My cat hates the LX1

He is so photogenic that he is tired of me following him around the yard.

He gave notice today or he wants royalties



This is my cat on strike



While I have you in a light mood-I tried to get shots with noise and also vary exposure...

Where is noise when you are looking for it? I thought the blue water cooler would do it for sure..

http://quirky.smugmug.com/gallery/share.mg?AlbumID=168878&Page=8&ImageID=44071340

I also thought the leather couch with so much of one color would do it



Thoughts?

My cat is joining the actors' guild...he wants minimum wage.

Linda

http://www.quirky.smugmug.com

Cooler never made it...

Not that anyone missed it....



Linda

lharris said:

I also thought the leather couch with so much of one color would do it

Click to expand...

The LX1 seems to take great shots as long as the situations are good for it. The couch shot isn't a very tough picture, as there's plenty of light, and it's taken at ISO80. And obviously, if you look at it at the size that can be viewed within your post, you aren't going to notice any noise. The problem is, the whole point of a high MP camera is to be able to make large prints, and to be able to crop as needed. If you look at the full size shot in your gallery, there is plenty of noise to be seen, even on this ISO80 / good lighting shot. For the worst, look at the exercise bike. Also look over at the left where the lamp base is. And on the couch, there is plenty of noise, though there is also some texture that's hard to tell if it's noise, or the natural look of the leather.

Of course, you aren't normally looking this close at pictures, unless cropped a lot, or printed in large sizes. But the problem is that the issue becomes much more apprant in worse ligting and higher ISOs. ISO80 should look clean even when viewed full size.

Actually- this is the kind of information I really want to know.

The shot in my gallery is sized down from 3,000 plus to 1,000. So even that shot is not full sized.

It is, however, cropped in twice. I crop everything. The original is much further out so I already did whatever cropping I was going to do.

Headed out-but later maybe I can get the full shot on.

I don't takes these as criticisms at all. I want to know what others see and
I could get a larger printer, etc.

I do have tho--a lot of c-8 mp cameras. My least noisy is the D70 at 6 mp, then the C8080, 8700 and A2...Then 7 mp with OLY C7000, Casio P700 and then the 6 mp F10...

I have already said to send medication--I need a cheaper hobby...

The form is wonderful, etc--but I really don't want to have to watch what I shoot. Very few cameras are one of a kind. (Maybe the C8080???)
Oh, yes , my C2100 was unique for sure.

Keep comments coming. I need to hear them as I test.

My cat would be very relieved!

Linda

The black areas do have noise....even in the couch shot. It's as if the camera just won't accept that some things are black (if I had to personify the behavior). I did notice that most of your shots have a negative exposure bias. The couch shot is -1. Try a shot with a 0 exposure bias or a positive one such as +.7 to +1. Even most of your cat shots show a negative exposure bias.

With the couch shot, you were already at f2.8...so all you can do is do a plus EV or go to manual and slow down the shutter speed. If you have to...stick the cam on a counter or something. Take a picture of your tile again since you said that it tends to show the noise. I'd love to see a slightly overexposed shot that can be darkened after the fact in post processing. (that's a 5 second job...faster than NR for sure) Your outddor picture of your cat sitting on the bricks is a 0 exposure bias...that one would be a good one to check for noise in.

Thanks for posting the original so I could pixel peep.

Ceci
--
My photo gallery:
http://ceciland.smugmug.com/Photography

no text

lharris said:

The shot in my gallery is sized down from 3,000 plus to 1,000. So
even that shot is not full sized.

Click to expand...

The cooler was sized down, but smugmug has a 3501px x 1479px "original" of the couch, which is what I was looking at.

lharris said:

I don't takes these as criticisms at all. I want to know what
others see and I could get a larger printer, etc.

Click to expand...

And you shouldn't! You've got some great shots, it's the camera we're critiquing, not the photographer.

lharris said:

I do have tho--a lot of c-8 mp cameras. My least noisy is the D70
at 6 mp, then the C8080, 8700 and A2...Then 7 mp with OLY C7000,
Casio P700 and then the 6 mp F10...

Click to expand...

You certainly do have quite a selection! The LX1 has some GREAT attributes. It just some issues that compromise it's output quality in certain situations. You will have to decide if your typical pictures are a good fit for the LX1's strengths and weaknesses. Though honestly, I'm inclined to say, you are the only one that matters. If you like using the camera, and the pictures you get out of it, don't worry too much about what us complainers are saying.

Hey...taken any more shots today? Ya know...people like me may be driving this forum crazy. I'm new here...shopping for a pocket cam to replace my P100, but I could be fixating on something you never would have noticed without folks like me pointing it out. I dunno...there are others here saying the same thing, but it really does boil down to your tastes.

I've shopped and shopped, and I can't find another pocketcam worth buying. My p100 is "outdated", but the new cams are limited/crippled in one way or another too. I think the manufacturer's marketing depts are in overdrive trying to make sure that we're never satisfied...gotta give you a reason to upgrade. What better way to do it than hold back at least one critical feature in each new release. So for every two steps forward, there's one backward...gotta keep that market churning...those consumers consuming. Stick to those price points...don't ever lower the profit margin even for market penetration...nope. Can't do that!

Anyway....I digress....per usual. The LX1 is a fine cam...better in every way than any other pocket cam out there...save the noise issue. If it doesn't bother you, then there's nothing to worry about. Folks like me can keep right on waiting til the time is right for us too.

later,
Ceci (the jaded)
--
My photo gallery:
http://ceciland.smugmug.com/Photography

Even the originals are sized down to one third of 8 mp.

I now have microwave internet and can send larger files. If you went to Smugmug you did not get full files. Just e-mail me and I can send you a full superfine 8 mp file.

I was actually trying what you suggested. I took most shots 2-3 times using various exposures to see if it changed noise levels.

To me it really didn't, but I have several of most of the shots.

Except for the cat who was getting weary. I am running out of things to photograph here at home this week and when I go for a walk (we have several acres) the cat goes with me since the dogs go to the office with hubbie. They have 100 acres there and a stream so it they prefer going with him.

Like I said, we are in the boonies...

Linda

Curious. Because I have had dial-up and microwave is not reliable here, I always resize a copy of a photo I upload to Smugmug.

So how do they show a larger size??? They take my sized-down shot and upsize it??? I thought once I reduced it, enlargements were not quite the same. I thought it was sort of 'cheating' like a blow-up. Are you saying that when I send a down-sized photo to Smugmug and you click on large size you get the identical image that I have in full size on my PC?

Linda

Hey-sorry.

I have been getting a lot of requests-even off line -for photos that others want to try to work with- who either have or are considering the camera.

Other than the cat humor, I was attempting to follow some suggestions regarding changing exposure and looking for the non-sweet spots where noise was more apparent--i.e. blue., solids, textures.

Sending things via e-mail and putting them on Smugmug in order to post here is a lot of work. Several folks have found it helpful in selecting the best camera for them. And the critiques help me as well.

Certainly did not mean to waste bandwidth.

Linda

lharris said:

Are you saying that when I send a down-sized photo to Smugmug and
you click on large size you get the identical image that I have in
full size on my PC?

Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying that's the size they have for that picture. If they are stealing files off of your computer without your knowledge, I don't know anything about it!!

All the other pictures I clicked on in your gallery were downsized, so perhaps you just accidently uploaded the full size image of this one picture?

Unless I missed the post crowning him hall monitor

lharris said:

Curious. Because I have had dial-up and microwave is not reliable
here, I always resize a copy of a photo I upload to Smugmug.

So how do they show a larger size??? They take my sized-down shot
and upsize it??? I thought once I reduced it, enlargements were not
quite the same. I thought it was sort of 'cheating' like a blow-up.
Are you saying that when I send a down-sized photo to Smugmug and
you click on large size you get the identical image that I have in
full size on my PC?

Linda

Click to expand...

Hello Linda

Nope - If you upload a small file, say 800px @ 72dpi, and then display it here in the forum, I can just drag it to my desktop -- but -- I can't automagically turn it back into something better - can't create pixels that aren't there. Sure they can try, but the results aren't good of course. If you resize and upload a 600 pixel wide image and then try to blow that up, it looks even worse

Sorry you can't get broadband

All the best,

Andy

Yup-I must have inadvertently-and successfully-loaded a full file.

We live rurally West of Houston. For those in Houston, we live about 25 miles past Fry Road, so that tells how far out we are.

Recently, however, a company in a nearby town with line-of-sight microwave was able to install a receiver on our roof.

When it works-it is wonderful. So I now realize that I can actually load a full sized photo. I used to get a time-out message and it took forever.

If anyone want any full resolution photo posted here-and if that is OK by forum rules- I would do so.

Otherwise, I can go back and upload some full 8 mp photos.

Just let me know. It is not raining-and like satellite, bad weather can affect our microwave reception.

In fact, I may just throw a few full sized ones up in my Just Testing Gallery.
They would be on the last page-it is my longest gallery.

Will take a little time, but I think I will do it now. I won't be able to batch them.

Linda

raja

Linda,

why not post a sized down shot and some 100% crops to study in depth?

Regards, Guenter

I put up full sized photos a few hours ago on smugmug in my Just Testing Gallery. Would that do?

http://www.quirky.smugmug.com

Linda

Linda,

I found the full size originals ( LX1). This format does help a lot and is better than crops, of course. Fortunately bandwith is no problem for me.
The arrangements are for real torture shots I would say.

I am a bit worried about dynamic range of the LX1 sensor, but hard to tell as the contrast seems to be extreme.
Thanks for posting.
Guenter

lharris said:

I put up full sized photos a few hours ago on smugmug in my Just
Testing Gallery. Would that do?

http://www.quirky.smugmug.com

Linda

Click to expand...

lharris said:

I put up full sized photos a few hours ago on smugmug in my Just
Testing Gallery. Would that do?

Click to expand...

Wow, ISO200 that shot of the table really brings out the noise:



And that's a downsized image. At first I thought it was Corian or some other material that had a speckled appearance, but the ISO80 shot of the cat on the same table shows that it is indeed a solid color (and confirmed by looking at the original size photo in the gallery).:



Did you apply some effect to that picture to make it look that was, or is that really all just noise?