View Full Version : tempted by D-Lux2 ?
I might be, but I'm broke.
And I want to see the 10MP APS Sony.
How about you?
No viewfinder ...and no need for photo skills...might appeal to "street photographers" :p :p :p :p :p :p
I might be, but I'm broke.
And I want to see the 10MP APS Sony.
How about you?
Nah. I prefer rangefinder cameras that actually have rangefinders.
Seriously, I'm sure both of these are great cameras for those who like that sort of thing, and the Sony is actually sort of persuasive in terms of specs.
But I've taken several expensive trips down that road before, and since I always seem to wind up coming back to optical RFs and interchangeable lenses, this time I'm going to be sensible and stay put.
I got the Panasonic version, not bad, and raw allows for quite a bit of improvement during post processing, you can use it in all-manual mode so is not a simple P&S
Noise however is a bit excessive, but I knew that and neat-image helps.
I like a lot the 28mm wide panoramic mode.
Are you sure you don't mean the Digilux2 Ian? That is a different animal from the D-Lux2. Very confusing- took me a week to figure that one out.
Are you sure you don't mean the Digilux2 Ian? That is a different animal from the D-Lux2. Very confusing- took me a week to figure that one out.
Jaap,
It is the Leica D-Lux2. See the RFF home page. The Panasonic version is the Lumix DMC LX-1. Same camera sans red dot, but comes in black and has a little finger grip in front.
Keith
Are you sure you don't mean the Digilux2 Ian? That is a different animal from the D-Lux2. Very confusing- took me a week to figure that one out.
No it's the LX1 same as D-Lux2, I would have liked the red dot, but I had to wait for it, while the pana was available immediately, also I like it black, and £150 cheaper.
The cheap price is probably false economy since the red dot is going to make you recover any difference in price when you sell it second hand, so really the only reason was that I could't be bothered to wait.
Also the Digilux-2 does not suffer from excessive noise like the D-Lux2.
I said I was İonfused... :bang: The Digilux can be pretty noisy too - I know from experience, it doesn't take kindly to underexposing.
I got my LX1 on ebay for less then $500 with shipping. I couldn't see spending over $300 more for a red dot. Silver is not my thing anyway. Plus the grip really makes sense. This camera is small and the finish is very smooth. Without the grip, the camera is quite slippery.
I agree with Michael Reichman on the noise issue. I think too many people make more out of this issue than it is worth, as well as the lack of a finder. It would be nice to have, but....
It is a great lttle camera for what it is. Shoots raw and shutter lag is virtually non-existent.
Cheers.
The Digilux can be pretty noisy too - I know from experience, it doesn't take kindly to underexposing.
Yes being a 2/3 sensor noise is an issue, but not more than any other 5 MPixel camera with the same sensor size, and if you think it doesn't take kindly to underxposing, try overexposing and see what you can recover from those blown highlights. ;)
The LX1-D-Lux2 on the other hand is much noisier than other digicams with a similar sized sensor, however the ability to shoot RAW, and OIS mitigate the effect pretty well, that's why I decided it was a good compromise between small size and good quality.
Of course your needs may be different, another camera worth considering if you want a good quality pocket digicam is the Ricoh GR-D, fixed 28mm (equivalent) lens, noise controlled much better than the LX-1 and better quality picture, however no Zoom and no OIS, so again it's a trade-off.
I would not consider a camera without RAW because your post-processing options are too limited, and often in-camera processing introduces too many artefacts.
Francesco....why is saving RAW better than saving TIFF, since both are loss-less? You can see my level of digicam ignorance...
Ricoh reviews aren't very promising, and I wouldn't want to be restricted to 28mm, though similarly I sure do like that format sometimes...and Sony's zoom range is even more attractive, though the camera's much more bulky. The Sony will have far less noise and offer lots more post processing potential, however Leica/Pana's stabalization's a very attractive feature when you consider the slow lens.
Francesco....why is saving RAW better than saving TIFF, since both are loss-less? You can see my level of digicam ignorance...
Raw (there's no reason to capitalize it, since it isn't an acronym for anything; it's just a word, "raw," as in unprocessed) is better than TIFF (Tag Image File Format) even though both use lossless compression, for a couple of reasons:
-- Raw files record the actual data read off the sensor without any post-processing. This gives you the chance to apply more-powerful post-processing software than can be built into a digital camera. Usually you have a choice of post-processing software options (camera manufacturer, Adobe Camera Raw, Phase 1, etc.) and can choose the one that gives the look you like and has the features you want to apply. This is an overworked analogy, but it's a bit like the b&w film world, where some people prefer Diafine, some prefer Rodinal, some prefer D-76, etc.
-- TIFF images (as well as JPEG and other file formats) require post-processing of the raw sensor data to yield a file in a standardized computer format. There's more to this than just putting a different header on the same data; the brightness and color values of each pixel have to be derived mathematically by combining information from the imager's "pits" in various combinations, and with various correction factors applied for sharpening, removal of false colors, etc. If you're generating these files in-camera, you're limited to the amount of processing power that the manufacturer can build into the camera, and you can't take advantage of more sophisticated postprocessing algorithms as they become available (other than what the manufacturer can pack into a firmware update.)
-- A small but important advantage of raw vs. TIFF is that since the raw image is unprocessed, it contains more data but occupies less file size than the equivalent TIFF image. This smaller size translates into more images on your memory card and less file-writing time between shots.
When I first got started in digital photography, I used to think the raw-vs.-processed issue was just a big con job; I shot everything in max-quality JPEG and got files that looked good to me, so what was the big deal? (To some extent I was justified in thinking that way, since there were very few options for raw-file conversion back then.)
Once I got more experience, though (and once raw-processing software became more diversified) I realized that it's not just about "quality" (whatever that means), it's about choice. Shooting in raw gives you more choices in how you'll get from the original scene to your final photograph.
Again, I feel digital-to-darkroom analogies are generally overworked, but can you imagine how frustrated the serious b&w enthusiast would be if you told him that the ONLY film he could use was, say, Ilford Delta 400, the ONLY developer in which he could process it was Ilford DDX, and the ONLY paper on which he could print it was Ilford Multigrade IV? These are all fine products, and you certainly can get good results with them, but serious photographers want more choices so they can exert more control.
It's the same thing with raw. It's not necessary for a snapshot or casual digital camera, but I can't imagine spending serious money on a digital camera that did not offer that capability.
On dpreview there are some sample pix from the LX1, including one of the interior of a cathedral taken at ISO 400. Noise is horrible, but I downloaded this image and ran it through Noise Ninja, and it improved *immensely*. I'm seriously considering this camera to replace my G5.
Hello:
The temptation for me is to consider it a pocket replacement for a 6X9 view camera; not as a RF (M) substitute. 'Will resist going there.
yours
Frank
FPJ ...I'm currently using a pocket replacement for 6X9 view camera, a Century Graphic.
And, happily, it's got an exceptionally accurate rangefinder and viewfinder for handheld work.
Hello:
You could not have a better option. How large are your pockets*?
yours
Frank
* An old style forester cruising jacket may well do.
JLW, thanks for the well thought-out essay. It's in line with what I've read elsewhere...and of course, I've read a contrasting view, which is that TIFF (and even JPEG sometimes) are so perfect from current cameras that there's little utility in raw (thanx for the CAPS info).
Many of us have as main concerns the lag time and the accuracy of whatever viewfinder, along with lens characteristics. We've long used mediocre optics of various kinds because we liked their compact size. In fact, we've long used 35mm, knowing that 4X5 held more data, because we liked convenience.
It may be that JPEG Vs raw Vs TIFF is analagous to 35mm Vs 4X5 Vs 6X9.
Don't forget that raw gives you 12 bits per color compared to the 8 bits of TIFF and JPEG.
That is what saves you when for example you underexposed a shot and you need to recover it, or when you need to apply fairly aggressive histogram and /or curves corrections.
I thought about this camera (and its Panasonic counterpart) and then decided against it in favor of the Olympus C-7070WZ. So far, I think it lives up to the reputation it's had with the reviewers but I am looking forward to getting the battery/portrait grip, should help make the camera a little easier to hold steady.
I thought about this camera (and its Panasonic counterpart) and then decided against it in favor of the Olympus C-7070WZ. So far, I think it lives up to the reputation it's had with the reviewers but I am looking forward to getting the battery/portrait grip, should help make the camera a little easier to hold steady.
the C-7070WZ has better overall image quality than the LC-1, however its size does not make it suitable as a pocketable take-anwhere camera, that's why I went for the LX-1
Also at low ISO the LX- lens is actually superior, so in daylight the difference inquality between the two is most likely negligible.
...does image stabalization obviously help the LX-1?
It helps a lot, however only for shooting static subjects, a slow shutter speed is no good to photograph a kid running around, so it has its limitations.
For me the camera is the best balance between versatility, size, and picture quality, but of course your needs may be different.
the C-7070WZ has better overall image quality than the LC-1, however its size does not make it suitable as a pocketable take-anwhere camera, that's why I went for the LX-1
Also at low ISO the LX- lens is actually superior, so in daylight the difference inquality between the two is most likely negligible.
It was definitely a tough choice for me... ultimately, price was the deciding factor for me, as I got a screamingly good deal on the Olympus. I'm willing to sacrifice the pocketability for that :). The LX-1 is undeniably a fine camera, though, and I wish other camera makers would start looking at true 16:9 sensors.
I wonder if anyone using the LX1 could mention what software they they are using for raw conversion and how they like it? Many thanks ...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.