BozillaNZ: ePhotoZine has published more photos, the first one has raw:http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-sample-photos-26312
And I've downloaded the P1050403.RW2, converted to CR2 using my project CR2Pana, and developed it using Canon RAW Image Task, the result is here:
The color and sharpness is very good! It's funny that Canon's software helped this camera to unleash it's potential but neverless it's doable and I will finish the CR2Pana's LX100 support by the time it's on the market!
.Ok, BozillaNZ, to each its own. Thanks for your reply, I hope you enjoy your LX once you buy it.
.Thanks, BozillaNZ, but your processed image isn't very good at all, because:
- The sky is quite noisy despite being shot at base ISO 200. It has typical small-sensor noise.
2) Either present in the original or produced by your process, there are dozens of *donut-shaped artifacts* like this one (shown here at 200%):
They can be seen in the sky (coord (3621, 63), (3130, 10), etc), in the wood (2851, 548), and everywhere else.
3) the image is way oversharpened, with a distinct 2-pixel white halo around every wooden beam and contrasty edge.
So your effort did not succeed in creating a good image, the result is oversharpened small-sensor quality at most.
mpgxsvcd: Is this a pre-production camera?
Is it perchance faulty, then ?
Trensamiro: .Hi all,
Many of the sample pictures leave a lot to be desired but this one (the backlighted trees) is truly abysmal:
None of my small-sensor P&S would produce a picture nearly as bad, I'm truly appalled, most especially since it was allegedly taken at ISO 200.
Something's wrong either with the camera or the technique used or lack thereof.
And do I see a hint of the infamous "orbs" (the 4 circular star-spiked highlights in the cars a the far background) or is just my imagination ? I hope so.T..
"Less than excellent" is an euphemism for "Truly bad" in this case.
And though I focused on this single image as abysmal, there are a fair number of them among the samples that are almost as bad, technically-wise.
I rest my case: either this particular LX100 specimen is an utter lemon or the photographic technique used to shoot the picture wasn't up to par. Probably both.
Matter of fact, new, much better samples is what is needed to assess this camera's quality, the present ones are useless. Even worse, they are misleading.
T.(edited to correct typos)
Please don't any of you get me wrong, I've been an user and admirer of Panasonic cameras and I'll be happy to see new releases from them succeed, no fanboyism here at all.
But the quality of this particular image is, as I said, abysmal. It's not that the focus is too near the foreground, actually this image lacks any amount of sharpness everywhere, in the foreground, in the background, in the center, in the corners.
There's nothing even remotely sharp here, not the trees, not the leaves in the grass, not the grass itself.
If this is what $900 or €900 gets you, I'm certainly not interested. As I said, any of my small-sensor P&S produces quality far superior to what's seen in this image.
As I don't think this camera/sensor/JPEG-engine can be that bad, I'd say that either this particular specimen is flawed (a lemon) or the technique used to take this picture is utterly bad and/or lacking whatsoever. I certainly look forward to much better LX100 samples
mcorona: Sample images are starting to trickle through..
Is it me or does this camera seem kinda soft and prone to fringing?
This image particularly troubles me... I know one image does not tell all, but I'm definitely treading with caution.
Here's a couple places I've found samples.
The image that "particularly troubles" you is an unmitigated disaster, full of noise, fringing, extremely blurry (not "soft"), badly exposed and whatnot.
I downloaded it to have a look at the EXIF data and all it says is "Adobe Photoshop CS6 Macintosh", nothing else.
Let's hope this is either some mistake or someone fooling around or the result of a beta firmware in a non-production camera becase else my 5-year old 1/2.3"-sensor TZ7 compact produces close-ups and macros some 100 times better than this.
cmantx: Congratulations. Well deserved.It is one of the few times I have voted a 5. I would like to know how it worked out.
Yes, it seems so, various kind people have already pointed it out to me, both of you included.
My bad, of course, so an apology is in order for the confusion. It's just that I thought that an elephant attacking a hippo female with cubs would be a really rare, infrequent event, and even rarer that it would be caught on camera from essentially the same angle, the same-size elephant and hippo, and in the case of the elephant, the same size and shape tusks.
Thus, I assumed it was indeed one and the same event. As it seems it was not, my apologies, I didn't think such an incredibly low probability occurrence would be the case here.
You can find a sequence of pictures showing both the attack and outcome here:
The web page states they were shot by WILDLIFE photographer Rian van Schalkwyk.
I've noticed that I've received 2x0.5 votes and 2x1.5 votes, which, as the image is of sufficient technical and artistical quality, I take they were intended to express disgust to some aspect of it.
One possibility is a misinterpretation of my titling it "Matthew 27:25", which reads:
"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."
which sadly has been used through the centuries to unfairly and unjustly criminalize the Jewish people for it.
However, let me assure you that it wasn't my intention at all to use the Bible verse in that way, far from it, I absolutely respect Jewish people and their religion and offending them would never cross my mind, ever.
What I understand in that verse is that Christ's blood shedding was caused by *all* of Humanity, without singularizing any particular group of people, and that's what my image tried to convey, the tremendous shedding inflicted.
My apologies if that was the actual misunderstanding.T.
Shield3: I'll hang onto my Panasonic LX-7 for now. It was under $250 ("used" warehouse Amazon (was BNIB), has a slightly smaller sensor (1/1.7") but a brighter lens (F/1.4 @ 24mm) and shoots 1080p @ 60FPS and 720p @ 120FPS.Why Canon chose to leave off at least 1080p60 on a $800 camera is mind-boggling.
Slightly smaller ? Slightly !?
Well, let's do the math. The G1 X Mark II has an 18,7x14 mm sensor, for an area of 261,8 square mm.
Now, the LX-7 has a 7,44*5,58 mm sensor, for an area of 41,5152 square mm.
Thus, the G1 X Mark II sensor's area is 6,31 times i.e. 631% the area of the LX-7's sensor.
And you consider 631% "slightly" smaller !?
The "Original" link for "Available sizes" is broken, it shows an utterly unrelated image.
Sorry but I can't believe this image was taken at ISO 125.
I've downloaded the Original size and checked the EXIF data and it indeed says ISO 125 but the image quality is already quite poor for ISO 1250 let alone ISO 125.
Something must be wrong with the EXIF data.
No fake for sure.
I've tried a number of pics, all of them suitably large and with lots of fine detail and despite getting reduced 4x-5x to 20-25% of their original file size I can't see any difference at 100% real-pixel level, even when quickly switching back and forth between the original JPG and the reduced one to try and notice any pixel changes.
When subtracting the one from the other, the resulting file is pitch-black and only a full equalization succeeds in showing a fine pointillist-like pattern of differences, none of them visible until subtracted and equalized.
Amazing technology indeed, lots of uses for it.
Indeed, truly wonderful capture, a most deserved first prize, my most sincere congratulations !
Have a nice weekend.T.
Thanks for your kind comment, happy_snapper_uk, and also thanks a lot to those of you who voted positively for my image.
As for the ones who gave my image negative votes (0.5 and such, which actually add nothing but detract from the final score) I fail to understand how anyone would be able to rationalize a negative vote on a large well-composed, bright, colourful, pin-sharp, fully-on-topic image.
Not voting for it, I would understand, "there's no accounting for taste" and all that jazz. But voting negatively with no rationale behind it, just out of spite ... sheesh, I wouldn't wanna be like you.
A few remarks:
1) Congratulations, an excellent capture of a fleeting moment, a well-deserved 1st prize indeed.
2) You should have refrained from commenting about the hug, friendly or not, best left the people looking at your picture to make their own minds about what's happening, right or wrong. As it is, you may have ruined the "Awww, aren't thay cure !!" first impression for a number of people. Just see the "Stupid puppy" remark by some poster.
3) Actually and despite what you say, I doubt very much the cat is "fighting for his safety", at least in this precise moment you've captured. I've owned cats all my life and when a cat feels threatened when embraced by someone or something, he automatically brings out his claws in all four paws. However, in your picture the cat has all his claws perfectly and utterly retracted so I don't think he was fighting for anything but actually playing with the dog. Maybe later he did, but not now.
*Congratulations on a truly excellent image !
I like most everything about it but I'll point out that stark *contrast* is what makes this picture, i.e.:
- contrast between the /overall greyish hues/ versus the relatively small patch of /delicate color hues/ brought about by the little girl.
- contrast between the /hard and cold stony or metallic inanimate materials/ overall versus the /tender and warm live being/.
- contrast between the intended /somber mood and tired, hopeless expressions/ on the statues versus the /playful mood and joyful smile/ on the little girl's face.
Put it all together, plus technical excellence to boot, and there you are, *a winner*.
The cutest thing I've seen in a month or two ! :-)
And also very good shot technically speaking, very sharp and well-focused with nice /bokeh/.