same as E-330, but E-330 is more useful because you can change angle. L-1 is more stable about monitor white balance at dark environment. Weak Point 1. Single shot is slow, may be 1picture/sec. If you wish series shot, you must set by switch. Olympus E-330 is same as max specification. 2. You can’t choose Raw Develop software. 3. Lens ring sequence is abnormal for LEICA R user. 4. Finger feeling is same as cheap camera. 5. I can't feel Mega O.I.S. result. All of my feeling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.