Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mbridgers on July 21, 2008, 02:43:44 pm
-
Panasonic has introduced the LX3 -- 24-60mm-e lens, larger CCD, still 10.1 Megapixels, RAW mode. Sounds interesting:
http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/...c-lumix-dmc-lx3 (http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/professional-photographer-news/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx3)
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp)
-
It certainly appears promising! Can't wait to see how the reviews turn out.
The old G2 is getting tired.
-
Promising indeed... maybe even a turning point if the other companies' marketing departments read the PR (which, happily or not, uses the word "exquisite" at least twice...) ;-)
Does it do RAW? I stopped reading after the second "exquisite."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Does it do RAW?
It appears so.
-
YES it shoots RAW.
Ive used both the LX1 and LX2 and as you may have seen posted, find it the best P&S digi yet (factoring a balance of design, size, proce, ergonomics and image quality). I prefer it over my G9 ( I got rid of) as the G9 is too large and doesn't shoot wide (they both go down to 28mm).
Now this one goes to 24mm, has a faster lens and has improved some noise issues. OMG!!!
You can guarantee this will be a great camera. An improvement over a great series.
Where do I line up to get one? hehe
-
Someone at DPreview posted a link to some early samples images...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28691393 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=28691393)
I hope that they improve a lot, because those are not very appealing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Someone at DPreview posted a link to some early samples images...
[...]
I hope that they improve a lot, because those are not very appealing.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The LX1/LX2 have always had nasty (in my opinion) NR applied to their JPEGs: I'm expecting the same for the LX3. It will be interesting to see some RAW files before making any judgements. Unfortunately most of the review sites are very JPEG-centric.
The LX2 was a very disappointing camera for LX1 owners (IMHO: my wife has an LX1) with no real incentive to upgrade. There are enough things even in the specs of the LX3 to make it very interesting. Time will tell...
-
The LX1/LX2 have always had nasty (in my opinion) NR applied to their JPEGs: I'm expecting the same for the LX3. It will be interesting to see some RAW files before making any judgements. Unfortunately most of the review sites are very JPEG-centric.
The LX2 was a very disappointing camera for LX1 owners (IMHO: my wife has an LX1) with no real incentive to upgrade. There are enough things even in the specs of the LX3 to make it very interesting. Time will tell...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had the LX1 since it came out and I think it's a great pocketable p&s. After the LX2 came out and the noise issue seemed the same, I hesitate to believe any Panasonic advertising hype on noise. However, the lens for the LX3 does have me interested - but I'll wait for a few of the more thorough testers to weigh in.
-
Panasonic cameras have long had a reputation for higher noise levels per megapixel than the competition. So the stated 45% increase in photo site area per pixel and decreased downstream noise may bring them up to par or even a bit beyond. The extra-large sensor size (1/1.63") is a red herring given the 1/1.65" size of the LX2, both being 10 mp, since the LX2 did little to shake the Panny high noise reputation. Actually, the LX3 is closer to 11 mp, it's just that for any one aspect ratio there are only 10 mp being used.
The LX1 and LX2 shot RAW were reasonable at 100 ISO (some noise visible), usable at 200 ISO (cleanable with NR), and essentially intolerable at 400 ISO (significant destruction from NR). Thus, I would be very surprised if there is anything more than a 1 stop improvement in the LX3 RAW output - with 400 ISO becoming tolerable, or close to tolerable.
Another minor consideration is that the lens cap and protruding lens housing are significant irritations to anyone used to an actual pocket-sized point&shoot with fully retractable zoom. IOW: this is not quite the don't-think-twice, carry-everywhere design of a Casio or a Digital Elph.
I personally really did use the full zoom range from 28 to 140 equiv. of my LX1, so for me the new 24 to 60 equiv. is a bit of a downer. But, yes - the upside is that the f/2.0 - f/2.8 wide does buy you an extra stop of speed, so one could say the LX3 is effectively an 800 ISO cam even before image stabilization.
On the plus side: both build quality and control set are second to none. There is even a usable live histogram plus blinking highlights. RAW write times are fairly tolerable. And the image stabilization really does work.
In sum, I don't see the LX3 dramatically changing the compact landscape. Some have RAW and usable controls but are not truly pocketable; others are truly pocketable but lack RAW and usable controls. But all digital compacts come up short on the IQ front.
-
Someone at DPreview posted a link to some early samples images...
...
I hope that they improve a lot, because those are not very appealing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would not worry, yet.
1. These seem to be unauthorized images with pre-production firmware, and we have seen repeatedly how much firmware fine tuning can improve image quality: need I say "14/N".
2. Some at least are at smallest aperture of f/8, ridiculous with such small pixels due to diffraction, while giving DOF like about f/40 in 35mm format: almost pinhole territory, including the fuzziness. Modern small sensor cameras seem best used wide open or close to it, unless extremely high DOF in desired, and the lenses seem to suited to this.
Still, I am not convinced that a larger sensor with a proportionately longer, less bright lens would not do better and still allow a quite compact and similarly priced camera: even a sensor as big as 4/3" (over four times the area) with a 12-30mm, f/4-5.6 lens for similar FOV, speed and DOF options.
-
Better samples (still JPEG of course):
DCR (http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3580&review=panasonic+lumix+lx3)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28695712 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=28695712)
-
What size is 1/1.63"? Why can't we move away from this arcane way of expressing sensor size? My guess is, the sensor is still less than 6mm in height, so still a bit too small to expect spectacular image quality.
Nevertheless, an F/2 lens is a bit unusual on a P&S. In terms of shutter speed, DoF and possibly even general image quality, the LX3 at F2 and ISO 80 should be roughly equivalent to a 5D at F9 and ISO 1600.
If I've read the specs right, the LX3 appears to be capable of 2.5 frames per sec in RAW mode to a maximum of 3 frames before slowdown. That's impressive for a P&S and should allow for high quality HDR images.
Shutter lag also appears to be negligible, which is unusual for a P&S, and the closest distance in macro mode has been improved, compared to the LX2, to 1cm.
It also takes HD video (1280x720) at 24 fps. I think it's time to upgrade my Sony DCS T30 .
-
There's an image on the Web I found on the first page of a Google search - from an LX3, taken of a New York(?) bridge in daylight, where the buildings appearing under (through, actually) the bridge have so much noise it's ridiculous. I assume they were shot as JPEG's, but in any case the ISO was in the 100's range. RAW will help of course, but that image would need a lot more than that.
-
What size is 1/1.63"? Why can't we move away from this arcane way of expressing sensor size? My guess is, the sensor is still less than 6mm in height ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
According to a Panasonic site, the sensor has 2.00 micron cell size (is this the biggest in recent compact sensors?) and the total active pixel count is 3968x2736, though all its JPEG output options crop that to one of three different shapes from 3648x 2736 in 4:3 to 3968 x 2232 in 16:9. The output crops seems to be limited to the image circle diameter of the lens, at least at its wide end where the image circle is typically smallest.
Multiplying out gives
- sensor active area of 7.936x5.472mm, diagonal 9.64mm
- 4:3 format area of 7.296x5.472mm, diagonal 9.12mm
- slightly smaller diagonal and smaller image area for the other shapes (more elongated formats like 3:2 and 16:9 record less of the total image area within a given image circle.)
I would love this to be called a 9.6mm diagonal sensor (or a 7.9x5.5mm sensor, but one number is all that some camera buyers will swallow!), with the 4:3 crop called 9.1mm diagonal format and so on.
And I agree that the small sensor size probably limits the f/2-2.8 lens to less low light performance and DOF control than an f/4-5.6 lens in even the smallest DSLR format, but for the many compact cameras users seeking mostly images that are sharp across the frame (meaning with fairly substantial DOF), it could be appealing.
Aside: This is as close as we are likely to get to the recurring square sensor dream: expanding the sensor to a rectangle that covers the part of the image circle that fits all commonly used image shapes. This would be harder in an SLR, due to the mirror needed being larger than for any one output format.
-
There's an image on the Web I found on the first page of a Google search - from an LX3, taken of a New York(?) bridge in daylight ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I said earlier in this thread, that Brooklyn Bridge image seems to be taken with firmware far short of final production status, and other images floating around already look better. We have seen many times how much firmware revisions can effect noise levels, so I counsel patience.
-
As I said earlier in this thread, that Brooklyn Bridge image seems to be taken with firmware far short of final production status, and other images floating around already look better. We have seen many times how much firmware revisions can effect noise levels, so I counsel patience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, I understand 'beta' and 'final' and all that stuff, but you can't tell me that a photo that looks like it was taken by a $99 compact circa year 2000 somehow changes to the "top quality of all compacts" just from beta to final production. Some plausible explanation would help.
-
Some plausible explanation would help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Comparably bad results have been seen many times before from pre-production versions of cameras, followed by substantially better production model images. Often the bad images come from cameras that were released for preview with specific instructions not to publish images from them, evidence that the camera maker often know that IQ is worse than expected from production versions. Firmware is most often blamed, but maybe some pre-production versions also have inferior hardware, as the production process is still being refined.
So without understanding the technical issues, we can safely conclude that
1. Pre-production versions of cameras often have substantially worse noise than production versions.
There are numerous potential sources of noise in a CCD image, such as residual charge in electron wells before taking an image, dark current and dark current offset correction, charge transfer across the sensor (a major one in CCDs it seems), charge-to-voltage conversion, pre-amplification, and A/D conversion, and I doubt that many of us know to what extent all of these are subject to change in the last month or two of product refinement before release.
2. It is pointless drawing adverse conclusions about image quality based on JPEG's produced by pre-production samples of cameras. (Favorable conclusions are safer though!)
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28705971 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=28705971)
-
I really like the look of this camera.
I guess I'm not all that averse to a bit of noise, and with the faster lens and slightly bigger sensor, even a 2-stop improvement over other pannies would make it very attractive.
I have an FX01 which does very nicely for P&S and this looks quite a lot nicer.
-
Here's the latest link to some pics taken with the LX3.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28812853 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=28812853)
Personally, I think this is going to be one hot little P&S!!!!!
-
I ordered mine last week and they say it will ship by the end of next week. Whenever it does come in, I'll get some real images posted - things I can compare to other compacts to see if it's really that much improved.
-
I ordered mine last week and they say it will ship by the end of next week. Whenever it does come in, I'll get some real images posted - things I can compare to other compacts to see if it's really that much improved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll be anxious to see your results. I'm not ready to spend the bucks just to see how much it's improved over the LX 2. Looks good, you go first!!!!!
-
I have been a pretty serious photographer for a long time and a lover of beautiful (expensive!) things as well. I recently got rid of my Contax G2 Black, which deserved a place in the Museum of Modern Art and also the museum of instantly obsolete high tech film excellence.
I was attracted by the LX1 and 2 and their Leica counterparts. In concept, they are the first p&s cameras I've considered since I went DSLR. But for those of us who are more interested in the picture than the specs, Panasonic and Leica have let us down and cost themselves mucho sales because the fundamentals were not there behind all the other pro-ness and polish. Maybe I'm just spoiled --I'm now on my 4th Canon dSLR.
If this camera does not make beautiful images--not just tolerable images--from iso100 to iso400, these companies will miss the mark again. If third time is the charm, this will be my first proud Panisonic camera purchase.
-
I was attracted by the LX1 and 2 and their Leica counterparts. In concept, they are the first p&s cameras I've considered since I went DSLR. But for those of us who are more interested in the picture than the specs, Panasonic and Leica have let us down and cost themselves mucho sales because the fundamentals were not there behind all the other pro-ness and polish. Maybe I'm just spoiled --I'm now on my 4th Canon dSLR.
If this camera does not make beautiful images--not just tolerable images--from iso100 to iso400, these companies will miss the mark again. If third time is the charm, this will be my first proud Panisonic camera purchase.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well...you may have been attracted,but you don't know what you're talking about. Having owned both the LX1 and LX2 as well as Canon G9 and Ricoh GX100, I can tell you that a lot of images I shot with them were a lot better than just tolerable.
The LX3 is a great improvement on an already great series of cameras.
Howlong are people going to keep bitching about noise that is in ALL p&s cameras? The best quality image..is the best one you took because you had a camera on you. An LX3 you can carry all the time!
-
.....If this camera does not make beautiful images--not just tolerable images--from iso100 to iso400, these companies will miss the mark again.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you're looking at technical quality, I dunno - Venus engine, anyone? But if you're looking at the actual image quality at medium print size (say, 8x12) I think most people will be pleased. Panasonic has gotten a lot better with their recent cameras.
-
I shot a camera professionally for 27 years. Put away my Hassleblad and 4 x 5 equipment in the closet back around 1991. Purchased my first DSLR about 4 years ago, a D70, and even though I was terribly disappointed in the quality of the image, I was amazed at the freedom it allowed. It has been a lot of fun to mess with, though. I've even found myself lusting over Nikon's new D700! But as the years have rolled by, my photography has gone from 24" x 30" salon prints to snapshots of travel pics, grandkids, and the like. It's getting to the point even the D70 is a burden to mess with and I find myself just setting it on Auto-everything much of the time. When I started reading about this new LX3 I looked seriously at my work and realized the largest print I'm likely to make in my future will be on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of photo paper, so why do I need a camera that costs several thousand dollars. Heck, none of my recent work is going to end up in the Louvre, after all!!!!! The LX3, if it turns out to do what Panasonic is claiming, might really satisfy my requirements.
-
The LX3 will be great for wide shots, but useless for many pics that require significant zoom. So I'm resigned to carrying 2 small cameras (still *much* better than a big camera with a huge zoom lens).
-
That's why it's so good there are so many cameras on the market. I have very little use for telephoto lenses and prefer the wide angle. So the LX3 would be right up my alley.
-
I ordered mine last week and they say it will ship by the end of next week. Whenever it does come in, I'll get some real images posted - things I can compare to other compacts to see if it's really that much improved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Where from? I want one ASAP as well....It seems B&H dont ship 'til sep.
-
Where from? I want one ASAP as well....It seems B&H dont ship 'til sep.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I got my last cam from J&R - they were earlier than the rest, they charged full price, they're reliable, and they provide genuine Panasonic batteries, which I always get extras of. BTW, the perfect carrycase I've found is the Coach "clutch" bag, which fits into a shirt pocket with LX3 or TZ5 inside. $60 u.s.
-
I got my last cam from J&R - they were earlier than the rest, they charged full price, they're reliable, and they provide genuine Panasonic batteries, which I always get extras of. BTW, the perfect carrycase I've found is the Coach "clutch" bag, which fits into a shirt pocket with LX3 or TZ5 inside. $60 u.s.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like the look of the leather case that comes with the LX3...I was looking for such a case for my LX2 ,as I think that's the best design for having the camera around your neck and at the ready.
-
Not sure I understand why, but the last two posts in this thread haven't shown up on the list of posts!!!!! ( from dalethorn and mrleonard ) Wonder if this one will?
-
Not sure I understand why, but the last two posts in this thread haven't shown up on the list of posts!!!!! ( from dalethorn and mrleonard ) Wonder if this one will?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I click the URL I get in email, the latest posts show, but when I browse the forum from LL, often they don't because my mobile browser just reads the cache without refreshing.
-
One of the major problems with the LX 1 to LX 2 "upgrade" was the fact that there was a noise algorithm embedded into the RAW files at iso 200 and above. The problem was that the improved noise was at the expense of detail. I was disappointed because I did a good job of getting rid of noise -- using noise ninja and I could control how much detail I might want to sacrifice in terms of less noise. I did not like that even with the RAW images--- I had no control.
I have found some full file jpg images at iso 80 to 3200 but again all jpg in origin. I really would like to get a hold of some RAW images. The iso 800 images made in jpg seemed to have similar detail as the iso 100 images but there were many jpg artifacts in the higher iso examples. So I am cautiously optimistic but want to see the output first.
This site is the most interesting where i can find some full file examples
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/search/label/Panasonic%20LX3 (http://www.seriouscompacts.com/search/label/Panasonic%20LX3)
THere are some iso1600 RAW examples with and without silkypix NR applied. In my mind i am not sure I would accept the iso 1600 as usable based on what I am seeing here.. Maybe small prints. However, I would like to see some 800 RAW images. The jpg RAW examples shown at this site has too many jpg artifacts but gives me hope the RAW with selective NR might be more reasonable
-
I don't have the LX3 yet, but I've shot several thousand RAW's with the Pana FZ50. That camera has in-camera noise reduction control, high, std., low, and with low, I don't seem to get any of the nasty stuff that other Pana's get shooting JPG only. I assume the LX3 will allow the same for RAW images.
-
Ordered mine from Panasonic today. When I get it I will post a few photo from it.
Ken
-
I had a series of Olympus and then Canon P&S digicams. For the past year, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX50 has been my P&S of choice, replacing my Canon PowerShot SD700IS. The Panasonic has been my best P&S to date.
I really like the look and feature set of the new LX3, the most notable being RAW capability. But, P&S digicams should be able to slip into a shirt pocket. I think that the protruding lens on the LX3 will make it bulky. We'll see.
I heard that there is a hack for Canon P&S cams that allows it to shoot RAW. Has anyone checked this out?
Bud James
North Wales, PA