Frustration with D-Lux 3

[Pygoscelis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Digilux 3 and D-Lux 3. The former I am deliriously happy with; the latter has proved to be a big disappointment.

 

I like most things about the D-Lux 3 that caused me to buy it in the first place (the form factor, the 28 mm equivalent at the wide end, the 16:9 ratio, raw, the styling, the manual controls). I would have preferred an OVF, but I can live without if need be. What I cannot live with, however, is the image quality. It is just not living up to my expectations and cannot substitute for a DSLR at a pinch - as a consequence, because I feel I cannot rely on it, I don't pick it up in those situations where I anticipated I should in preference to carrying heavier gear.

 

My big hope was that once I could process the RAW files using Aperture I could overcome the painterly effect that obliterates detail in both jpegs and raw files. However, now that Apple supports the D-Lux 3, this has not proved to be the case. I notice it particularly on portraits, with hair and skin tones often appearring blotchy.

 

It's possible that my individual camera is faulty - and I am considering sending it in to be serviced to check whether that is the case. However, when I look at the images of others that are available online, they too seem to suffer to greater or lesser degrees from this painterly effect, which I attribute to the Venus engine and which presumably must operate to some extent on the Raw files as well.

 

Now, one might argue that it makes no sense to pixel-peep if the images are just for small prints or web-based reproduction - and it's true that in most instances I would not want a large print or to display at 100% resolution...BUT...I want that flexibility, for those images that I really do want to print large or crop or whatever. What's the point of having a 10 megapixel camera if I can only ever use it at sizes befitting a three megapixel camera? Note: I don't give a jot about high ISO performance - 95% of my shots on the D-Lux 3 are taken at ISO 100.

 

I'm considering getting a Canon G9 as a replacement. The official images available from Canon look truly amazing (on a par with 8 - 10 Megapixel DSLRs for sure). I'm concerned about the increase in weight/size and the loss at the wide end (I would definitely not put a wide angle adaptor on it as some seem to espouse - if it were going to need to be that bulky, I'd rather use an Oly E-410 and the superlight 14-42). I will live with the increased size/weght and loss of the 28 mm perspective if the image quality is significantly better than the D-Lux 3.

 

Which brings me to the point of what has turned into an unintended rant: while to my eyes images I see online suggest that the quality of the G9 images eats that of the D-lux 3/Panasonic LX2 images, I am amazed at how so many people seem to be arguing for the D-Lux 3 over the G9. Am I missing soimething? Can any of you with experience of both the D-Lux 3 and G9 tell me what your impressions are...and please remember I am primarily interested in image quality at low ISO.

 

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest malland]

There is no probkem with the D-Lux 3 at low ISOs: there is no blurring of detail in RAW at ISO 100, although there is some at ISO 1600. The problem must be with your processing. Perhaps you should post some pictures and people may be able to see what is happeming. The D-Lux 3 is a good camera, and I have not found the problems that you're referring to. You're likely to have the same problems with the G9. Here are some D-Lux 3 pictures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Paris

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

[Pygoscelis]

I beg to disagree and unfortunately posting at the resolution allowed here proves nothing. I really hope you are right, however, and that it is my processing that is at fault. I'll email you and perhaps we can exchange files and I can learn a better way to process from you. I hope so.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

Lloyd

[Guest malland]

My experience is that JPG files of the size that I posted give a good indication of what the print will look like.

 

—Mitch/Paris

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

[rob_x2004]

Beats me. Why dont you post some of your problem images?

With regard to the DSLR that would depend on the lens you compare.

Are you letting apple default open your raw files? That too would be amusing.

[Pygoscelis]

FWIW here's a couple...L

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!

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW here's a couple...L

 

My EXIF isnt picking up so I cant see teh whole story. How did you arrive at them? They dont look too flash to me. If this is what you are getting out of 100ISO RAW then there is something you are doing wrong in post processing. If you want easy then maybe go back to an EOS in your budget, but the DLux is capable of more than this.

 

Hang on lets qualify...Ive never used the Leica I only have the panasonic. The red dot meant nothing to me.

[rob_x2004]

Second image is jsut a mess and and its a bit hard to comment. THe first seems a bit dark and flat and seems helped along with a bit of contrast, lift in the mid tones and a bit of sharpening. Without knowing how you shot it, the whole thing is a bit of a guess.

[Pygoscelis]

Rob - I could take offence at your tone but I am not going to: I don't want easy, I want right. As I said in my original post I have a Digilux 3 which I am more than happy with the image quality - and quite content to alter the various parameters to my liking.

 

With the D-lux 3 my issue is not with the "look" of the image, but with the detail in it. (Incidentally, both those images I posted were taken before I appreciated that my D-lux 3 was consistently overexposing and, consequently, had to be brought back in pp. I now have it usually set at -2/3 stops, which seems to have helped. All the user selectable options in the camera, such as NR, Contrast, Saturation etc are set at low). I agree with you that boosting the contrast on the first image would help...but again, that is not the point of my original post nor the source of my frustration: it is the crushing of the detail.

 

And it is definitely not just me. This review of the LX2 I've come across at dcresource.com:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/index.shtml

points to exactly the same issue.

 

Please don't confuse the point of this. I am NOT saying that the D-lux 3 cannot take excellent images. Clearly it can, and I have seen some wonderful shots taken with the D-lux 3/LX2 (including a few of my own). But for my purposes, when I need the resolution consistent with a 10 megapixel camera, it hasn't been there.

 

Which, brings me back to the original question: can anyone with experience of the G9 comment on how it fares in this regard?

 

Cheers

Lloyd

[Eoin]

Llyod, in my experience the D-Lux-3 or LX-2 in my case needs to be shot at ISO 100 to achieve best detail in the first place. I tend to underexpose by 1-2 stops if needed and push in Aperture later rather than increase the ISO.

 

And seeing as it's aperture your using I'd suggest you play with the 3 initial raw settings sharpening, chroma blur and auto noise reduction relying on sharpening and edge sharpening later in the workflow. I have found eliminating the initial sharpening reducing chroma blur to between 1 & 1.25 and depending on the image switching on or off auto noise compensation tends to extract better detail which you can sharpen and edge sharpen to taste.

[audidudi]

but again, that is not the point of my original post nor the source of my frustration: it is the crushing of the detail.

 

Just as Dugby did, I chose to purchase a used LX1 (DL-2 cousin) instead of a new LX2 or DL-3 for this very reason. Ditto for a friend of mine (although he had to pay $250 for his, whereas I got lucky on eBay and picked up mine for just $145, which was also a factor in my decision).

 

FYI, I process my RAW images with the final free version of RawShooter Essentials 2006 and while the results are no match for those from either my LC1 or L3, they are clearly better (especially in terms of detail, which is your concern) than those from my C-Lux 1 (Yes, I do actually own a Leica and probably shoot more with this camera than all the rest because it truly is pocketable!).

 

That said, if you are expecting anything even remotely close to L3 image quality, then I suspect you're aiming too high and will continue to be disappointed, at least if my experience is anything to go by (keep in mind that I feel much the same way about my L3 as you do your DL-3 ... I've taken some great photos with it, to be sure, but overall, it doesn't capture enough detail to be ultimately satisfying for me. Of course, my other camera is an 8x10, so my frame of reference is fairly demanding...)

 

That said, none of the above address your primary question, so let me add that I did play with a co-worker's shiny new G9 for maybe 20 minutes last week and was quite favorably impressed with the results. Not favorably enough to consider replacing my LX1, though, but perhaps I can borrow it this week for enough time to perform a more detailed comparison of the two? I'll check on this tomorrow!

[Guest stnami]

A flaw in your workflow is the main problem, the EXIF data would help us see what you are doing , but so be it. The G9 is great if you like canon colours, a bulky small sensor camera and distortion out wide. Detail will probably outshine the pocket full of noise luxie unless it is smeared ......neither camera is a landscape unit.

Anyway if you nail your metering and use RAW then the images are as good if not better than anything similiar around in the market.................. all you can do is hit DSLR country, no use in wishing otherwise..

[Pygoscelis]

Thanks everyone for your reasoned replies.

 

Thanks especially, Eoin, for your suggested settings to use in Aperture. I gave them a whirl and the results were pleasing, but of course cannot put in fine detail that has been smeared.

 

I am inclined to agree with you Jeffrey (and Dugby) that a D-Lux 2/LX1 would have been better for me. I prefer to have detail and deal with the noise. Will look forward to any comparisons you can make with your friend's g9.

 

And Stnami - I know there is no silver bullet; that it is unreasonable to expect to get DSLR quality with a small P&S; that the Canon comes with a host of compromises (some of which you allude to)...but my suspicion is that, despite all this, and despite the many good things about the D-Lux 3, for my personal purposes the Canon may be a better compromise?

 

Ciao.

[Guest stnami]

If it wasn't for the distortion at 35mm, wouldn't hesitate to go for the canon ....................shooting 50 to 125mm it's gotta be the canon

[Guest tummydoc]

We have three DLux-3s in our family (wife, daughter, and close relative). Of course they are at an image-quality disadvantage compared to a DSLR, one would have to be completely ignorant of the laws of physics to expect otherwise. However at ISO 100 and 200, shooting RAW, they give a rather good account of themselves. BTW, to correct a frequently parrotted misconception w.r.t. the DLux-2/LX1 vs DLux3/LX2, the effect of increasing the number of pixels on the same-sized sensor has only one deleterious effect, that being an increase in noise. The in-camera JPEG processor in the 10MP cameras was made more agressive, and the result is an unfortunate smearing of detail. However that processing is not applied to RAW capture and if one sticks to ISO 100, or at most 200, one does get the advantage of the additional 2 million pixels. At higher ISOs, judicious application of Neat Image or Noise Ninja cleans up noise with much less damage to image quality than the horrible in-camera processing.

[audidudi]

However at ISO 100 and 200, shooting RAW, they give a rather good account of themselves. BTW, to correct a frequently parrotted misconception w.r.t. the DLux-2/LX1 vs DLux3/LX2, the effect of increasing the number of pixels on the same-sized sensor has only one deleterious effect, that being an increase in noise. The in-camera JPEG processor in the 10MP cameras was made more agressive, and the result is an unfortunate smearing of detail. However that processing is not applied to RAW capture and if one sticks to ISO 100, or at most 200, one does get the advantage of the additional 2 million pixels.

 

FYI, in my response above, I forgot to mention the lowest ISO setting for the LX1/DL-2 is 80, not 100 ... perhaps this is also a factor that helps explain why many people believe the LX1/DL-2 captures more detail than the LX2/DL-3?

[petermcwerner]

Perhaps you should go back to a c-lux 1 alias Pana FX 01.

 

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!

 

Panasonic FX01 f/2.8 @ 4.6mm (28mm equiv.) - ISO=80 - approx 1.3 sec

 

 

Panasonic FX01 f/2.8 @ 4.6mm (28mm equiv.) - ISO=80 - approx 1.3 sec

 

 

100% crop

 

 

Panasonic FX01 f/2.8 @ 4.6mm (28mm equiv.) - ISO=80 - approx 1.3 sec

 

 

100% crop

 

[Guest tummydoc]

FYI, in my response above, I forgot to mention the lowest ISO setting for the LX1/DL-2 is 80, not 100 ... perhaps this is also a factor that helps explain why many people believe the LX1/DL-2 captures more detail than the LX2/DL-3?

 

Yes, I suppose for some it could be a psychological influence.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ecaton]

Thanks everyone for your reasoned replies.

 

Thanks especially, Eoin, for your suggested settings to use in Aperture. I gave them a whirl and the results were pleasing, but of course cannot put in fine detail that has been smeared.

 

I am inclined to agree with you Jeffrey (and Dugby) that a D-Lux 2/LX1 would have been better for me. I prefer to have detail and deal with the noise. Will look forward to any comparisons you can make with your friend's g9.

 

Ciao.

 

If you prefer detail and are ok dealing with noise, I suggest to have a look at the Ricoh GX 100. Whilst still being pocketable, it goes as wide as 24mm (the G9's widest is 35), has a pretty good EVF and offers better manual controls than the Leica/Pana. I replaced the D-lux 3 with the Ricoh and do not regret it. But in the end, they all are small sensor cameras...........

[Guest malland]

If you prefer detail and are ok dealing with noise, I suggest to have a look at the Ricoh GX 100. Whilst still being pocketable, it goes as wide as 24mm (the G9's widest is 35), has a pretty good EVF and offers better manual controls than the Leica/Pana. I replaced the D-lux 3 with the Ricoh and do not regret it. But in the end, they all are small sensor cameras...........

I also have both of these cameras, and generally prefer the GX100 for a variety of reasons, I find that the D-Lux 3 at ISO 100 is sharper than theGX100 — indeed latter's RAW files are quite a bit softer but the difference can be reduced substamtially by rather agressive sharpening in post-processing. If you are interested the following thread I compare the GX100 with the Ricoh GR-D in this respect:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1013&thread=25370469&page=1

 

—Mitch/Paris

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