LX100 and successor

[thielges]

> Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

Just speaking for myself but I do a significant amount of cropping, rotation, and perspective correction in post. The extra megapixels are useful additional "headroom" that opens new possibilities.

I do however agree that 12MP is plenty for 99.9% of uses when you use the shot straight out of the camera with little or no post.

 

[21William]

I guess only Panasonic know if the LX100 has sold enough to warrant an updated model. Seems a few of us hope they have and they will.

 

[KeepCalm]

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

I just don't understand why wanting a tilt/touch screen or more resolution for cropping (remember, this is a fixed lens camera limited to 75mm) are bad things that transform one into a pixel peeper or brick wall photographer.

I think you have seriously misunderstood me.

The LX100 is a very desirable camera, and I have been sorely tempted to get one. But it could be a better camera, so I am waiting for an updated version that fixes these things.

In my own case, I would rather have a 16 MP or 20 MP sensor rather than one cropped to 12.7 MP in order to provide a multi aspect capability. I don't find that feature particularly useful. Of course, others might feel the opposite way, but if you follow my Flickr link you will see 30,000 photos, and not one of them involves a brick wall.

I am constantly amazed at how some folks will suggest using a 2X or 4X digital zoom, but then will turn their nose up at cropping a photo after the fact. Aren't they pretty much the exact same thing? Does that make people who use digital zooms "pixel peepers" too?

I would not have thought they were the same. In camera digital zoom will use the full processing power of the camera on the actual image being retained and of course can reduce compression required for the same file size. Post processing will entail the camera processing and saving data which will just be thrown away later.

We all have our own personal preferences for what we would like to see in a camera update, and mine might be different from yours. That doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, it just makes us different people. After all, this is an $800 camera and at this price I think it should have a tilt/touch screen and higher resolution in order to increase effective reach a bit.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

 

[Marty4650]

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

I am constantly amazed at how some folks will suggest using a 2X or 4X digital zoom, but then will turn their nose up at cropping a photo after the fact. Aren't they pretty much the exact same thing? Does that make people who use digital zooms "pixel peepers" too?

I would not have thought they were the same. In camera digital zoom will use the full processing power of the camera on the actual image being retained and of course can reduce compression required for the same file size. Post processing will entail the camera processing and saving data which will just be thrown away later.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said they were "pretty much the same thing."

The digital zoom function does a little more than just crop. It also provides some upsizing and other computing magic, but the final effect is still the same. The more you crop, either in camera or after the fact, the more fine detail you will lose. This may not matter for those people who never make prints and only use their photos for web postings.

So, even if the LX200 has the multi aspect feature, it could still end up with more resolution than the LX100 if it gets a 20 MP sensor. So, rather than 12.7 MP it could end up with something like 16 MP.

My preference would be to use the entire 20 MP sensor, and crop later if necessary.

But remember, I am a "brick wall shooting pixel peeper." :-D

 

[gary0319]

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

I am constantly amazed at how some folks will suggest using a 2X or 4X digital zoom, but then will turn their nose up at cropping a photo after the fact. Aren't they pretty much the exact same thing? Does that make people who use digital zooms "pixel peepers" too?

I would not have thought they were the same. In camera digital zoom will use the full processing power of the camera on the actual image being retained and of course can reduce compression required for the same file size. Post processing will entail the camera processing and saving data which will just be thrown away later.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said they were "pretty much the same thing."

The digital zoom function does a little more than just crop. It also provides some upsizing and other computing magic, but the final effect is still the same. The more you crop, either in camera or after the fact, the more fine detail you will lose. This may not matter for those people who never make prints and only use their photos for web postings.

So, even if the LX200 has the multi aspect feature, it could still end up with more resolution than the LX100 if it gets a 20 MP sensor. So, rather than 12.7 MP it could end up with something like 16 MP.

That matches my calculations. But I'd prefer to have the multi-aspect feature especially for the wider 16X9 view, which we already discussed.

Now, I'm not looking for the LX200 to be my main or only camera, but to be a small compliment to my other m43 camera bodies, one that can fill in the gaps of my larger kits.

My preference would be to use the entire 20 MP sensor, and crop later if necessary.

But remember, I am a "brick wall shooting pixel peeper." :-D

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

 

[thielges]

> I am constantly amazed at how some folks will suggest using a 2X or 4X digital zoom, but then will turn their nose up at cropping a photo after the fact. Aren't they pretty much the exact same thing?

I get your point that digital zoom is basically a crude crop and it is hard to defend "digital zoom: OK, crop: no". It doesn't work the other way: "crop:OK, digital zoom: OK" except in very unlikely situations. The only times I use digital zoom are on documentation photos that I never intend to publish. Flash card space is never an issue.

Cropping can be done at a much finer level than digital zoom and at least in my case is preceded by other transformations which can't be done in-camera. For example:

- rotate 1.2 degrees

- trapezoid correction of 7% at the top

- crop to an equivalent of 1,22x digital zoom

 

[Cyril Catt]

As well as 'digital zoom' to increase the size of pictures captured with digital cameras, some models have used other means to do so. One example was Canon's TX1 of 2007, which, as well as offering digital zoom to increase picture size, also offered two extended optical ranges, as I understand it, by reconfiguring the lens train.

For example, the widest zoom setting was 39mm equivalent, as shown below.


39mm. Widest optical zoom

This is from the longest 390 mm longest standard optical zoom setting


390mm. Longest standard optical zoom

But with the 1.9x optical converter 741mm equivalent is reached as shown below



741mm. Full optical with 1.9x converter

And the use of the inbuilt 1.9x lens convertion with the addition of 4x digital zoom allows a reach of 1560 mm, shown below.



1560mm equivalent. Full 390 optical + 1.9x converter + 4x digital

However, although the result in daylight was remarkable for a camera the size of a pack of playing cards, the camera's image stabilisation system still made it difficult to aim, frame, and take a picture, handheld, using the camera's 1.8 inch 115,000 pixel screen.

More recently, some of Casio's 2013 ZR series of cameras, with dual processors, and 5-way image stabilisation have allowed a rapid burst of handheld shots to be captured and merged to give results with even greater apparent reach. These shots of Singapore's artificial forest, both from the same spot on a misty day, give some idea of the results.


25mm equivalent. Widest angle.

Below is a 2.36x enlarged crop from a 900mm 'Multi Super Resolution' zoom shot of a seated tourist on the aerial walkway of the Artificial Forest (= 2125mm equivalent).



I have no doubt that further improvements are already in the pipelines of the various manufacturers.

--
Cyril

 

[AndreasBraun]

But remember, I am a "brick wall shooting pixel peeper." :-D

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

Obviously you "liked" the expression "pixel peeper and brick wall photographer" that much that you refer to it quite often. Of course I do not consider your words to be meant too seriously but rather with "tongue in cheek" :-D

As a regular forum user you will probably agree with me that my explanation

[Beginning of quotation]

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

I just don't understand why wanting a tilt/touch screen or more resolution for cropping (remember, this is a fixed lens camera limited to 75mm) are bad things that transform one into a pixel peeper or brick wall photographer.

The expression "pixel peeper and brick wall photographer" usually is used for people who very carefully look at an image in 100% display mode and notice and complain about unsharp parts of the image. Thus neglecting the main intention of a photograph to more or less representing a particular scenery or mood. Certainly an image should be also technically appealing but attractiveness of the image is not dependent upon the utmost sharpness in the 100% mode.

[End of quotation]

describes the opinion of many gear-orientated forumers. As an engineer I'm of course also fond of technically appealing solutions. And the LX100 is an example of a very good combination of useful features. The pixel count is just one of the features with importance for some but by no means the deciding criterion for the overall judgement of a digital camera. And neither are the utmost sharpness of the edges and corners and the tilt/touch screen. These features are "nice to have" but not crucial.

Andreas

 

[larsbc]

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

That's a rather broad statement to make. IMO and having had an LX100, I think Panasonic dropped the ball when it came to QC. My camera had dust on the sensor (not noticeable most of the time but when forced to use smaller apertures, it was) plus its stabilization system suffered from micro jitters. At its widest focal length I also felt the edges were too soft for my liking. It was so bad I had to give up on photographing brick walls, too. :-D

 

[AndreasBraun]

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

That's a rather broad statement to make. IMO and having had an LX100, I think Panasonic dropped the ball when it came to QC. My camera had dust on the sensor (not noticeable most of the time but when forced to use smaller apertures, it was) plus its stabilization system suffered from micro jitters. At its widest focal length I also felt the edges were too soft for my liking. It was so bad I had to give up on photographing brick walls, too. :-D

Looking again through my four posts within this discussion I think having made clear what I intended to convey with the - may be a bit exaggerated - sentence "pixel peeper and brick wall photographer". Nothing to add here from my point of view.

The dust problem is a different matter. It's indeed no glorious chapter for Panasonic. Fortunately my D-Lux didn't have this problem. Possibly because I'm storing and transporting the cam always in a zipper-closed pouch.

Of course I've noticed the soft edges at the short focal lengths but didn't care too much due to the generally good IQ. And to repeat: I don't judge a camera of the intended use of the LX100 from a single feature. Otherwise, with a high-priced Leica I would not tolerate the same behaviour and would rate it as a deficit.

Andreas

 

[Cyril Catt]

AndreasBraun wrote: [......Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100....]

With respect, Andreas, at my age, I found it too big and heavy

 

[camfan1]

Hi Andreas,

If you use your camera a lot (like I do) and did not (yet) have the LX100 dust issue then consider yourself lucky for sure !?

Likewise I always put my D-Lux 109/LX100 in a perfect case, yet have had this issue now 3 times in the 3 years I own it.

This time it's not so bad ... yet ... have a look at that grey-sky pic...

But I too am fully aware this camera is a true gem otherwise !

(I, personally, get even better overall(!) pictures from my D-LUX/LX than from e.g. the X-T2 that I was able to test for a month, but that must be due to inexperience with the latter)

This time I will have to pay to get it cleaned and I don't know wether I am prepared to do so.

Looking into other options for sure.

But as always ... YMMV.

Kind regards,

Stefaan


The one below is nasty !

 

[AndreasBraun]

AndreasBraun wrote: [......Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100....]

With respect, Andreas, at my age, I found it too big and heavy

--
Cyril

Well, Cyril, I'm a bit surprized that this single sentence - BTW: I didn't create it but took it from many discussions - got that much negative attention. Because it describes often voiced comments from forumers looking carefully at less important features.

Since the purchase of the D-Lux (aka LX100) in November 2014 I've attentively followed all the discussions about the LX100 and also about a possible successor. Besides the negative comments (dust on sensor, soft edges, only 12MP, ...) the majority of the forumers expressed their satisfaction with the overall very successful design and execution of this cam (fast lens with useful focal range, fairly large sensor and yet small outer dimensions, convenient operating scheme with dedicated controls, acceptable EVF, effective image stabilizer, ....). Of course the cam is not perfect. But for most practical purposes it offers a very good solution.

"With respect, Andreas, at my age, I found it too big and heavy"


You are certainly entitled to comment like this. And since you are referring to your age: I'm vintage 1939 and should be entitled also to voice my opinion like I did :-D:-D

Andreas

 

[Filipe Pinheiro]

AndreasBraun wrote: [......Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100....]

With respect, Andreas, at my age, I found it too big and heavy

 

[Cyril Catt]

Thank you Andreas. Unfortunately, the intended nuances of written comments can easily be misinterpreted by readers. So perhaps the fault is mine.

But I’m surprised that after posting such a dogmatic statement you are surprised that it attracted so much negative attention.

 

[AndreasBraun]

Thank you Andreas. Unfortunately, the intended nuances of written comments can easily be misinterpreted by readers. So perhaps the fault is mine.

But I’m surprised that after posting such a dogmatic statement you are surprised that it attracted so much negative attention.

--
Cyril

Thank you in return, Cyril. Fortunately our little discussion stays in a very civilized mode. This is not always the case within these discussions.

And as far as the "dogmatic statement" is concerned one also could give it a more positive touch: this camera is not optimal for architects and other documentary photography intended for precise reproduction of important details all over the frame*). How about this ?

And one more point: "intended nuances of written comments" can be tricky for for non-native English speakers :-( .

Andreas

*) Like for instance a Leica M10 with carefully selected primes.

 

[Cyril Catt]

Andreas, I would certainly agree that

[“… as far as the "dogmatic statement" is concerned one also could give it a more positive touch: this camera is not optimal for architects and other documentary photography intended for precise reproduction of important details all over the frame…”]

I think that statement might apply to a wider range of current fixed-lens models, where a rectilinear appearance seems to be produced partly by in-camera digital correction of minor inherent barrel distortion.

“And one more point: "intended nuances of written comments" can be tricky for for non-native English speakers .”

As a native English speaker I can assure you that there is still misunderstanding between native English speakers in different parts of England, let alone between the much larger number of native “English” speakers in different parts of “English speaking” countries such as the USA (where I have lived) and Australia (where I now live) :-(

 

[Filipe Pinheiro]

I truly doubt there will be a successor. But many people believe in fantasies, so ....

In corporate jargon "looking into" or "studying" is a polite way of saying "no."

Which is a real pity. This was a wonderful camera that was held back by the lack of a touch/tilt screen and insufficient resolution due to cropping the 4/3 sensor for the dubious merit of having a multi aspect sensor.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

May I disagree respectfully?

I'm using the D-Lux (aka LX100) since November 2014. Now after several thousands of images it still is a wonderful camera which by no means is lacking resolution from its 12MP sensor. Just an example:



This wide-angle shot (10.9mm) will be fully displayed (24" monitor) on the FastStone screen with dimensions of 350 by 235 mm at merely 25% scale. Displaying it fully (100%) would result in 1400 by 940 mm (equiv. 96" screen!). Viewed at the normal PC viewing distance of 700mm the corners are indeed not any more sharp which is mainly due to the software correction of the lens and not even corrected with an aperture f/5.6.

BUT (a large but): who will view an image on a 96" screen from a distance of 0.7m and then complain about soft edges? Up to about 60% full screen even the edges look fairly well. And above that: who is judging an image exclusively by the sharpness/unsharpness of the edges at display sizes which do not allow the complete image to be seen? And which photographer is all the time heavily cropping from a 12MP image? Therefore, the complaint about "only 12 MP" is - from my point of view - highly unjustfied. This of course does not apply to the missing tilt screen which I personally do not miss but which others would likely be glad to have.

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

Andreas

Spot on!

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

I would not have said it better!

Here is one shot at 16:9 last night, with only very small adjustments done in LR.


Sunset on a cold day

 

[AndreasBraun]

I truly doubt there will be a successor. But many people believe in fantasies, so ....

In corporate jargon "looking into" or "studying" is a polite way of saying "no."

Which is a real pity. This was a wonderful camera that was held back by the lack of a touch/tilt screen and insufficient resolution due to cropping the 4/3 sensor for the dubious merit of having a multi aspect sensor.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

May I disagree respectfully?

I'm using the D-Lux (aka LX100) since November 2014. Now after several thousands of images it still is a wonderful camera which by no means is lacking resolution from its 12MP sensor. Just an example:



This wide-angle shot (10.9mm) will be fully displayed (24" monitor) on the FastStone screen with dimensions of 350 by 235 mm at merely 25% scale. Displaying it fully (100%) would result in 1400 by 940 mm (equiv. 96" screen!). Viewed at the normal PC viewing distance of 700mm the corners are indeed not any more sharp which is mainly due to the software correction of the lens and not even corrected with an aperture f/5.6.

BUT (a large but): who will view an image on a 96" screen from a distance of 0.7m and then complain about soft edges? Up to about 60% full screen even the edges look fairly well. And above that: who is judging an image exclusively by the sharpness/unsharpness of the edges at display sizes which do not allow the complete image to be seen? And which photographer is all the time heavily cropping from a 12MP image? Therefore, the complaint about "only 12 MP" is - from my point of view - highly unjustfied. This of course does not apply to the missing tilt screen which I personally do not miss but which others would likely be glad to have.

Bottom line: only pixel peepers and "brick wall photographers" will not be content with the LX100.

Andreas

Spot on!

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

I would not have said it better!

Here is one shot at 16:9 last night, with only very small adjustments done in LR.


Sunset on a cold day

Impressive scenery very well seen and captured. Kudos to you.

You make good use of this little cam. BTW, who will judge such an image from the ultimate sharpness of the corners ?

Andreas

 

[Bejersey]

I totally agree.

Rick