Reading mode: Light Dark

Panasonic LX1 is *NEWS*

Go to last post
Simon Joinson said:
tenshi said:
Again, this is a preproduction model! So all the samples are only
for reference, not for serious comparison with other final
production models!
Click to expand...
I found the LX1 a really enjoyable camera to use (but then i love
the 16:9 format), and i HOPE the noise issue (which is a problem)
is solved in the final production cameras.
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
Click to expand...
I haven't downloaded big versions of these files - but wondering if were comparing like with like.

Some of the panasonic lx1 samples I've seen appear to me to have high noise because they are low jpg compression quality added to sharpening and shadow lightening - all combined.

I could take a 1dmk2 image and make it look horrible by doing the same.

I have seen enough good images out of this camera to be looking forward to purchasing one. If the reviews or the actual production model show a problem - then I will rethink.

Regards,
Kev
 
Simon Joinson said:
tenshi said:
Again, this is a preproduction model! So all the samples are only
for reference, not for serious comparison with other final
production models!
Click to expand...
I found the LX1 a really enjoyable camera to use (but then i love
the 16:9 format), and i HOPE the noise issue (which is a problem)
is solved in the final production cameras.
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
Click to expand...
I am sorry to say so, but your pictures show, at least for me, that framing with 16/9 is not at all obvious. While #4, #8 and #13 make good use of the format, #6 is an OK one-shot-panoramic, but most other shots are thought in a different format and do not quite come out as they should. #5 and #14 are real framing desasters.

I think that the gallery really demonstrates that the format is exotic. Now exotic means would most of the time take pictures 2/3 or 3/4 for that matter. Interestingly enough, you did not choose to take pictures in the more classic formats, like being worried of losing pixels. My bet is that most users will fall into the same trap although at 2/3, still ample resolution remains. Disadvantage of course is that at 2/3, there is a lack of wide angle.

Hope you can accept my observation.

Cheers,
PN
 
Hmmm ... too early to made a conclusion. Good performance but I am seeing also a lot of problem with the images. Still only 14 samples, so I am reserving my opinion until some more real world examples and user experience come around.

--
Franka
 
Simon, how did the camera handle in use? Did you have a chance to shoot in RAW, and was there any kind of buffer? Was the shutter responsive?

Robert A
Simon Joinson said:
tenshi said:
Again, this is a preproduction model! So all the samples are only
for reference, not for serious comparison with other final
production models!
Click to expand...
I found the LX1 a really enjoyable camera to use (but then i love
the 16:9 format), and i HOPE the noise issue (which is a problem)
is solved in the final production cameras.
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
Click to expand...
--
----------------
Robert A
Canon 20D
 
Bruce McL said:
The easiest way to learn the value of a dock is to find someone who
can barely use a computer and try to get them set up for digital
photography.
Click to expand...
So? Why shall the pictures be in the computer then? This person needs a specific printer or just take tha flash memory to a photo store.

And why do someone that is able to read the DPReview forum think that a dock is a fantastic plus for a camera?

Roland
 
wazza said:
Why not build a dock in the camera ie a retractable USB plug that
also provides charging ? We can do oit now with tiny MP3 players

No need to carry the cradle and yet very simply implemented.

Why is there a need to have a large footprint stand to sit the
camera in - most of it is plastic!
Click to expand...
 
BadgerBoy said:
I would have liked to post sample 100% crops but I'm not sure how?
Any help for future?
Click to expand...
Just crop comparable areas using your photo editing software. Then save the crops under a new name.

If you want to make a slick presentation then make a side by side composite (Photomerge in PS/PSE) and label each crop with the camera type/whatever.

Don't know if these are the areas that you wish to show, but here's my choice...



--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photography Club for Travelers
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/
 
Peter G said:
I only downloaded 1 image (10 of 14) and the shadow noise around
the door area on the right is pretty bad. But I guess this is what
passes for acceptable these days. Yeah it is pre-production, but
really I wouldn't expect much to change.
Click to expand...
You saw that noise when you printed out the file?

Or when you looked at a greatly (overly) enlarged version?

The ability to look at "100% crops" is a huge problem, IMO.

If you need a pickup to haul building materials do you choose it by taking the candidates to the local drag strip and seeing how fast they turn a quarter mile?

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photography Club for Travelers
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/
 
Thanks Bob but how do I then add those saved files to the forum message? Can I simply paste them?

Thanks
 
As we move into wide screen TVs what some/most of us view as a "normal" picture is likely to change. I expect we're going to see a lot more 'consumer' cameras with this format in the next few years.

People are going to have these sets in their homes and will want to fill the real estate from corner to corner. Wonder what it will do to shooting "portrait" vertical images?

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photography Club for Travelers
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/
 
I think I'll give this camera a spin. Using the 16:9 aspect ratio, particularly for verticals, should be challenging & fun. I would like to get hold of a few RAW samples, though...say the same subject shot at ISOs 80, 200 & 400. I don't trust JPEGs to really show what the camera is capable of.

-Dave-
 
BadgerBoy said:
I too have printed out the ISO400 image and it's absolutely appalling!

Seriously are we looking at different images?

My monitor is fine - and I agree that some of the other images are
ok (but just ok) there's still far too much noise in the skies for
ISO80
Click to expand...
I Have to agree, the one with ISO400 is horrible. One must wonder if there is any noise control used at all.
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Trouble is, on almost all compact digicams RAW is either
nonexistent or so badly crippled as to be useless (e.g. 10-second
buffer flush times). If this one is different, it's a very
interesting camera indeed.
Click to expand...
I suspect the camera won't have any RAW buffer to speak of. I'm not too concerned in this case 'cuz I'd expect to use it in 16:9 mode almost all the time. Such photos require more careful planning & framing, thus I wouldn't be in any rush to get from one photo to the next. A three-shot buffer would be very nice, though. Fast write times would help too...I have three 1-gig SanDisk Extreme III SD cards on hand.

-Dave-
 
I have a Sharp LC45-GX6U 45 inch 1920X1080P LCD and a PC with NVIDIA 6800 series video card driving the display at the native 1920X1080 resolution. IMO it is a much better display than my Dell 1600X1200 20 inch desktop monitor. As you can imagine BMP's TiFF"s and JPEGS really pop on this display especially when doctored in photoshop to 6.22 megabyte 1:1 pixel map. In fact after having this set up for almost a year now I have no desire to print anything. IMO this is the wave of the future and I'd almost give up my dRebel and the 6 lenses that I have for the LX1 if it wasn't so easy to use ACDsee to crop the image and fill the screen
 
The only drawback to the 16:9 ratio is that it works mostly for Landscape orientation.

The portrait 16:9 photos from the Simon look a bit odd, however Simon did a great job with those photos.

Two reasons I love 16:9.

1) It reasembles more closely the human vision field.

2) It fills Monitors, TVs, DVDs that use that ratio.

Unlike other previous saspect ratios formats, such as 4:3 and 3:2. 16:9 was selected for HDTV, Movies and DVD thinking in the human vision first rather than by chance or machine derived.

--

It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come on doves' feet guide the world.
N
 
David Kieltyka said:
Ross said:
The Lumix website gives the focal length ranges for each aspect
ratio as follows:
4:3 ~ 34-136; 6MP max rez
3:2 ~ 32-128; 7MP max rez
16:9 ~ 28-112; 8.4 max rez
Click to expand...
These are the so-called equivalent focal lengths...what the focal
length range would be if the camera used the 35mm format. It
doesn't, of course, and the true focal length range is 6.3–25.2mm
regardless of the aspect ratio you choose.

-Dave-
Click to expand...
Focal length of the lens remains the same, but due to the cropping of the image in 4:3 and 3:2 images the efective focal length is narrower than 6.3.

So what is the point of bringing it up that it's 6.3mm not 28mm, when 6.3mm doesn't tell anything when comparing digital cameras with different sensor sizes? I think that talking about focal legths as what they would be in tradiotional film cameras is far more informative.

janda
 
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