Canon S95 - competition of LX5

[JoepLX3]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10081918canonpowershots95.asp#images

• I am wondering how much the lens retracts into the body
• I like the control ring

 

[Anfy]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10081918canonpowershots95.asp#images

• I am wondering how much the lens retracts into the body

Under this aspect it should be almost identical to the S90, so I think you can look at DPR's S90 review for the camera body pictures:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/
--
Viva la evolución!

 

[JoepLX3]

Thanks, I should have known...

• Looks pretty impressive, but I think the Panasonic is more durable ;-)

 

[Detail Man]

Look at the differences between the lens-systems :

PS-S95 :

• 3.8x optical zoom
• 28-105mm (35mm equiv)
• f = 6.0 - 22.5 mm
• F2.0- 4.9

• Construction: 7 elements in 6 groups (2 double-sided aspherical elements including 1 UA element)

DMC-LX5 :

• 3.8x optical zoom
• 24-90mm (35mm equiv.)
• f=5.1-19.2mm
• F2.0- 3.3

• Construction: 10 elements in 9 groups (3 Aspherical Lenses / 5 Aspherical surfaces)
• LEICA DC VARIO-SUMMICRON

Note that the minimum F-Number at full telephoto appears to be a whopping 4.9 for the PS-S95, but only 3.3 for the DMC-LX5. That is a huge difference (1.6 "stops", a linear factor of 3.03 ! The optical diffraction at the image-sensor surface will (as a direct result of the higher minimum F-Number) be significantly higher and more problematic, degrading total system spatial-frequency resolution.

And the Canon only features a 28mm (wide-angle perspective), while the DMC-LX5 features a 24mm (wide-angle perspective).

 

[Bellefield]

I've got the LX3 and I love it, but I would consider getting the S90 or S95 for the missus mainly because it'll still give a decent image and the lens folds away rather than having to use a lens cap. Silly little detail I know but she wouldn't want the fuss of a lens cap.
--

'Every portrait that is painted with feeling, is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.' Oscar Wilde

 

[trevmar]

The 24p HD movie mode is just what I need.

I have yet to see a FullHD (1920x1080) video from the new Pannys which has a higher actual resolution than 1280x720. I have resized a number of them and not one has 1920x1080 detail.

STEREO SOUND - YEA .. this, together with the smaller size, weighs against the darker lens in my mind.

Just show me some ISO 1600 images, and I will be a happy camper...
.

 

[Trensamiro]

Note that the minimum F-Number at full telephoto appears to be a whopping 4.9 for the PS-S95, but only 3.3 for the DMC-LX5. That is a huge difference (1.6 "stops", a linear factor of 3.03 !

.

I don't know what are you calling "a linear factor" but if you refer to light gathering capability, F3.3 if brighter than F4.9 by a factor of 2.20 , not 3.03, i.e., it provides 2.20 times more light to the sensor per unit of time.

And, by the way, F3.3 is not 1.6 stops faster than F4.9 because you don't get the difference in stops by subtracting F-numbers.

Else, by your subtraction procedure, you'd get that, for instance, F4 is 1.2 stops slower than F2.8 while obviously it's just exactly 1 stop slower, not 1.2 stops (4 - 2.8 = 1.2).

The difference gets worse for higher F-numbers. For instance, F16 is not 5 stops slower than F11 (16 - 11 = 5) but, again, just 1 stop slower.

Just minor details that you, Detail Man , are sure to appreciate ...

-
See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

 

[snapshot09]

No competition...now if Canon had done more with the S95 then maybe, but given the specs, the LX5 is going to be the benchmark between the two

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10081918canonpowershots95.asp#images

• I am wondering how much the lens retracts into the body
• I like the control ring

 

[trevmar]

No competition

Hmm. One man's meat is another man's poison

Enough competition for me to save $200 by pre-ordering the S95 rather than the LX5 I jumped for last night.

Maybe it is just weariness with Panny. The disappointing mono audio. The disappointing smearing. Then to find the S95 image looking prim and pretty, so you can see each strand of hair. At least the photographer who too this did not settle for a second-rate image, like so many of Panny;s images were:

This link goes to an S95 sample image from Canon's website. If I put the JPG link in here then everybody gets a full-size image embedded in my post. Sigh.

http://bit.ly/c6MJMz
.

 

[Detail Man]

Note that the minimum F-Number at full telephoto appears to be a whopping 4.9 for the PS-S95, but only 3.3 for the DMC-LX5. That is a huge difference (1.6 "stops", a linear factor of 3.03 !

I don't know what are you calling "a linear factor" ...

1.6 "stops" equals a "linear factor" of 3.03 [ (2)^(1.6) = 3.0314 ]

... And, by the way, F3.3 is not 1.6 stops faster than F4.9 because you don't get the difference in stops by subtracting F-numbers.

Right you are there! That mistake (subtracting F numbers instead of taking the ratio of F-Numbers) is a mistake that I have periodically at times re-lapsed into in my thinking (must be some plaque-pasted neuron in my "circuits" that at times continues to re-fire). Thank you for catching that!

Else, by your subtraction procedure, you'd get that, for instance, F4 is 1.2 stops slower than F2.8 while obviously it's just exactly 1 stop slower, not 1.2 stops (4 - 2.8 = 1.2).

Correct!

... if you refer to light gathering capability, F3.3 if brighter than F4.9 by a factor of 2.20 , not 3.03, i.e., it provides 2.20 times more light to the sensor per unit of time

Here I don't follow your math. I get a (linear) factor equal to (2) ^ ( (4.9) / (3.3) ) = 2.798877

Please (if you would) show me (via the actual equations used) how you are coming up with a (linear, I take it) factor of 2.20 ???

Just minor details that you, Detail Man , are sure to appreciate ...

I do, indeed, and am appreciative that you have caught my error, spoken up, and pointed it out to me! I often get the feeling that I am talking to void of largely math-averse people who care not enough about such matters to think for themselves and figure things out. Feedback such as yours is refreshing, and good for me. Please do not hesitate to point out any other error(s) that you might find in my writings (should you happen to be reading them, anyway). Thank you!

See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

I will check them out! It's great to know people who take real pictures - as well as who understand math, apply it, and communicate about it. The best of both worlds!

Regards, DM ...

 

[trevmar]

No competition...now if Canon had done more with the S95 then maybe, but given the specs, the LX5 is going to be the benchmark between the two

No. The G12 will be the benchmark. It looks great

Initial info just starting to leak out, hour by hour:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1010&thread=36077991
.

 

[thelensmeister]

Well I was thinking of trading my LX3 in for LX5 until I saw the S95.

They've added multi aspect shooting (not true multi aspect sensor like the LX's) and HD video. I'm sure they'll have fixed that control ring and you get the Canon colour!
Shame they didn't add a grip.

 

[John Tracy]

Canon will undoubtedly maintain a slight edge in ISO and overall IQ quality as it was with the s90 vs LX3 , but it will have to be rather significant and obvious in an 8X10 print for me to back off my plans to buy the LX5.

When I was into dslr comparisons and pixel peeping I could always see how Canon's IQ samples from competitive models was almost always marginally better than from my Nikon but it never mattered to me because it just didn't make noticeable difference even in reasonably large prints. The ergs, handling, and focussing accuracy of the Nikon was always more important than .

My point is if the IQ is somewhat close , one has to consider the other important features and capabilities necessary to satisfy the overall shooting experience.

The s90 no matter how good it's IQ will always lack a hot shoe and a 24mm wide aperture, and at least for me it is too small and lacks a decent grip.

 

[trevmar]

Shame they didn't add a grip.

The press release said something about treating the surface of the case so a grip wasn't needed.
.

 

[snapshot09]

Exactly; already have my LX5 on pre-order

x2...that 24mm lens is amazing on the LX5 and though I tried the S90, I just found it way to small to be comfortable.

Canon will undoubtedly maintain a slight edge in ISO and overall IQ quality as it was with the s90 vs LX3 , but it will have to be rather significant and obvious in an 8X10 print for me to back off my plans to buy the LX5.

When I was into dslr comparisons and pixel peeping I could always see how Canon's IQ samples from competitive models was almost always marginally better than from my Nikon but it never mattered to me because it just didn't make noticeable difference even in reasonably large prints. The ergs, handling, and focussing accuracy of the Nikon was always more important than .

My point is if the IQ is somewhat close , one has to consider the other important features and capabilities necessary to satisfy the overall shooting experience.

The s90 no matter how good it's IQ will always lack a hot shoe and a 24mm wide aperture, and at least for me it is too small and lacks a decent grip.

 

[Detail Man]

Trensamiro ,

Just took a look at some of your DMC-TZ7 shots at your Fickr site. Very nice work, indeed. I like your landscape shots, and I particularly like your flower/macro shots. Very impressive for JPG (only)!

I owned a DMC-TZ4 (8 MPixels on a 1/2.5" image-sensor, Venus IV in-camera JPG engine). The color rendering (with standard settings) was very nice (albeit as saturated as one would ever want straight out of the camera). I used it to take thousands of flower macro shots (a few DMC-TZ4 favorites attached here). I found the single-area normal-speed auto-focus to be extremely limited in it's abilities to properly focus on anything but rather low detail (spatial-frequency) subject-matter. The problem was so severe that I had to resort to using the "spot-focus" mode in all cases all the time (for macro or longer-range work). Additionally, the auto-focus (in general) required rather high absolute light-levels in order to operate reliably. I sold the camera after less than a years' time because of these auto-focus issues. My newer DMC-LX3 (also using the Venus IV chip-set) thankfully does a somewhat better (though not perfect) job in these matters of focusing

Question : Does your DMC-TZ7 (Venus V chip-set, I believe) exhibit similar limitations of ability to properly auto-focus on high detail (spatial-frequency) subject-matter (macro and/or otherwise)?

 

[John Tracy]

Personally I tried following some of your long drawn out mathematical posts and speaking for myself, you lose me early on. All I need to know about this hobbly is already out there posted by the many pro review sites and I'm not going to use my precious time to second guess them or dissect everything written just to find an error in their findings.

Obviously your math and knowledge of photographic related equations are beyond most of us but thats probably because we didn't choose a mathematical vocation. We have other skills and professions that take up our time. We rely on other professionals in their specialized fields to provide for specific needs.

I'd have to think the above is why you feel you are talking to a void of largely math-adverse people. This isimply sn't an engineering forum .

I often get the feeling that I am talking to void of largely math-averse people who care not enough about such matters to think for themselves and figure things out. Feedback such as yours is refreshing, and good for me. Please do not hesitate to point out any other error(s) that you might find in my writings (should you happen to be reading them, anyway). Thank you!

 

[efreire]

At base ISO these cameras don't show smearing. When you raise ISO at default noise reduction setting, Panasonic have much more detail but more noise. You can adjust noise reduction suiting your taste. Canon approach is to increase noise reduction smearing the image (Canon don't give you a nosie reduction level option as the Panny does).

Just see some Panny vs Canon similar cameras comparisons (S90 vs LX3, SX10 vs FZ38). Canon doesn't give NR level options and smears images at high ISO if compared with Panny ones.

With all my cameras I always prefer to turn off NR and apply a batch processing when download photos to my PC (Noiseware gives you wonderful results). Just imagine your PC processing speed is much more higher than your camera one, but when using NR software time consumed is longer than NR applied by your camera and you can tune up lots of parameters of NR if needed. It's obvious NR software makes a more detailed and better NR than your camera does.

Hope G12 brings us the changes we hoped for S95.

No competition

Hmm. One man's meat is another man's poison

Enough competition for me to save $200 by pre-ordering the S95 rather than the LX5 I jumped for last night.

Maybe it is just weariness with Panny. The disappointing mono audio. The disappointing smearing. Then to find the S95 image looking prim and pretty, so you can see each strand of hair. At least the photographer who too this did not settle for a second-rate image, like so many of Panny;s images were:

This link goes to an S95 sample image from Canon's website. If I put the JPG link in here then everybody gets a full-size image embedded in my post. Sigh.

http://bit.ly/c6MJMz
.

--
Enrique Freire
***********

'It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye'

 

[Anfy]

Exactly; already have my LX5 on pre-order

This LX5 wait is going to become a classic, like the first chapter of LOTR: "A long-Expected Panny" (was: Party).

Ciao!
--
Viva la evolución!

 

[kenny_c]

The competition is real. I have ordered an LX5. I am now tempted to re-consider. The S95 is far more "pocketable" than the LX5, and it has an auto-lens cap which is very important for my shooting style.