Panasonic & Leica P&S noise

[alfarmer]

Hello.

 

I was very interested in the Leica D-LUX3 because of the styling, size, and

focal range. Then I started reading reviews and noticed a trend for both Leica

and Panasonic P&S cameras -- very bad noise.

 

From the research I've done on the web, there is no Panasonic-made Lumix/Leica

model that doesn't suffer from (apparently) horrible noise issues at anything

over ISO 100. In addition, they all seem to get lambasted for poor performance

(time between shots, shutter lag, etc.).

 

Also, most of the negative reviews were from professional photographers and

serious amateurs, not general consumers. Joe Average seems perfectly content

with these cameras.

 

My question is whether I'm missing something or there really are product-wide

issues with Lumix/Leica P&S cameras when it comes to higher ISO noise and

overall system performance?

 

I'm hoping I just missed something, as I really do like the look, feel, and

build of the D-LUX3. However, I'm very tempted to wait and see if the new

version supposedly due at the end of summer fixes these issues.

 

Any advice or recommendations?

 

Cheers,

ALF

[don_e]

"a trend for both Leica and Panasonic P&S cameras -- very bad noise."

 

Depends on what you need whether a camera's noise is objectionable.

 

Anyway, a few hours ago I walked to the corner market and shot this with an FZ30. Straight from the camera jpeg, sampled to size and some usm after. No NR. So, this may give you an idea being a totally casual shot.<div></div>

[don_e]

Forgot, lighting is a couple yellow tube lights from a diner.

[les_lammers]

I have a FZ50 and DMC-LC1 and have no noise complaints. Why not take a memory card to a shop, snap a few pics at various ISO's and form

your own conclusion?

[jcuknz]

If every tog was surveyed I'm sure that you would find that there are many who do not find noise a particularly bothering aspect of digital and get on with taking photos. If you don't want noise then use a DSLR, just as in film days one used MF or LF for grainfree results, one COULD do it with 35mm but it was easier to use a bigger neg size.. I have the FZ50 and find 400 ISO quite reasonable when I used it with a FZ20 and vowed never again, largely a resolution problem rather than noise.

 

I suggest you buy one of the excellent tools than Panasonic make and get on with taking shots.

[ronald_moravec1]

Small sensors make noise, some more than others. Get a real camera and don`t fall for Leica Hype.

 

I use some Leica glass on a D200 Nikon and the differences between Nikon and Leica at the same place, same time, same focal lengths, are small.

 

The noise issues went away when I went to a D200 from a P&S and Nikons are not the best in that department. I hate noise and grain, yet use ISO 400 all the time.

[kayak203]

I'm happy with the LX1 and I bought it as a second camera for daytime lighting, mostly. But it also works well if you might want to use an external flash some day: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5934683">Lumix LX1 with flash bracket</a><br> I like the manual controls and that it has minimal noise reduction in camera. You can use noise reduction software for low light situations, but I usually use a DSLR then. The LX1 was $350 and the flash was $65 which I found acceptable as a second. Is this to be your only camera?

[Greg M]

If your life begins at ISO 400 and you view all your images only at 100% you just need to flat skip most digicams, not just Panasonic/Leica models, and go straight to a DSLR.

 

I used a DSLR only for almost 4 years, and over 85% of what I shot was at either ISO 100 or 200, and at those settings, digicams produce great results....even Panasonic and Leica.

 

Instead of reading and taking everything you see from all the measurbator geeks who do these online tests literally, maybe you need to start taking a card into a store and taking some test shots and having prints made so you can decide for yourself what's acceptable or not. To be honest, many camera "reviewers" today probably only take pictures when they review a camera, and spend the rest of the time splitting hairs at 200% on their monitors.

[alfarmer]

Thanks for the answers, everyone.

 

As for "getting out and taking shots", I'm already doing that with my 5D. That's why my standards for low noise are so high. But I can't always have the 5D and several lenses with me, so I'm considering P&S options.

 

The Canon G7 and Nikon P5000 were recommended by the store clerk for high ISO performance, but once again online reviewers disagree. And I do take online reviews with a grain of salt -- it's just that when they all say the same thing, it tends to be true.

 

But the bottom line of what I'm hearing is at 100 ISO they're all fine, assuming enough light, but they're all equally disappointing in available light situations. I don't know one way or the other, but was hoping there was a standout high-ISO P&S that I just didn't know about. Oh well.

 

And yeah, the Leica logo sure costs a premium. I'm amazed they have the gall to charge so much more, given everyone knows it's exactly the same innards as the Lumix. I just happen to like the look & build of the D-LUX3 more than the corresponding Lumix.

 

ALF

[don_e]

There is no way to avoid noise in small sensors, at least the current technology. The alternative is smeared detail. There is no magic, not even the well-spoken of Fuji F30.

 

My image above is very noisey (hard to see it at 511px), as it should be at such a time and exposure. The noise is made worse by the NR applied by the camera's jpeg processor even at the lowest setting possible, and the FZ30's NR is not very aggressive. The results are noiser and better with raw because the noise isn't smudged up.

 

Under normal conditions and settings, it produces a fine-grained, high frequency, low magnitude luminance noise, somewhat like Reala grain. My Canon p&s are far less noisey, but the noise they do produce is far less attractive.

 

If noise is totally toxic to you, buy a Canon dslr. Or if you're ok with smeared detail as a compromise, crank up the NR in any p&s.

 

It may be hard to believe, but noise hath its charms for some of us 8-)

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5711361

 

Good Luck

[Greg M]

and you should know that. You might as well be comparing the grain in a TMAX 3200 negative to a slide shot on Fuji Velvia 50. Stick with your 5D, take the money you want to invest in a digicam and buy a membership to a gym. If the 5D's noise performance is your baseline and all you are willing to accept, you can forget anything else, including many other DSLR's.

[pbizarro]

1. All digicams have noise.

 

2. Some people worry about noise, some not.

 

3. If you print big and want to use ISO 400, then you will need to learn noise reduction softwares.

 

4. If you want to post-process noise, contrast, and so on, you better find a digicam with RAW. 16 bit TIF are much better to post-process than baked-in JPG.

 

5. But perhaps all you require are nice average JPG? In that case, any digicam will do, with minor changes between the way they combat noise, and allow in-camera customization of image/JPG parameters.

 

6. The small Fujis are the best for low noise, but unfortunately, for me, they lack a lot of very useful things regarding photography.

 

7. In the end, it's up to you, and it's something you can decide yourself, buy studying the thousands of images available from lots of cameras in the internet. You can download and print yourself.

 

8. Bottomline? All digicams look bad at 100% on screen. But do you print at that size? I don't.

[alfarmer]

Do I print images at that size? Not always, but it's been known to happen. More importantly, I do crop quite a lot -- and frequently. That's one of the reasons why I got the 5D over the 30D, though the 5D has turned out to have even greater virtues.

 

All P&S have noise at high ISO? Good to know. That was really the thrust of my original question anyhow. But the other issue I've noticed is a decided lack of sharpness. Combine that with Noise Ninja or one of the others and you're looking at excessively soft images a lot of the time.

 

Oddly enough, I used to have a dImage Xt (back in the day...) and it produced very sharp images. Sure they were "only" 3MP, but they were tack-sharp -- at least as good as I ever got out of the 20D. The rush to put 10MP in the same space is a VERY bad thing, IMHO...

 

ALF

[gwebster]

<em>All P&S have noise at high ISO? Good to know</em>

<p>

Although there is no intent to mislead, this is a misleading statement.

<p>

Small pixels are noisier than large ones simply as a result of the laws of physics. Since a lot of small cameras now have small sensors with lots of pixels crammed onto them, they tend to produce noisier images because they have small pixels, not because they are cheaper or simpler P&S cameras. DSLRs tend to have larger sensors (like your 5D which is full frame) and so they tend to have larger pixels which means less noise.

<p>

The term P&S is also misleading. Some so called P&S cameras (like the Panasonic and Leica ultracompacts) offer far more creative control of the exposure than many larger cameras. They also offer RAW mode which almost none of the other smaller cameras offer. It's necessary to understand the difference between a RAW image and a pre-processed JPEG in order to appreciate the advantages that RAW offers.

<p>

Finally - waaaayyy to much "noise" is made over the noise issue. Take a look at some of the excellent work that people like Mitch Alland are doing with the D-Lux3. There's no escaping the basic truth that even with the "best" gear and the "best" image quality, it still requires the skill of the photographer to take a great picture and it's so easy to end up obsessing about such issues to the detriment of actually getting out there, taking pictures and improving as a photographer.

<p>

The proof of the pudding is that there are photographers like Mitch who take great pictures even with this supposedly second-rate noisy gear that everybody loves to lambaste <em>ad nauseam</em> on these forums. I know that this is an unpopular view but anybody who can't make a good picture with one of these little cameras that all the gear-heads love to dump on, probably isn't capable of making a good picture - period.

[Nowhereman]

Thanks for the kind words, Gordon. Speaking of B&W, I don't know why people were happy

to push Tri-X to ISO 1600 or use Nedopan 1600 or Delta 3200 and have grain the size of

golf balls but now want small sensor cameras to produce the smoothness of medium

format film. Even in color pushing an ISO 100 slidefilm to ISO 800 can have it's charm: it

can be an aesthetic decision.

<p>

Some time ago a friend shot a B&W picture with river in it on medium format B&W film and

on 35mm film: we both concluded that we liked the 35mm picture better -- the grain and

rougher gradation gave the picture some "bite" that the one shot on medium format film

didn't have. I happen to like the "35mm aesthetic" and now also like the "small sensor"

aesthetic. There's just too much preoccupation with "noise" and not enough with the

quality of the photograph. Listen to Elliott Erwitt, who wrote the following:

<p>

<i>Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a

kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the

tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel

Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is

essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has

something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to

the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.</i>

<p>

Mitch/Potomac, MD

[steven_wade1]

I have the D-LUX3. I primarily bought it as a "carry everywhere" camera. I always want to carry a camera, but always felt like lugging around a DSLR was kind of a bummer at times. It has a great look and feel, as you say. It is a very useful tool, small enough to fit in a pocket, yet capable of going full manual and capturing RAW. The 16:9 aspect is really nice, and overall I have been pleased with the camera.

 

I shoot everything RAW and process them in CS3. The camera performs well at ISO 100 and 200. At 400 there is noticeable noise. If you are used to using a 5D, you will be shocked by the noise at 400. That said, I have been using he after market "Noise Ninja" plug in for Photoshop and really liking what it's been doing for me. It's a 50 dollar plug in, but it will open the upper ISOs to you.

 

I haven't been disappointed. People are down on it, and some of the reasons are valid. I do not regret buying it.

 

Here are some images I have made with it: (hope this works, first timer)

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1206/1407134625_72312e6a5a_b.jpg" width="1024" height="580" alt="two hundred sixty two." /></a>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1348/1353876174_defbdfc4fc_b.jpg" width="1024" height="580" alt="two hundred fifty two." /></a>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1052/1448126591_7ef02c4a35_b.jpg" width="1024" height="582" alt="two hundred sixty nine." /></a>