DLux 2

[mobeyone]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello All!

 

Some may remember my brief apperance on the old forum when I had bought a D1 and how happy I was with it!

 

Well, I have now bought a DLux 2! Brand new and at a very very good price! less than what they are going for on ebay!

 

What I would like to know is what the owners think of this camera please.

 

I keep comparing the DL2 against the D1, is this a fair comparison?

 

I was very very dissapointed when I first bought the camera, so grainy and noisy it was unbelievable but I have since started to "play" with the camera and I am now able to take shots which are very very good and all this after just three days. I have learnt more about photography in the last three days than what I have ever!

 

The camera still sturuggles a little in the dark, but which one doesnt hey?

 

Are there any software upgrades for this camera? I know accessories are very very limited. Leica MK have been very good and found a case which is more suitable for the camera!

 

So, if anyone can offer any help/tips. I would be very grateful.

 

Or... should I have waited for the replacement?

thanks

Mobe

[filcasolo]

Hi,

I quote your writing to be fast " so grainy and noisy it was unbelievable but I have since started to "play" with the camera and I am now able to take shots which are very very good ".

I'm very curious to know the kind of games you plaied to get off from noise and graininess.Can you give some hints ?

 

Thanks

Filippo

[Guest stnami]

Checkers is the name of the game and maize is my grain..... welcome

[mobeyone]

Hi Filipo,

 

I have the settings as follows:

 

A: aperture priority

Saturation: normal

Noise reduction: high

contrast: high

sharpness: high

 

I shoot in 3:2 and have iso set to 80 during the day but then to auto if shooting in low light conditions.

 

I also have a D1 and I am getting similar results with the DL2 but I still think that the D1 is a better camera? is this fair to say?

 

The colours are great on the DL2, but again, I am still "playing" with this camera. I like my photos to be of a certain tone and quality and the photos listed below i think are very very good shots taken with the DL2.

 

Examples are listed below:

 

[biglouis]

Mobe

 

The D-LUX 2 is a great camera and I have been very pleased with the results. Except under exceptional circumstances I have had few problems with noise. That said, I only shoot RAW and use Lightroom or the Adobe plug-in to manipulate the results.

 

The new D-LUX 3 looks like an incremental upgrade and whilst it is bound to be an equally good camera I would have thought given that it sports the exact same lens that the results will be comparable, so taking advantage of the lower prices on e-Bay is probably a good idea.

 

You can see some of the results at my web site

 

LouisB

[peterb]

I didn't buy the D Lux 2, but I did get Panasonic's variant, the LX1 and I couldn't be happier. For one thing the 16:9 aspect ratio chip is nothing short of fantastic. But if tips is what you want, here are two. One, if it's possible, shoot in RAW. While it may seem like additional work in post processing (I use Adobe Elements 4) Sean Reid in is fabulous Reid Reviews did a review of the D Lux 2 and in the Review suggested some settings to begin with should you want to process RAW. I've used them and the results have been utterly amazing. Low grain and noise. Nice contrast. Excellent tonal ranges and detail.

 

The other tip I can recommend is an attempt to duplicate something that I'd also seen on his review. As you know there is no finder on this fine camera. So to deal with that one member on this forum epoxied a Voigtlander mini-finder to the top deck of the camera. I was a little squeamish with that and found when I went to the camera store that Voightlander also made a neat little gadget called an accessory strap holder. Basically it was an accessory shoe attachment that would hold additional finders for the Voigtlander rangefinder on the neck strap while you went about shooting so when you changed lenses you could quickly swap out the appropriate finder that the camera's built-in frame lines might not have.

 

As it turned out, this metal attachment fit PERFECTLY between the flash and the mode dial on the top deck of the LX1 (and presumably the D Lux 2). But instead of using epoxy (which you can use) I used one of 3M's amazing double sided adhesive strips (used for hanging plastic hooks on walls for pots and pans and stuff), trimmed the excess to the contours of the base of the device and pressed it into position on the top of the camera.

 

Once mounted you can then use a 28mm or 35mm (or a 40mm, 50mm or even a 90mm) finder that is aligned nearly along the axis of the lens, giving you a great finder for this lovely, lovely camera.

 

Enjoy.

 

Peter

[peterb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh, one more thing, regarding the D Lux 3, as I've mentioned on other posts, cosmetics aside (which in my opinion are nothing short of drop dead gorgeous) I have some reservations about the the quality of the images you may get. For one thing, the pixel count, which was increased by a whopping 2 million or so over the previous model are being crammed onto the same sized chip. Which means, pixel for pixel, they're significantly smaller, and, thus will be significantly noisier. Now, to deal with that, the D Lux 3 (as well as Panasonic's LX2) will utilize Pansaonic's newest image processor, the Venus III. Initial reports from dpreview.com of other Panasonic cameras now using this image processor suggest that it degrades detail dramatically at the sacrifice of less noise and that the additional 2 million pixels doesn't buy you a significant advantage in image resolution (mind you, this was in reference to the FZ-50/V-Lux chip which is smaller and has even smaller pixels than either the LX1/DLux 2 sensors). Luminous Landscape in their initial assesment of the LX2 even suggested that images were not only just about on par with the previous model, they were somewhat less improved than the current (or now previous) model.

 

Similarly, the Panasonic FZ-50 which is the equivalent of the V-Lux, while receiving high praise for overall camera design, received bad marks for image performance which I thought odd since, if image capture is what getting a digital camera is all about, no matter how good everything else is, if the image is compromised everything else, in my opinion, is academic.

 

Prognostication (for the moment until further tests are in): the D Lux 3 with it's higher (and as a result noiser) pixel count and improved processing engine will, at best, be treading water in terms of image quality (all other considerations like cosmetics aside) acompared to the D Lux 2. And from what dpreview has suggested (with ithe additional 2 million pixels again the reference was to the FZ50/V Lux over the previous Pansonic FZ30 using a far smaller chip) the image results from the additional pixels are not all that significantly better.

 

Just some observations.

[sean_reid]

Sean Reid in is fabulous Reid Reviews did a review of the D Lux 2 and in the Review suggested some settings to begin with should you want to process RAW. I've used them and the results have been utterly amazing. Low grain and noise. Nice contrast. Excellent tonal ranges and detail.

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks very much, I'm glad that was helpful information.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[filcasolo]

Hi,

thanks to everibody,even to Tsnami (by the way,he forced me to remember of somebody else answer to a silly question on how to shoot without a viewfinder ; the answer was " you have to think laterally")

[mitchell]

Peter B.

 

Sounds like you have a great veiwfinder solution. Can you post pictures of it, including different size finders?

 

Thanks,

 

Mitchell

 

P.S. My problem is no diopter. I don't want to be taking glasses off and on to take pictures.

I would think with the large Yuppie age group with failing eyes, the camera companies would figure this out.

[mobeyone]

Thanks for the comments guys.

 

As for RAW, I have tried shooting in RAW but have not a clue with how you would process this in photoshop.

 

I take it that a RAW image is only viewable in photoshop?

 

PeterB - I think your thoughts on the Dlux3 are very warm.... and clearly reflected in the drop in price?

 

Any chance you could post a photo of your viewfinder fitted to the DL2?

[peterb]

Sean,

 

Your writings are very clear. I wasn't sure at first but when I opened up the RAW files in my first experiment, the windows came up with all the parameters that you'd mentioned which I adjusted according to what you found successful (exposure, brightness contrast) and so far, I've really liked the results from the settings you suggested.

 

Also your initial review of the new M8, like all your others, was nothing short of thorough and thoughtful (lucky bastard!). I am looking forward to the NYC photoshow in November when I can get my initial mitts on the thing and have a trial feel. From what I've read about the sensor specs (and posted with my somewhat limited knowledge of digital issues) the sensor they developed jointly with Kodak is nothing short of phenomonal. HUGE pixels that should easily (from what I can tell) keep noise manageable well into the high ISOs that Leica promised.

 

It was interesting in that despite the initial sentiments from Leica of not being able to go forward with digital because of the M lens issues blah blah blah, that they arrived at this solution. It had occured to me that, while it would not be easy, it would be possible to fanatically engineer an array of lenses over the individual silicon sensors so that light coming in at an angle could be refracted within the lens medium so that rays properly exited at 90 degrees toward the sensor. That is what has apparently transpired and now Leica is crowing about how ALL but a handful of prior M optics can still be utilized on this no M tour-de-force.

 

Mitchell, Mobeyone (and you, too Sean) after much effort I was finally able to take some shots of my solution to the lack of a viewfinder on the Leica D-Lux2/Panasonic Lumix LX1.

 

Hope they are instructive. They are being uploaded in two sets. One without the finder attached so you can see the accessory. The other with the finder so you can see how the whole thing looks.

 

Enjoy.

 

Peter

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!

[peterb]

I know the shots seem to indicate that the flash will not open but it does (just a little jiggle is required because the adhesive foam 'catches' it a little. Otherwise it's no problem. The accessory as it's machined JUST misses both the mode dial and the flash. It's tight. but very workable.

 

Here are the other shots with the 28 mm Voigtlander finder that I use attached.

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!

[rob_x2004]

Thanks for the images Peter, there was another fellow doing the same with a small square 28mm? Voigtlander viewfinder. Good stuff.

Also, In photoshop or corel or whatever you can get hold of, you can re sample or physically resize your images and post them in a size so we can read all the comments and see the pics without having to scroll.