4/3 Sensors

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curiously, though, at least on this forum, I don't see as many compliments to the IQ of the D3 as the D2.

.... many D2 owners moved to the M8, others stayed with the D2. I doubt if too many in this forum own a D3 or L1. Those that do have a lot of good things to say about the image quality despite the camera's bulk

[Advertisement]

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

[Riley]

i dont think people were concerned about the transition to D3 form D2 on IQ grounds. But there was a feeling that D2 was a place many would like to go back to for other reasons. Im still of the view that this design needed upgrading from a like with like sensor size proposition. After all, Nikon made the same sensor size work for the 8Mp version, and it had lower noise.

 

But since that lineage has clearly ended, a lot of people are looking to 4/3rds for a non SLR camera with IC lenses. The drawn out wait for the Sigma DP1 has me conclude that the market elsewhere is more than ready too, and the pancake lens from Olympus surely indicates this is a doable project with a waiting audience.

[dugby]

T

 

IIRC discussion of the Leica Digilux 2 and Pana LC1 said one difference is that the Pana had more aggressive noise reduction. If that's true as well for the D3/L1, we might expect some very nice (high DR, low noise at low ISO but not "doctored") images from the D3.

 

Curiously, though, at least on this forum, I don't see as many compliments to the IQ of the D3 as the D2.

 

J Rethorst

 

The D2 / LC1 NR claim was debunked many years ago....in this forum. Their RAW images were / are indiscernible between the two.......thats all that one should compare.

 

 

If you do an "advanced search" of this website using the search arguments...

 

"D2 D3" there were at least 236 threads, many of which discuss IQ

"D2 L1" there were at least 148 threads, similarly had IQ discussions.

 

The key to understanding the true comparisons, is in comparing the RAW images and NOT the "in-camera" jpegs.

 

Don't go looking for thousands of threads on D2, D3 and L1 image quality, remember these are all expensive Leica-related products sold in small volumes compared to Canon D20, D30 etc

 

There is enough empirical data around that discusses the improved IQ of the L1/D3 over those from the D2/LC1. Be under no illusion, the D3/L1 has dramatically improved images over the D2/LC1

[spylaw4]

Since I own and use both D2 and L1 I should perhaps chip in here?

 

There is a difference in image quality between the two, but personally I would not say it is dramatic.

 

I shoot mostly in RAW, but the D2, most likely due to it's small sensor and earlier vintage, does suffer more from noise especially at over 100 ISO. I find that if I need to go over 100 with the D2 I usually have to desaturate to B&W. I will say in passing though that the in-camera jpegs from the D2 are extremely good. As I don't print very large (usually A4 max) I continue to use the D2 as it's small light and quiet.

 

The D2 as a camera also has a synergy that produces that "glow" in images which has been well noticed, documented and shown by many examples here.

 

This quality does not seem to be present in the L1. However I must say that I am not disappointed by the L1 images using the kit lens and the 25/1.4, they just have a subtly different look, and although not noise free by any means they are certainly less so.

 

Overall - less 'keepers' from the L1, and if I had to choose I would sell the L1 before the D2.

[chkphoto]

Over my career I have shot with Nikons, Hasseblads, Fuji 69, Horsemand VH. Each have their value to the end result. I currently own both a D2 and D3. Each have their own distinct "look" and neither is either better or worse. Each have both mechanical and technical strong points and weak points. But each produce images that have a unique look and feel. The D2 has a "long" gradation between light zones and color hues. The D3 defines more tightly these gradations but gives you more of them. This is my assesment not gathered from technical tests but rather what I see in the RAW files and the resulting TIFFs when I process my images. I do think these cameras were concieved as cameras to make prints from, rather than going to press. Just a gut feeling I have.

The D3 is a very good image maker. It's not unlike how some describe the quality or "special look" of some Leica lenses - it's just the "feeling" of the image. For me, the final conclusion can only be a subjective one.

 

D3 handheld, 1/20s @ f4 ASA 100

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!

[goodbokeh]

thats bunk, those cameras have the same sensor, different jpeg engines and different filter stack. In RAW there wouldnt be much difference

 

Olympus EVOLT E-330 Digital Camera Review - Oympus DSLR

 

The E-330's score at ISO 100, 7.79 at high quality and 10.6 at low quality, puts it below the middle of the pack for entry-level DSLRs. Its dynamic range drops significantly from ISO 100 to 400, where its performance is significantly below other DSLRs. Interestingly, it doesn't drop much further from ISO 400 to 1600, so, at its highest ISO, it's about average.

 

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Digital Camera Review - Panasonic DSLR

 

The Panasonic L1's high quality range starts well, at over 7.7 EV at both 100 and 200 ISO. At ISO 400, it drops to 6.4, which is still solid. The steady decline at 800 and 1600 is not unusual, but it shows the L1's limitations. The low quality range follows the

 

I checked the article and it did not say whether RAW or JPEG was used but I believe JPEG is likely in the context of the balance of the article. I prefer to use JPEG so it's not bunk to me. Your original Olympus sensor information is likely correct in RAW and thanks for that.