D-lux 3

[psund]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello i`m a new user of the Leica dlux 3 and this forum.

I was woundering obout a couple things:

 

the quality of pictures taken with the stabilizer on, find them to be very blury.

 

raw files seems to be very big, over 20 mb. very slow transfer to computer is this normal?

 

Is there any new firmware to this camera?

 

Quality in lower ligth?

 

Otherwise i love this camera, specially the macro and 16:9 format. The quality in good ligth is suberp.

[lx1jon]

Welcome to the Forum. I have the Panasonic LX1, which is the corresponding Panasonic offering to the previous model, the D-Lux2.

 

Size of RAW files sounds normal, it's 2 bytes per pixel, completely uncompressed. I use RAW all the time, using Adobe Lightroom to do the processing - but there's a choice, including whatever came with your camera.

 

Transferring files of that size in any number via a USB lead from the camera to your computer IS slow. If it bothers you, get a card reader and use that to read the card instead. It has the advantage of not draining the camera's battery too!

 

The stabiliser should do a good job - it certainly does for me. Make sure you use OIS Mode 2 as a general rule. This starts the stabiliser from scratch at the moment you fire the shutter. Mode 1 is stabilising all the time, which steadies the view in the screen while you are composing, but means you may already be at the limit of correction at the moment you press the shutter.

 

I find the OIS mode 2 enables me to use surprisingly slow exposures with a reasonable (but not 100%) success rate. Of course, even if you, with its help, are steady enough (and thus background objects are clear) any people who insist on moving while you shoot still get blurred - and that's my greatest limit on indoor candid shots.

 

The D-Lux3 may differ slightly (I think it has a higher ISO option) but the LX1 is best kept to lower ISO values. It's a small sensor, and with so many Mpixels, the individual sensor sites are small. You can't beat the laws of physics... I tend to select ISO manually to keep it as low as I can in the circumstances. E.g. 80 in daylight and reluctantly increase it indoors if needed.

 

Enjoy the camera, it's a wonderful tool to keep with you wherever you go. I've just bought the (by comparison) monster L1 DSLR, but I still carry the LX1 most of the time.

 

Jonathan

[Guest tummydoc]

 

the quality of pictures taken with the stabilizer on, find them to be very blury.

 

It is still possible that a user's ability to hold steady could be insufficient for the OIS to compensate, especially at slow shutter speeds (possibly selected in auto mode, the user unaware of the concepts of exposure).

 

raw files seems to be very big, over 20 mb. very slow transfer to computer is this normal?

 

They are un-compressed, this is normal.

 

Is there any new firmware to this camera?

 

ROFL! Panasonic simply discontinues and replaces this type of point-and-push with a new model every year or less.

 

Quality in lower ligth?

 

Excellent, provided you use ISO 100 or at the very most, 200. Beyond that you will need to use a noise-reduction software.

 

The quality in good ligth is suberp.

 

Well, I'd call it just surprisingly good, but basically I agree.

[psund]

Thank you for your answers.

 

Let me try to explain what i mean with "blury". The noise in the lower light in the pictures is not pretty. It´s not so grainy (like film noise) as it´s blurry. Lost of detail, expecilly if you zoom in over 100%. Find my self using noise ninja more than ever, sadly this make even more detail disapair.

 

Regauding size i´m using a card reader other wise i miss chrismas.

I´ts sad that you can´t lower the megapixel when using the raw format to get smaller files.

 

Maybe i atm just used to the bigger sensor cameras.

[Maggie_O]

Make sure you set the camera's noise reduction to its lowest setting. That will help a lot. If you're shooting RAW, only use chroma NR and keep it under 25. I rarely go above 15, myself.

 

ISO 800 is about as fast as you'll want to go with this (or just about any other small-sensor) camera. There will be noise, but with the NR at its lowest setting it'll render more like film grain.

[Guest tummydoc]

If you're shooting RAW, only use chroma NR and keep it under 25. .

 

If you're shooting RAW, try Noise Ninja.

[Maggie_O]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you're shooting RAW, try Noise Ninja.

 

I find that NN "smears" things quite a bit. Also, I don't think NN works as an ACR plug-in, so you can only apply it after opening the converted RAW file in Photoshop. But if you can, let me know how, because maybe it works better in ACR.

 

IMO, the less NR, the better. YMMV.

[KERMIT]

Yes, it is truly advisable to always use the mode 2 stabiliser to ensure unblurred shots and the iso setting should be 80 with max 100 otherwise the picture quality does become seriously compromised. When though, are Leica going to bring out a D Lux 4 which will offer some serious competition to the Cannon Powershot G9 in terms of lens construction, internal software & specification ? Their Half Brother , Panasonic, haven't even produced a Venus IV engine yet or a DMC LX 3 !!!

[Guest tummydoc]

I find that NN "smears" things quite a bit. Also, I don't think NN works as an ACR plug-in, so you can only apply it after opening the converted RAW file in Photoshop. But if you can, let me know how, because maybe it works better in ACR.

 

IMO, the less NR, the better. YMMV.

 

I don't find that NN "smears" things at all, and neither do the professional imaging experts who all convinced me to purchase it. Their second-best rating went to Neat Image. Perhaps you've been tinkering with settings too much. If you follow their instructions for creating a profile, and do so for each ISO for daylight and artificial light as well, it works splendidly. If that still doesn't satisfy your standards then a Canon DSLR would be the only logical alternative.

[Maggie_O]

I don't find that NN "smears" things at all, and neither do the professional imaging experts who all convinced me to purchase it. Their second-best rating went to Neat Image. Perhaps you've been tinkering with settings too much. If you follow their instructions for creating a profile, and do so for each ISO for daylight and artificial light as well, it works splendidly. If that still doesn't satisfy your standards then a Canon DSLR would be the only logical alternative.

 

I'm using the profiles suggested by the authors of the software. I'm not tinkering.

 

I really don't care about the received wisdom of "professional imaging experts," I care about how my images look, and, for my money, NN is OK for a certain look, and I've used it to achieve that, but I prefer something different, something grainer and more like 35mm film. That's my personal preference, nothing more, nothing less.

 

For me, the NR in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) works quite well, so that NN isn't usually needed once I get my photos into Photoshop.

 

As for the odd comment at the end, I don't want a Canon DSLR. I find my D-Lux 3 and M8 to be enjoyable to use and quite suitable for making photos that I find pleasing. Your Mileage May Vary.

[psund]

I find out a very good thing last night with the d lux. It takes very good night shots, no problem with noise (using iso 100) at all. Very light to take with you, using a small tripod.

 

I stopped using stabilliser at all, dont feel it´s working for me. rather use a tripod insted.

[Guest tummydoc]

I'm using the profiles suggested by the authors of the software. I'm not tinkering.

 

The authors suggest creating and saving custom profiles. NN does not come with profiles for the DLux-3, although there are some that have been created by individuals that can be downloaded. There were some profiles I found on this forum and after fiddling to convert them from .txt to .nzp and using them on DLux-3 images I found them not very good. Using the NN in-built profiling to create custom profiles was not difficult. Again, that's what they suggest. If you are simply letting NN "auto profile" each image, then I can fully understand why it isn't satisfying your needs. In particular, noise-reduction software is programmed with the assumption that people want minimal noise, not film-grain-looking noise, so if you're enamoured with that look, you are probably going to have to do some tinkering, or at the very least try one of the film-emulation programmes such as offered by DxO and (IIRC) Alien Skin.

[Maggie_O]

The authors suggest creating and saving custom profiles. NN does not come with profiles for the DLux-3, although there are some that have been created by individuals that can be downloaded. There were some profiles I found on this forum and after fiddling to convert them from .txt to .nzp and using them on DLux-3 images I found them not very good. Using the NN in-built profiling to create custom profiles was not difficult. Again, that's what they suggest. If you are simply letting NN "auto profile" each image, then I can fully understand why it isn't satisfying your needs. In particular, noise-reduction software is programmed with the assumption that people want minimal noise, not film-grain-looking noise, so if you're enamoured with that look, you are probably going to have to do some tinkering, or at the very least try one of the film-emulation programmes such as offered by DxO and (IIRC) Alien Skin.

 

I've already done what you suggested and when I'm looking for a certain look, NN works fine. However, once again, let me say, as firmly as possible:

 

I LIKE MY PHOTOS JUST FINE, MOST OF THEM DON'T NEED NOISE NINJA.

 

I'm sorry, I have different tastes in photography than you do. I've developed mine over 36 years of shooting and working in wet and dry darkrooms and I KNOW WHAT I WANT AND I KNOW HOW TO GET IT. (Except those times when I don't and then I'm not too proud to ask for help- this is not one of those times.)

 

The D-Lux 3 produces files that, for me, are fantastic, right out of the camera usually, and occasionally can use a bit of tweaking in ACR or iPhoto or Apeture. Same goes for my M8.

 

PS: OK, now you've got me wondering- do you work for Noise Ninja?

[nhmitchell]

Mags:

 

You just might have given the tummydoc an ulcer.

[Maggie_O]

Mags:

 

You just might have given the tummydoc an ulcer.

 

That'll teach me to post before morning coffee. :D

[Guest malland]

...The D-Lux 3 produces files that, for me, are fantastic, right out of the camera usually, and occasionally can use a bit of tweaking in ACR or iPhoto or Apeture. Same goes for my M...

Maggie, I agree that the D-Lux-3 produces very good files at ISO 100-400. Ever since I got the Ricoh GX100 at the end of August I've been recommending it but, although there's a lot that I like better about that camera, I've come to the conclusion that at ISO 100 - 400 the D-Lux-3 produces a sharper image — I can get very good photos out of the GX100 but I have to do a lot of sharpening, which sometimes can be frustrating because the results can be unpredictable. If you are interested you can have a look at this thread, which compares the GX100 with the much sharper GR-D:

 

GX100 vs GR-D: initial conclusion [Page 1]: Ricoh Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[rsmithor]

I too have been, let's say balancing, digital photography, with noise vers the very usable use of grain in film... I feel fine I started with the D-luv 3 as my entry into digital.... it's really a re-learning curve with you in more control of the final results ie: Photoshop, iPhoto etc. My D-lux 3 "let them eat cake" birthday celebration photo really caught the mood... ISO 200 f2.8 1/8 lighting: tungsten, Ninja NR only.

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!

[Guest tummydoc]

Mags:

 

You just might have given the tummydoc an ulcer.

 

Hardly. I simply responded to the remark

I find that NN "smears" things quite a bit.

earnestly, believing that the poster was genuinely interested in noise reduction and having trouble getting NN to work as beautifully as it can. Had I suspected the remark was simply a pretext for a curmudgeon-ly rant against noise reduction in principle, I would not have wasted my time taking the flame bait.

[Maggie_O]

Hardly. I simply responded to the remark earnestly, believing that the poster was genuinely interested in noise reduction and having trouble getting NN to work as beautifully as it can. Had I suspected the remark was simply a pretext for a curmudgeon-ly rant against noise reduction in principle, I would not have wasted my time taking the flame bait.

 

You mischaracterize my remarks.

 

I do, in fact, use noise reduction. Sometimes, quite a bit. Often, not much, as it is not needed.

 

Noise Ninja works fine, but it does change the character of the image and I do not always want those changes. That is far from a "curmudgeon-ly rant against noise reduction in principle," sir.

 

No need for ad homeniem remarks in my direction.

 

I'm still interested to know if you have a personal or fiancial interest in Noise Ninja.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gesper]

You can reduce file size by half by using Adobe's DNG converter to convert the .RAW files to .DNG.