Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Leica Digilux 2 - ISO400 comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:19 pm    Post subject: Leica Digilux 2 - ISO400 comparison Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
very nice test!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leica does reasonably. Minolta worse. Panasonic real crap.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
it is like comparing 3 stones to find which one float better Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
it is like comparing 3 stones to find which one float better Very Happy

Says the one who seems to compare 5 year old compact cams with modern DSLRs.

Of course, none of these cams can perform on the same level a modern DSLR can. But apart from the EVIL compacts hardly a new compact cam would do better than the Leica here. My Lumix FX37 surely is worse at ISO400.
And those compact cams that can do better do either not have a the genuine Leica feeling* (DP1) or are much more expensive (X1) or have no viewfinder (EP1, GF1 etc). The Digilux is a perfect compromise with a fantastic lens. I wish they would have made the Digilux 3 the same cam with new software and a modern sensor.

*which really exists!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Leica does reasonably. Minolta worse. Panasonic real crap.

+1
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1