D3/L1 Vario-Elmarit photo quality

[audidudi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Panasonic inherited some of the issues with Olympus 4/3rds, I suspect to an extent too strong an AA filter. I also think that the combined input of Olympus/Panasonic/Leica will have an impact on future developments.

I agree with Riley that much of the difference in the appearance in the L1 images versus LC1 images (for you Leica folk, substitute "D3" and "D2" as appropriate) can be blamed/credited on the fact that Olympus supplied the sensor and basic guts of the camera and that as a result, it has a different look and feel than the Panasonic-derived sensor and guts used in the LC1. The two cameras may have shared the same mother but they have two different fathers, so it's only natural the resulting images have a similar but ultimately different look and feel to them.

[designdog]

I own both the L1 and the Digilux 2, but I haven't used the latter much (travel camera) and I haven't used the Leica zoom on the L1 as I've been favoring Contax primes. And for the L1, all I shoot is raw. Over the next few days I will take some jpegs from each and post my findings. Meanwhile, some comments on workflow.

 

I have been using Lightroom and Photoshop CS3. While I shoot in raw, the same procedure works with jpegs, although not as well. After doing the white balance, exposure and curves in Lightroom, I switch to Photoshop and sharpen with the Photokit sharpener plugin. (Previously noise is reduced with Noiseware if needed.) Then I return to Lightroom and save the files (Printing is done in Photoshop, with its soft proofing.)

 

I have two issues with the L1 and Lightroom. The first is the hangup I get importing raw files from the card. To avoid it I simply copy the card onto my hard drive before importing into Lightroom. I was hoping the new firmware upgrade would improve raw file handling on the L1, but not to be.

 

The second issue is the lack of a profile for the L1. I could make one, but I don't currently have a Gretag color card. Until I do, it is a pain to always adjust the Lightroom defaults, or to make a "dummy" profile that is flat.

 

-ddog

[audidudi]

As mentioned previously, I've recently been shooting some comparisons between my LC1 and my L1. Although an apples-to-apples comparison would be ideal, in the real world, it's next to impossible to achieve and as a result, I haven't tried to do so. What I did do was shoot identical RAW images, process them optimally, crop certain elements out of each photo, and then compare them. Note that despite my efforts to achieve similar color with both cameras, I didn't succeed ... for purposes of this comparison, though, I don't think this matters very much.

 

I'm presenting only one such comparison here, although I've shot about 15 of them over the past week. The scene from which these cropped images were pulled is below, followed by the LC1 crop and then the L1 crop. (This particular L1 crop ended up being 15 pixels smaller because I wasn't paying enough attention at the time, but I don't think it matters much as there isn't much detail there regardless.)

 

Anyway, I've drawn my conclusions ... what does everyone else think?

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!

[spylaw4]

I'm looking at these purely on my Mac's screen as posted.

 

I find the difference in colour surprising, and possibly a little distracting from the other qualities on trial.

 

The L1 image does seem nice and crisp and I would guess that you have applied a lot of sharpening to it? It certainly seems "harder" to my eyes. It is also a great deal less noisy - e.g. the end of the valve barrel near the wheel.

 

I did not have time over the weekend to do any comparison shots, although I"ll be posting some L1 pics shortly, here and in the photo forum.

[audidudi]

I find the difference in colour surprising, and possibly a little distracting from the other qualities on trial.

 

The L1 image does seem nice and crisp and I would guess that you have applied a lot of sharpening to it? It certainly seems "harder" to my eyes. It is also a great deal less noisy - e.g. the end of the valve barrel near the wheel.

 

Yes, there is a difference in color despite my adjusting white balance using the same piece of white cardboard with both cameras (to keep things consistent, I haven't updated the firmware yet). I also found that to get the same exposure, I had to add another 2/3 of a stop to the L1 (i.e, 1 second on the LC1 required 1.6 seconds on the L1). As you have surmised, both images have been sharpened quite a bit as these were cropped from my print files and I always sharpen these harder than I do images to be viewed solely on screen. As for the noise, I purposely shot a scene that would emphasize this in order to make it a worst-case comparison ... even then, though, I don't find the LC1 images to be excessively noisy (in fact, the difference is barely visible in prints) and find it actually adds some useful texture.

[spylaw4]

Agree about the noise. Interesting about the differing exposure requirements. The L1 shots I'm posting here were taken yesterday, after updating the firmware to V2. I still find the Autoexposure a bit variable - most of these were burst of 3 shots with -1/3EV/0/+1/3 EV and even if the overall scene was about the same mix of light/dark etc. the "best" exposure was not necessarily consistent.

Auto WB I have not tried yet - these were all shot on "sunny" and using the dropper made little or no difference.

Some other shots from the same outing are in the photo forum.

 

 

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!

 

 

 

[designdog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Brian:

 

Just out of curiosity. I have really stopped worrying about exposure adjustments on my L1, since everything I am shooting is in RAW. (I guess in theory if the scene was more than 2EV +/- it would be an issue.) Why wouldn't you shoot RAW with this camera?

 

With my former LC1 I noted that it had a tendency to under expose, which was a good thing, in a way. And, I never shoot RAW with this camera!

 

My current D2 has not been used enough, but my impression is that it is more neutral than my LC1. It too is a jpeg camera, for me.

 

-ddog

 

PS. There is one instance where I do adjust the EV on the L1: sometimes when shooting with my Contax primes at f2 or below, the meter grossly miscalculates. It reads shutter speeds of 125 that should be 500, for example. When the L1 is set to shutter speed "A" it is a pain to twist the dial to a shutter speed and back to "A", because of the stop there. If I bump the exposure down 2 stops, it does essentially the same thing...

[spylaw4]

Brian:

 

Just out of curiosity. I have really stopped worrying about exposure adjustments on my L1, since everything I am shooting is in RAW. (I guess in theory if the scene was more than 2EV +/- it would be an issue.) Why wouldn't you shoot RAW with this camera?

 

With my former LC1 I noted that it had a tendency to under expose, which was a good thing, in a way. And, I never shoot RAW with this camera!

 

My current D2 has not been used enough, but my impression is that it is more neutral than my LC1. It too is a jpeg camera, for me.

 

-ddog

 

PS. There is one instance where I do adjust the EV on the L1: sometimes when shooting with my Contax primes at f2 or below, the meter grossly miscalculates. It reads shutter speeds of 125 that should be 500, for example. When the L1 is set to shutter speed "A" it is a pain to twist the dial to a shutter speed and back to "A", because of the stop there. If I bump the exposure down 2 stops, it does essentially the same thing...

 

Just to say that all these shots are from RAW images processed in Lightroom. And I generally shoot RAW with the D2 also, although I have no hesitation shooting JPEG with the D2 if I need the speed of recording or the room on the card!

 

You may find that the meter is more accurate with the V2 firmware.

 

Personally I would rather try to get the exposure more or less correct (or slightly under-exp) at time of shooting - thus requiring less time processing. I have the L1 set so that the wheel alters the EV directly, so maybe I should spend a little more time adjusting and not rely on the camera to do the work, but if they give you a gadget, why not use it?!

[chkphoto]

As a matter of consideration regarding your dicsussion on exposure discrepancies and compensation, with any large format lens that I bought for my field camera and even my 35mm film camera lenses, I always ran tests to find out the tranmission of light through the lens rather than rely on the indicated f-stops on the barrel. Each individual lens off an assembly line, even though the same focal length, does transmit light differently, which is why a $50,000 Cooke film camera lens has T-stops as opposed to f-stop, which are engraved after the lens is tested on a bench.

 

I only present this because each lens that we may have will transmit light through it differently, thus there will always be a discrepancy from the indicated exposure using the f-stops to the exposure you actually get. In short, f2.8 on the barrel is not always f 2.8.

[sean_reid]

I'm perfectly happy to do this - and indeed was thinking about doing so over the Easter weekend. Not in as quite a refined and scientific way as you have proposed - but close enough I think.

 

Looking forward to seeing the results. Sorry to hear about your use of my personal bete noirs!

 

Oh - and IMHO your image wile probably ok for colour could possibly do with a bit more contrast?

 

BTW I though Sean Reid was going to take a look at the D3. Maybe he might opine on the D2/D3 divide?

 

I have been indeed. The article on the camera is in draft and I'm still testing. I was somewhat surprised at what a good camera it is.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[designdog]

Good point. I put the blame on the L1's meter, not the glass. I also have a Contax mount for Canon, so I will try this on my 20D to confirm.

 

I really do enjoy the combination of these Contax lenses (28, 50, 85, and 135) on the L1. Somehow the camera just feels right using them. I bought 4 inexpensive adapters so I don't have to switch them on and off. My only problem is focussing and the meter issue, both of which take experience.

 

Also, there is no way that I know to determine aperture from the exif data, since it is always at "0" to the camera. No problems at 5.6 and infinity, on the 85mm f1.7, per the attached.

 

-ddog

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!

[spylaw4]

The new V2 firmware really does seem to have made a difference. Can we collectively think of a couple of other enhancements that might be beneficial and badger Panasonic accordingly?

 

I would love to know when the 14-150 is due for release.

 

Yesterday's offering (Vario-Elmarit)

 

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!

.

[Atlasman]

The new V2 firmware really does seem to have made a difference. Can we collectively think of a couple of other enhancements that might be beneficial and badger Panasonic accordingly?

 

I would love to know when the 14-150 is due for release.

 

Yesterday's offering (Vario-Elmarit)

 

[ATTACH]33774[/ATTACH].

 

Yes,

1) give me auto bracket in timer mode--then I won't have to carry a cable release;

2) In live preview with manual focus, manual exposure, allow image capture without mirror slap;

3) allow 2 stops +/- in bracket mode (3 shots and not 5).

 

The above would make me a really happy camper.

 

And yes, I also would love to know when the 14-150 will be available.