Leica Digilux 2 - ISO400 comparison

[LucisPictor]

Hi!

One thing that everybody complains about is the rotten ISO400 performance of the Digilux 2.
Yes, it's not good at all if you use JPEG. When shot in RAW things get much better. But since RAW is pretty slow with this cam, most users will choose the JPG mode.

Today I have compared three 5 MPix cams at ISO400: Leica Digilux 2 (2/3" sensor), Minolta DiMage7 (2/3" sensor) and Panasonic Lumix FZ20 (1/2.5" sensor).
Plus, I have applied the NoiseNinja filter to see what is possible.

Here is the basic image and the crop selection:


And here are the example images:







These crops show that:

- The Digilux 2 shots are the sharpest.
- The Digilux 2 produces bad but rather fine grained noise at ISO400.
- The DiMage 7 is a little better with noise at ISO400 but shows less details than the Digilux.
- The Lumix FZ20 shows noise that comes in patches of colours. Detail level go down considerably.
- NoiseNinja can reduce the noise of all three cams.
- But after NoiseNinja even more details are lost in the FZ20 pic.
- NoiseNinja softens the DiMage7 shot clearly.
- The Digilux 2 image is handled well by NoiseNinja. There is still some noise visible, but since the colour noise is almost gone, it looks rather like grain.

>> The Digilux 2 plus NoiseNinja is a pretty good team and makes it possible to shoot with ISO400 even in JPG.

[Attila]

I think ISO 400 is crap on all 4/3 m4/3 and compacts at least this was my experience , RAW and noise reduction can help a lot that for sure. Thanks for this comparative tests!

[Hari]

very nice test!

[Orio]

Leica does reasonably. Minolta worse. Panasonic real crap.

[poilu]

it is like comparing 3 stones to find which one float better

[LucisPictor]

[LucisPictor]