The new Adobe Lightroom update is said to have better noise reduction and sharpening tools than the previous version. From what I can tell, substantial luminance noise reduction (NR) is being applied to RAW conversions, even when luminance NR is set to zero. The result is a significant loss of fine detail and a "watercolor" appearance, even at low ISOs. If you want your Ricoh GX100 RAW conversions to look like in-camera Panaleica JPEGs, then Lightoom 1.1 may be the one for you. I'm really disappointed in this release. Hopefully I'm missing something here and someone will let me know how to disable this nasty noise reduction.

Addendum: It has been suggested to me that one can disable this noise reduction by switching 'off' the Detail section. I'll try this later and report back.

Addendum #2: That didn't work. I have been trying to adjust settings to overcome this problem, but I have been unable to do so. The best I can do seems to be turning down 'Luminance' noise reduction to '0' and holding back on the 'Detail' slider.

In following two screenshots, Lightroom 1.1 is shown on the right, with sharpening settings at default other than 'Detail' being increased to '100.' Luminance NR is set to '0'. On the left is a conversion using the older Adobe RAW engine with identical sharpening and NR settings. Click on the screenshot to view at full size. Some browsers may require a second click to get to 100% size.

Here is the Digilux 2 ISO 200 screenshot. Note how the character of the noise has been altered (ruined).



Here is the GX100 screenshot. The changes here are more subtle, but there is a definite loss of detail in the Lightroom 1.1 conversion. What concerns me though is not so much detail lost by LR 1.1, but the unnatural way in which the fine detail is rendered. The "unnatural" quality is no doubt worse by cranking up the 'Detail' setting, but the goal in this experiment was to approximate a similar level of detail between the two images.



Any oher thoughts or tips about how to overcome this issue? I can live with mandatory NR in a RAW converter. C1 has this as well. However from my standpoint, Lightroom 1.1 is too heavy-handed in its approach to NR at the minimum setting thereof.

Addendum #3: I've been wondering how this issue seemed to be getting so little attention. Thanks to rstockm for point out this thread in the Adobe forums, which contains posts from a number of photographers regarding this issue.

Below are two full-size GX100 files (about 5MB each) demonstrating the issue. They were both preocessed from RAW using the same default sharpening settings, except the 'Detail' setting was increased to '100' in LR 1.1 to try to match the detail of the other file. If you have a fast internet connection and would like to know more about the issue, try downloading them and comparing them in various regions.

Click here to download the image processed using LR 1.1.
Click here to download the same image processed using the previous ACR engine.

I recommend trying to process the two images linked above to see how they respond to further noise reduction, sharpening, levels/curves, etc. The "problems" (as I view them) become more obvious with any further manipulation.

Featured Comment by anonymous:

I'm seeing exactly what you're seeing, Amin. I saw it the second the first images opened in the new version of Lightroom. I hadn't noticed the problem in ACR 4.1., because I was processing everying in Lightroom 1.0. Yesterday, I ran files through ACR 4.1. and was shocked by the results.

I thought, at first, that only my small sensor work was reflecting the problem, but if I go through the imported Lightroom database there isn't a file that hasn't suffered as a result of the new algorythm - from 6 mp captures, through 10 mp, 12 mp and 16 mp.

Fortunately, I kept version 4 of ACR and version 1 of Lightroom, so with these back online I am able to work on. What shocks me is that the Adobe big guns, Thomas Knoll et al, sound as though they are satisfied with the new look. To me, it's the end of any pretence of photographic veracity for the digital image.

As for the new controls, if someone tells me that "Detail" is to put back in what was taken out, again, I'll lose it. And don't get me started on the "Clarity" slider. Have you seen some of the disasters being produced by cranking that Muvver to 100!? Good grief...

If the results of digital photography had always looked as they do after Lightroom 1.1. processing, I would have walked away from the photography business a decade ago. I am very worried that this 'new look' could become an accepted standard in our work. It's just damn wrong.

My RAW processor of choice is Phase One's Capture One (C1) software. With the 5D, I find that C1 handles color (using a custom profile), noise, and detail more to my taste than anything else I have tried, all the while providing an efficient and intuitive workflow. For my cameras which are not supported by C1 (Leica Digilux 2, Leica D-LUX 2, and Ricoh GX100), I continue to search for a similar solution.

Adobe Lightroom has an intuitive workflow and some unique features, including some nice tools for tuning shadow and highlight detail and great control over black and white conversions. One area I have found it to be lacking is in the way it handles noise and sharpening. I was therefore excited to read that the new release, version 1.1, is said by Adobe to be improved in this regard. I was also pleased to see added support for the Ricoh GX100. I'm looking forward to trying it and hope to hear feedback from some of you as well.

Sound familiar?

When I first went to the DPR forums as a new Canon 300D owner, the advice I read over and over was that the body didn't matter very much to the final image. The forum regulars routinely stated that, given a limited budget, it was much more important to buy the best lenses one could afford rather than to spend most of one's money on the body. I believed that and even gave the same advice to others as I gained more experience with various lenses. For some time, I had a Rebel XT and several lenses costing far more than the body. There's clearly nothing wrong with budgeting that way, and I think it's the right solution for many people (eg. birders on a budget), but I have come to realize that it was the wrong approach for me. Right now, I have a 5D and three lenses (fewer than ever before), and 90% of my photos are taken with two Canon primes which cost me about $400 together - a 28mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. My photos have never been better, and I don't think there is any lens/body combo that would serve me better if I were to go with a less expensive body and more expensive glass.

Lens purchases are highly personal decisions. Just as I chose the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens over it's 50mm f/1.8 sibling, many others would have chosen the 28mm f/1.8 over the 28mm f/2.8. A few others would find both of those focal lengths to be boring or useless, and many more still would opt for the flexibility of zoom lenses rather than primes. Until recently, I never could have imagined that my most commonly used lens would be a prime. My exposure to the rangefinder forums helped me realize that primes were still a reasonable choice, embraced by many talented photographers.

As far as I can tell, there is no easy way to advise a new DSLR user as to which lenses to buy or how to budget between bodies and lenses. Some of the blanket advice we hear and repeat as gospel may in fact be counterproductive. Just something to keep in mind the next time a newbie asks how to spend $2500.

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

The question I get most often is "Which one do you recommend most?" None of these cameras are right for everyone, but I will try to provide a summary analysis here along with my personal decisions and their basis.

Form factor: Each camera has its merits here. The D-LUX is the most portable, followed closely by the Ricoh. I appreciate the fact that the G7 lens retracts, making a clunky separate lens cover unnecessary. The Ricoh is the only one to provide a decent grip, though in truth I find all quite comfortable to control. The G7 feels the most solid, but it's also the heaviest by far.

Controls: I prefer the manual dials of the G7 and GX100 to the joystick approach of the D-LUX. The G7 controls and menus have a nice familiarity since I have owned a number of Canon DSLRs and compact digital cameras which share control elements. The ISO dial on the G7 is a real blessing, something all my cameras should have but none beside the G7 do. All three cameras position controls well from a usability standpoint. However, I have come to love the controls and customization of the GX100 most of all. I love being able to register my most commonly used indoor and outdoor settings to the two "My Setting" locations main dial. The dual dials are simple and effective, and the menu can also be simply customized for easier access to important settings.

Zoom range: No brainer here. As described here, the focal length ranges are dramatically different and in my opinion this should serve as the main differntiating factor in choosing amongst these cameras.

Image quality:

The G7 and GX100 seem to resolve a comparable amount of detail when "pixel peeping." The D-LUX too rises to the occasion, particularly when shooting RAW. The GX100 marginally outresolves the G7 when the former is shot in RAW mode and care take in postprocessing. That said, the G7 does an admirable job in removing noise without destroying image detail. However, for those of us who really understand and enjoy postprocessing, RAW provides another level of flexibility. We get to choose our own detail versus noise removal trade-offs throughout each region of each image.

The noise quality and image detail of the GX100 is subjectively the most appealing of the three cameras to me when using the default in-camera black and white JPEG mode. This is true at all ISOs, but particularly at ISO 200 and above. I won't go so far as to call the Ricoh noise "grain" as some have done. It still looks digital to me at the pixel level. However, both on the LCD and in print, the GX100 B&W noise appeals to me more than the G7 noise does. The D-LUX noise, in RAW conversions to B&W, also has a pleasing quality to my eye.

The G7 lens shows great resistance to veiling flare compared with the others. It is difficult to emphasize just how important this quality is - a major plus for the Canon.

The GX100 lens shows very little purple fringing, even wide open at the shortest focal lengths. What little purple fringing exists is effectively treated by the in-camera JPEG processing. Purple fringing is not a major problem for any of the three, but the GX100 is the best of the lot.

Automatic white balance was acceptable on all three. The G7 and D-LUX seemed a bit more consistent outdoors with the GX100 perhaps more consistent indoors.

Color accuracy was not specifically tested, but my impression was that all are quite good in this respect.

Dynamic range, as expected, is not very good with any of these small-pixelled cameras. I'd say, without rigorous testing, that they are all similarly weak in this aspect. The D-LUX and GX100 RAW files can afford a bit of leeway in salvaging lost shadow detail and clipped highlights. G7 users lack this flexibility.

Shot to shot time in RAW mode was slightly longer with the GX100 than with the D-LUX 2.

Movie mode: In my tests, the G7 produces the highest quality movies of the three.

Metering is comparably effective with all three cameras. I am the weakest link in each case when it comes to metering.

Subjective Assessments:

LCD: The G7 LCD is the most legible of the three, particularly in bright light. All three have bright LCDs that are "good enough" for a variety of lighting situations.

Viewfinder: The G7 is the only one with a built-in viewfinder. However, there is considerable framing inaccuracy with this viewfinder. The Ricoh EVF is a clumsy attachment to carry, and doesn't give the best image in the world, but at least it frames accurately; it is therefore much more useful to me than is the G7 optical viewfinder. The D-LUX lacks an optical viewfinder.

Battery: My subjective impression is that the G7 has a better battery life than the other two cameras, though none of the three have very good battery life.

Focusing accuracy and speed were not objectively measured. In use, they seem very good with all three, and I am unable to say that one is better than another.

Image stabilization: Image stabilization was effective on all three cameras. I have insufficient data to judge between them in this category.

The menu system and operation speeds are excellent on all.

Not tested:

The flash on each has been insufficiently tested for me to make a judgment.

I have not used any of the bundled software. RAW users should check the compatibility of their RAW processing software of choice prior to assuming a given camera will be supported.

Macro modes have not yet been tested.

Continuous shooting modes were not tested.

Other Special Features

- The G7 and GX100 have a hot shoe.

- G7 has face detection.

- Native 16:9 aspect ratio of the D-LUX 2.

- Step zoom of the GX100 is a great feature for prime lovers.

- Snap zoom of the GX100 is a bit of a gimmmick, not different than setting manual focus to 2.5m on the other two cameras. However, having this "feature" as a distinct setting allows one to quicly select it, which is quite useful.

- The GX100 allows one to shoot in 1:1 format.

- The D-LUX 2 has a TIFF mode in addition to RAW and JPEG.

- The G7 seems to work with regular 4GB SD cards (I tested it with the Transcend 150x 4GB SD card) whereas the GX100 requires SDHC cards when going higher than 2GB. I'm not sure about the Leica.

- The GX100 will take AAA batteries in a pinch.

- Various conversion lenses and accessories are beyond the scope of my comparison.

So which one should you buy?

All three cameras are excellent choices if you want a compact camera with full photographic control.

Here are a few tips:
- If you eschew RAW, like to shoot JPEGs only, and enjoy shooting at high ISO and making large prints, avoid the D-LUX cameras.
- If you mainly shoot B&W, I think the GX100 is the most rewarding of the three. It has a great in-camera B&W mode, and RAW files are ultimately the best source for high quality B&W conversions from color.
- If you want a camera that will impress the general public, the G7 and D-LUX get the most comments. On the other hand, if you want not to be noticed, a black LX2/3 or GX100 are probably the best fit.
- If you want a camera that will impress other photographers, the GX100 gets the most questions =).

In the end, the most important question to answer before buying one of these cameras is what focal length range suits your style of photography. If you like to shoot telephoto, the G7 is the clear answer. On the other end of the spectrum, the GX100 is the only one of the three to extend to the ultra-wide focal length range. The D-LUX 2 has the most moderate range extending from wide to moderate telephoto.

The G7 is a fantastic photographic tool. I have used it to make large prints which are similar in quality, to my eye, to those taken with my 5D and L lenses. For the JPEG shooter who doesn't frequently go wide, I don't think there is a better compact camera available. It is a highly controversial camera, but the great majority of criticisms seem to come from those who haven't used one for any period of time. Professional reviews have all voiced similar complaints about the omission of RAW, slower lens than previous G-series cameras, and lack of a flip LCD, but their summary conclusions have been almost universally positive.

I was planning to keep all three cameras, but after carrying them all for the past couple of weeks, I have decided that that would be overkill. Since my style of photography is more and more tending towards wide angle and B&W, the GX100 suits me best. The D-LUX 2 makes a wonderful backup, and I really enjoy shooting in its native 16:9 aspect ratio as a change of pace. I will gift the G7 to my father, who recently gave me his D-LUX 2 and could use a compact camera to go with his Canon DSLR.

If this multipart comparison has helped you to decide to purchase one of these excellent cameras, you can help me by purchasing from Amazon after going there via the links below.



Visiting the Amazon page using these links doesn't change your price but makes it so that Amazon shares a bit of the profits with me. I can honestly recommend Amazon for photography gear. In addition to competitive prices, they have great customer service and one of the best return policies around (though if the item is being sold on Amazon by a third paty seller, then the return policy of that seller would apply)..

When buying cases for my cameras, I generally do not look for sleek, luxurious solutions. Rather, I look for reasonably-priced, functional cases that are well made and understated in appearance. The past three times I have gone out looking for a case, the one I came home with was from the same company - Lowepro. I have no financial interest in Lowepro to disclose, but I have been content with these three cases and therefore decided to spread the word.

Since the fit of a camera to its case is so important, I often buy my cases in stores where I can try putting the camera in the case rather than buying online. The cases I describe here were purchased at Best Buy; however, I am providing Amazon links to buy following each case description as a means to provide some support for this site. I have had great experiences buying all sorts of photography-related equipment from Amazon in the past.

D-Res 8



The G7 is a bit larger and more brick-like than I had wanted in a compact carry, so I wanted the smallest possible protective case. I believe I have found that in the Lowepro D-Res 8. The D-Res 8 is a perfectly snug fit for the G7. As a matter of fact, the orientation shown below is the only one in which I can comfortably slide in and retrieve my G7.



The lining is a soft one that seems unlikely to scratch any surface, and the padding is relatively thick. The zipper is sturdy, and the padding is such that the zipper is not in contact with the camera. Inside, there is a small pocket, which can hold memory cards or a small battery, shown in the following two views.





There are loops for a neck strap, for which I haven't found use. The strap for attachment to a belt, on the other hand, has been very useful. It holds securely to a belt thanks to a wide area of velcro. The D-Res 8 has held up well after heavy use, including some rain.



Being smaller than the G7, the D-LUX 2 and GX100 each fit nicely in the D-Res 8. However, the D-Res 8 lacks the space necessary to carry the GX100 with optional electronic viewfinder (EVF), so I went out looking for a case to fit that bill.

Edit 100



The Lowepro Edit 100 is a small case which, like the smaller D-Res 8, is designed for digital cameras. It too has a soft-lined, well-padded interior, and features a generous front pocket which can hold the GX100 EVF as shown below.



The Edit 100 main storage compartment is the perfect size for holding the GX100 with the EVF mounted, as shown below. One issue I encountered, however, is that the diopter adjustment on the EVF frequently required readjustment after storage in this manner.



Small mesh pockets are built into the top and front for storage of thin items such as memory cards.





Like the D-Res 8, the Edit 100 has a sturdy belt strap with velcro closure. A padded handle and swivel-mounted adjustable neck/shoulder strap are also included. Two small side pockets with velcro closure can also be seen below.





EX 160



The G7, GX100, and D-LUX/LX cameras appeal to those of us who like manual controls in our cameras. Thus they are natural compact choices for those of us who also use DSLR or rangefinder cameras. Often I like to go shooting with a compact, light prime attached to the DSLR. These days, my combination of choice is the Canon EOS 5D with the EF 28mm f/2.8 attached. However, when I go out with this relatively compact (as DSLRs go) combination, it's nice to have a compact zoom camera with me so that I am not focal length limited. The Lowepro EX 160 was seemingly made to handle the task of carrying such a combination. Shown below are the 5D with EF 28mm f/2.8 mounted along with the G7 stored to the side. The two soft padded compartment dividers seen on either side of the 5D are held in place by velcro and can be moved to accomodate cameras of different sizes. Doing so, the bag could be easily customized to hold a variety of equipment, such as two compact cameras and an external flash.



Like the D-Res 8 and Edit 100, the EX 160 is sturdy and reasonably priced. The design is simple, with a large storage pocket in front.



The EX 160 is too large to belt mount with straps dependent on velcro. It has two sturdy loops through which a belt may be passed. I tend to fasten it thus to my belt so that it does not swing when I walk. At the same time, I keep the should strap hung across my chest and shoulder in order to keep my belt from sagging. Together, it is a very stable and comfortable arrangement, which I can accomodate sitting, standing, or walking, having easy access to my cameras all the while.