Sigma DP2 Vs D-Lux4

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Addendum: I saw a reference today that Sean Reid is preparing an extensive review of the D-Lux 4. I'm not a subscriber to his site but if I was shopping for a $700 camera I would most certainly invest in such a subscription. His reputation for quality reviews is impeccable.

 

Thanks Ken,

 

I published the first part of the D-Lux 4 review and am working on part 2 now that I have a second sample of the camera to use for formal tests (the first had a defective lens). I should have a DP2 to test by next week.

 

The reference camera for the formal D-Lux 4 tests will be the Ricoh GX200. The reference cameras for the formal DP2 tests will be the D-Lux 4 and the M8 (each one for very different reasons).

 

72 ppi JPEGs (level 9 or better) can actually tell us a lot when we're looking at 100% crops. Those crops, of course, mean that we're looking at the actual file and not at a resized version. In fact, those crops can reveal differences that one might never notice in moderately sized prints. All of this, of course, relies upon viewing the pictures on a high res, high quality, calibrated monitor. But of course all of our digital photography work relies on that.

 

Frankly, it is a good thing that we can (with the right equipment) tell a lot from what we see on screen because our RAW conversion decisions, Photoshop work, etc. all rely upon that.

 

I'm very interested in the DP2. When I reviewed the DP1 I suggested Sigma consider a model with a faster 35 - 40 mm lens and, amazingly, that is just what they did.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[yanidel]

No. Tiny online 72 dpi images are largely worthless for any practical comparison. I've no interest in, or need to, "back my claim". You'll either have to accept my opinion or reject it. It matters not a whit to me.

Giving such a definite opinion on a camera after one week usage and without showing any pictures is kind of odd ... especially when comparing a DSLR sensor to an APN.

 

But well, I might be wrong myself in my assumption that the DP2 image quality is better than the D-Lux4. Just read Sean's part I review of the D-Lux4, but will wait for part II as I am sure he will show detailed analysis of IQ.

[yanidel]

I'm very interested in the DP2. When I reviewed the DP1 I suggested Sigma consider a model with a faster 35 - 40 mm lens and, amazingly, that is just what they did.

And it was the strongest selling point of the DP2 for me, 40mm + F2.8 allows to have shallow DOF at 2-3 meters which I believe is a first for a compact camera.

[jimbo035]

it seems to me that this thread may lead to a concluson that either the Sigma DP2 is the better camera of the two, or at least - for D-Lux 4 owners who have bothered to read all of it - cause some of them to regret having bought the D-Lux 4 instead of the Sigma. A peculiar effect to discover on a dedicated Leica Forum.

Are the "champions " of the DP2 strictly complying to the Forum rules , I wonder ?

[yanidel]

it seems to me that this thread may lead to a concluson that either the Sigma DP2 is the better camera of the two, or at least - for D-Lux 4 owners who have bothered to read all of it - cause some of them to regret having bought the D-Lux 4 instead of the Sigma. A peculiar effect to discover on a dedicated Leica Forum.

Are the "champions " of the DP2 strictly complying to the Forum rules , I wonder ?

I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The D-Lux4 is a Leica P&S, the DP2 gets close to a compact rangefinder that suits the reportage type of photography assimilated to Leica historically. I absolutely think the M8 is the best out there in the digital world for it,, but Leica hasn't come up yet with a digital CL (compact) equivalent. The DP2 is IMO what gets the closest to it as of today.

[integrale]

The DP2 as a concept (large sensor, "clasic" design etc) is very, very interesting.

 

I presume that the typical buyer of such camera will have certain requirements in respect of build quality and "touchy-feely" qualities and, amazingly, this seems to be the one area where all agree that the Sigma fails substantially.

 

In conclusion, I do not regret buying the D-Lux 4 instead of the Sigma (eventhough the D-Lux is basicly just a remake of a Japanese camera...).

 

A DP3 with the build quality of G10 or D6000 (or DL4) and reworked in-camera software, however...

 

PS: I think providing substantiated critique and comparison with other relevant cameras should be welcomed at this forum. Just my 2c...

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The DP2 as a concept (large sensor, "clasic" design etc) is very, very interesting.

 

I presume that the typical buyer of such camera will have certain requirements in respect of build quality and "touchy-feely" qualities and, amazingly, this seems to be the one area where all agree that the Sigma fails substantially.

 

 

If the DP2 build quality is like that of the DP1 then I, personally, do not agree that it fails substantially. I'll know more when the camera gets here but the question of feel may be quite subjective.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

it seems to me that this thread may lead to a concluson that either the Sigma DP2 is the better camera of the two, or at least - for D-Lux 4 owners who have bothered to read all of it - cause some of them to regret having bought the D-Lux 4 instead of the Sigma. A peculiar effect to discover on a dedicated Leica Forum.

Are the "champions " of the DP2 strictly complying to the Forum rules , I wonder ?

 

I don't think the forum makes any rules about how one must feel about a given camera. Rather, they ask that discussion here be substantially related to Leica cameras.

 

I doubt that the DP2 will make D-Lux 4 owners regret their choice. Rather than think about "best image quality" (whatever that may be) I think it is relevant to consider that the D-Lux 4 and the DP2 are cameras of two very different formats. Just as 35 mm and MF film cameras, no matter how good the cameras and films used, render differently, so too will small and medium sensor cameras. The look of files from the D-Lux and the DP will be different - starting with depth of field but very likely extending to various other aspects. I won't know what those differences are, specifically, until I test them side by side but in the end I think one will end up weighing the pros and cons of each camera before making a personal choice of one or the other (or both).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Iansky]

I own the DP1 (backup to my M8.2).

 

Apart from the slower lens and slower write times for Raw (5 sec with Sandisk 8GB 111) it is an incredible camera that providing you can live with the fixed lens, blows any other compact on the market away for IQ.

 

For those interested parties, you can see some of my Sigma DP1 images (and M8.2) on my blogsite here:

 

 

Iansky Photosite: Sigma DP1

 

Iansky Photosite

[thomasl.se]

Not to forget the LX3 ,grip included, is half the price of the DP2, At least here in Sweden.

 

Having used the LX3 for one month, I'll point out one gripe in particular, namely the lack of option to resume the last used zoom on startup. If not an optional step zoom, which would be sweet by the way, then at least the zoom resume feauture as in their 10X and 12X P&S could make a very nice and real difference; especially when wishing to use the mid-longer end of the range.

 

Thomas

[yanidel]

PS: I think providing substantiated critique and comparison with other relevant cameras should be welcomed at this forum. Just my 2c...

 

Agree. My two DP2 sample pictures on the thread were removed by the mod as it seems not comply with forum rules ... this is very short-sighted in my opinion. Really the aim of my post was to say "Someone is getting closer to providing a compact rangefinder experience". A DP2 with Leica built quality and few changes would be such a wonderful camera. The D-lux 4 has nothing to do with Leica's tradition except for the name on the body, I don't even understand any other reason to favour it over the LX3 except to get the red dot.

So I thought it was good customer feedback to post that a fully committed Leica M8 user like I am, did choose the DP2 over the D-Lux4 as a compact complement and I explained the reasons why. The pictures were posted to illustrate these points, nothing more.

[bill]

I don't even understand any other reason to favour it over the LX3 except to get the red dot.

 

Better warranty

Better after sales service

Better bundled software

Better (add-on) grip

 

That last was the deal breaker for me. After an LX-1 and LX-2 I would naturally have gone for the LX-3 but the Leica grip is exceptional for those of us with larger hands.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

p.s. I do agree with you about comparing Leica and non-Leica cameras here in an open way - we are not blinkered bigots, after all, and it would be folly to ignore non-Leica developments.

 

There are however strict and fair rules about posting non-Leica originated images here and rules against generally posting images outside the photo fora. In any event, as Ken mentioned earlier, there is little point in trying to compare outputs from two cameras at 72dpi on a monitor...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[yanidel]

Better after sales service

Sure about that one ... ????

 

Then Panasonic must be really really bad.... my M8 shutter failed a few times in cold conditions but I don't dare to send it to Solms because I need it this summer ...

[bill]

Sure about that one ... ????

 

Then Panasonic must be really really bad.... my M8 shutter failed a few times in cold conditions but I don't dare to send it to Solms because I need it this summer ...

 

LoL!

 

Let me put it this way - it's hard to find anyone in Panasonic who has the slightest interest...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[sean_reid]

T In any event, as Ken mentioned earlier, there is little point in trying to compare outputs from two cameras at 72dpi on a monitor.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

That's a truism I often hear but lets think about it for a moment. If looking at a file on a good monitor doesn't tell one a lot about it then how would he or she successfully work with that file, towards a final print, in Photoshop? Unless one stops to make a print after every post-processing change (as we essentially do in the chemical darkroom) then we're relying on the calibrated monitor to show us what is happening to the picture as we work it through. Having worked as a (silver process) exhibition printer earlier in my life (mostly for publication and museum/gallery exhibition prints in NYC) I feel that I can get a very good sense of a camera's output from looking at its files at full (100%) size on screen (so long as the monitor is excellent and calibrated).

 

Its true that nothing looks quite like a print and that comparisons in print are very useful. But, in fact, prints tend to be more forgiving than 100% files seen on screen. The latter tends to be relentless in revealing subtle differences in camera output. But it does most certainly show them and I think that experienced digital photographers can actually tell quite a bit from 100% crops. Its also worth remembering, of course, that a picture loses a great deal of dynamic range when it is printed (because of the limitations of ink on paper).

 

For example, as I write this I'm prepping res. test crops made with a Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 mounted on a D700 and 1Ds3. Comparing the cameras isn't even the point of the review and yet the differences in resolution between the two are unmistakable in the 100% crops.

 

In a perfect world, we'd all be able to look at prints of varying sizes from various camera. But since most of us are far apart geographically, the monitor allows us to gain a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise have. And I'd argue that information can tell a lot about a lens or a camera.

 

Lastly, I think we can get caught a bit too caught up in (and sometimes mislead by) the 72 ppi thing. (DPI, of course, refers to ink dots.) The key thing is that we look at the digital file at full pixel size - hence the significance of 100% files and crops from them. Everything we see in a print originates from there.

 

Of course, once we resize, as oppose to crop, a file for the screen then we lose information. So if one were to argue that there's a lot we *cannot* tell from a 10 MP picture presented, uncropped, at, say, 600 x 400 pixels then I'd have to agree. But croppings from full size files can be very revealing and scrolling a 100% size file in Photoshop can also tell us a lot.

 

My perspective - for what it is worth.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[bill]

Hi Sean, thanks for that, and I can certainly see where you are coming from.

 

However the thing for me is that the poster of the image has absolutely no control over the monitor on which it is viewed - the "finished product" varies dependent upon the budget of the viewer, in simple terms. Today, for example, I am working from home. I have my (work) laptop fired up, my "imaging" desktop running and I am sitting down right now with a cup of Earl Grey typing this on the sub-notebook that sits under my TV and uses a 42" LCD as it's display. All are different, and all render images slightly differently.

 

I am not into "pixel-peeping" either, but again, I can see how that can give a comparison. In the real world, however, I sould rather look at a printed image and judge from that.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean, thanks for that, and I can certainly see where you are coming from.

 

However the thing for me is that the poster of the image has absolutely no control over the monitor on which it is viewed - the "finished product" varies dependent upon the budget of the viewer, in simple terms. Today, for example, I am working from home. I have my (work) laptop fired up, my "imaging" desktop running and I am sitting down right now with a cup of Earl Grey typing this on the sub-notebook that sits under my TV and uses a 42" LCD as it's display. All are different, and all render images slightly differently.

 

I am not into "pixel-peeping" either, but again, I can see how that can give a comparison. In the real world, however, I sould rather look at a printed image and judge from that.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

Yes, the varying quality and calibration of different monitors is a confounding variable for sure. If the monitor itself is misleading then everything goes downhill from there. And we certainly don't have that problem if we're all gathered in a gallery looking at prints on a wall. But, of course, how often can that happen in real life for people who are scattered all over the globe?

 

Most serious (and I would hope all professional) photographers work with at least one high quality calibrated monitor and that's the one we rely on when we're making judgements about file quality.

 

It is true that a reviewer, poster, etc. has no control over the monitor his work is being viewed on. But, ultimately, its up to the viewer to understand that if his or her monitor isn't competent and calibrated then it can't be relied upon to tell him or her much of anything about a picture file.

 

Basically, anyone who is serious about digital photography needs to have at least one very good monitor for editing and viewing.

 

I use a hardware calibrated NEC 2490 for this work but, for example, the better Macintosh monitors can do pretty well once they're dialed in. And, of course, there are good, bad and mediocre monitors available for PCs.

 

If anyone reading this is currently using a monitor that isn't up to snuff, I'd suggest making the purchase of a very good monitor a priority in the photo budget (maybe instead of buying the next lens). In digital, the monitor mediates most of what we're doing with these cameras (once the shutter has been pressed).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[charlesphoto99]

I wonder why Leica has never come up with their own DP1/2 killer? I'd much rather have a digital "CM" than a rebadged Panasonic. I bought the Panasonic. It's a great camera but I saw no reason to pay more than twice the price (at the time) for the Leica version. A unique Leica fixed lens, large sensor, p&s I would be more than happy to pay premium for.

 

I had the DP1 for like a day and just couldn't get my head wrapped around the UI. Made me run screaming for my M8. The LX3 I've been much happier with, though it's used primarily for it's 24mm lens. I wish it had zoom steps (say 28, 35, 50). Otherwise great little camera but it still beggars the question, why not just use the M8 if you already have one (which I do most of the time)?

[Guest malland]

Charles, Leica is an SME, leaving out the "M": look at it's total sales revenue — it's really a Small Enterprise. A camera like the LX3/D-Lux-4 needs huge R&D funds, for a company the tiny size of Leica, to develop. It's no surprise, therefore, that Leica made the type of deal they did with Panasonic on the D-Lux series, which represents a very crowded and competitive segment of the camera market and to concentrate on the digital-M. where they have a more open space in the market, although I'm skeptical of the S2 initiative in this context.

 

—Mitchell/Bangkok

Bangkok Street

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mishima]

Dear All,

 

When i purchased the D-Lux 4, i did a brief comparison with the Pana LX3. The shop fellas mentioned that Leica is a good brand. Also they added that the software had some diffs too in picture capturing. I never get to find out the diff but i guess they're referring to the pana and leica camera firmwares.

 

I'm glad that so far, the D-Lux4 serves well in any P&C shooting.