Digilux 2 Compared with D-Lux 4

[johnnyj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Digilux 2, the D-Lux3 and D-Lux4. I just happened to have run some basic tests on the image quality from the three cameras this past weekend. The end results were a little surprising to me. The ultimate resolution for all three cameras appears to be very close using the RAW output from all three. The only real difference appeared to be in the contrast and saturation of the D2 which caused the image to be "softer" than in the D-Lux 3 and 4. The D-Lux 3 and 4 appear to provide pretty much the same image quality. So, from the image standpoint, assuming the same ISO, f-stop, shutter speed and lens angle of view, all three cameras produce excellent images that easily reproduce to 8 X 10. Any differences in image "appearance" between the three cameras can be negated with good post processing software, or even tweaking the individual camera image adjustments (contrast, saturation, sharpness). The images do not as easily compare to my R8/DMR output, which is the same or similar sensor to the M8. The resolution/contrast is just not the same, as should be expected given the difference in sensor size and pixel size between the R8/DMR and the D series. So in chosing between the D2, D-Lux3 and D-Lux4 it appears to come down to convenience and user requirements (as others are pointing out). The D2, D-Lux3 and D-Lux4 are three very different cameras in many respects (controls, mm extension, features, size, etc.) but the images are quite similar in quality and capability when the same settings are used for each.

JohnnyJ

[farnz]

Carlos,

 

I've been happy with my D-Lux 2 for several years, and am curious what you see as the most meaningful upgrades of the D-Lux 4? Picture quality is really that much better? Hot shoe? What other kind of control are you referring to..

Jeff(?)

 

The DL4's biggest plus for me is the 24 to 60 mm Vario-Summicron lens, which outperforms the DL2's 28 to 112 mm Vario Elmarit imho. (Although to be fair I do miss the 112's reach from time to time.) The additional stop is very handy in low light and offers better selective focus.

 

The sensor's low light performance is significantly improved and ISO 400 and 800 are quite usable, I suspect, because the DL4 has fatter pixels.

 

The DL4 supports up to 16GB SDHC cards.

 

The LCD screen is enormously improved, with 460,000 pixels v the DL2's 207,000.

 

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the DL3, which is quite similar to the DL2, and the DL4. (Unfortunately the website doesn't offer a comparison of the DL2 because it's been discontinued.) DL3 and DL4 side by side comparison.

 

Pete.

[johnnyj]

Having just said all of that in the above post, I've got to admit that I agree with Pete and I tend to shoot with the D2 more than the D-Lux3 and D-Lux4. How's that for being decisive? It's probably why I own so many Leicas.

JohnnyJ

[John Thawley]

John, have you done low-light shooting with the D2? I have not and wondered how it compares to the M8 in that regard.

 

Regards,

Carlos Marques

 

Here are a few shot with the Digilux 2 ... all hand held at ISO 400 shot in RAW. Just an FYI, the first two were shot with the built in flash. The first in a restaurant using the "bounce" mode, the second is outdoors using the built in flash direct.

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!

[photogdave]

Here are a few shot with the Digilux 2 ... all hand held at ISO 400 shot in RAW. Just an FYI, the first two were shot with the built in flash. The first in a restaurant using the "bounce" mode, the second is outdoors using the built in flash direct.

What is your RAW workflow John? I haven't been able to get very clean ISO 400 shots like yours out of my LC1. The only software I own that is capable of reading the Panasonic RAW files is Photoshop CS.

[John Thawley]

What is your RAW workflow John? I haven't been able to get very clean ISO 400 shots like yours out of my LC1. The only software I own that is capable of reading the Panasonic RAW files is Photoshop CS.

 

I'm a hard core Aperture user. So what you see here is a result of simply twiddling the sliders based around the Aperture defaults when the image is viewed in the browser.

 

I also use the NoiseNinja plug-in for Aperture. However, I purposely DID NOT post the versions that have had NoiseNinja applied.

 

The only tip I might offer, if you aren't doing it already, when shooting in low light and at a high ISO setting, expose for the highlights. You'll never recover an underexposed image from this camera.

 

Though not Leica specific, here are a couple of journal entries I wrote that might be of interest:

 

Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge - Journal - Night Moves

 

Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge - Journal - Managing Noise

 

JT

[Tenor1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi John,

 

I did get Aperture per your recommendation and learning it. What I've found with my D2 is rarely needing to use higher than ISO 100. I took some shots at night outside of some shops in a strip mall and they were all good. I really feel the D2 is a real P&S camera.

 

Regards,

Carlos

[cfc247]

Not sure if this would be relevant to the original question, but I personally find the HD video on the Dl4 and its bright and large LCD very useful. Another reason why I prefer to keep both the D2 and Dl4. Since I don't like carrying a camcorder around, I often use the HD video on the Dl4, a part it serves very well when needed.

[meng8123]

I have a Digilux 2, the D-Lux3 and D-Lux4. I just happened to have run some basic tests on the image quality from the three cameras this past weekend. The end results were a little surprising to me. The ultimate resolution for all three cameras appears to be very close using the RAW output from all three. The only real difference appeared to be in the contrast and saturation of the D2 which caused the image to be "softer" than in the D-Lux 3 and 4. The D-Lux 3 and 4 appear to provide pretty much the same image quality. So, from the image standpoint, assuming the same ISO, f-stop, shutter speed and lens angle of view, all three cameras produce excellent images that easily reproduce to 8 X 10. Any differences in image "appearance" between the three cameras can be negated with good post processing software, or even tweaking the individual camera image adjustments (contrast, saturation, sharpness). The images do not as easily compare to my R8/DMR output, which is the same or similar sensor to the M8. The resolution/contrast is just not the same, as should be expected given the difference in sensor size and pixel size between the R8/DMR and the D series. So in chosing between the D2, D-Lux3 and D-Lux4 it appears to come down to convenience and user requirements (as others are pointing out). The D2, D-Lux3 and D-Lux4 are three very different cameras in many respects (controls, mm extension, features, size, etc.) but the images are quite similar in quality and capability when the same settings are used for each.

JohnnyJ

 

I totally agrees with you, for people who said use D2 over M8 is just too much, please don't mislead people. You can't even compare the image output between the two, they are not the same level. anyways, I like D-lux4, but the images that produced from this camera is not as sharp as the D2 outputs. Don't really know why but overall, I think, if you don't want to print too big, say 13x19, I would go for D2 of the sharpness.

[John Thawley]

What is your RAW workflow John? I haven't been able to get very clean ISO 400 shots like yours out of my LC1. The only software I own that is capable of reading the Panasonic RAW files is Photoshop CS.

 

I grabbed a few shots messing around last night and thought I'd post three versions relevant to high ISO, RAW and workflow.

 

EXIF:

 

Leica Digilux 2

Aperture f/2.1

Shutter 1/15 sec.

Focal length: 13mm

 

The first is the image with Aperture's RAW conversion default... no other adjustments.

 

The second was done using my own dabbling using ONLY the Aperture adjustments.

 

The last was accomplished by tweaking the RAW sliders slightly and then roundtripping the image to NoiseNinja plug-in. Then a few more tweaks in Aperture.

 

The last one wold be my preferred image. Some may differ.

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!

[Overgaard]

The last two definitely. But I would have used 100 ISO and 1/4 second, taking a series or two so as to have at least one shot that was not with motion blur from pressing the shutter. And the ISO noise would have been less, perhaps not noticeable.

[peterb]

Generally I think what makes you enthusiastic about shooting pictures is the right camera.

 

 

 

I totally agree. If you're happy with the handling of the camera you have you will be inspired to use it and everything else will become academic.

 

For me It's all about content and emotion.

 

Some of the most spectacular photos have some of the most unspectacular quality. Take for example Robert Capa's classic shot of the Spanish Revolution I have attached below.

 

Can I appreciate the potential of a technically better image? Absolutely. But if it isn't there it won't be the end of the world.

 

Peter

[Ruhayat]

I totally agree. If you're happy with the handling of the camera you have you will be inspired to use it and everything else will become academic.

 

For me It's all about content and emotion. Some of the most spectacular photos have some of the most unspectacular quality.

 

I heartily agree with both points above. A camera you enjoy using is a camera that is more likely to produce better images, sometimes simply because it makes you want to go out and 'make' photos (as opposed to merely 'take' photos) and also because you want to always have it with you. The camera doesn't even have to be technically competent (eg Lomo, Holga etc).

 

For me this feeling ebbs and flows with each camera, and I have been inspired in turns by the Ricoh GRD, Digilux 2 and Olympus E1 with Summicron lens (currently I am simply addicted to taking shots with the Cron; it makes me lust after events just so I can take pictures).

 

And, after perusing countless classics from the masters (Capa, Bresson, Kudelka, etc), it seems to me that quite often their technical capability is not really up to speed, but the moments that they managed to capture and their eye in capturing those moments make the technical 'deficiency' of the images not matter. This also, I believe, has something to do with the idea that one could/would not appreciate what is 'art' until sufficient time has passed -- flat family snapshots of today may just be classics in 2058.

 

Of course, when Kudelka does it (just focus on composition and never mind the blown out highlights) people say it is a Masterpiece. But when lesser beings do it it's called Blowing The Highlights Therefore The Photo Is Not Good.

[lesh]

The last two definitely. But I would have used 100 ISO and 1/4 second, taking a series or two so as to have at least one shot that was not with motion blur from pressing the shutter. And the ISO noise would have been less, perhaps not noticeable.

 

Images from the D2 taken by either Thorsten or John are superb - although (if I'm following things correctly) they seem to have different preferences regarding RAW or JPEG. Unfortunately the slow RAW write speeds preclude the use of bracketing suggested by Thorsten. Not suggesting it would lead to a better result but it would be interesting to try it.

Just one of the little foibles that could be eradicated in a 'son of D2'. But in today's climate I doubt it's at all likely to happen.

[John Thawley]

The last two definitely. But I would have used 100 ISO and 1/4 second, taking a series or two so as to have at least one shot that was not with motion blur from pressing the shutter. And the ISO noise would have been less, perhaps not noticeable.

 

I fear you're much younger and steadier than me. LOL - Plus, I find I really enjoy using the camera n RAW. Hence, burst shooting is out of the buffer's parameters.

 

I was shooting sunsets the other night... actually long after sunset, and write times began pushing 30+ seconds. In fact, I was on a tripod and using the LCD screen to view.. the screen would go blank... then produce a blue screen (please wait), then the frozen image preview.

 

JT

[peterb]

 

Of course, when Kudelka does it (just focus on composition and never mind the blown out highlights) people say it is a Masterpiece. But when lesser beings do it it's called Blowing The Highlights Therefore The Photo Is Not Good.

 

Now THAT is a truism. Your Kudelka notion reminds me of a wonderful anecdotal story I heard as an undergrad studying modern art. At the beginning of the last century there was an art show in New York sponsored by a group known as the Society of Independent Artists which said they would exhibit ALL submissions to the show.

 

If I recall the story, a piece of sculpture that was a urinal signed, simply, 'R Mutt' was submitted to the chagrin of the show's jury and was promptly dismissed.

 

But later when the anonymous artist revealed himself to be Marcel Duchamps, then the piece was suddenly acceptable!

 

Peter

[dko3tgk]

I'm going to resurrect this thread as I have a similar question. This is my first post but I've been keeping tabs on the forum for awhile. I too have been inspired by Mr. Overgaard and Mr. Thawley to own a D2 and I'm thouroughly impressed with the camera.

 

However I too am looking for an equivalent camera picture quality-wise to the D2, but being the size of a D-lux4.

 

Here's my reasons. I work in the travel industry and get to travel alot internationally. I've been using a Panasonic LX-1 as my primary travel camera. It has served me well since 2004. I accepted the tradeoff between my LX-1 and DSLRs of the same age. Alot of my travel is to Southeast Asia, and I was very happy having a very small but high picture quality camera. I never considered carrying an SLR along with me. However, now that I have the D2, I clearly see the difference in pictures between the two cameras. I took the D2 to Dubai and San Francisco this year, and am so much happier with the pictures this camera puts out. However, I'm pretty sure I don't want to carry the D2 around my neck,in Burma for example, as opposed to an LX-1 sized camera in a tiny case attached to a small bag or cargo pocket. Which I have been doing for years and prefer, size and convenience wise.

 

So how do owners of both D2/LC1 and DLux4/LX3, feel about the image quality vs each other? Most of this thread have owners comparing their D2's to the DLux3/LX2, which as most Panasonic forum members will say is a completely different camera, with the picture output of the newer Dlux4/LX3 being many times better than the Dlux3/LX2. THe Dpreview Panasonic forum has endless positive raves, and sample photos from ultra satisfied LX3/DLux4 owners.

 

Are you happy with the DLux4 photos compared to the D2? Are they close to being equal? And I mean Jpeg, unedited. I'm a take more shots in Jpeg as opposed to take less shots with RAW and adjust each one type of person.

 

I love my D2. I just want something with similar picture quality that is D-Lux sized.

[farnz]

I have both and purely in terms of jpegs the D-Lux 4 are comparable with, but imho just miss, the impact produced by D2 jpegs. It's a subjective quality and could reasonably be argued the other way.

 

Where the D-Lux 4 surpasses the D2 is the range of available jpeg treatments that it offers through its 12 Film Modes, 3 of which are dedicated b&w and 2 'brew your own' customisable ones. I haven't tried, but I think it's likely that with a bit of time and practice you could get very close to the D2 look with a customisable Film Mode.

 

All this might sound like the D2 is heading towards a long rest in the back of a dark cupboard but not so. The D2 offers more zoom reach and the sheer pleasure of using the rings on the barrel to control aperture, focus and zoom.

 

I normally take the DL 4 along too when I'm using the D2 because of two small modifications. I've replaced the DL 4's lens cap with the Ricoh LC-1 cap, which doesn't need to be removed to shoot with, and acquired a cheap after-market 'leather' case and cut off the flap. This allows me to slide the DL 4 right out when it's sitting on my belt and a flick of the on switch and it's ready to shoot. This really takes the heart-ache out of fiddling with the magnetic latch and case cover and then having to remove and store the Leica lens cap before you're ready to shoot.

 

Pete.

[elgenper]

.....

 

Are you happy with the DLux4 photos compared to the D2? Are they close to being equal? And I mean Jpeg, unedited. I'm a take more shots in Jpeg as opposed to take less shots with RAW and adjust each one type of person.

 

I love my D2. I just want something with similar picture quality that is D-Lux sized.

 

I have both, and I advise you to get them both, too. They complement each other very well, and they´re different enough to make it worth having both.

 

Obviously, it´s far easier to carry the DL4 at all times, and it can do some things that are more difficult or even impossible with the D2: closeups, shooting raw even when things happen fast, face recognition (no, it´s not just a stupid gimmick, it helps in many situations), very good video, image stabilization, better high ISO performance & c.

 

But, it´s far "fiddlier" than the D2 in use; it lacks that "mechanical camera" feeling. And that´s the main reason I still use the D2 whenever appropriate: you feel you´re really photographing, not handling a miniature electronic gadget....

 

Image quality: while the pixel count of the DL4 is far higher, the D2 images hold very well, even when viewed full screen (I use a 30" Cinema Display, so it´s BIG), and for prints at least A3 size. Both are good almost beyond belief, but my subjective feeling is that the D2 still wins by a small margin; suppose it´s the lens, mainly.

 

So, go get the DL4 (I think you should stay with the Leica feeling, and leave the LX3 out, but I´ll probably be flamed for saying so....)! Do get a grip for it right away: Richard Franiec makes an excellent one; I use the Leica original, which gets more "in the way" (and is more expensive), but gives even more for my big hands to grasp....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TonySx]

Any thoughts or experiences with respect to image comparison between the two??

I'm itching to sell the Digilux 2 to get a D-Lux 4.

I've just bought a DL4 but as additional to my D2. I would not get rid of the D2.

I've only had the DL4 about a week and the weather has been bad and we haven't been out on any trips so I've only taken "test" shots to see how it performs.

Commenting on their useability, the DL4 is very small indeed but I knew that when I bought it - so I prefer the D2 in my hands. Once you've got hold of it, the DL4 is a pleasure to use. I like it as much as I like the D2 and especially appreciate the increase in speed (writing files).

As far as images is concerned, I think the D2 has the edge but that's only because the DL4 is still virtually unused. I can only offer these few shots for viewing but maybe they'll help you make a decision.

Zenfolio | TonySx | 91. Shot with a Leica Digilux 2 or D-Lux 4.