Guest tummydoc Posted October 30, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted October 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Â No need for ad homeniem remarks in my direction. Â I refer you to your post, #12 above. Â I'm still interested to know if you have a personal or fiancial interest in Noise Ninja. Â I hardly think that question dignifies an answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Hi Guest tummydoc, Take a look here D-lux 3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
psund Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share #22 Â Posted October 31, 2007 You can reduce file size by half by using Adobe's DNG converter to convert the .RAW files to .DNG. Â Thank you for the tip, i will try this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 31, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted October 31, 2007 Slugfest, cool... Anyway... Â Something that might help, when you are learning the camera. Frame an image, and shoot it on every program mode that comes with the camera. If it has a sport mode, a candle light, a fireworks mode, Av, Tv, whatever, shoot the frame with all of them. Get a view exif program so that you can see the cameras imprinted data. Have a look at the images, and assess in light of the exif. The manufacurer knows his beast and you will be surprised what you learn from the way he sets it up for a given circumstance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intex Posted November 1, 2007 Share #24  Posted November 1, 2007 I also am a new user of the D-Lux 3.  I am VERY VERY dissapointed with this camera. I am waht I would call an "experieneced photographer" and use a Nikon DS40 and Leica M8, when not travelling. Other than the fact that they had to change the shutter after 10 shots, I have the following problems:  1. Pictures in low light are EXTREMELY fuzzy, out of focus. I understand that there could be camera shake, but my daughter was using a $199 Casio, and the pixs came out perfect.  2. None of the pictures are what I would consider Sharp, when I compare these top a Canon P/S.  I am mostly using the camera on the "P" setting, ISO at 100 (I tried ISO 200 for darker shots), picture size 7.5Mb, Auto White Balance.  I will try and attach a pix to illustrate the problem. This was not a good decision to take this camera on a 2 month trip!  Could this be opeartor error, due to improper settings, or something wrong with this particular camera?? 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/36670-d-lux-3/?do=findComment&comment=390405'>More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 1, 2007 Share #25  Posted November 1, 2007 Sharpness is not a problem with the D-Lux 3 and the lens is very good (the zebra picture is at 120mm EFOV:           —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 1, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted November 1, 2007 ;;;;;;;;;; yea right but this one is m8 shot......................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 1, 2007 Share #27  Posted November 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) ;;;;;;;;;; yea right but this one is m8 shot.........................That's great, then, to get M8 quality from the D-Lux-3...as I don't have an M8 I've never shot with that camera. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 1, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted November 1, 2007 ..hey it disapeared,,,,, back again.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 1, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted November 1, 2007 Could this be opeartor error, due to improper settings...? Â Without the exif data you are expecting a bit much. Looking at the images and given that you shout them in P mode I suspect it is operator error. Being the photographer you have to make decisions. It looks like long shutter times as the camera tries to give you an even EV exposure across the frame in poor light at 100 ISO. I mean it could be anything. Show us the exif. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 1, 2007 Share #30  Posted November 1, 2007 Mitch tells us he dont got one....  ....... 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/36670-d-lux-3/?do=findComment&comment=390675'>More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 1, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted November 1, 2007 snnnniff snifff sniffle............... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Half-Handed Posted November 1, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted November 1, 2007 While it's very nice of Mitch to dust off the same D-Lux 3 photos every time anyone says the picture quality is disappointing, I agree. I had one, I thought it was extremely disappointing and I sold it. I imagine Mitch could probably get good photos out of a cameraphone but I fully sympathise with other mere mortals who expected a lot better from the D-Lux3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie_O Posted November 1, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted November 1, 2007 Maybe you should try Noise Ninja, Nathan. Â I hear it's great. Â Here are some of my D-Lux 3 photos. Some of them have had NN applied to them. I think they look pretty good. Dr. Patel could probably point you at some appropriate NN settings. No, I'm not being sarcastic, either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhmitchell Posted November 1, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted November 1, 2007 Mags: Â It's confirmed. You are a first class trouble maker! You're also a damn good guitarist. (I'm a fan.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie_O Posted November 1, 2007 Share #35 Â Posted November 1, 2007 Mags:Â It's confirmed. You are a first class trouble maker! You're also a damn good guitarist. (I'm a fan.) Â I know! Funny how those two things so often go together! Â Thanks for the kind words for my pickin'! Â On a slightly more serious and on-topic note, I've found that cameras are a lot like guitars- each one brings its own thing to the party, so to speak, and what works for one photographer won't always work for another. It's like Telecasters and Les Pauls: one twangs and one growls and both are great at what they do in the right hands and nothing but trouble in the wrong ones. Â The D-Lux 3 works for me, the GR-D for Mitch, etc... Just because a camera isn't right for one person that doesn't mean it's a hunk-o-junk for everyone. Â I got off track in this thread- I meant to suggest some alternatives for handling D-Lux 3 files, that's all. My apologies for losing track of that. Â Now, back to making trouble and ungodly amounts of electric noise with strings and sensors and bears, oh my! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 1, 2007 Share #36  Posted November 1, 2007 While it's very nice of Mitch to dust off the same D-Lux 3 photos every time anyone says the picture quality is disappointing,...Actually I haven't posted the first and the fourth previously. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 1, 2007 Share #37  Posted November 1, 2007 The D-Lux 3 works for me, the GR-D for Mitch, etc... Just because a camera isn't right for one person that doesn't mean it's a hunk-o-junk for everyone...The fact is that I like the D-Lux-3 a lot and think the lens is excellent — and sharp. The GR-D, having a very good prime lens is somewhat better, but I got the D-Lux-3 to be able to shoot at 35 and 50mm EFOV. The trouble was that I found it distracting to switch between two cameras of basically the same format that had different types of controls. Therefore, I recently got the Ricoh GX100, which I generally like better than the D-Lux-3, particularly for it's stepped zoom features; but I have to say that the GX100 RAW, at least at 100-200 ISO are softer than those of the D-Lux-3. The surprising thing, however, is that in many or most cases this sharpness differences can be eliminated by aggressive sharpening of the GX100 files; but in a few cases this can ve difficult to do, What is surprising is how good the GX100 JPGs files at ISO 100 are, which means that there extensive in-camera processing. Here is a photo made from a GX100 JPG file with extensive manipulation:    In my view lack of sharpness is not a problem of the D-Lux-3; and, Maggie, you've done a great job with ISO 800 files.   —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie_O Posted November 1, 2007 Share #38 Â Posted November 1, 2007 Here is a photo made from a GX100 JPG file with extensive manipulation:%<snip photo>% Â Wow, that looks fantastic, Mitch! Â In my view lack of sharpness is not a problem of the D-Lux-3; and, Maggie, you've done a great job with ISO 800 files. Â Thanks! I owe a debt to you, as you encouraged me to keep at the ISO 800 shooting. Â Here's the latest from my D-Lux 3, from a late-night bit of emergency dentistry on my poor ol' dad: Â (click photo for a bigger version at flickr) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwscholte Posted November 2, 2007 Share #39 Â Posted November 2, 2007 Hello proud to have my new D-lux 3. Â Took some test pictures a little disapointed about the noise. Can annyone recommend some settings on the camera? Picasa-webalbums - Rein - leica_rein Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 2, 2007 Share #40 Â Posted November 2, 2007 Apologies for bolding this.....but, Â Somewhere I read the original poster mentioned at zooms over 100% Possibly he is in the realm of digital zoom... I shouldnt laugh but maybe he is using...in which case... Â Anyway....no one else has mentioned I dont think. It would be a chuckle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.