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!

GRII versus LX2/D-Lux 3

tashley

Subscriber Member
Evening all!

I purchased a GRII last week having read and heard much on the subject of its virtues. I was hoping to trade up, quality wise, from my LX2. As it happens, I don't think the comparison is as clear cut as I'd hoped.

I posted some thoughts and examples in another thread, here:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220&page=8

Those comments refer to a bit of testing at ISO 100 and 400. The only reason I took to testing at all was that I was frankly rather disappointed with the initial results from the GRII. Now, in an attempt at curbing buyer's remorse, I have tested it at 800 and 1600 ISO versus the LX2 and found the hint of a silver lining.

The following examples were taken on a tripod with both cameras with F4 and 'all other things being equal' apart from the fact that the two cameras meter differently, so I used the same shutter speed for both and made minor exposure adjustments in Lightroom. All shots were otherwise developed from RAW in LR at LR defaults.

The order of these is displayed under each image. 100% crops only are shown since the full frame is rather boring. Shots indoor under incandescent light. The LX2 FOV is slightly narrower than the GRII at the same apparant 35mm equiv of 24mm so its images are slightly larger.


View attachment 1289
GRII at 800

View attachment 1290
LX2 at 800

View attachment 1291
GRII at 1600

View attachment 1292
LX2 at 1600


So the silver lining is this: though frankly the results are pretty nasty from both cameras, in B&W at ISO 800 they could both be made to look acceptable, even 'what I was after' if I were after a certain kind of rendition. But though the same could, just, be said of the GRII files at 1600, the LX2 has banding, clearer in the full frame, and that counts it out for any serious use at that ISO.

I've made some useability observations in the original thread referred to above and they marginally favour the GRII but I have to say that the more I use it, the less convinced I am that its ergonomics are so far ahead of the pack. In particular I find the external finder so inaccurate at anything other than close range that I have to use the LCD to compose accurately.

But it's never all bad! It's not as good all round as the LX2 even if its ISO 1600 is better. Its lens isn't as sharp, I think... but I've still had some nice shots out of it... and that's what it's all about, eh?! I use it as a carry around for when I can't take an M8 and glass, or for when I want a rough rendition. And here's one I like from this afternoon. A shot I would otherwise not have got at all, and it looks rather nice printed at 20cm wide. With apologies to Mr. Steichen...

View attachment 1293

Best

Tim
 
L

Lewis

Guest
Great shot! I had a D Lux 3 and recently sold it only to replace it with the GRD 2. I have to say that I personally find the GRD more satisfying to use, in terms of the layout of the controls etc, but I think the lens on the Leica is slightly sharper though. I still seem to get better results overall with the GRD II though...
I don't regret selling the Leica as such, but I still wouldn't mind another one again...;)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks Lewis and Will,

I have to say that I'm now of an age where I'm usually more interested in eating the pudding than proving it but sometimes you need to sanity check what you think you're seeing, and I did expect the GRII to be noticeably better, judging from all I've heard. However, they are both pretty impressive cameras and I'd happily use either!

Best

Tim
 

Maggie O

Active member
Hey Tim, that photo looks like 2.5 million bucks! Steichen would be proud.

I was mightily tempted to get a GRD II, but I channeled my GAS into using my D-Lux 3 more and after several hundred frames, my GAS has passed and I'm confident that I've got a camera that, for me, is more than the equal of the GRD II.

And besides, it's a Leica! I loves me some red dot.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Hi Tim,

They're both great cameras. What are you processing the RAW files with? If it isn't C1 try the GR2 file in C1 4.0 with a JFI profile like XP2. Give it full on color noise filtration in the C1 settings. Also run a few with Silkypix using their first monochrome settings, also full-on color noise filtration. Default sharpening in both RAW programs is a good starting point.

You have to frame outside the frame lines with the GV2, just like with an M8. Or, shoot 3:2 and use the CV 28 metal finder.

Cheers,

Sean
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hey Tim, that photo looks like 2.5 million bucks! Steichen would be proud.

I was mightily tempted to get a GRD II, but I channeled my GAS into using my D-Lux 3 more and after several hundred frames, my GAS has passed and I'm confident that I've got a camera that, for me, is more than the equal of the GRD II.

And besides, it's a Leica! I loves me some red dot.
Thanks Maggie - as long as I don't get sued for passing off!

You do such good work with your DL3 that I can't see any reason to change! Have you seen Jim Radcliffe's work with it over on the DPreview Leica forum? He's pretty darn good too!

Best

T
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hi Tim,

They're both great cameras. What are you processing the RAW files with? If it isn't C1 try the GR2 file in C1 4.0 with a JFI profile like XP2. Give it full on color noise filtration in the C1 settings. Also run a few with Silkypix using their first monochrome settings, also full-on color noise filtration. Default sharpening in both RAW programs is a good starting point.

You have to frame outside the frame lines with the GV2, just like with an M8. Or, shoot 3:2 and use the CV 28 metal finder.

Cheers,

Sean

Thanks for the tips Sean - I might well give that a try but it does raise an issue: if I am running three or four different cameras and want to keep my sanity, as well as a reasonably clear grasp on my digital assets, I like to be able to round trip everything from my main catalogue (which is Lightroom) easily. In reality that means that I mainly use LR and PS CS in tandem, and try to avoid other developers. I have C1 v4 and Aperture, and the version of Silkypix I have works only with the Pannie. I am not man enough to know for every file which RAW processor will squeeze the last drop, nor do I have sufficient skill in all the RAW developers on the market to be able to do them all justice... so I stick with LR unless the shot is really screaming out for something else!

Best

Tim
 
E

Eric

Guest
I almost got caught up in the GRII/GX100 frenzy and like Maggie I started to use my D-Lux 3 more often instead. I actually carry it around along with my M8 because of the d-lux 3's 16x9 format which I miss from my x-pan days. I'm not questioning the quality of the Ricoh cameras but one small sensor camera is enough for me. While its amazing the quality one can get out of such small machines, the file quality (not just noise) still is noticeably less than ultimately I'd like. Like others, I tend to do a lot of pp on small sensor files so the small differences between cameras doesn't seem worth all the effort and cost of switching now. Stephen Shore has done some impressive (IMO) work with small sensor cameras and I suspect he used neither Ricoh nor pannie-leica cameras for the work. At the end of the above article on Shore is a link to download a free Shore pdf "book" made with a small sensor camera.
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
Stephen Shore has done some impressive (IMO) work with small sensor cameras and I suspect he used neither Ricoh nor pannie-leica cameras for the work. At the end of the above article on Shore is a link to download a free Shore pdf "book" made with a small sensor camera.
thanks for that link Eric, it was really interesting to read. Just one question: how do you know that the photobook was made with a small sensor camera?

Best

t
 
E

Eric

Guest
thanks for that link Eric, it was really interesting to read. Just one question: how do you know that the photobook was made with a small sensor camera?

Best

t
I think I first read about Shore's use of small sensor cameras on Alex Soth's now defunct blog or at least a link off of it. As he mentions in the linked article above, Shore has been experimenting with the immediacy of digital work and particularly the idea that he himself controls the whole process from shot to layout to finished books. As he mentions in the article he takes his digital shots and makes books in iPhoto. In Flohmarkt he truncates the process to a pdf (I don't believe that Flohmarkt has been published except maybe self-published as above. He's also had published by Nizraeli Press at least one book that I'm aware of (I own it) called Witness Number One which is made with a small sensor camera. The premise is that on any day that the NY Times runs an 8 column banner headline he takes his digital (small sensor) camera with him everywhere on that day and documents the minutia of his day in a spontaneous manner and then creates a book from that day. Over time he has a collection of daily books triggered by these NY Times headlines. He likes the interplay between the randomness of the stimulus for the book (the NYTimes headlines) with the time capsule like quality of documenting visual aspects of his day.

So I guess the short answer would be he hasn't called me on the phone to confirm it but experimenting with digital small sensor work is an ongoing project for him and flohmarkt came out in that context. And as far as I know he continues to work with his 8x10 camera but I think a lot of that is architecturally based these days from what I've seen. I don't believe these photos are in the style of his 8x10 work.

Cheers,
e
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Everyone
Well, I've read and looked and read and looked and thought and decided and changed my mind.

I wanted to get a small sensor camera for those moments when even an M8 was too big, and I was rather inspired by Sean Reid's discussions about removing shutter lag by using manual focus. I was even more inspired by work by Maggie and Jim Radcliffe and others, both here and at the other place. I was also given serious pause for thought by Tim's observations and tests.

I didn't really know what I was going to buy until the last moment. I'd decided against the GRII because I really did want a zoom lens, so it was between the GX100 and the d-lux3.

Anyway, I found a good deal, and bought the d-lux3. I may be right and I may be wrong, only time will tell whether it suits my style, but one thing I AM sure of is that if I can't make it work . . . . then it's my fault!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hi Everyone
Well, I've read and looked and read and looked and thought and decided and changed my mind.

I wanted to get a small sensor camera for those moments when even an M8 was too big, and I was rather inspired by Sean Reid's discussions about removing shutter lag by using manual focus. I was even more inspired by work by Maggie and Jim Radcliffe and others, both here and at the other place. I was also given serious pause for thought by Tim's observations and tests.

I didn't really know what I was going to buy until the last moment. I'd decided against the GRII because I really did want a zoom lens, so it was between the GX100 and the d-lux3.

Anyway, I found a good deal, and bought the d-lux3. I may be right and I may be wrong, only time will tell whether it suits my style, but one thing I AM sure of is that if I can't make it work . . . . then it's my fault!
You'll like it buddy! And if you can't make it work, it's broken...

t
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Thanks for the tips Sean - I might well give that a try but it does raise an issue: if I am running three or four different cameras and want to keep my sanity, as well as a reasonably clear grasp on my digital assets, I like to be able to round trip everything from my main catalogue (which is Lightroom) easily. In reality that means that I mainly use LR and PS CS in tandem, and try to avoid other developers. I have C1 v4 and Aperture, and the version of Silkypix I have works only with the Pannie. I am not man enough to know for every file which RAW processor will squeeze the last drop, nor do I have sufficient skill in all the RAW developers on the market to be able to do them all justice... so I stick with LR unless the shot is really screaming out for something else!

Edit: Just saw your newer post, enjoy the D-Lux 3.

Best

Tim
Hi Tim,

I understand the appeal of that which is why I standardized on C1 (because, with most cameras, it still gives the best output I've seen from any program). That said, you might want to try the conversions I suggested just to get a feel for what's possible. As you know, not every RAW conversion program does the best job with every camera.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
I think I first read about Shore's use of small sensor cameras on Alex Soth's now defunct blog or at least a link off of it. As he mentions in the linked article above, Shore has been experimenting with the immediacy of digital work and particularly the idea that he himself controls the whole process from shot to layout to finished books. As he mentions in the article he takes his digital shots and makes books in iPhoto. In Flohmarkt he truncates the process to a pdf (I don't believe that Flohmarkt has been published except maybe self-published as above. He's also had published by Nizraeli Press at least one book that I'm aware of (I own it) called Witness Number One which is made with a small sensor camera. The premise is that on any day that the NY Times runs an 8 column banner headline he takes his digital (small sensor) camera with him everywhere on that day and documents the minutia of his day in a spontaneous manner and then creates a book from that day. Over time he has a collection of daily books triggered by these NY Times headlines. He likes the interplay between the randomness of the stimulus for the book (the NYTimes headlines) with the time capsule like quality of documenting visual aspects of his day.

So I guess the short answer would be he hasn't called me on the phone to confirm it but experimenting with digital small sensor work is an ongoing project for him and flohmarkt came out in that context. And as far as I know he continues to work with his 8x10 camera but I think a lot of that is architecturally based these days from what I've seen. I don't believe these photos are in the style of his 8x10 work.

Cheers,
e
I'll call him and ask about it. Stephen was my professor and advisor at Bard College and I worked closely with him for four years. I didn't know, until your post, that he was experimenting with small sensor cameras because we haven't talked in the past few years. But we're friends and I think that I should contact him about doing an article on this. Thanks very much for the heads up. I'm going to your link now.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
I'll call him and ask about it. Stephen was my professor and advisor at Bard College and I worked closely with him for four years. I didn't know, until your post, that he was experimenting with small sensor cameras because we haven't talked in the past few years. But we're friends and I think that I should contact him about doing an article on this. Thanks very much for the heads up. I'm going to your link now.

Cheers,

Sean
I'd love to get the skinny on that Sean - please do let us know if you write it up at reidreviews!

Best

t
 

jonoslack

Active member
You'll like it buddy! And if you can't make it work, it's broken...

t
Flattery will get you everywhere!
I'll report back - I think it's interesting that the GRII seems to have got your version out of mothballs.
It's a funny old world!
 
C

Chuck A

Guest
I have written about this before but I decided to got with the LX2. Like I said, photos from Maggie and others convinced me to try it. It is inexpensive to find one now and will hold me over until we see a GRD40 or GX200. Maybe even the LX3.

Sean,

I do have a question about the RAW files of the D-Lux3/LX2. There was talk and some examples of the RAW files from these cameras have a smeared quality to them. Especially in the shadow areas. There was a petition going around for a while now that talks about this and I also saw it on Amin's blog. You can see it here. http://aminphoto.blogspot.com/2007/06/gx100-vs-lx2-photos-posted-by-bjrn.html

Did you notice this at all in your review of the camera? Might it be a problem with the RAW converter? I haven't heard any complaints here so I am not sure what to think. Also, I am using PS Camera RAW (the newest version) as my converter. I will try it when I get the camera and see what it looks like.
 
Top