Reading mode: Light Dark

Some Panasonic LX2 test shots.

Go to last post
R

rayk

Senior Member
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
16
Location
Saga, Kyushu, JP
I live in rural Japan, and today got to have a little walk with the new Panasonic LX2 that just arrived in my local camera shop. I briefly shot some 'test' images at various iso ratings, and have posted them here as both originals and downsized images, mostly unprocessed jpegs, and one shot 'tarted up' to see what it would yield.

I am a little sad, as I really wanted this camera to be the goods, so I could finally have a carry everywhere camera that would make good images. But I don't think it is very good, picture wise. But please take a look, and see what you think. Be careful what you open, as the files marked (full sized image) are large, and will load slowly. The full exif is there, and some notes with each picture. They are not interesting photographs, but are meant for you to be able to make comparisons, and various other judgements.

Please ask me any questions regarding the pictures, or camera, and I will try and answer them in time.

I really did want this camera to be good! I'm sick of carrying my heavy cameras around. Here is the url for the pictures.

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto/panatest

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan
 
More or less the same as the LX1,which I got.I'm thinking of upgrading to LX2 but feel still not convinced,especially after FZ50 purchase.

Cheers
--
shape'n'colour
 
I miss some more ISO400/800 full size images...anyway thanks for your tests...
 
I cant see anything wrong with the pics to be honest. As you already said the subject matter is a little boring, plus it looks like it was cloudy, grey day which dont help.

Ive just had a little play in Picassa with some basic functions and the images responded well
 
Every time I do someone a favor on this dpr website, someone like you comes along and makes a smart a* e comment, and so I inevitably regret it.

If the pictures look fine to you, then go for it. But the smearing at high iso (even 400) is much worse than just plain noise would be.
--
rayk
 
rayk said:
And that comment above is aimed primarily at Jared Hunter.
--
rayk
Click to expand...
In fairness Ray you have only posted one ISO400 as a websize, none of us would be able to make out the smearing at that resolution.

If thats the case you have me worried now, as long as ISO400 was cleanable I would have been happy
 
Pics are too small to make a real judgment. Being honest...I think it makes more sense to get the LX-1..at the reduced price...

It has noise, but least you can NR it yourself...

--

 
If you bothered to look Barry, and the others who are complaining, you will see that there are full size pics posted there, at 100 iso and 1600 iso. And as they are shot highest quality and size jpeg, and have therefore been processed for noise by the Panasonic processing engine, further noise reduction will do little or no good. It is not noise that is the problem. It is smearing caused by the in camera processing. If you shoot RAW and post process, you may do better. But I would have thought a camera like this would shoot reasonable jpegs at high iso. These are far worse than my Ricoh GRD, and it's not all that flash.

But I guess I have learned something by my mistake, which is always valuable. The mistake was to bother offering you anything at all, as several of you seem to be far to rude to appreciate any kind of information.

I guess you lot on this forum are just like most of the folks here, and can't tolerate any kind of criticism of the brand you have spent money on.
--
rayk
 
Hi Ray,

first of all, thank you very much for taking the time to post these first test shots.

If you are used to carrying heavy lenses around, I guess you're a DSLR user... may I ask, do you shoot jpeg with your main camera?

There are plenty of examples of jpegs, complete with the (awful, to my eyes) Venus III noise reduction at high ISO. In order to access the full image quality available, as with your DSLR it is necessary to shoot RAW.

Would it be possible for you to take a properly exposed outdoor shot in RAW, and then process with zero NR, zero sharpening with the included Silkypix converter? If you then post the resulting full size jpeg, we will have something unique to work with (at last!)

This would allow everyone to see the 'native' quality of the CCD, and alllow us to apply noise reduction / sharpening using our own tools of choice...

Once again, thanks for your help...

Kind Regards

Brian

--

 
Hi Ray,

please don't judge the vast majority of posters in this forum on Barry's typical sniping... he's so negative we could have him developed ;)

But seriously, there are many users of the LX1 and potential users of the LX2 hanging on your every word - we're starving for real-world impressions and feedback from photographers.

I agree, the GRD is a very attractive little camera, and the posted examples had me on the edge of going for one (prior to Simon's review - which was a bit like having a bucket of cold water poured over that idea!)... I will still keep an eye out for a bargain priced GRD in due course.

Anyhow, thanks for your help.

Kind Regards

Brian

--

 
rayk said:
If you bothered to look Barry, and the others who are complaining,
you will see that there are full size pics posted there, at 100 iso
and 1600 iso. And as they are shot highest quality and size jpeg,
and have therefore been processed for noise by the Panasonic
processing engine, further noise reduction will do little or no
good. It is not noise that is the problem. It is smearing caused by
the in camera processing. If you shoot RAW and post process, you
may do better. But I would have thought a camera like this would
shoot reasonable jpegs at high iso. These are far worse than my
Ricoh GRD, and it's not all that flash.

But I guess I have learned something by my mistake, which is always
valuable. The mistake was to bother offering you anything at all,
as several of you seem to be far to rude to appreciate any kind of
information.

I guess you lot on this forum are just like most of the folks here,
and can't tolerate any kind of criticism of the brand you have
spent money on.
--
rayk
Click to expand...
You know what Ray, I really did appreciate you posting these shots. You mentioned about smearing at ISO400, to both myself and a few other posters mentioned you have not posted any large enough ISO400** shots for us to see for ourselves to that we may comment.

Yes you have posted ISO100 and ISO1600 full resolution shots, but a full res ISO400 would have proven more than an ISO1600. We all know no P&S camera can provide a DSLR like ISO1600

I am sorry if Ive offended you but you really need to read peoples posts better before taking the offensive.
 
rayk said:
I really did want this camera to be good! I'm sick of carrying my
heavy cameras around. Here is the url for the pictures.
Click to expand...
Have you tried the eariler LX1, I know it's a bit on the noisy side but the detail is there and IMO is better than the GRD you had for basic image quality.. It's like the E1, they didn't sacrifice detail in the name of smooth images, maybe worth a look to see if it meets your requirements.. Personally, I prefer the old Canon S70 as a widey compant and shooting RAW even though the lens is in reality quite poor (soft corners wideopen at the wide end / soft at the long end) as it buffers raw files and has an optical viewfinder but despite the wide angle, it's days are numbered, I picked up a mint used G6 with its fast F2-F3 lens, top LCD, hotshoe and of course RAW, I can live without 28mm, another great cam if you can find one, it's sorta like the "E1" of the compact world.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
Hutchy, is it YOU who needs to read better. I said some people, and named the two prime offenders. You were not one of those names. I would have thought that was obvious. This is the first time I have ever posted a thread on this Panasonic forum, and it will certainly be the last.

Hutchy, all you had to do was ask for a 400 iso sample, instead of bemoaning the fact that it wasn't there, and you may have got one.
--
rayk
 
By the way Ray, if it makes you feel any better about your purchase, I own a Fuji F30 and details are smudged at ISO1600 also, without rescue in noise removal applications.

Dont let that put you off, unless you intend to shoot a low of lowlight images?
 
Thanks Brian. As I said in my first post, I don't own this camera, just took it for a short walk out the front door of the local camera shop. So I don't have it now, or any of the software. But I did shoot one RAW file in case it would process in PSCS2, but it doesn't seem to want to. And I won't be going back for seconds, as I don't think the camera warrants it for me.

So I guess we will just have to leave it as samples as posted.
--
rayk
 
rayk said:
Hutchy, is it YOU who needs to read better. I said some people, and
named the two prime offenders. You were not one of those names. I
would have thought that was obvious. This is the first time I have
ever posted a thread on this Panasonic forum, and it will certainly
be the last.

Hutchy, all you had to do was ask for a 400 iso sample, instead of
bemoaning the fact that it wasn't there, and you may have got one.
--
rayk
Click to expand...
Ray I never meant to offend, I was trying to make you feel better about your purchase as you seem to be dissapointed. Im just trying to get the point over that any P&S will smear at ISO1600. The usable ISO on any P&S should be 100-400, 800 if we are lucky.

Dont discount your new toy, theres a welth of features in that camera you wont find in its direct competitor, dont let the high ISO spoil it for you
 
Ray, could you please contact me by e-mail (in my profile)... I have the Silkypix converter, so could really make use (read kill for! lol) of your RAW file, if you still have it?

Kind Regards (and fingers crossed!)

Brian
rayk said:
Thanks Brian. As I said in my first post, I don't own this camera,
just took it for a short walk out the front door of the local
camera shop. So I don't have it now, or any of the software. But I
did shoot one RAW file in case it would process in PSCS2, but it
doesn't seem to want to. And I won't be going back for seconds, as
I don't think the camera warrants it for me.

So I guess we will just have to leave it as samples as posted.
--
rayk
Click to expand...
--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top