gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Share #1 Posted February 5, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been using the Digilux 3 for just over a week now, love the controls, love the images at iso 100 and generally pretty happy with it. I can't get over the noise at iso1600 though, and did post about the 25mm f/1.4 lens and nearly pulled the trigger on it when it came back into B&H Photo this week, however, I am still not 100% sure this camera is a keeper. The main problems for me are the AWB isn't great under indoor lighting, this would be alright if the RAW images weren't so feckin' noisy!! I am using the latest firmware, and as a quick test I took a pic at 1600, 1/30th with no noise reduction on and compared the raw and jpeg file. The RAW file looks like a TV channel that isn't tuned in, the jpeg is pretty clean really, well certainly in comparison. Looking back through Lightroom, 40% of my pics on my old Canon 350d were shot at iso1600 and over half of all pics shot on my 20D were shot at iso1600, ok they had a bit of noise in them, but never to the point they were unusable. So has anyone else noticed that jpeg is cleaner than raw?? Is it anything I am doing wrong? Is it the macbook pro raw viewer? (although it is just as bad in LR) Any ideas?? At the moment I can shoot in jpeg and loose the noise but then don't have a chance to correct the poor AWB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Hi gIzzE, Take a look here Digilux3 RAW noise and AWB Problems.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
philipotto Posted February 5, 2008 Share #2 Posted February 5, 2008 Guy, It would be helpful to see an example. I would like to see a RAW if possible. My iDisk is .Mac - iDisk, if you are amenable to sharing one. If you send one, please send the in-camera JPEG as well. Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemalk Posted February 5, 2008 Share #3 Posted February 5, 2008 HI Guy - I've been using a Digilux 3 for about 6 months now and I never noticed the noise until this weekend when I was shooting an indoor college graduation. I shot RAW at 400, 800 and 1600 ISO and I was really dismayed at the low-light performance at the higher speeds. In daylight, the faster ISOs aren't as noticeable, but low light performance was lacking. I saw banding and streaking. Almost uniform banding and streaking. It's really a wonderful camera, but I think I need to pack a faster lens and limit myself to 800 in future available light situations. And I do agree that the jpegs straight out of the camera do a better job of containing the noise than the raw - and they lack that "painted" look that plagues jpegs from other cameras. I mean, what other zoom choice is there besides a Canon/Nikon monster or the $2500 film R8/R9 AND $5000 DMR module? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delfi_r Posted February 5, 2008 Share #4 Posted February 5, 2008 Don't expect that RAW files are so clean at high ISO, because you don't have enough light to fill the captor. But there are in this forum examples of good use of ISO 1600 with special programs like Lightzone. The in-camera JPG processig has some intelligence so you can expect some results on this side, but for the full use of your digital pictures you need programs like in the film era you needed special chemicals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #5 Posted February 5, 2008 OK, here is one shot as jpeg and raw, I have cropped 100% and reduced both to 200k file size, if anything this reduces the noise level in RAW. RAW on top and JPEG below........ 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/44559-digilux3-raw-noise-and-awb-problems/?do=findComment&comment=474238'>More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted February 5, 2008 This puts RAW completely unusable as far as I am concerned. But at the same time the camera gets AWB wrong and because of that it sort of puts JPEG out of action too. I am sort of hoping I have a problem with my camera, can someone else take a pic with the lens cap on at 1600 and 1/30th, 2.8 and see what results you get? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 5, 2008 Share #7 Posted February 5, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fourthirds sensors are notorious for noise over ISO 800. The E3 has made some headway in that arena. There are some programs like Noise Ninja that will reduce it but I'm afraid if low noise at high ISO is what you need the Digilux 3 is going to give you heartache. I will say it is hard to beat between 100 and 400 tho................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted February 5, 2008 But should RAW be that much more noisy than JPEG?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 5, 2008 Share #9 Posted February 5, 2008 Normally yes. RAW is unprocessed (mostly) images of what the sensor saw unredacted. It is still an interpretation of what a software programmer tells the chip. RAW gives much much more latitude in picture correction where JPEG is in itself a refined image.....................again what a programmer tells it is is. One is supposedly a "finished" image and one is a working file that is meant to be corrected, manipulated or refined. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted February 5, 2008 Share #10 Posted February 5, 2008 i take indoor gymnastics pictures, lousy lighting and fast action with the digilux 3. Two tips i can offer. 1. the AWB isn't always accurate indoors, i find better results by setting the WB - one of the benefits of digital is the ability to check exposures. I like to check on a bigger screen then the camera back if possible 2. i have noticed with R glass the images are sharp and clear -- i particulary like the 80 lux on the Digilux 3. addtionally this provides a 1.4 aperture and give you that much more "room" ....indoor sports is a tough venue - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #11 Posted February 5, 2008 I think I need to decide what to do, right now my choices are..... Sell the Digilux and buy a Canon 1d MKII or 5D and a nice 50mm f/1.8 prime. Keep the Digilux and buy a 25mm f/1.4 Keep the Digilux and buy a 300D and a 35mm f/2.0 for using above iso 400. This is a typical Canon 20D shot at iso1600, completely useable as hardly any noise at all. Just sold it for £300, gutted! 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/44559-digilux3-raw-noise-and-awb-problems/?do=findComment&comment=474551'>More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #12 Posted February 5, 2008 Here is a 100% crop.... 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/44559-digilux3-raw-noise-and-awb-problems/?do=findComment&comment=474555'>More sharing options...
lemalk Posted February 5, 2008 Share #13 Posted February 5, 2008 Those are great images - especially given the circumstances. I also agree with the R glass - the examples I've seen are pretty solid. I also notice that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 tends to help the sensor when it comes to noise - I know, it's a much faster lens, but it tends to LIVE on the Digilux whereas the kit lens is only used in zoom situations. I'm debating the 80mm 1.4 R because the Digilux really is such a treat to use. I'd have a hard time limiting myself to the Canon/Nikon "computer", but those results sure are hard to argue against. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #14 Posted February 5, 2008 I have been playing a bit more, to be honest I would find it really hard to go back a Canon after only a week with the Leica, the more manual feel to it works so well, I find it all so much faster to use. One thing I have found is I think I prefer sRGB, maybe on my macbook the extra colour range of AdobeRGB is lost?? But the jpeg images are a lot warmer under artificial lighting on the sRGB setting and seem alot closer to the RAW file colour wise. So I now have Function 1 to choose between Custom settings..... SET 1 iso 100 RAW Film1 (which is contrast mid, sharpness +1 from mid, saturation mid, NR off) SET 2 iso 400 RAW Film 1 again. SET 3 iso 800 JPEF Film 2 (which is Contrast mid, Sharpness +2 from mid, Saturation +1 from Mid, NR Full) This now allows me to switch between usable settings very quickly, Function 2 allows me to switch RAW on/off quickly too. Think I need to order the 25mm f/1.4 and then decide. I am sure if I order from B&H and decide to sell it on I want loose £100's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #15 Posted February 5, 2008 Oh, and Exposure 2 in Photoshop will have to be my friend when shooting on this camera at iso1600...... Kodak T-Max P3200......haha 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/44559-digilux3-raw-noise-and-awb-problems/?do=findComment&comment=474668'>More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share #16 Posted February 6, 2008 Just ordered the 25mm f/1.4 lens, I will report back on my findings. Should be here on Friday morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 6, 2008 Share #17 Posted February 6, 2008 This puts RAW completely unusable as far as I am concerned. But at the same time the camera gets AWB wrong and because of that it sort of puts JPEG out of action too. Both a JPEG and a raw image converted by a raw converter rely on the same raw sensor data. Whatever difference you see with regard to noise is due to the different noise reduction algorithms employed by the camera and the raw converter. If you don’t like the results from your raw converter, maybe you should look for an alternative. After all, the raw converter runs on a much more powerful processor and should be able to produce superior results. If you expect auto white balance to correct for incandescent lighting, you are bound to be disappointed. AWB isn’t designed to do that. At least I’m not aware of any AWB from any vendor that even tries to. Some vendors explicitly state the range of colour temperatures that the AWB will handle, and the colour temperature of tungsten light is generally excluded. That’s what the preset for tungsten lighting and manual white balance is for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share #18 Posted February 6, 2008 If you don’t like the results from your raw converter, maybe you should look for an alternative. After all, the raw converter runs on a much more powerful processor and should be able to produce superior results. Thanks for that, at the moment I have just been using the converter in Lightroom and phtoshop, and whatever the RAW viewier is on OSX. What are my options?? As far as AWB is concerned I agree, I should not expect it to get it right I guess, just my last 2, and first 2, digital SLRs have both been Canons and have got it right, or have given a warmer look, the Digilux3 is just so bloody green!! Well when choosing Adobe anyway, with sRGB it is fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share #19 Posted February 6, 2008 OK, now trying Capture One 4, so much cleaner!!! Same RAW image as above but exported from Capture 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/44559-digilux3-raw-noise-and-awb-problems/?do=findComment&comment=475505'>More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 9, 2008 Author Share #20 Posted February 9, 2008 The 50mm lens arrived and have to say it is pretty good, I am sure you all know how sharp it is, and how well it performs at 100iso and even 200iso, it definitely allows you to shoot in some darker locations and keep the camera at iso400, 800 on this is still along way behind 1600 iso on the Canon, and now I have see the D3 Nikon at 1600 iso it makes me realise that the four thirds system is never going to be anything more than a 400 iso system. To be fair as soon as there is a darker area in the frame noise appears, no matter what iso you are at, just a problem with such a small sensor I guess. But, I quickly took this pic tonight, and it was dark, only light coming through the window to light my wife up as we were closing our shop, it was dark outside so would have been street lights and a couple of spots lighting our window, and it is more than passable imho. So I am getting used to the camera, and the 1.4 lens has transformed it, but still not 100% sure. There is an M8 advertised in the states for $3999 ex-demo, and they have a 35mm f/2.0 lens for just over a grand, if I hadn't just bought the Digilux I think I would have gone with this instead, I still may. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.