Leica DLUX3 vs DLUX2 RAW NOISE ISSUE

[mark1958a]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Leica DLUX2 and some time ago, me and another member did a side by side comparison of the DLUX2 and the Panasonic LX-1. Our conclusion was that the RAW images were identical when processed by the same converter (we tried multiple ones) but Panasonic jpgs were warmer etc. The jpgs were not important to me as I shoot all in RAW anyway.

 

I just read on dpreview.com in the Panasonic thread, an issue of RAW smearing due to noise reduction placed into the RAW file. Of course I did not believe this at all until I downloaded some Panasonic LX-1 and LX-2 files shot at the same targets. Now I am convinced that there is some sort of NR or processing applied to the Panasonic RAW files from the LX-2. So my question is whether or not the same holds true for the DLUX2 vs DLUX 3?

I am sending the link to the Panasonic files if anyone cares to see what I am talking about. The best examples are 638.RAW and 483.RAW

http://www.esnips.com/web/viztygerphotos?docsPage=1#files

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

I don't know the answer to your question, but it looks to as if some in-camera processing is applied to D-Lux 3 files shot at ISO1600 — and it's not benign.

 

—Mitch/Johannsburg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[mark1958a]

Mitch... So you do not see any differences or processing at iso less than 1600?

 

I don't know the answer to your question, but it looks to as if some in-camera processing is applied to D-Lux 3 files shot at ISO1600 — and it's not benign.

 

—Mitch/Johannsburg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[audidudi]

There's a reason why the prices of used LX1/DL2s are holding steady despite the introduction of the LX2/DL3, you know. Word on the street is that many people prefer the image quality of the older cameras despite the various "improvements" that have been incorporated into the newer ones...

[mark1958a]

I was getting ready to go on a trip where i was not sure i could bring my DSLRs so I was thinking of upgrading DLUX2 to DLUX3 or LX2... but after doing my homework, i am sticking with my original.

 

There's a reason why the prices of used LX1/DL2s are holding steady despite the introduction of the LX2/DL3, you know. Word on the street is that many people prefer the image quality of the older cameras despite the various "improvements" that have been incorporated into the newer ones...

[Guest malland]

Mitch... So you do not see any differences or processing at iso less than 1600?

I have not made any comparison to any other camera, Leica or Panasonic: it's just that there seems to be obvious in camera processing in D-Lux 3 files at ISO1600, which is not evident at slower speeds.

 

—Mitch/Johannesburg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[dugby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's a reason why the prices of used LX1/DL2s are holding steady despite the introduction of the LX2/DL3, you know. Word on the street is that many people prefer the image quality of the older cameras despite the various "improvements" that have been incorporated into the newer ones...

 

There are some excellent side-by-side samples from both LX1 and LX2 cameras on pbasedotcom.

 

Based on this, and some other reviews, I specifically bought a DL2/LX1 and not the newer DL3/LX2 to be my backup for my D2.

 

Now I have:

a) a D2 as my backup to my D3/L1 and

a DL2/LX1 as backup to my D2

[mark1958a]

My only point is that since there are clearly jpg algorithm differences between the panasonic and Leica, I wondered if in the newer cameras, there were any differences in the RAW files between the two cameras.

 

There are some excellent side-by-side samples from both LX1 and LX2 cameras on pbasedotcom.

 

Based on this, and some other reviews, I specifically bought a DL2/LX1 and not the newer DL3/LX2 to be my backup for my D2.

 

Now I have:

a) a D2 as my backup to my D3/L1 and

a DL2/LX1 as backup to my D2

[macgarvin]

I just read on dpreview.com in the Panasonic thread, an issue of RAW smearing due to noise reduction placed into the RAW file. Of course I did not believe this at all until I downloaded some Panasonic LX-1 and LX-2 files shot at the same targets. Now I am convinced that there is some sort of NR or processing applied to the Panasonic RAW files from the LX-2. So my question is whether or not the same holds true for the DLUX2 vs DLUX 3?

http://www.esnips.com/web/viztygerphotos?docsPage=1#files

 

I can't speak for the Panasonics but the smearing (in one axis, the long axis of the photo I recall, may be wrong) is certainly there in the DLUX 3 in raw at ISO 100 (even) in the shadows, most noticeable where eg shooting a landscape with dark shade and you are trying to avoid blowing out sunlit highlights. If you look at the leica jpgs they loose shadow detail compaired to the raw image, in order to loose this smearing I would guess. Looks horrible. If it is really critical shot I do a bracketed exposure or two shots one exposed for highlights and one (perhaps shifted down a bit away from the sky) for the shadows and then stitch them together using Photoshop and crop as necessary. But for most shots it isn't an issue for me, just annoying when I fail to take precautions ...

 

And it is a great camera to have with you for all occasions:

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!

[tjphoto]

I picked up a D Lux III a few days ago. Wonderful! These were shot raw at iso 400. Very film like.

[AlanJW]

I am woondering whether this is a sample variation issues, as I have both an LX1 (now my daughter's) and a DLux 3 and frankly have not noticed smearing in the DX3 files -- I basically ignore the jpgs and work with the RAW files and I rarely use anything higher than ISO 100. My impression fwiw is that the DLux 3 marginally outperforms the LX1 -- and the larger screen is a big plus too.

 

Given the comments here, weather permitting I'll do a little experiment this weekend and report. Now you may want to know why I had both. My daughter dropped her Canon P&S into a pond and the poor thing drowned. I gave her the Panaleica and bought the DLux 3 for my backup to my M8.

[mark1958a]

THe differences that i saw through downloading raw images were more apparent at the higher isos. At the lower ones you may not see the differences. also look in the darker shadows.

 

I am woondering whether this is a sample variation issues, as I have both an LX1 (now my daughter's) and a DLux 3 and frankly have not noticed smearing in the DX3 files -- I basically ignore the jpgs and work with the RAW files and I rarely use anything higher than ISO 100. My impression fwiw is that the DLux 3 marginally outperforms the LX1 -- and the larger screen is a big plus too.

 

Given the comments here, weather permitting I'll do a little experiment this weekend and report. Now you may want to know why I had both. My daughter dropped her Canon P&S into a pond and the poor thing drowned. I gave her the Panaleica and bought the DLux 3 for my backup to my M8.