Link to images of the LX2

£280 with 18 month warranty

--

If I have uploaded an image don't hesitate to de-noise it, correct the WB, clone out dust and dead pixels, saturation, USM, resize, print and send me the result..
Also advice and criticise.

Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now)
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

I opened the LX1 and LX2 JPEGs side by side and scrolled around. Now I'm no expert at analysing digital images, but the LX2 images seem much better than what I've seen so far. Comparing the LX1's ISO 80 to the LX2's ISO 100 image, the LX2 does seem to capture slightly more detail. Venus III does not seem to be smearing details excessively - at least not with the amount of contrast in these photos. Of course higher ISOs could be a diffrent story, but then I consider ISO 400 all but unusable on my LX1.

I imagine that the LX2's results will improve even further when you reduce in-camera sharpening and noise reduction. Most of all, I am looking forward to seeing some LX2 RAW files and/or conversions.

I will not be replacing my beloved LX1 with an LX2 (although it's tempting). I will be buying my first DSLR in the very near future (likely a Sony A100) instead. Oh well, you can't have everything!

Kind Regards, Björn

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/root

Ok, Brian, Look at the 'No Smoking' sign and the letters on the pillar just in front. As a matter of fact I can show you more examples from the samples posted on that site. So, far I am impressed with LX2.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
http://aftab.smugmug.com



Today I shot for fun, tomorrow I'm gonna be serious

viztyger said:

I will not be replacing my beloved LX1 with an LX2 (although it's
tempting). I will be buying my first DSLR in the very near future
(likely a Sony A100) instead. Oh well, you can't have everything!

Click to expand...

Björn, Fortunately, I am in a better situation. I don't have my LX1 anymore. So, looking forward to LX2. And for DSLR, aren't you interested in L1?
aftab

viztyger said:

Kind Regards, Björn

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/root

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
http://aftab.smugmug.com



Today I shot for fun, tomorrow I'm gonna be serious

aftab said:

Björn, Fortunately, I am in a better situation. I don't have my LX1
anymore. So, looking forward to LX2.

Click to expand...

Maybe I should give away my LX1 as well, then my situation would also be better!

As to the LX2, there's been an awful lot of negative comments so far, without much in the way of proper photographic tests or samples to go on. I think it will improve upon the already excellent LX1. I am looking forward to your LX2 photos already.

aftab said:

And for DSLR, aren't you interested in L1?

Click to expand...

There are a number of issues I have with the L1. I can't spend more than the approximately 1000 Euros that the Alpha 100 + kit lens costs. Sure, the L1's leica lens is probably far superior. Still, if you only have 1000 Euros to spend, that point is irrelevant.

Secondly, although I'm certainly interested in live-preview, this shouldn't be at the expense of a good optical viewfinder. After all, if I want live-preview I can always use the LX1. I had a look at the viewfinders of several entry level DSLRs, and the Sony had a very clear and bright viewfinder. The Olympus E-330 (which has the same OVF as the L1) on the other hand had a noticeably smaller and darker OVF. I find it very important to be able to see the plane of focus and all the fine details of a composition - something not always possible on the LX1's screen.

Third, I may need a camera right away. If I get a job shooting photos at a corporate event in early September, I have only one month to get the feel for my new DSLR. The L1 hasn't arrived in this part of the world.

Sound like good reasoning to you?

This would be my first ever photographic assignment - and not the type of photos I normally take. We shall see...

Kind Regards, Björn

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/root

Hi aftab,

all I'm saying is that this is an unfair comparison, as the LX1 jpegs have relatively little Noise Reduction applied by the Venus II processor. I fully expect the LX2 to be an improvement in picture quality over the LX1, otherwise why release it? I can certainly see the tiny extra detail in the no smoking sign as you've highlighted... this augers well for the RAW picture quality to be an even bigger improvement!

For jpegs, it will be good if the NR can be turned down, or even off in the LX2... I know that Phil was championing this idea with Panasonic, I just don't know whether it was included. Even better would be a sizeable RAW buffer!

Here's my final attempt at noise reduction with the LX1 version (not my forte) - it would be good to see if any of our more PP savvy forum members could squeeze more detail out of the LX1 shot.

aftab said:

Danny Saint wrote:
LX2



LX1

Click to expand...

LX1 with Noise Reduction and Sharpening in Bibble Light (also with lens correction) - this is my best attempt - I think the LX2 version above is better.



--

Brian Mosley said:

Hi Danny,

Click to expand...

Brian Mosley said:

In the hands of a NR expert, the LX1 will probably look even better
than the LX2 shot in the comparison above, but I just wanted to see
if I could simulate the plastic smooth, over processed effect the
Venus III engine provides! I actually prefer the LX1 shot above
with the noise, and think it would print reasonably well - grain
can be appreciated on an artistic level!

Click to expand...

Yes, but have you also looked at the poster on the 2nd pillar on the left?

Reading from the left side up, it has 4 Japanese signs, the second of which is composed out of 3 vertical lines...

there you can clearly see that your post-processing smudged the image more then the original LX2 image with in-camera NR..

@ the rest of you..

I have to say, LX2 images are looking a bit more crisp and better luminated,
a good step forward, but nothing revolutionary..

The people that would like a face-off between the LX2 - F30 - SD700.. and maybe even the S80... should know in advance that the LX2 wont all of a sudden be THE-NR-1 low light camera.. with the minor tweaks..

the LX1 had (without stepping on the toes of LX1 users) under-average low light capacity, and the LX2 will probably have average to decent capacity up to 400..

in effect.. the so called Achilles heel should be for the most part.. 'cured'
just don't expect this cam to be able to 'beat' the F30.. cause it won't...

--
Current Camera: Kodak disposable, street price $5 ;-)
Web site: http://www.heren11.com

Hi Stevie,

on reflection, I agree with you, the LX2 definitely has more detail... as such it's an excellent incremental step up from the LX1 in picture quality.

I hope it's reasonable to expect great things from RAW in this camera! now if only I can find someone to donate my LX1 to, I'll go for the upgrade

Kind Regards

Brian

--

Erm, what most people seem to be thinking is superior resolution
in one or another pic seems to me more to do with plane of focus.
Take the subway pic people have been discussing. What I see is that
the LX1 pic is focussed on the far field; details at the end of the station
are sharper in the LX1 image (eg the "Suica" banner above the far
passageway and any number of other details) while details of the
"No Smoking" sign in the far left near field are blurry in the LX1 image
and sharp in the LX2 one. The "Suica" banner in the near field is
a mixed bag for the LX2; there is a fair amount of smearing
and sharpening halos. But again, it's all so uncontrolled; for instance
both images were taken at 1/25 sec, so motion blur could be
a substantial factor if you're looking at the pixel level.

The jpegs from the LX2 show heavy NR and sharpening, but very likely
most buyers of the cam will see this as a plus -- their images will
not have all that noise which is so painfully obvious in higher ISO jpegs
from the LX1. ISO 200 and maybe even 400 will be "useable" straight
from the cam, especially in prints, and that's probably a reasonable
compromise.
--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

... PF on those ISO200 subway pix is rather nastier on the LX2
(see the upper right hand corner). One begins to see the consequences
of upping the MP count and resulting higher base ISO.
--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

Hello

I followed the discussion about the LX2 as I am/was interested in this cam as a replacment for my aging Canon PowerShot S50. Currently I am afraid that I could be totaly unhappy with the new LX2:

In my opnion the new noise reduction algorithm of LX2 brings much blur in into the image and kills details and sharpnes.

Compare these three shots of the LX2 at different ISO levels:

ISO 100:



ISO 200:



ISO 400:



Hmmmm. I'm afraid that is not what I personally am looking for as my next cam...

Thomas