I teach photographic expression, and find my new D-Lux 2 to be a
perfect tool for inconspicuous shooting, an ideal carry-with-you
everywhere camera. It makes a wonderful companion to my FZ-30.
Together, these two cameras provide me with tools to interpret
virtually any kind of subject matter, with the exception of sports
action better suited to a DSLR. Both have been criticized as
"noisy" but in a practical, every day sense, the noise issue is
really a non issue. I don't make huge prints. I use my images
largely for teaching purposes in my workshops, displaying them on
laptop screens, or in my teaching galleries on the Internet. With
the fast Leica lens and image stabilization, I seldom need to go
beyond 80 or 100 ISO on either of these cameras. But even if I
should have to go to 200 or 400 ISO, seeing noise is like seeing
pores on skin. If you want too look for pores, you will see them.
And if you want to look for noise, you will see it. But most people
will just see skin, not pores. And they will just see images, not
noise.
I have only one standard when it comes to judging the effect of
noise on an image. Does it significantly affect its meaning? If so,
how? The answers to these questions will determine if the effect of
noise on an image is good, bad, or neutral. I have not as yet had
to reject using an image for my teaching because of noise on either
of these cameras.
As far as I am concerned, the LX1 (or my D-Lux 2) is a remarkable
visual tool. If it produces noise at higher ISOs, so what? It
certainly does not impact on how I use my own images.
Phil Douglis
Director, The Douglis Visual Workshops
Phoenix, Arizona
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/pnd1
http://www.worldisround.com/home/pnd1/index.html
http://www.funkytraveller.com/Pages/travelogues/travelphotophild.htm