Panasonic LX2

[cblesch]

In his recent look at two new Panasonic cameras, including the Lumix LX2, Michael asks why the camera maker is packing more pixels onto the small chip. The cost is more noise, and even with new noise reduction circuitry, image quality ends up being a tossup. So why not keep the pixel count the same and use the new noise reduction circuitry to actually reduce the noise? He concludes (actually, laments) that more megapixels is something a typical consumer falls for and therefore camera makers can't resist.

Thankfully, he's not the only one who speaks such sense. Today's (Thurs. Aug. 31) New York Times business page article on new digital SLRs says much the same. And I quote ...

"Worse, cramming 10 million sensors into an area designed for 6 or 8 million increases the likelihood of heat-induced "noise" (speckles), although both companies insist that they've licked that problem. Even so, it's too bad Canon and Nikon are perpetuating the megapixel war; few members of the audience for these entry-level S.L.R.'s will gain anything from 10 megapixels."

So now there are at least two voices calling in the wilderness ...

Carl Blesch

[Andrew Larkin]

We are still going through the "FAD" stage of DSLR development.  In the not-too-distant-future the law of diminishing returns will see the end of such foolishness and force the camera designers into new directions like adding more bells and whistles features that might actually be of interest to photographers - like the dust management features.

With the increase in in-camera computering power and storage capacity of memory cards that is inevitable (Moore's Law) there is a range of really funky things that cameras could be doing.

For example, suppose someone were to produce a camera with built-in wireless connectivity?  Then, once the camera could be connected to the local network or even the internet, suppose "they" added a webserver into the camera (both easy and cheap to do).  Now, let's suppose that the processor in the camera automatically hooked each new photo taken with its thumbnail into an in-built web photo album.  Add to this some basic file and image management via the web interface (e.g. delete, sort, selection/tagging, text comments, plus rotate, crop, brightness, contrast, white balance).  A lot of these features are already appearing in mobile phones, so there is nothing technically difficult - just tie it together under an inbuilt web server.

A camera with in-built wireless could generate a new accessory products such as photo storage devices with wireless connectivity.  Your photos could be stored directly to a hard disk on your belt or in your pocket, leaving the memory card in the camera as "standby" in case the camera loses connectivity to the hard disk.  When connectivity is restored, the camera can then resync and transfer the cached images on the memory card to the hard disk automatically.

Whether the camera deletes the images from the memory card after transfer to disk becomes an option for the photograper: leaving the images in place means that you have a backup of the images being made as they are taken.

Just some random thoughts...

Andrew

[BernardLanguillier]

For example, suppose someone were to produce a camera with built-in wireless connectivity?  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew,

For your information, quite a few cameras already have such wireless features. Nikon has been leading the pack with the consumer Coolpix P3, and all of its pro line bodies can be equiped with an optional wireless adapter that does just that (D2x, D2Hs and soon D200).

I believe that Canon offers something similar for its 1d series.

Regards,
Bernard

[Ray]

"Worse, cramming 10 million sensors into an area designed for 6 or 8 million increases the likelihood of heat-induced "noise" (speckles), although both companies insist that they've licked that problem. Even so, it's too bad Canon and Nikon are perpetuating the megapixel war; few members of the audience for these entry-level S.L.R.'s will gain anything from 10 megapixels."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It might well be true that few members of the audience will gain anything, but the author forgot to add that no members of the audience will lose anything. A gain by a few is still a gain.

Canon have a policy of not going backwards on the noise front. I fully expect the new 10mp 400D will have slightly greater resolution than the 30D and if not slightly less noise, then at least equally low noise.

However, I doubt that manufacturers of P&S cameras have adopted this Canon DSLR policy and more pixels might often equate to more noise, as it appears to in the case of the LX2.

[BernardLanguillier]

What is unclear in the review of Michael is whether an A3 print from a LX2 will look better than an A3 print from a LX1.

He claims that there is more noise, meaning that the image quality per pixe is lower, but he also mentions that the LX2 will enable people to print a bit larger.

To my eyes, if the increase in pixel overcomes the loss of image quality per pixel, then the LX2 has some value. If it does, then it has no value.

Regards,
Bernard

[jani]

[Wireless transmitter]
I believe that Canon offers something similar for its 1d series.

Not only the 1 series, but also the 5D and the 20D/30D.

But the price is ludicrous.

[Andrew Larkin]

Andrew,

For your information, quite a few cameras already have such wireless features. Nikon has been leading the pack with the consumer Coolpix P3, and all of its pro line bodies can be equiped with an optional wireless adapter that does just that (D2x, D2Hs and soon D200).

I believe that Canon offers something similar for its 1d series.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wasn't aware of the "built in" WiFi - thanks.  I knew about the optional connectivity for some models.

In any case, it proves my point.  The makers will be forced to think laterally to differentiate their products.  Hey, here's an idea: what about adding mobile phone capability to a camera rather than doing it the other way around?  

Andrew

[BernardLanguillier]

I wasn't aware of the "built in" WiFi - thanks.  I knew about the optional connectivity for some models.

In any case, it proves my point.  The makers will be forced to think laterally to differentiate their products.  Hey, here's an idea: what about adding mobile phone capability to a camera rather than doing it the other way around?  

Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A small fridge integrated to the D3x would, according to some rumours, help Nikon win over some beer drinking canon shooters.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

A small fridge integrated to the D3x would, according to some rumours, help Nikon win over some beer drinking canon shooters.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And in response, after they've added everything else (lawnmower, direct-to-ipod printing, bathtub, cocktail shaker, ...), maybe Canon will finally add a ...
.
.
.
(drumroll)
.
.
.
mirror-lockup button?      

-Eric

[Chris_T]

We are still going through the "FAD" stage of DSLR development.  In the not-too-distant-future the law of diminishing returns will see the end of such foolishness and force the camera designers into new directions like adding more bells and whistles features that might actually be of interest to photographers - like the dust management features.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether the manufacturers "will see the end of such foolishness" is not a given. When product development is driven by the marketeers and/or the designers instead of by the users, foolishness may never end.

Take the PC CPU chips as an example, they keep getting faster while most users (except gamers) don't need them. The PC market tanks as a result, but that does not stop the manufacturers from their foolishness. Similarly, 90% of Word users probably use only 10% of the features (my wild ass guess). Yet each rev adds more features and gets more bloated.

The difference is that there are more camera manufacturers and more model choices. Hopefully one will listen to the users and come out with something different.

[Mark D Segal]

What is unclear in the review of Michael is whether an A3 print from a LX2 will look better than an A3 print from a LX1.

He claims that there is more noise, meaning that the image quality per pixe is lower, but he also mentions that the LX2 will enable people to print a bit larger.

To my eyes, if the increase in pixel overcomes the loss of image quality per pixel, then the LX2 has some value. If it does, then it has no value.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard, as an LX-1 user I read Michael's review of the LX-2 with some interest (though I won't up-grade - not worth it or necessary). I've produced very acceptable A3s from my LX-1. Using it at ISO 80, the images require from none to very moderate noise reduction. If you use most of the frame 8 MP is very adequate to A3 size. All you get from 10 MP of course is a bit more leeway for cropping or all else equal a slightly larger image at a given resolution. Again all else equal, it's really hard to see (without a loupe) substantial quality difference in a large print anywhere from 240 PPI onward, so the usefulness of the extra MP in the LX-2 really depends on how big you want the prints and how much cropping leeway you like to have. If the LX-2 is really a bit noisier than the LX-1, it puts a bit of extra burden on the quality of noise reduction software and the user's proficiency at using that software. I think there is a lot of wiggle room playing around with this stuff such that in the hands of savvy users the comparative appearance of image quality may be a moot point.

[Kenneth Sky]

Mark
Are you saying that a potential buyer might be better off looking for "old stock" LX 1 at a discount price in one of the large retailer sites or stores?
Ken

[Mark D Segal]

Mark
Are you saying that a potential buyer might be better off looking for "old stock" LX 1 at a discount price in one of the large retailer sites or stores?
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, not necessarily - it depends on one's objectives. People who need a larger MP count because they want to make very large (and high quality) prints or want alot of cropping leeway on somewhat smaller ones would welcome the up-grade from 8 to 10 MP. If indeed that is at the cost of a bit more noise, good noise reduction tools are available and can be used effectively in the right hands. At the same time, my reading of Michael's review and some other stuff we've seen on the net from Japan would seem to suggest that if a prospective purchaser finds 8 MP good enough, a heavily discounted LX-1 could be the right fit.

It also depends perhaps on whether this camera is a primary or secondary resource. In my case, for example, it is for back-up and convenience, so there is a limit to what I need for those purposes.

[32BT]

It also depends perhaps on whether this camera is a primary or secondary resource. In my case, for example, it is for back-up and convenience, so there is a limit to what I need for those purposes.

Mark, why did you end up selecting this camera?

[Mark D Segal]

Mark, why did you end up selecting this camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Oscar - that was an easy process of elimination based on what I wanted and what was available at the time I bought it. The criteria were: (a) shirtpocket, (b) no less than 8 MP, © RAW files, (d) known high quality lens. When I went to DPReview and did a search on their whole data base (their site facilitates this), ONE camera came up: the LX-1. Then I read their and Michael's review of the LX-1 and despite the comments on noise I bought it. As icing on the cake, I really enjoy the wide aspect ratio - combined with the wide angle lens setting, you get close to panoramic sweep with it.

The noise is a drawback, but quite easily managed. The two things about it I don't like and can't be nearly so well managed are (1) the LCD is close to useless in bright sunlight, and (2) for situations like child photography where timing is critical, there is an unacceptably long lag between the time you press the button and the time the capture occurs. This sort of thing tends to slip between the cracks in reviews and one only learns by using. I mention this for the benefit of those thinking of buying an LX-2 - they should check these factors and see whether they matter.

[32BT]

Hi Oscar - that was an easy process of elimination based on what I wanted and what was available at the time I bought it. The criteria were: (a) shirtpocket, ( no less than 8 MP, © RAW files, (d) known high quality lens.

In retrospect how would you judge quality of the lens vs noise? Would you consider going to lower res and lower noise if that were available? And in comparison with other offerings by other brands?

[Mark D Segal]

In retrospect how would you judge quality of the lens vs noise? Would you consider going to lower res and lower noise if that were available? And in comparison with other offerings by other brands?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oscar, you can't do much about a second-rate lens, but you can mitigate a certain amount of noise, so if I had to make a choice between a Leica (or equivalent) lens and a little more noise, versus a lower quality lens and a little more noise, I'd go for the better lens. As for lower res, yes, I think if there were a major trade-off between noise and MP down to about 6, I could see myself thinking twice about that choice, but no less than 6MP for my purposes. I don't have any brand allegiance - I buy whatever best fits what I want - except for the major camera, one does get committed to a system unless the budget is very large. If I hadn't bought the LX-1 already and I were now in the market for a shirt-pocket camera I would be prepared to consider any reputable brand that met the criteria. Needless to say I don't know them all in real-time - not a pre-occupation. I just get up-to-speed on what's available at decision time.

[MarkKay]

As i attend my kids school functions more and more people who are using digital cameras for snapshots are moving into DSLRs.  Compared to school events three or four years ago, the number of folks carrying such cameras has risen exponentially. When i talk to them, it becomes clear that  most of the folks equate quality with the number of megapixels. I try to explain not all megapixels were created equal but it comes down to mine is bigger than yours and size matters.  I see and hear this often.  I think some of the megapixel wars are used as effective marking tools to the affluent non photography experts.  At some point I believe this will go away but for now, seems like a very effective advertising tool. mark

Oscar, you can't do much about a second-rate lens, but you can mitigate a certain amount of noise, so if I had to make a choice between a Leica (or equivalent) lens and a little more noise, versus a lower quality lens and a little more noise, I'd go for the better lens. As for lower res, yes, I think if there were a major trade-off between noise and MP down to about 6, I could see myself thinking twice about that choice, but no less than 6MP for my purposes. I don't have any brand allegiance - I buy whatever best fits what I want - except for the major camera, one does get committed to a system unless the budget is very large. If I hadn't bought the LX-1 already and I were now in the market for a shirt-pocket camera I would be prepared to consider any reputable brand that met the criteria. Needless to say I don't know them all in real-time - not a pre-occupation. I just get up-to-speed on what's available at decision time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

Oscar, you can't do much about a second-rate lens, but you can mitigate a certain amount of noise, so if I had to make a choice between a Leica (or equivalent) lens and a little more noise, versus a lower quality lens and a little more noise, I'd go for the better lens. As for lower res, yes, I think if there were a major trade-off between noise and MP down to about 6, I could see myself thinking twice about that choice, but no less than 6MP for my purposes. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
Whilst preparing for my next trip, wondering what to take and what to leave, because weight is a major consideration, I wondered if it would be worth including my Sony DSC T1. I bought this little 5mp, shirt pocket camera in the days I was using a D60 DSLR and the quality compared quite favourably, at ISO 100, to the D60 at ISO 1000 after a bit of Neat Image noise reduction (same shutter speed & DoF). The D60 was still marginally better though, as I recall.

The Sony T1 usually gives acceptable results in good lighting at base ISO and a fast shutter speed, as in this 100% crop at f7.1, 1/250th sec and -0.7EV. At this magnification, the whole print would be 27"x36".

[attachment=937:attachment]

However, in poor lighting the Sony T1 usually disappoints. I hate dealing with noisy and resolution degraded images so I've recently been looking at what developments have taken place with these ultra compacts since I bought the Sony T1. The latest reincarnation of the T1 is the 7mp T30 with Image Stabilisation. This seems a worthwhile improvement over the T1 in terms of noise and resolution. The IS is a big bonus. These tiny cameras that you can't get a proper grip on are very susceptible to shake, and of course the 1/FL rule applies to 35mm equivalent focal lengths, not the actual focal length.

I compared a few cameras at Imaging Resource at various ISO settings and the LX1 appears to be very noisy indeed. At ISO 400 it's noisier than my Sony T1 that came out almost a couple of years earlier. The 6mp Canon SD700 (which also has IS) produces much cleaner images than the LX1 and the Fujifilm F30 (unfortunately no IS) produces significantly cleaner images at ISO 800 than the LX1 at ISO 200.

So the big question, Mark, is this. How much noise reduction without resolution degradation is possible with the LX1 RAW images? Do you get the impression that an LX1 ISO 400 RAW image, after clean-up in ACR and/or Neat Image, might be on a par with an SD700 image straight out of the camera? Isn't the extra time delay between one shot and the next a huge disadvantage of shooting RAW with such a camera?

Both the SD700 and T30 have a very short lag between pressing the shutter half way for focussing and all the way to take the shot.

[Mark D Segal]

So the big question, Mark, is this. How much noise reduction without resolution degradation is possible with the LX1 RAW images? Do you get the impression that an LX1 ISO 400 RAW image, after clean-up in ACR and/or Neat Image, might be on a par with an SD700 image straight out of the camera? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75418\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I can only respond in respect to the experience I've had the with LX-1, as the only other digital camera I've ever used is my Canon 1Ds, which of course is in a different league and for different purposes. So I can't tell you anything comparative. I would not use the LX-1 at ISO 400. It can be a bit noisy at ISO 80 - sometimes needing a bit of Noise-Ninja, sometimes not, depending on the image. At ISO 200, it usually needs moderate noise reduction. I and photo-savvy friends of mine continue to be pleasantly surprised by the high quality A3 prints I'm making from this camera used at low ISO.

As you well know, ANY noise reduction comes at the cost of SOME resolution, but most of it can be recovered with a good sharpening tool such as PK Sharpener Pro. But this needs attentive workflow: remove the noise very carefully (i.e. finding the boundary between noise and image detail) and then do the Capture Sharpening.

The LX-1 is also Image Stabilized and that works well, so the LX-2 should be at least as good in this respect. The Leica lens is really superb.

The lag between pressing the button and getting the capture is the time it takes for the autofocus to work. So in a situation where you press halfway and let it focus, from that point onward (i.e. half to complete) the lag issue doesn't arise.

More than this is really hard for me to say. If you have several models in mind that you wish to compare for both lag and noise, as well as ergonomics, there really is no better way of choosing than to go to a good retailer who has them on display and test them. Bring your laptop so you can transfer images shot in or around the shop and examine them on the laptop LCD before buying.