D-Lux 3 and G9: some observations

[Pygoscelis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a number of people have asked about comparisons between the D-Lux 3 and the G9, I thought I should provide some initial impressions having recently obtained a G9.

 

They are both excellent cameras and well made. Each has distinct advantages and each has distinct disadvantages. They also both suffer from the same limitations inherent with a small sensor.

 

That being said they will suit photographers differently depending upon their intended purpose. I should state at the outset that this is not meant as a review nor does it in any way pretend to provide a test of the respective cameras' abilities. These are just my observations, nothing more, nothing less:

 

To begin with the D-Lux 3, I really like this camera but have two major gripes. The lack of an OVF means that in bright sunlight (I shoot mainly outdoors) I often find myself unable to see the subject on the LCD screen and simply pointing and hoping. The G9 is much better in this regard for my purposes: not only does it have an OVF (not the best - but certainly useable at a pinch) it also has a hotshoe allowing attachment of a Voigtlander viewfinder or similar. The other concern I have is that the Venus III engine smears fine detail (even on raw files, even with NR set to low) in its attempt to deal with noise. This is most apparent in adjacent fine details like hair - see attached 100% crop (ISO 100, f3.5, 1/40). It is from a portrait that to all intents and purposes is otherwise fine. This is something that many reviewers have noted and why Leica/Panasonic did not give the user the option of switching all NR off is beyond me!

 

The G9 by comparison is, in my opinion, much better for the likes of portrtaits. At ISO 80 the detail captured is on a par with a DSLR, with the likes of hair rendered naturally and not smeared. I have not taken many images at ISOs higher than 80, but my impression is that by ISO 200, the advantage that the G9 enjoys over the D-Lux 3 with respect to detail is gone.

 

The archilles heal of the G9 is dynamic range. It has a tendency to clip highlights (as does the D-Lux 3), so one has to be very careful with exposure. I am still getting to know the G9 but already have -1/3 stop exposure compensation routinely dialled in, and may reduce that to -2/3. Note: I now routinely use the D-Lux 3 at -2/3 and that has substantially improved output from that camera too. I think it is just something we have to accept about the small sensor sizes of these cameras that DR will be reduced. Nevertheless, in situations where there is not too much variation in the lighting of the scene and if the ISO is kept at 80, the G9 is capable of taking portraits that are very close to those of a DLSR. I also find that skin tones are GENERALLY rendered more naturally by the Canon than the Leica. There has been much said about the change in the quality of the Canon lens from the G6 to the G7/G9, but I have to say that I find the lens on the G9 to be surprizingly sharp and I have no complaints in that department.

 

So to sum up this bit, I would recommend the G9 for someone wanting a P&S camera that can deliver very high quality portraits at low ISOs.

 

When it comes to landscapes, the D-Lux 3 really does have an advantage in that it goes to 28 mm (the G9 is widest at 35mm) and has that lovely 16:9 format - which suits many landscape subjects. AWB on both cameras seems very good, but in my experience is more reliable on the D-Lux 3. The Leica lens on the D-Lux 3 is certainly sharp and gross details in images are very sharp: by gross details I mean things like rocks, fences, cars etc. In fact I'd go so far as to say that when the D-Lux 3 is zoomed in to 35mm equivalent, its 10 megapixels resolve at least as much detail as the 12 coming from the G9. But here's the sad contradiction: when it comes to fine details such as foliage and grasses, the Venus engine of the D-Lux 3 once again smears them in a misguided attempt to cope wth noise and it does this even at ISO 100 and even in raw files. For me, whether to use the G9 or D-Lux 3 for landscapes is a toss up and neither is ideal: the G9 doesn't go as wide as I would like in many instances (although you adjust your photography to suit) and the IQ of the D-Lux 3 is compromised for very large prints or where needing to display at anything near 100%. Throw in the limited DR and neither really is a substitute for a DSLR.

 

I recently went on a very exhausting four-day hike and opted to take the D-Lux 3 to save weight. It was a decision that I later regretted as I would have been much better served by taking a DSLR like the D3. For backpacking where weight is an issue but IQ is too, I suspect that the best compromise is an Olympus 410.

 

So to sum up to here: I'd recommend the G9 for portraits and probably the D-Lux 3, because of its unique perspective, for landscapes. Although with the rider that both cameras produce best results when used at low ISOs. Of course, both are just tools and in the right hands both are capable of extraordinary images. Jim Radcliffe over at DPreview takes stunning images with the D-Lux 3 (combined with his admittedly strong and expert PP) - and for average print sizes and web-based display either the D-Lux 3 or G9 are certainly capable of doing the job.

 

For me, I primarily use the cameras as work tools: documenting things and places in situations where I cannot take a DSLR or cannot be bothered taking a DSLR. In those instances I am after accuracy not fine art. Resolution is important. Detail is important. The G9 also has a couple of trumps up its sleeve that assist me here: the macro facility on the G9 is simply amazing (the D-Lux 3 does not even come close in this regard), and it has a voice record mode that is readily useable as a voice recorder to make notes. I haven't used the hotshoe for flash photography yet, but I anticipate that there will also be situations where this will prove an advantage too.

 

So to sum up finally: while I like both cameras and appreciate their individual strengths, the G9 is proving to be more suitable for MY needs and I find myself reaching for it most often.

 

Cheers

Lloyd

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!

[j_w_davies]

What do you use for processing your RAW files? I use Raw Developer for processing RAW files from my D-Lux 2, I don't get any smearing of detail.

[Pygoscelis]

I use Aperture mainly - but that's not the issue. The D-Lux 2 is a different beast: 8 Mp and detail has not been sacrificed to combat noise (it's the Venus III engine in the D-Lux 3 that is the problem). Several people on this forum have got the D-Lux 2 or its Panasonic cousin, the LX1, in preference to the D-Lux 3/LX2 for precisely that reason.

[Guest stnami]

What is being referred to is straight out of the box photography as stated in the initial post............. most of the population does not use raw nor do they intend to. Even keen photographers don't use raw, cameras are bought for their jpeg results, unfortunately the panaleicas smear.

The all round ability of the G9 will beat the luxes because that is what the camera is geared for. Same as a Fuji F30/31 wipes out the rest of the P&S in low light photography.

I do see the point in using a G9 as a information gathering device .... sound, short movies, etc that shoots raw.

Eventually as it marries the mobile phone/www. technology( or visa versa) it will be a very useful tool........................... a photographers notebook

 

 

I for one will buy a G9 for its versatility............most have other cameras to fullfill specialist tasks like landscapes

[j_w_davies]

I use Aperture mainly - but that's not the issue. The D-Lux 2 is a different beast: 8 Mp and detail has not been sacrificed to combat noise (it's the Venus III engine in the D-Lux 3 that is the problem). Several people on this forum have got the D-Lux 2 or its Panasonic cousin, the LX1, in preference to the D-Lux 3/LX2 for precisely that reason.

 

I'm afraid Aperture is the issue. If you open a D-Lux 2 RAW file in Aperture you will get something very close to the jpeg, smearing included. If you open with Raw Developer the file will need a lot more tweaking but the resultant photograph will be superior.

[Ecaton]

Great thread and very interesting comments. Does anybody have a direct comparison of the G9 with the Ricoh GX100?

[toddbee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

this is a great thread. i plan on purchasing one of these cameras and cant come to a conclusion. i have shot the g9, but not the leica. raw for raw with the proper raw converter how do they compare. i have seen some great images out of the leica, how big can you print these things?

thanks

todd

[andym911]

FWIW here my 2 cents..

 

I too purchased the D Lux 3 a few months ago with a view to using it as a carry everywhere camera but not compromising too much on quality.

 

Some of the files I managed to get were really good, poor at high ASA but when kept low really good.

However I never got to like the camera..it didn't feel right.

 

I found it too small, not holdable and the lack of viewfinder really bothered me to such an extent that I stopped using it.

 

I recently sold it and bought the GRD from Ricoh and have found my camera at last...great user interface..wonderful compact yet sturdy to hold and an exceptional external finder.

 

The files are IMO as good as the D Lux 3 if not better...(purely subjective) and it is like having a small rangefinder with you, even though it isn't, and is really a joy to use.

 

Yes the RAW writing times are horrible but the usability is immense.The new moder has much faster RAW writing times.

 

Of course every one to their own but for me it is like a breath of fresh air.

I have not used the G9 but used to ahve the G6 so cannot offer any comments to that.

 

regards

Andy

[chari2302]

I am waiting for a successor to the Digilux2 !

[johnwolf]

I haven't formally compared my G9 with anything, but I am especially impressed with its metering and AWB. Its AWB is more accurate than my 5D. Not a big deal if you shoot RAW, but most P&S shooters don't.

 

Not sure if the D-Lux 3 offers focus and exposure lock, but the G9 provides both and with separate controls, just like the big Canons. I always liked that in an SLR.

 

The G9 screen is also large, bright, and useable, even in strong daylight.

 

My only wish is that it was smaller and lighter.

 

John

[mwalker649]

What is being referred to is straight out of the box photography as stated in the initial post............. most of the population does not use raw nor do they intend to. Even keen photographers don't use raw, cameras are bought for their jpeg results, unfortunately the panaleicas smear.

The all round ability of the G9 will beat the luxes because that is what the camera is geared for. Same as a Fuji F30/31 wipes out the rest of the P&S in low light photography.

I do see the point in using a G9 as a information gathering device .... sound, short movies, etc that shoots raw.

Eventually as it marries the mobile phone/www. technology( or visa versa) it will be a very useful tool........................... a photographers notebook

 

 

I for one will buy a G9 for its versatility............most have other cameras to fullfill specialist tasks like landscapes

 

 

Imants, In you Hands, Faces portfolio did you shoot RAW or JEPG and what camera was used? Thanks

[sean_reid]

Great thread and very interesting comments. Does anybody have a direct comparison of the G9 with the Ricoh GX100?

 

No, but I am testing a G9 right now.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Even keen photographers don't use raw, cameras are bought for their jpeg results

 

Hi Imants,

 

That hasn't been my experience. The overwhelming majority of serious photographers I communicate with use RAW. I suppose it all depends on who one is talking to.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

There still are that big group that operates the same as they did with colour film, love taking the photos and are not interested in processing. Selecting images to blow up every now and then, framing etc , both young and old

[rliamo]

I'm shooting with a Canon G7 and the lack of RAW doesn't bother me at all.There's a hack available to enable it (the g7) to shoot RAW but I can't be arsed,and the Jpeg's are sweet as a nut.I've been reading the archives over at The Digital Journalist and just a few short years ago people were swooning over the latest 4 mp cam's and that they could finally print big,and I guess this sort of thing is what drives the camera business.D2 for bad light & RAW.G7 always with me and much admired. p s found the Ricoh to be a beautiful instrument but a bit light,no "heft" to it whereas the G's feel like a tough old bird and has a toplate like a rangefinder which is the nearest I'm gonna get to one (unless you count a Yashica Electro!)

All the best.........Liam

[Guest stnami]

Mike, mainly the D2 and raw it just gives that extra scope, the images are never meant to be printed above A3+

[sean_reid]

There still are that big group that operates the same as they did with colour film, love taking the photos and are not interested in processing. Selecting images to blow up every now and then, framing etc , both young and old

 

Oh, absolutely. In fact I think very few casual photographers ever use RAW. Also, as I'm sure you know well, photojournalists often shoot JPEGs so they can wire them quickly and easily.

 

But its my experience that many serious photographers, especially those with darkroom experience, shoot RAW. It's just more flexible to have the "negative" so to speak.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rsmithor]

OMG... I just saw the wed, Dec 5th NYTimes full page ad for the Canon G9... point and shoot camera... it's got what i miss in the D-Lux 3... the view finder... hot shoe... and a mini hand grip... have I and others got a feeling that a Leica version will soon follow?... with 12.1 megapixels of resolution, Optical Image Stabilizer, RAW mode... and a nice Leica lens. That would be sweet indeed...

[johnwolf]

OMG... I just saw the wed, Dec 5th NYTimes full page ad for the Canon G9... point and shoot camera... it's got what i miss in the D-Lux 3... the view finder... hot shoe... and a mini hand grip... have I and others got a feeling that a Leica version will soon follow?... with 12.1 megapixels of resolution, Optical Image Stabilizer, RAW mode... and a nice Leica lens. That would be sweet indeed...

 

Ronald, The hot shoe flash is what swayed me. I use my big Canon flash on it. It looks odd, but allows bounce. The viewfinder is pretty lame, both in terms of clarity or accuracy. I've heard some folks are using the Voigtlander external finder for street work, with lens and finder set at 35mm.

 

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[carstenw]

Ronald, these cameras cannot resolve more than about 8MP. The tiny sensor with tiny pixels and lower end lenses make sure that diffraction remove anything beyond that. The question is why manufacturers like Canon, who surely know better, continue to up the megapixel count in newer models, even though the end result is not more detailed. Anyway, the G9 basically seems like a neat camera, the MP issue just bothers me.