Some Panasonic LX2 test shots.

My main interest in the LX2 was its 16.9 format, at 28mm. I didn't mind if it had noisy high iso jpegs, but the smearing is really ugly. Sandy noise like the E-1, or the GRD, is much more preferable to me. And the lens on the GRD suffers much less from distortion. I often shoot modern Japanese architecture, and the GDR handles that quite well. But the GRD is not that easy to handle in some other respects. It may have a viewfinder, but I don't find it very useful.

Maybe I have gotten too used to the luxuries of shooting with SLR's, and will just have to put up with carrying them. But that can be trying at times, especially through Shinjuku station in Tokyo.

I don't shoot RAW much, especially with point and shoot cameras, because I find that getting the jpeg exposure correct, especially with the E-1, gives me all I need. I agree with Jono in that point.

--
rayk

rayk said:

mind if it had noisy high iso jpegs, but the smearing is really
ugly. Sandy noise like the E-1, or the GRD, is much more preferable
to me.

Click to expand...

Me too - that's why I thought the LX1 may be worth a look if you can find one, I've not seen the results at ISO400 but it seems to retain detail over smearing at lower ISOs unlike the Venus-III stuff

rayk said:

Maybe I have gotten too used to the luxuries of shooting with
SLR's, and will just have to put up with carrying them.

Click to expand...

Same here, I'm pretty "Digicam Intolerant" and have been through a few to arrive at what I have - like yourself, I like a compact to carry about, it's a shame that Fuji didn't make a wide angler based on the excellent F30 processing engine, the JPGs from our F11 are phenomenal (less NR than the F30 also) but it's 35mm start point is no use to you.

rayk said:

because I find that getting the jpeg exposure correct, especially
with the E-1, gives me all I need. I agree with Jono in that point.

Click to expand...

Same here - the E1's JPG engine is indeed special, there's no irritating processing getting in the way of the image and the dynamic range is excellent, more to the point, E1 JPGs have that intangible "Wow" factor which is beyond pixel counts or test charts, I call it "the Ben Herrmann Factor" ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

they dont seem to be what everyone expected. Especially disappointing is the noisy 1600iso shot. Interesting stuff though, nice work! ^ ^

Hello Ray,

I have found the ISO100 shot of the storefront very good. The muted colours have more to do with the weather than the camera. I can see the details well e.g. the numeric keys of the lock on the right hand side of the picture are clearly visible in the full size JPEG. The ISO1600 shot of the same scene is useful for comparison to show the poorly executed noise reduction by Panasonic but it should be good enough for a 6x4" print.

An ISO400 shot of the storefront would be helpful for comparison but I would be asking too much of you.

Many thanks for posting the pictures.

Sam

Samples are really appreciated - that was a well seized opportunity.

One lesson from the LX1 is that in-camera noise reduction can with advantage be turned down (but sadly, not off altogether) as can the in-camera sharpening. The default as supplied (medium settings for both) means that the noise smearing combines with the sharpening in an unfortunate way. The lens and sensor are capable of more detail than might first appear.

If either NR or sharpening is set "low", things improve - many LX1 users in fact set both to "low", and deal with noise in postprocessing as necessary only - maximising the retention of detail.

The LX1 JPGs are extremely well corrected for chromatic aberration, and purple fringing - it is quite hard to do such a good job oneself in RAW conversion. These JPGs seem well corrected also - a white sky against building edges on a gloomy day is something of a torture test for this aspect. Though RAW is a selling point, for certain shooting circumstances, most of the time the JPG output is very relevant to most prospective users of the LX2.

So it's good to see these - but if possible to find out, it would also be nice to know what in-camera picture parameters (especially NR) were used. The PBase EXIF screen can't provide that info.

regards

RP

http://www.pbase.com/fz3pics/fz50_low_light_test_pics&page=2
http://www.pbase.com/fz3pics/fz50_low_light_test_pics&page=3

Especially take a look at ISO100-400 shots with LOW NR and then compare them with RAW shots both processed and unprocessed in NoiseNinja. Here you can clearly see how many fine details are killed and how smeared are the JPEG images. On first look the JPEG images don't look so bad, but compare them with amount of details preserved in RAW and you will get the idea of how bad is the Venus III NR.

Exactly my point... you can't judge the best quality available from the LX2 based on the jpegs... you have to check RAW output.

Kind Regards

Brian

Pavel Kudrys said:

On first look the JPEG
images don't look so bad, but compare them with amount of details
preserved in RAW and you will get the idea of how bad is the Venus
III NR.

Click to expand...

--

That leaves a RAW n00b like me with 2 decisions;

A) Learn to adopt, love and cherish RAW

B) Look for another camera completely

Im still intersted in the LX2 a lot, but Im harbouring a deep desire for Canon to release a succesor to the S80, most likely named the S90 or S100.

Either way I'll be waiting until the 14th September for a potential announcement, Im sure the LX2 wont be available by then in the UK anyway.

Brian Mosley said:

Hi Ray,

please don't judge the vast majority of posters in this forum on
Barry's typical sniping... he's so negative we could have him
developed

But seriously, there are many users of the LX1 and potential users
of the LX2 hanging on your every word - we're starving for
real-world impressions and feedback from photographers.

I agree, the GRD is a very attractive little camera, and the posted
examples had me on the edge of going for one (prior to Simon's
review - which was a bit like having a bucket of cold water poured
over that idea!)... I will still keep an eye out for a bargain
priced GRD in due course.

Anyhow, thanks for your help.

Kind Regards

Brian

Click to expand...

Brian it would be nice if for once you could keep to the topic in hand. Rather than your endless, and pointless personal little digs. It also casts serious doubts on your changing people's lives website...I thought that sort of thing was meant to teach tolerance and respect..not digs. Practice what you preach please!

Its not a question of negative, I attempt to be objective. And with my eyes I see no advantage with the LX-2 over the LX-1.

Some of us are "real world" photographers..and dont feel inclinded to throw hands in the air celebrating every single camera release that isnt all its cracked up to be.

--

rayk said:

If you bothered to look Barry, and the others who are complaining,
you will see that there are full size pics posted there, at 100 iso
and 1600 iso. And as they are shot highest quality and size jpeg,
and have therefore been processed for noise by the Panasonic
processing engine, further noise reduction will do little or no
good. It is not noise that is the problem. It is smearing caused by
the in camera processing. If you shoot RAW and post process, you
may do better. But I would have thought a camera like this would
shoot reasonable jpegs at high iso. These are far worse than my
Ricoh GRD, and it's not all that flash.

Click to expand...

If you even took 10 secs to look at my previous posts, you may see something called..."I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR WEEKS!"

Its the same situation with the FZ-50....

rayk said:

But I guess I have learned something by my mistake, which is always
valuable. The mistake was to bother offering you anything at all,
as several of you seem to be far to rude to appreciate any kind of
information.

Click to expand...

I trust you dont mean me....in respect of my lx-1 comment..it was meant to suggest that at least you have some control over the NR process...which it would appear the LX-2 does not.

rayk said:

I guess you lot on this forum are just like most of the folks here,
and can't tolerate any kind of criticism of the brand you have
spent money on.

Click to expand...

You really are talking to the wrong person here....ask about...you wont find anyone more critical of the latest batch of releases....than I.

rayk said:

--
rayk

Click to expand...

--

Hutchy said:

By the way Ray, if it makes you feel any better about your
purchase,

Click to expand...

Once again Hutchy, please read the OP carefully. I didn't buy it, I took it for a walk. And I won't be buying it. I just thought some folks here might appreciate seeing some samples. Then again, maybe not.

rayk

rayk said:

Hutchy said:

By the way Ray, if it makes you feel any better about your
purchase,

Click to expand...

Once again Hutchy, please read the OP carefully. I didn't buy it, I
took it for a walk. And I won't be buying it. I just thought some
folks here might appreciate seeing some samples. Then again, maybe
not.

rayk

Click to expand...

Yes I see that now Ray, however it was not mentioned in your original post.

Thank you for the samples.

Sam, I will post a full size jpeg 400 iso of the storefront later, in about an hour. I am about to eat dinner here, then I will do it.

Brian, I won't email the file to you, because I protect my email address from pbase, after several idiotic experiences. It is a 20MB file, so it is big for emailing. I will post it on pbase for a short time later, if you are interested. Just let me know. I don't care about the file, just my email address.

--
rayk

Everything shot jpeg at default, as far as I know. I only had the camera for five minutes, and it was first time usage.
--
rayk

Thanks, that's what I thought. This is how most people will first evaluate the camera, as with the LX1. So I wouldn't worry overmuch about smearing at ISO 100. You can almost certainly adjust the camera to taste. I believe the LX2 starts at 100? - on the LX1, 80 is native sensitivity and quite a bit better than 100.

ISO 1600 is a bit of a tall order - the images don't do Panasonic any favours, but few would expect much in any case, at this extreme sensitivity boost.

RP

How can you adjust the camera to not give you smearing on high iso (even 400, as you will see) jpegs? I know you can shoot RAW, but I'm talking about jpegs here. What kind of settings will avoid that?
--
rayk

Here is a link to the full sized 400 iso jpeg of the storefront.

http://www.pbase.com/image/66115338
--
rayk

First of all, thanks Ray for posting sample images. I am an LX1 user and looking at a possible upgrade, mainly due to the larger screen.

richardplondon said:

If either NR or sharpening is set "low", things improve - many LX1
users in fact set both to "low", and deal with noise in
postprocessing as necessary only - maximising the retention of
detail.

Click to expand...

I go one step further, setting all four variables (saturation, sharpening, contrast and noise reduction) to low. In my opinion this yields the most detailed and subtle images that don't look overprocessed. I'm very interested in seeing LX2 samples with all the picture adjustment settings set to low.

richardplondon said:

So it's good to see these - but if possible to find out, it would
also be nice to know what in-camera picture parameters (especially
NR) were used. The PBase EXIF screen can't provide that info.

Click to expand...

If you download the images and open them in something like IrfanView you can see the EXIF information. The two full size iso 100 photos both had contrast, saturation and sharpening set to standard. I couldn't determine the setting for NR.

Kind Regards, Björn

rayk said:

How can you adjust the camera to not give you smearing on high iso
(even 400, as you will see) jpegs?

Click to expand...

there's a setting for NR - High Medium and Low - on the FZ7 it makes quite a difference to the noise reduction smearing at ISO400 but then the melting effect was far less to begin with on that Venus-II powered camera .. I'd give the store demo another go with NR on low and see if it's good enough.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Hi Ray, like others, I'm grateful to you for posting these jpegs and like you, I'm slightly dissappointed by what I see.

I have the lx-1 (in dlux2 garb) and I've got to say that I am very happy with it indeed. I also own an E-1, so I know where you are coming from with respect to jpeg quality and what is possible.

Shootin RAW with the lx-1 produces outstanding results at 80 and 100 iso, and those from 200 and 400 are still useable. However, over the newyear when I was travelling around I noticed that the accompanying jpegs were not at all bad when in B&W mode.... in fact up to 8x10 it was difficult to tell the difference.....BUT and itt's a big BUT... I do tend to prceoss quite heavily; vignetting, blur all sorts...

Having said that, the lx-1 most certainly rewards the photographer in terms of control, useability AND IQ if RAW is used. In short, the more seriously you approach your photography with respect to taking complete control, the more the wee beauty rewards you. If you judge solely on camera jpeg output (and that is absolutely fair enough, esp in a P&S), then other Oly offerings maybe of more interest...but, you will not find a better or as wide lense in any of that range. Their colours are nice though.

I appreciate that you have different appproach to my own (heavily biased towards B&W), and so maybe neither the lx-1 or lx-2 are the right cameras for you. As things stand I am not esp interested in the lx-2 (other than the natty black paint job!;-) over the lx-1/dlux2.

Finally, you should maybe consider a cut-price lx-1 rather than lx-2. It is as cheap as any cheap SLR lense...and how many of them do you actually use? I have the 50-200mm, 11-22mm and 14-54mm... and use the latter for 90% of my photopgraphy, the 50-200mm for 1 or 2%... I think that is far less bangs for my buck than the LX-1, even if only used in B&W.

Some examples can be found here...
http://www.pbase.com/andymclean/dlux2 (at new year)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/70564128@N00/sets/72157594258494010/show/

although for sure it doesn't really address your specific concerns.... they do show how much fun teh 16:9 aspect ratio is and how neat the B&Ws (jpegs) look..

Bottom line, for colour work especially, shoot RAW, THEN complain ;-)... if anything like the lx-1 you will be pleasantly suprised... jpeg...well you know better than most of us how that looks with the lx-2.

Again, thanks for this post.

Best wishes-
Andy