Not so D-lux 3

[Joshuar]

Hi,
I have a canon 1ds m2, so maybe I am spoiled. I just purchased a Leica d-lux 3 after reading some reviews online as it seemed to fit my needs for a small digital with manual controls and raw support.

But after a batch of shots it seems to be extremely noisy! I shot only at iso 100 in variable light and am less than thrilled with the noise. It is also reeeeally slow to write files to the disk... like 10 seconds in between shots.


Does anyone here have any experience with this camera? If I return it, any ideas about a replacement? I love its looks and its size. And its name. So far thats about it.


Josh

[KAP]

Hi,
I have a canon 1ds m2, so maybe I am spoiled. I just purchased a Leica d-lux 3 after reading some reviews online as it seemed to fit my needs for a small digital with manual controls and raw support.

But after a batch of shots it seems to be extremely noisy! I shot only at iso 100 in variable light and am less than thrilled with the noise. It is also reeeeally slow to write files to the disk... like 10 seconds in between shots.
Does anyone here have any experience with this camera? If I return it, any ideas about a replacement? I love its looks and its size. And its name. So far thats about it.
Josh
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's good to know a cheap P&S doesn't produce the results of a 1DsmkII, I'm waiting for the new Sigma before investigating a serious lightweight.

Kevin

[Joshuar]

It's good to know a cheap P&S doesn't produce the results of a 1DsmkII,

That sounds suspiciously like sarcasm.

[KAP]

That sounds suspiciously like sarcasm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guilty as charged!
I know what you mean though, I've wanted a quality point and shoot for some time, I would feel pig sick getting nice images on a noisy sensor. That's why I'm going to keep a close watch on the Sigma.
I have wondered about a Fuji or Bronica 645 to keep in my pocket, the range finder cameras they once made.

Kevin.

[Dale_Cotton]

The DLux3 is a rebranded Panasonic LX2. Yep: there's noise to be seen even at 100 ISO. The sensor is smaller than your little fingernail, a tiny fraction the size of an APS dSLR's sensor let alone a FF dSLR's. IOW, noise goes with the pocket camera territory.

That said, Panasonic's small sensors are perhaps 10% to 20% noisier even than the competition's. You won't see as much noise in the output from the competition because of the built-in NR that is used; and you won't see RAW output from the competition because raw reveals the noise.

Crank up the chrome NR in your raw converter and you've got something along the line of film grain; if that don't wash you'll have to return the camera.

The dpreview.com review shows a write speed of 4.5 seconds with a high speed card. Seems like an eternity doesn't it? ;)

It's best to think of pocket cameras as being the Minox equivalents of the digital world (even though they're not physically that small); you just have to be amazed that they work at all and forgo expecting too much. If you switch to HQ JPEG output on the DLux, you'll at least have more reasonable write performance. If you opt for a different camera be aware that pocket cameras with as much exposure control as the DLux has are few and far between. Can be very hard to avoid blowing highlights in contrasty light when you can barely make out the LCD and don't have blinking highlight warning, etc.

[Gabe]

Hi,
I have a canon 1ds m2, so maybe I am spoiled. I just purchased a Leica d-lux 3 after reading some reviews online as it seemed to fit my needs for a small digital with manual controls and raw support.

But after a batch of shots it seems to be extremely noisy! I shot only at iso 100 in variable light and am less than thrilled with the noise. It is also reeeeally slow to write files to the disk... like 10 seconds in between shots.
Does anyone here have any experience with this camera? If I return it, any ideas about a replacement? I love its looks and its size. And its name. So far thats about it.
Josh
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's my understanding that the D-Lux 3 and Panasonic LX2K are actually the same camera, and your results are certainly consistent with what people have been saying about the latter -- that the camera is capable of nice, but very noisy results. Seems a shame that they didn't go with a ~7MP sensor, since that would have likely made it just about the perfect camera in that market segment  

I was just in the position of trying to figure out which smallish digital to go with, and after making some test exposures on the LX2, I ultimately decided that the noise factors combined with lack of a buffer (and looong write times in RAW even with a fast card) were more than I wanted to deal with in the D-Lux 3/LX2K.

I eventually decided to get a G7.

I'll admit that I'm still a bit wary of the JPEG-only nature of the camera, but in actual use I have yet to find even one reason to be disappointed with the purchase. It's a fantastic little piece of kit, and heartily recommended if you can look beyond that one issue.

[Joshuar]

I was just in the position of trying to figure out which smallish digital to go with, and after making some test exposures on the LX2, I ultimately decided that the noise factors combined with lack of a buffer (and looong write times in RAW even with a fast card) were more than I wanted to deal with in the D-Lux 3/LX2K.

Thanks for the thoughts guys!

Yeah, I am coming to terms with my d-lux. See, the thing is, the more I use it the more I like it. I am thinking about getting a g to see if I like it any better. Do you have any pics at full res youd be willing to share with me? Maybe a good example of what you think it is capable of, and a shot that shows some of its weaknesses?

I think I just have to get used to the idea of what it is. I gave up my 20d thinking I could replace it with something smaller and more portable for the car etc. The g7 is looking like an option, but it honestly seems like a horse a piece...

J

[rogerjporter]

I have wondered about a Fuji or Bronica 645 to keep in my pocket, the range finder cameras they once made.


I'm sure it would cost 10 thousand + dollars, and make those of us who couldn't afford it cry, but how cool would a fuji 645 folding (or any of their fixed or zoom lens type cameras) digital camera be?  It crossed my mind when i read the recent Digital Photo Pro article on medium format sensors.  talk about the end-all of point and shoot digitals!

[cbockermann]

Hi Joshuar,

I bought a D-Lux 3 just yesterday, knowing full well about the noise (I have a Ricoh GR-D which has similar characteristics). To me, the noise of the GR-D and the D-Lux 3 (we're talking RAW mode here) looks much better than the noise remoal artefacts of the Nikon Coolpix P5000 I tried the other day or the JPGs out of the D-Lux 3.

Also, noise seems to look much worse on the screen than it does on a printed photo. The GR-D pictures shot at ISO 400 look very good printed at 30x45cm (12 x 18" for you anti-metricands).

Carsten

[RicAgu]

I am in the same boat.

I have been carrying around a Fuji GA645zi with me for ten years.  I actually have four of them.  Two of the zoom versions and one 45mm and one 60mm.  THey are the best cameras ever made.

645film, autofocus, pop up flash, turned off folds down to about three inches thick.  I carry it in my messenger bag and have gotten some amazing images from them.

I have thought about a D200 w/ the 17-55 but the lens is HUGE.  Then I thought about an M8 w their Tri-Elemar and it has no flash, also 5D with 24-105 and no flash.

I know the GA645i like the back of my hand and it is so funny that many of my clients that I ahve worked with for years have recently told me that they think of it as an extension of my hand.  The focus can be tough but once you know how to handle it it works very well.

I would think about a ZD if it had a pop up flash and a comact zoom

I was hoping Fuji would make a Digital GA645zi that would be 16mp.

Some one back in the RG forum days made a comment that Fuji has enough spare parts in their lab to put together a Frankenfuji and it would kick all their butts.

Why they do not, I don't know.

16mp GA645zi for $5,500.00 would be a good camera for the market.

I am looking at the Digi Lux 3 but reading here is disconcerting.  I remeber the G6 was RAW and not sure why Canon went non raw with the G7.

 

[Joshuar]

The more I use the dlux, the more I like it. It IS noisy, but for its size, shooting 10MP raw is a pretty nice experience. A huge factor was to accept it for what it is. Once I compared it to some other cameras in its class I have been a lot more forgiving.

[naisan]

I've also got the panasonic version, which I keep in my briefcase.

The truth is, having a tiny little 10-mp camera with somewhat reasonable manual controls (now why can't they make one with two dials?  Are two dials too much to ask for?  Two dials? ? ) is awesome.

I also picked up a 5" tripod for $20.

Shooting with the noise, and the limitations, are an amazing way to help me forget about IQ and focus on composition, style, art, and the theme.

I find that when I am shooting with it, I think about what the whole picture is saying, more so that with my SLR and full rig , where sometimes I get so busy with IQ and thinking about how my 17" X 21" print will look that I am not spending enough time on composition. . .

That's what's out there in the small form factor, and I for one am so glad that it's there, as this lets me go out in the evenings on business trips, and shoot, and let's me shoot sunsets out of the plane, and candids on the street, etc..  Can you imagine carrying your 25-lb big-bag full kit + tripod on a business trip?  Not me. Done it - too hard.


Don't laugh, but I even shoot handheld multi-row panoramas with this little gem!  And they stitch, and they work!  

IF 50% of the shot is being there, this gets you there.

Now I would love to see:
* full ergonomics for manual control with speed (2-dials?)
* changeable lenses from a respected line with some availability (rangefinder?)
* -OR- a decent zoom
* don't really care about sensor size or MP other than say the 6+ MP range
* RAW
* fast metering and focus
* a sub $1000 price

This panasonic is not that far away - IMHO if it had better ergonomics it would already be close to my ideal.


* a small form factor

[netdog]

Hi,
I have a canon 1ds m2, so maybe I am spoiled. I just purchased a Leica d-lux 3 after reading some reviews online as it seemed to fit my needs for a small digital with manual controls and raw support.

But after a batch of shots it seems to be extremely noisy! I shot only at iso 100 in variable light and am less than thrilled with the noise. It is also reeeeally slow to write files to the disk... like 10 seconds in between shots.
Does anyone here have any experience with this camera? If I return it, any ideas about a replacement? I love its looks and its size. And its name. So far thats about it.
Josh
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I sure can't explain why you get noise at ISO 100.  I don't see any until I move into ISO 400.  You may have a problem with your camera.  My D-Lux 3 takes beautiful pictures -- better than my Canon 10D!

[Per Ofverbeck]

....
It's best to think of pocket cameras as being the Minox equivalents of the digital world (even though they're not physically that small); you just have to be amazed that they work at all and forgo expecting too much.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right on target!  The sensor is even smaller than a classical Minox 8x11 mm negative.  Some of us oldtimers actually used those small wonders of opto-mechanics, and still have negs and prints from them.  They look worse than the results from a cell phone "camera", however much expertise you put into film choice, exposure, and processing at the time....

Nowadays, whenever I just cannot carry a camera that doesn´t fit my shirt pocket (which, luckily, isn´t all that often), I take my old 2 MP Digital Ixus.  The results are WORLDS apart from the Minox ones; most people that are shown a bunch of 10x15 cm prints can´t see any difference between them and same size prints from my dSLR (well, I can hear some sarcasms, but I do know how to use a pro camera...).

And, lots of things have happened since that Ixus was new.  Still, for my occasional use, I don´t even feel the need to upgrade it as long as it works.

Moral: by all means, get the model that suits you best, and learn to use it (including some Photoshop work).  You won´t be able to sell the results as posters, but as a pictorial daybook, it will be more than adequate.  Once you have it, stop reading tests and ads for other models, and just enjoy the one you have!

[espressogeek]

I have a RD-1 with a Leica 40/2 lens that I have been carrying on biz trips. It takes great shots up into iso 800 and i can hand hold down to 1/30th or slower and get crisp shots. I don't have AF, but I do have raw.

[MarkKay]

I have the Dlux 2 and agree with what most have said here related to the noise issue.  On the computer the noise can look rather concerning but in my prints, the noise is not noticeable at the lower isos.  Even at higher isos--200 or 400, the prints look good. I have also used noise ninja when i want to remove or lessen the noise.   I have some issue with what I have read about the D-lux 3 at iso 200 or above where there is a NR algorithm that kicks in even in RAW files. The examples I have seen are unacceptable in my mind. In fact, i bought a back up pansonic because I took my Leica on a white water rafting  trip. In reality, I do not use thes DLUX 2 enough to justify a back up so i will likely sell the Leica or Panasonic.  Mark

Hi,
I have a canon 1ds m2, so maybe I am spoiled. I just purchased a Leica d-lux 3 after reading some reviews online as it seemed to fit my needs for a small digital with manual controls and raw support.

But after a batch of shots it seems to be extremely noisy! I shot only at iso 100 in variable light and am less than thrilled with the noise. It is also reeeeally slow to write files to the disk... like 10 seconds in between shots.
Does anyone here have any experience with this camera? If I return it, any ideas about a replacement? I love its looks and its size. And its name. So far thats about it.
Josh
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[yodelyo]

i just bought a dlux 3 and it is OK, having problems with two things:

1. can I just shoot RAW images and not RAW & Jpgs simultaneously? I cant figure out the menu setting for this and Leica has not emailed me back.

2. it seems as if C1 Pro does not support these raw files, which sucks. Trying to open in Bridge and it does not show what the pictures look like , only file icons like white pieces of paper. Then when I try to open in Camera Raw it asks me all kinds of pixel dimension questions every friggin time, I dont even know what the pixel dimensions are, I want them to be in inches at their highest resolution and then 300dpi.

[cbcbell]

My primary camera is a Canon 5D, but my pocket camera is a Panasonic DMC-LX2, which is of course functionally identical to the Leica. There is no way to shoot RAW and suppress the jpegs, so I just sort by file type when I import to my Mac Pro, so that I don't even bother pulling them down off the card. Once the files are transferred from the SD card to a hard disk, I immediately run the Adobe DNG converter to convert the RAW files to .DNG (reading from one drive and writing to another speeds things up considerably). The CS3 version of Bridge (2.1), reads the files without any difficulty.

[The View]

I was about to buy the lx-2 when it came out.

But then I was angered that they bumped that tiny sensor up to 10MP (from the 8MP lx-1), and it turned out that RAW is actually not completely RAW, but there is some processing involved, which leads to detail smear.

A friend of mine bought the Leica d-lux 3 (the Leica version has a slight difference in software, rendering photos slightly cooler).

I still would like to have a shirtpocket camera, but as long as they play the "who has more megapixels" marketing game and ruining a potentially great design with it, I'm out.

[cbcbell]

It's easy to dismiss a camera one hasn't used, but in fact the LX2 is a very usable little instrument. The Leica-designed lens is extremely sharp, the optical image stabilization is extremely effective and the large, 2.8" LCD display is a big improvement over the LX1.

As for the contention that RAW is not RAW, this is not a claim that I have ever seen substantiated in any way — nor can I imagine the mechanism by which it would be possible. What I did see is various comparisons where people with both cameras shot identical scenes, and posted the results side by side. Here's one such set of tests:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/camera_specs

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/67152581

I won't argue that it wouldn't be better to build a bigger sensor, but I will argue that the 10.2 MP LX2 will capture slightly more detail than the 8.3 MP LX1, and with less noise. I have used my father's LX1, and the LX2 is — for my purposes — an improvement in every way.

If I were still in the market for a pocket camera, I would seriously consider the new Ricoh GX100. I see that this site has comparisons between the LX2 and the GX100, with the full RAW and DNG files available for download:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/gx100_vs_lx2