The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica d-lux 3

S

Sean_Reid

Guest
My first feeling is that the GR2 is hyped. It has inherited the crown of 'the toy camera that serious photographers use and can be used to make serious work' and in truth it's pretty good but after a small number of side by side shots against the LX2, it's not as good.
I don't think the camera is hyped, per se, but maybe you're reading things I haven't read. It certainly isn't hyped in my review. I wouldn't call it a toy at all, though, and I think people have to be realistic about the files that small sensor cameras make. I've heard some compare the output to the M8 and I really can't quite see that comparison myself.

Again, are you working from RAW? What's your workflow?

My gut sense, and again I haven't compared the two, is that the D-Lux 3 files will appeal to the eye as much as the GR2 files when both are straight from the camera. But I also have a hunch that if one begins pushing both kinds of files, those from the GR2 will hold up better than those from the Leica/Panasonic. I don't know if that's right. The fact that the GR2 files are a bit cleaner than those from other small sensor camera (cleaner as opposed to more smoothed) allows them to have a bit more resilience, a bit more like they came from a camera with a larger sensor.

The Leica D2 RAW files, for example, were lovely so long as they weren't pushed very hard in post. But push an ISO 400 D2 file, and I made thousands of those, and it can fall apart in a heartbeat. The underlying noise in a small sensor file, which some like so much (under certain circumstances) can eat the picture alive if one isn't careful.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:

Maggie O

Active member
I'll just say that I'm making darn fine looking ISO 800 files with my D-Lux3 and they hold up to quite a lot of PP. Of course, I make sure you wouldn't know that to look at 'em.
 

Terry

New member
Hi Tim,
I have nothing to add to the conversation as I haven't touched a GRD II but I do want to say HI !!!!

terry
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I'll just say that I'm making darn fine looking ISO 800 files with my D-Lux3 and they hold up to quite a lot of PP. Of course, I make sure you wouldn't know that to look at 'em.
That's just your magic touch Maggie. The camera just wants to do well for you. <G>

It's a great little camera.

Cheers,

Sean
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I don't think the camera is hyped, per se, but maybe you're reading things I haven't read. It certainly isn't hyped in my review. I wouldn't call it a toy at all, though, and I think people have to be realistic about the files that small sensor cameras make. I've heard some compare the output to the M8 and I really can't quite see that comparison myself.

Again, are you working from RAW? What's your workflow?

My gut sense, and again I haven't compared the two, is that the D-Lux 3 files will appeal to the eye as much as the GR2 files when both are straight from the camera. But I also have a hunch that if one begins pushing both kinds of files, those from the GR2 will hold up better than those from the Leica/Panasonic. I don't know if that's right. The fact that the GR2 files are a bit cleaner than those from other small sensor camera (cleaner as opposed to more smoothed) allows them to have a bit more resilience, a bit more like they came from a camera with a larger sensor.

Cheers,

Sean
Hi Sean1

Certainly not hyped by you - you don't do hype, as we all well understand. What I meant was that there's a general buzz around the GR and GX cameras that somehow they are the clever choice for the pro looking for a P&S, whether it's for glovebox use or because they like small sensor drawing. But I do think that the Ricohs feel more toy-like than the Leicasonics: lighter, less metal and more plastic and feel, even though the ergnomics are mildly more pro in feel.

I haven't done a lot of PP on the files yet but here's my thoughts and some examples.

The GR2 and the LX2 expose about a stop apart at the same ISO with the Ricoh giving about a stop less. That accounts for a stop's worth of missing IS, which is handy. I personally find that the Ricoh underexposes a tad, which I prefer to the mild over-exposing tendency of the LX2. In my sample shots here I followed the Ricoh's exposure cos it agreed more with my M8's opinion. I used the same F stop (f4) and shutter speed on both cameras in manual mode. I used AF and a tripod on both. I shot RAW and so I had to adjust the files from both camera so as to have about the same EV.

Also the LX2 has a slightly narrower FOV when set at 28mm focal length, so the crops show the centre portion slightly larger. All processed in Lightroom on Mac using default settings in all respects other than boosting exposure on the LX2 shots to achieve similar EV.

First is the scene (and This Is Not Art!) as captured by both cameras at ISO 100. Then centre crops at 100 and then in the subsequent post at 400 ISO:


View attachment 1239
GR2 ISO 100


View attachment 1238
LX2 ISO 100


View attachment 1240
GR2 ISO 100 crop


View attachment 1241
LX2 ISO 100 crop

Please see next post for ISO 400 crops and attempt at conclusion!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Now for the ISO 400 crops:


View attachment 1242
GR2 at ISO 400


View attachment 1243
LX2 at ISO 400

So it seems to me that at ISO 100 the LX2 is the clear winner. At ISO 400 it's harder to be categorical: the GR2 looks a little better but that's because it's less clear and has less micro contrast. It might also be because the LX2 was, by it's own meter, underexposed and had to have its exposure boosted by 3/4 stop in LR whereas the GR2 had its exposure reduced by 1/3rd stop.

(For reference the ISO 100 examples had LX2 boosted by a stop and GR2 left as shot)

Now here's the rub: I don't often shoot or compare JPEGS because they may not, on any camera, represent the best it can do BUT there's not real way to be 'fair' in RAW development either. LR may not be the best developer for either or both files and its default settings may favour one file over another. One could of course work on a 'best efforts' basis with both RAW files and see what is the absolute best that can be achieved but there are too many variables for that to be anything other than highly subjective.

So we have to be subjective and my subjective view is that at 100 ISO the LX2 is an easy winner and at ISO 400 I'd trust myself to get results on it that were pretty much as 'good' if maybe a little different. Probably a bit more noise in the Pannie but also better micro contrast and a sharper lens, on centre at least and I think possibly at the edges too.

I haven't tried ISO 800. I also think that at first sight the Ricoh jpegs are better than I can do with the RAW files in LR other than when given a lot of time.

The GR2 allows the use of an eternal finder and is a little smaller, thinner and lighter. As a true pocket camera it has better form factor and more 'pro' style ergonomics. But the LX2 gives better files at ISO 100 and pretty much as good at 400, though they may be less tolerant to PP as Sean suggests.

In other words, if you want a small sensor camera for its drawing, choose the one that draws as you prefer. If you want one that has files as close to your DSLR as you can get, and you work mainly at ISO 400 and below, choose the LX2. You can't fit a finder as easily and it's a bit bigger but its files are less compromised, it has a great lens, which zooms, and it has IS. It also has full manual controls that are the match in function for the GR2 if not quite as well designed ergonomically.

Phew!


Tim
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Sean1

Certainly not hyped by you - you don't do hype, as we all well understand. What I meant was that there's a general buzz around the GR and GX cameras that somehow they are the clever choice for the pro looking for a P&S, whether it's for glovebox use or because they like small sensor drawing. But I do think that the Ricohs feel more toy-like than the Leicasonics: lighter, less metal and more plastic and feel, even though the ergnomics are mildly more pro in feel.

I haven't done a lot of PP on the files yet but here's my thoughts and some examples.

The GR2 and the LX2 expose about a stop apart at the same ISO with the Ricoh giving about a stop less. That accounts for a stop's worth of missing IS, which is handy. I personally find that the Ricoh underexposes a tad, which I prefer to the mild over-exposing tendency of the LX2. In my sample shots here I followed the Ricoh's exposure cos it agreed more with my M8's opinion. I used the same F stop (f4) and shutter speed on both cameras in manual mode. I used AF and a tripod on both. I shot RAW and so I had to adjust the files from both camera so as to have about the same EV.

Also the LX2 has a slightly narrower FOV when set at 28mm focal length, so the crops show the centre portion slightly larger. All processed in Lightroom on Mac using default settings in all respects other than boosting exposure on the LX2 shots to achieve similar EV.

First is the scene (and This Is Not Art!) as captured by both cameras at ISO 100. Then centre crops at 100 and then in the subsequent post at 400 ISO:


Please see next post for ISO 400 crops and attempt at conclusion!
Hi Tim,

What aperture were those done at?

Cheers,

Sean
 
L

Lewis

Guest
Firstly i'd like to say hi, first post 'n' all that!:D Anyway, this thread got my attention as I recently sold my D Lux 3 and bought a GRD II. I think they are both great camera's but in many ways I am glad I made the transition to the GRD II.... Personally I find it simple to use, it has great ergonomics and also it as stated above it fits in the pocket perfectly. I find the IQ a little better than the Leica, perhaps not as sharp, but kind of more 'pleasing', especially when you consider the price of the camera-that is of course a matter of opinion, but when I had the D Lux 3 I found that I used to get lots of noise and 'smearing' of detail, which dissappointed me. Anyway, enough about that, I found it interesting that there were pics from Berlin in here, as I was there a while back when I owned the Leica, and have a few pics to offer up. I'll also post a few from the GRD II to see what you think. :)
Thanks.















 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Bob,

The sprawling campus of Oracle is certainly well-suited to the 16:9 format :) I prefer the first image with the tree branches for framing, and the "S" curve of the lakeshore as a compositional element.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Jack,
I like the tree framed version too.
The second shot looks to me almost more like an architectural model than an actual set of buildings.
-bob
 

Maggie O

Active member
Dancing Couple, Southwark, September, 2007





D-Lux 3, ISO 800, JPEG, PP in LightZone. They printed up beautifully, BTW.
 
Top