BozillaNZ: I've got a developed raw image of the studio shot from Image Resources. This file is converted to Canon CR2 format using my own developed tool and then converted to JPG using, hold on to your seat, the Canon RAW Image Task. The color rendition is a lot more Canon-like and the sharpness is very good.
LX-100 to Canon CR2, developed in RAW Image Task:http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/y3rkp5ZGXXBY
Labels are the same and every piece of fabric (read all but one-blue- napkin) has finer pattern detail in the RX100III shot. It's just that the LX100 shot seems a bit more (local?) contrasty, but partly that might be because the RX100 shot is slightly lighter. That doesn't bug me at all and I don't disagree with you if you prove to me that ISO200 is indeed ISO200 exactly in both cameras:) But that's fine my friend, I'm not trying to declare a winner overall, I trust my eyes and you can trust your, no problem.
Well if you look at the yellow napkins below, you can see the fabric pattern in the RX100III shot and not in the LX100 shot. Equally you can see more lines in the Proportional scale bit with the RX100III (you can't distinguish lines after 80 with the LX100, with the RX100 you can). The nominal exposure parameters might be the same but you know that those things are not exactly normalised across different cameras, for example the real ISO might be 220 with one and 180 with another. I am talking real exposure here and I see the LX100 grey (and the rest of the colours) as slightly darker.
You're a star:) As I expected, the RX100III has indeed a slight resolution advantage, though they are close. The RX100 shot does seem a bit "washed out" in comparison, exposure is still not identical but close enough. Thanks for that. As you correctly stated, it's only a particular studio comparison but if that proves to be representative of real world performance, then I see no reason to prefer the LX100 over the RX100III. Have you by any chance tried to convert and compare the equivalent high ISO shots, say ISO3200? Does the LX100 have a clear advantage there maybe?
Joel, seems to me like a classic case of seeing what one wants to see (not implying you're a Pana fan boy, maybe just a fan of logic, i.e. cameras should perform according to their essential specs-sensor size combined with lens quality).
But, you compared a dedicated RAW conversion of someone who obviously did his best to showcase his project (interesting exercise by the way) to the RX100III OOC jpeg? Sounds fair, not! But even so, you just saw what you wanted to see. I can easily read the small letter in the RX100III ISO200 OOC jpeg (circular scale) but I cannot in the LX100 RAW conversion. That's partly because it's a tad oversharpened (which makes it look sharper as you noted), I can read the text a bit better in the LX100 jpeg actually. But in the latter the napkins texture is smudged away. It's give and take but I'm pretty sure that if you compared a good RAW conversion of the RX100III file with a good RAW conversion of the LX100, you'd find that the RX100III wins on resolution.
YiannisPP: I am not impressed. I don't care if RAWs are better (surely they can't be much better, we are at 2014), those should be looking a lot crispier.
Yes, all RAW conversions in my gallery are from the RX100, though I've at times downloaded RAWs from other cameras from reviews and played with those too.
I've used LR4.3 for those but now have 5.2 as well. As I said, Sony is not particularly known for its jpeg engine in its Cybershot line, it's supposed to have heavy-handed NR. That said in my experience at fairly low ISOs the jpegs can't be improved much detail/noise wise when you work the RAW file. It's not only my opinion, check DPR's review of the RX100 which mentions the same thing. I can't believe Panasonic's jpeg engine is a lot worse than Sony's.
There are full resolution images and 100% crops...
I just checked my gallery and it actually has more than one RAW-jpegs examples, feel free to check if you wish.Jeez man, I was right bout the futile of our discussion:) Did I ever say I have only used IDC? You're amazing. I've used LR, IDC and tested DxO. Did I ever say I was trying to improve a jpeg starting with the jpeg?! You really do think I'm that ignorant don't you?! Of course I always start with the RAW file, since I have to spell this out for you...
And yes of course downsizing does make images look better per pixel on a monitor (sharper and with finer grain), I thought it was obvious this was what I meant, people here look at the LX100 jpegs at pixel level, they don't go and print them...
Howard, I ignored that point and others because frankly I don't think it will lead anywhere in our discussion. You seem convinced that I am not familiar with RAW when in fact I know I am. But since you insist, your Canon G2 yes had good jpegs as did my Canon G3. There was a good reason with the G series back then was considered the top in digicams. Canon had photographic expertise already when digicams started to become more popular, while Panasonic and Sony were more general electronics companies. So I think that's why the Canon Gs had good jpegs, along with the fact it only outputs 4MP files. When you downsize these 13MP jpegs to 4MP, I'm sure they'll look stellar.
Anyway, my main experience with RAW is with my RX100 and I can say with certainty that you can't get a huge advantage noise/detail wise at low ISOs, i.e. you can't have a bad looking jpeg and make it look good from RAW. Yes you can improve on it (I think my galery has an example, don't remember), but not dramatically.
You can believe whatever you want. It's amusing to me the pride some people here seem to be taking in their RAW "expertise". As I said above, I hope one day I'll reach your expert level but I doubt it.
Of course it is. But it's not 2004 when jpeg engines were a lot more crude and you could conceivably get a very different looking jpeg when processed from RAW. Believe it or not, I have a fair understanding of what difference RAW can make. I just don't think it's that big in terms of detail/noise improvement with today's jpeg engines. Of course it's better to have the RAW file, you can tweak the WB, recover some gradations in the highlights, but most jpegs I see are by now not hugely improveable in terms of detail/noise. If you want more detail, you get more grain in general.And these are 13MP files...they should look better in my opinion.
Thanks I appreciate it. I hope one day I'll be as good as you are.
I am not impressed. I don't care if RAWs are better (surely they can't be much better, we are at 2014), those should be looking a lot crispier.
Those "I own it, I want it, I had it" numbers are like a statistical distribution of people's ability to perform the simplest of actions, i.e. press the correct central button ("I want it"). It seems that about 10% of DPR users fail to control their fingers/mouse so as to push the right button. That is pretty surprising, 10% is a lot.
vadims: I don't think the world's fastest AF can be used to its full potential without an OVF or EVF.
Yes we are belaboring the point. Thanks for teaching me that expression, I admit I hadn't come across it before.
Whatever impression I have about Americans (generally good), you are definitely not improving it, let's leave it here.
Sure, but it was you who first made an unqualified assertion that it comes with an EVF (obviously thinking about only the USA), by not specifying which country you were referring to. Plus he was more in the right since he's speaking for the majority of the world, while you were only thinking of one single country.
You're welcome. But it's not my fault you corrected haiiyaa instead of your post. Nice try.
"This comes with an EVF in the USA".There, we fixed your post, which was the one that needed fixing. In most of the world it comes without an EVF so you are the exception. Plus the fact that you thought you had to correct haiiyaa for not living in the USA, implies you think the USA is the center of the world. Which is not.
Stephen McDonald: There's no mention of a loss of resolution in the FZ1000 lens, beyond 300mm. This is mentioned in another review. In the samples, there's only a couple of full-zoom photos and they don't look very sharp. This issue needs to be examined closely and addressed in the next edition of a DPR review on this camera.
In this one sample we have here of the tower, I see no loss of resolution whatsoever. In fact I am impressed with it. On the other hand, looking at the RX10 at full wide, I see a distinctly soft right side. So in either case it might just be sample variance, though that is not a good thing either of course.
Only part of the caterpillar is in focus here, obviously not intended. Use f2.8 or f3.2 instead and you'd get the whole thing in sharp focus, the lens resolves more probably stopped down a bit anyway and the background would still be nicely blurred.
rsjoberg: I'll stick with my LX7 and EVF. The larger sensor would be nice, but the 70mm tele not so much. Anyway the LX 7 is nearly perfect; my small camera lust was sated.
In case you do not realise this, the RX100 M3 gives you 100mm reach if you crop to the inner 10MP of its 20MP output. That's a bit longer than the LX7's 90mm tele, while you do get the larger sensor benefits even in this case. And of course you can keep the full 20MP if you want 70mm and below. If you did realise this then ignore my post.