Digilux 3 Hand Built?

[jack Doeski]

An article on the Leica Digilux 3 in a British photo magazine stated that the Digilux 3 was different from the Panasonic DMC-L1, because the Digilux 3 is "hand built". They implied the L1 is not.

I have never seen how cameras are assembled in a factory, but surely, both these cameras are assembled the same way. Can anyone shed light on this for me?

Thank you - Jack

P.S. I posted this message in the Panasonic forum too.

 

[AlanG]

Robotic hands?
--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

 

[Godfrey]

Mechanically, they are identical ... same bits built to the same specification and most likely on the same production line. There would be extremely little value in trying to assemble a complex, modern camera like this by hand, it would likely be far less consistent as a process. Differences are that Leica has their own bent on how the firmware renders JPEGs in the camera, RAW format capture will render the same data on identical setups and exposures.

The difference between manufacture of the L1 and the Digilux3, aside from different finish and badging, is that Leica will perform its own quality inspection on cameras being boxed in their branding. This is probably what the article is alluding to: Leica ships far fewer units than Panasonic does and at a significantly higher price, so they can possibly afford to do more exhaustive inspection of each unit (both lens and camera).

Godfrey

An article on the Leica Digilux 3 in a British photo magazine
stated that the Digilux 3 was different from the Panasonic DMC-L1,
because the Digilux 3 is "hand built". They implied the L1 is not.

I have never seen how cameras are assembled in a factory, but
surely, both these cameras are assembled the same way. Can anyone
shed light on this for me?

Thank you - Jack

P.S. I posted this message in the Panasonic forum too.

 

[MilSuper]

The Digilux 3 has more hand assembly of components that the L1.
The D3 processes both RAW and JPEG images differently than the L1.

The bodies are very slightly different and the quality control for the D3 is much more stringent than the L1 including the lens.

The warranty is much better worldwide on the D3 than it is on the L1.

 

[Godfrey]

...
The D3 processes both RAW and JPEG images differently than the L1.
...

The other things you said are not verifiable, but according to the comparison article in Amateur Photographer, this is incorrect. It would be easy to test: I have an L1 and I'll see if the Leica rep will let me do a couple of test photos to ascertain if the RAW files are different.

Godfrey

 

[MilSuper]

You'll get the same results I did.

Remember........RAW files are still processed by software so they can be read. They are not simply ready to use RAW data until that is accomplished.
The software (firmware) writer has control over that.

 

[Godfrey]

So, if you did this test already:

• What were the specifics of your testing setup?
• What, specifically, were the differences you observed?

According to what I expect, the RAW sensor data should be identical given controlled targets, the same lens, etc. Aspects of the camera information as encapsulated in the metadata with regard to camera name/type/etc plus image processing parameters (all over-rideable by the RAW converter) should differ.

I'll check with the good folks at my local camera shop who carry the Leica Digilux3 to see when our Leica rep will be in and whether they would help me perform this test.

Godfrey

You'll get the same results I did.
Remember........RAW files are still processed by software so they
can be read. They are not simply ready to use RAW data until that
is accomplished.
The software (firmware) writer has control over that.

 

[MilSuper]

I borrowed a L1 and set both cameras on tripods and too the same subject with the same natural light and then with flash.

Exactly the same camera settings both in manual and automatic.

The photos were different enough with the naked eye at full resolution and cropped samples were more pronounced. The flash shots were the same.

The Leica version has a finished photo more like a rangefinder used to have with film. A definite different sharpness and color depth.

The Panasonic version had a almost oversharpened look to it in the automatic version and the Leica had a smoother yet sharp feel.

Mind you......this is a picture quality that is different for every person that views it. It is a person's taste and not necessarily "better" or "worse". Just different.

Printed..........at 8.5 x 11 and 11 x 17 I would choose the Leica automatic setting picture every single time. It happens to be my taste and not a particular endorsement of one over the other.

The RAW files showed slightly more shadow detail for the Leica and just a slightly less amount of noise as well in manual settings with no flash.

My conclusion is that it is definitely two different groups of engineers with different criteria that wrote the firmware.

One last item........and I'm going to get pasted for this..........the Leica camera reacts quicker to metering and auto-focus than the L1. Again, that is my opinion and not the result of a stopwatch or timer. It just did for me and the person that owned the L1 said the same thing.

 

[Godfrey]

I borrowed a L1 and set both cameras on tripods and too the same
subject with the same natural light and then with flash.

Exactly the same camera settings both in manual and automatic.

The photos were different enough with the naked eye at full
resolution and cropped samples were more pronounced. The flash
shots were the same.

The Leica version has a finished photo more like a rangefinder used
to have with film. A definite different sharpness and color depth.

The Panasonic version had a almost oversharpened look to it in the
automatic version and the Leica had a smoother yet sharp feel.

Mind you......this is a picture quality that is different for every
person that views it. It is a person's taste and not necessarily
"better" or "worse". Just different.

Printed..........at 8.5 x 11 and 11 x 17 I would choose the Leica
automatic setting picture every single time. It happens to be my
taste and not a particular endorsement of one over the other.

The RAW files showed slightly more shadow detail for the Leica and
just a slightly less amount of noise as well in manual settings
with no flash.

My conclusion is that it is definitely two different groups of
engineers with different criteria that wrote the firmware.

Interesting observations.

If the test exposures were captured in RAW format, what was used to perform the RAW conversion processing? Did you use default settings or did you customize the RAW conversion settings for the individual exposures?

What I'm getting at is that if you were using the supplied RAW converter and/or using the default RAW conversion settings in Camera Raw or other compatible RAW processing software, what you are seeing is reflective of the firmware differences that have already been acknowledged, which are primarily in the image processing domain not in the RAW capture/data handling domain.

One last item........and I'm going to get pasted for
this..........the Leica camera reacts quicker to metering and
auto-focus than the L1. Again, that is my opinion and not the
result of a stopwatch or timer. It just did for me and the person
that owned the L1 said the same thing.

I think we can assume that the Leica branded units are subjected to a much greater level of inspection and qualification testing. That is what you're paying the premium for...

This difference in performance is probably real, it suggests that the Leica branded cameras and lenses are held to much tighter control variances and reworked/rejected as needed to deliver the performance they want as a baseline. It's probably also true that there are Panasonic L1s that perform on par, but that the range of variation is larger and the average slightly lower performance. The same is probably true of unit-to-unit noise characteristics.

I doubt that the firmware for image capture and data storage is any different, but that is purely a gut feeling, speculation based on the test reports I've seen. The firmware controlling rendering to JPEGs is certainly different: that was clearly shown in the review press reports.

Godfrey

 

[MilSuper]

I load the images in CS2 and I made my statement regarding the differences in two fresh newly opened RAW files and even the histogram was slightly different with regard to highlights. That was what first drew my attention to the RAW differences.

My purpose in testing the two under the same circumstances was to see the JPEG differences at the highest quality resolution and file size.

I don't do a whole lot of RAW file processing and stick to JPEG unless I was in a terrific hurry and rushed the settings and need to do major correction. I use RAW only for my own images for total control and JPEG for the everyday paid stuff.

 

[Godfrey]

I load the images in CS2 and I made my statement regarding the
differences in two fresh newly opened RAW files and even the
histogram was slightly different with regard to highlights. That
was what first drew my attention to the RAW differences.

Ok, that demonstrates that the image processing specifics are different as the Camera Raw histogram extrapolates the values based on the IP parameters. It unfortunately doesn't provide a real test of whether the RAW date itself is any different. To check that you'd need to extract the sensor data form the RAW files and compare it, or re-set the Camera Raw parameters to see to what degree you can obtain the same rendering, how far off a specified normal set of parameters (not the in-camera settings) they are. I would bet they're the same. ;-)

My purpose in testing the two under the same circumstances was to
see the JPEG differences at the highest quality resolution and file
size.

I don't do a whole lot of RAW file processing and stick to JPEG
unless I was in a terrific hurry and rushed the settings and need
to do major correction. I use RAW only for my own images for total
control and JPEG for the everyday paid stuff.

I understand ... this is more of a consideration on my part since I capture exclusively in RAW format with all my cameras. The JPEG rendering in-camera is of very little importance (the Panny does pretty well but the Leica's JPEG renderings are substantially more to my taste).

I'm concerned only with getting the best RAW data to work with. So far I have seen no substantive reason to pay the premium for the Leica model given the quality of what I'm seeing out of the Panny. That said, if need comes to pass that it's important, I'll acquire a Digilux3 body as well. ;-)

best,
Godfrey

 

[papa85]

How is the shutter lag on the Leica. Is it as fast as a High end nikon and is it usable????
--
papa85 ---(Tony)
http://www.pbase.com/papa85
Pbase supporter

 

[Godfrey]

How is the shutter lag on the Leica. Is it as fast as a High end
nikon and is it usable????

I don't have a high-end Nikon to test with, but I have both a Pentax K10D and the L1. The K10D's shutter release responsiveness on single frame mode feels to me almost exactly the same as my Nikon F3/T with MD-4 motor drive. The feel of the L1 is deceptive: it doesn't feel as fast.

However, I did some quick testing using manual focus, with both bodies, and this online shutter release testing tool:

http://www.shooting-digital.com/columns/schwartz/shutter_release_test/default.asp

With both bodies, making 20 exposures as a a sample, average shutter release timing ran .100 to .120 seconds. If I discount a third (about 30 ms) of that as my inherent reflex lag from when I see the pointer hit 0 and I release the shutter, that puts the camera's release response time at around the 70-80 ms point, which is right in line with the average responsiveness of a high end 35mm or digital SLR.

Needless to say, I find it satisfactory.

The Pentax K10D writes to storage faster and has a larger buffer, it's overall a faster camera in operation. It feels so much like my old Nikon F3+MD4 it's uncanny. The L1 is more like working with a Leica M6 fitted with an Abrahamson RapidWinder: fast enough, always ready, but not a sequence camera.

Godfrey
http://www.gdgphoto.com



Panasonic L1 + Olympus 11-22mm

 

[Ricardo Villagran Vicent]

Both cameras are identical. JPGs are different, RAWs are exactly the same because they are unprocessed. Any difference in the images is nothing but your mind trying to justify you pay doble for a red dot logo and a silver finish which by the way will fade in a month in the lugs area. Of course there is no hand-build digital cameras... as someone else said, maybe yes, but
by robot-hands. Glass makes the difference.

 

[craigz]

There is a certain amount of in-camera processing involved, even when generating the RAW data. Each pixel on the sensor has a red, green, or blue filter. Therefore, any single pixel only supplies the actual sensor data for one of the three primary colors. The other two colors for that pixel are interpolated using the information from adjacent pixels. Now, I'm not sure where in the process this interpolation is performed, but it could conceivably contribute to differences in RAW files between the two camera models. I suppose the only way to tell for sure would be to shoot an identical image with the two cameras and perform a bit comparison of the RAW data. Of course, shooting perfectly identical images with two different cameras is virtually impossible, so the test would be difficult,

 

[Godfrey]

RAW format files from digital cameras are not de-mosaiced. They are typically sensor data direct from the sensor buffer, organized into a known pattern byte stream, and written out to the RAW file along with the information specifying the mosaic pattern, camera settings and other metadata. Sometimes lossless compression is applied to the sensor data to reduce the size of the file in storage, but that's usually about it.

Demosaicing for chroma interpolation, gamma correction, etc are all applied as part of RAW conversion processing to RGB channel data. In camera, this operation is performed when making a JPEG file (or the JPEG preview and thumbnail embedded into the RAW file) but does not alter the sensor data itself stored in the RAW format exposure file. If it did, it wouldn't be RAW data. ;-)

Yes, comparing RAW data itself is difficult when you're comparing two different cameras. Extracting the sensor data and comparing it statistically on a known target, through several iterations of exposures with both cameras, is not easy....

Godfrey

There is a certain amount of in-camera processing involved, even
when generating the RAW data. Each pixel on the sensor has a red,
green, or blue filter. Therefore, any single pixel only supplies
the actual sensor data for one of the three primary colors. The
other two colors for that pixel are interpolated using the
information from adjacent pixels. Now, I'm not sure where in the
process this interpolation is performed, but it could conceivably
contribute to differences in RAW files between the two camera
models. I suppose the only way to tell for sure would be to shoot
an identical image with the two cameras and perform a bit
comparison of the RAW data. Of course, shooting perfectly identical
images with two different cameras is virtually impossible, so the
test would be difficult,

 

[craigz]

Ok, I see. So, when the RAW converter processes the file for display, is the demosaicing process the same for all cameras or is it a unique process for each one? If the latter, then you couldn't compare two cameras by shooting identical images and processing them with identical settings in the converter, because there would still be some calculations that are platform-specific.

Thiis is, of course, such a non-issue that it's funny, but still interesting to think about. If you like the Leica better, for whatever reason, and you've got the money, go ahead and buy it. There are plenty of people who buy Buicks when they could get pretty much the same car as a Chevy.

 

[Godfrey]

The demosaicing process is fundamentally the same based on the sensor being used. There are camera specific details that influence the processing requirements when you're looking at the RAW data of the same sensor used in various different brand and model cameras ... like the Sony 2/3" sensor shared between various prosumer cameras of different makes, and the Sony 16x24mm sensor used across various Nikons, Pentaxes, Sonys, etc ... and issues with calibration, etc, ... that make the RAW processing support for various makes/models require updates to RAW conversion software. Also the specific RAW file organization between various manufacturers cameras using the same sensor are often different.

For a definitive look at what requires changing in a RAW converter to support different cameras and sensors, you can always download and analyze the source code for Dave Coffin's Open Source "dcraw" RAW conversion application.

The issue of whether the RAW data captured by the L1 and Digilux3 cameras, however, is much simpler than considering all that. These cameras are both built on the same production line by the same company using the same sensor and supporting electronics. The RAW format files are identical in structural organization and data-type content. They use the same lenses, have the same controls and control paradigm. This is well known information, you can bank on it.

The only differences between the RAW files they output that is in question is whether the sensor data captured has been processed differently somehow by one vs the other. We know the metadata and processing parameters, calibrations, etc are different. But is the RAW sensor data itself the same for a given sample/test exposure?

Most likely the answer is yes, and it is possible due to the extensive similarities of these siblings in most other functional particulars to use analysis techniques that will arrive at a 95% confidence interval, or better, to prove that one way or another.

Godfrey

Ok, I see. So, when the RAW converter processes the file for
display, is the demosaicing process the same for all cameras or is
it a unique process for each one? If the latter, then you couldn't
compare two cameras by shooting identical images and processing
them with identical settings in the converter, because there would
still be some calculations that are platform-specific.

Thiis is, of course, such a non-issue that it's funny, but still
interesting to think about. If you like the Leica better, for
whatever reason, and you've got the money, go ahead and buy it.
There are plenty of people who buy Buicks when they could get
pretty much the same car as a Chevy.

 

[jack Doeski]

No one in either forum, Leica or Panasonic, has any direct knowledge of how or to what degree the Digilux 3 and L1 are assembled by Matsushita. What has been expressed is speculation.

The Raw/Jpeg firmware processing discussion, while interesting, is off topic here and deserves its own space.

• Jack

 

[ericN2]

Godfrey -

I think that maybe you are a good possibility as to giving maybe a definite answer to a point I made in a very update posting on Pana Forum. I quote the post link here in entirety for convenience - do you know if indeed ANY of these latest do have such a thing as 'Made in Germany' now ?? .. either the Digilux, L1 or the M8 even ??? Just curious in view of what I understand is the present desire of the Leica family to restore the 'real' Leica basis as we always had it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=23639976

eric-UK
I may not be there yet, but I'm closer than I was yesterday.