Reading mode: Light Dark

Some Panasonic LX2 test shots.

Go to last post
Hi Ray,

I appreciate your point about e-mail - which is why I suggested you e-mail me through my address (which is tucked into my profile)... I can then help with the large file transfer - but if you'd prefer to use pbase (will it hold straight RAW files?) then that's perfectly fine by me!

Kind Regards

Brian
rayk said:
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
Click to expand...
--

 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I stand by my original assessment Barry, but that's purely my personal opinion based on a few weeks reading your comments...
Member said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you include yourself in the above category, I'd love to see evidence here on the Panasonic forum... please post some recent shots using your Panasonic camera?

Kind Regards

Brian
Member said:
--

Click to expand...
p.s. I like your new .sig picture, but I'd rather see an example of your "Real World Photography" if you have any?

--

 
Brian, I meant to say protect my email from dpreview, not pbase! Just a slip of the brain. You are correct about pbase, too. It won't of course allow me to post a straight RAW file. So if your email will allow a 20MB file, I will send it as an attachment. So you will know my email address, but please protect that. I just cannot afford to change it, and I don't want a repeat of what happened last time I gave it out to someone.

Can you receive the large file ok?
--
rayk
 
No, if you send me a brief e-mail, I'll set up some space for a transfer and e-mail back instructions. Totally respect your privacy.

Kind Regards

Brian

--

 
Brian Mosley said:
I stand by my original assessment Barry, but that's purely my
personal opinion based on a few weeks reading your comments...
Click to expand...
Well you can suggest what you wish. I feel that the criticism of recent models released by panasonic, has nothing to do with brand loyalty or dislike..rather its clear they are taking a new direction..total noise elimintaion. Whilst I celebrate the destruction of chroma/colour noise..I think its unwise to attempt to remove grain like noise almost completely...which of course removes some details.

You could say they cant win whatever they do..but being fair I dont see the current trend benefits users. Esp considering the increase in pixels has made the need for stronger noise reduction even more pressing, whilst at the same time..almost destroying any benefit gained with larger images.

I think thats not very clever....a more balanced approach is needed IMO

But of course people are free to decide for themselves....
Brian Mosley said:
If you include yourself in the above category, I'd love to see
evidence here on the Panasonic forum... please post some recent
shots using your Panasonic camera?
Click to expand...
I use the fz-5 for what I consider non serious work. That doesnt mean its not capable, rather its a choice I have made. Unless you wish to see snapshots of family gatherings etc...I feel they are of no artistic merit or interest to forum users.
Brian Mosley said:
Kind Regards

Brian
Click to expand...
Brian Mosley said:
p.s. I like your new .sig picture, but I'd rather see an example of
your "Real World Photography" if you have any?
Click to expand...
Here is a link to some uploaded shots. From both cameras. I am sure you have seen some before. Thers is an upload limit of 1 per day..hence more to be added.

http://www.ephotozine.com/user.cfm?user=47518

--

 
Thanks for the info, Andy.

I think any new camera takes a bit of sorting when you first get your hands on it (although the E-1 was a bit of an exception to this). So no doubt the images could be quite a bit better. But high iso would be one good reason for me getting this, and I doubt that it will be a good thing even at 800. I shot some 800, and it is nearly as bad as the 1600.

I do shoot a lot (well, quite a bit) of B&W with my GRD, and the E-1, but today I really didn't have time to fiddle with a wide range of settings. I just like to shoot for the content, and hate post processing enough that jpegs are what I usually work with.

Here are some GRD B&W shots, and some E-1 B&W shots, all shot jpeg. The GRD shots were in the most appalling flat, low light, mostly during the lull in the centre of a typhoon!

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto/portassign

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto/bw&page=all
--
rayk
 
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the IQ in this shot is all that bad. At least the annoying chroma noise is gone (together with a bit of detail, granted), considering that the light on this cloudy day probably wasn't helping much at all.

Of course it doesn't come close to what a DSLR can do. Heck, the shot certainly looks worse than ISO 1600 or even 3200 on my KM5D. But for a camera (and sensor) that small... If you turn down NR, contrast, and sharpening and give it a quick run through PS (nothing major), you could probably get nice prints up to 30x40 (cm that is). With OIS and a steady hand, ISO 400 is basically as high as I go.

Björn, Andy, what do you think: with NR set to low, and from what we have seen so far, is there much of a difference in detail retention at ISO 100? What are your "feelings"?

What confuses me most is the defaults Panny chose in for the LX2 and the FZ50. As it stands, every user should open the box, turn NR to low and then start using the camera. Who would want even higher NR, as there is no real noise even visible?

Still, methinks the IQ is still very good at ISO 100 and 200, acceptable at ISO 400 and maybe, just maybe, ISO 800 gives enough for "emergencies" if you set everything to low and engage in some heavier post processing.

Disclaimer: I currently have no investments in Panny gadgets (apart from a 15+ year old VCR), so I've got nothing to defend. I must admit, though, that to some degree I want to like the LX2. It just looks so snazzy all in black ;o)

Hoffel.
rayk said:
Here is a link to the full sized 400 iso jpeg of the storefront.

http://www.pbase.com/image/66115338
--
rayk
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ray, I remember viewing your GRD shots... the first, of the Man bathing in the lake is absolutely outstanding! This is one of the shots which had me seriously considering the GRD to add to my LX1.

It's hard to square Simon's review with the real world examples I've seen posted on the Ricoh forum... the picture quality and lack of distortion seems to be exceptional.

Kind Regards

Brian
rayk said:
Here are some GRD B&W shots, and some E-1 B&W shots, all shot jpeg.
The GRD shots were in the most appalling flat, low light, mostly
during the lull in the centre of a typhoon!

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto/portassign

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto/bw&page=all
--
rayk
Click to expand...
--

 
Thanks Ray, and Brian ... I AGREE! Only RAW quality matters to me so ... please hurry with your review. As soon as you say the raw LX2 is the same (or better :) ) than the LX1, I'm all over it.

Please hurry.

Tim
 
I thought Simon's review was very fair, actually. DPR does, and always has considered price an important element in its reviews. And the GRD is a very expensive camera. And I think it has some very annoying quirks, too. Sean Reid gave it a good review, but his summation was quite different. I thought both reviews had their merits, coming at the camera from different directions.

I am not a great fan of the GRD, but it does do a reasonable job, albeit it with some difficulties. When I use my E-1, I feel I know what the picture will be like when I get home. With the GRD I don't feel like that at all.
--
rayk
 
Hi Tim,

we're working on it :) the RAW file is too big to e-mail so we're looking at upload servers at the moment.

Hopefully, within the hour we'll know!

Kind Regards

Brian

--

 
Yes, LOW NR can preserve some details, but if you check the above mentioned FZ50 samples (and I'm sure they are applicable to LX2 as well), you will realize that even the LOW NR is a disaster in comparison to level of details catched by RAW. What we really need here is a menu switch for turning the JPEG NR completely OFF.

Some users pointed out that shooting in RAW is the way to get the best results and I agree with them. But the problem is that Panasonic RAWs are rather big (around 20MB per file in case of LX2), the saving is then a bit slower (it's under 5 secs so not a tragedy, but still..no burst mode for example) and later processing and archiving is also a pain. So RAW shooting is not very good for general use.

For example, 1GB card can store only around 40 shots (LX2)! Yes, price of memory cards falling rapidly these days, but personally, I don't want to play any card game while shooting ;) So it would really be excellent to be able to turn the JPEG NR completely off and then we can easily shot in JPEG with maximum details and only if we want to take something really special, switch to RAW. That would be my personally proffered way of shooting.

BTW, Yesterday I asked myself if there would be any chance to persuade the Panasonic to release a firmware update (even paid) with a simple "TURN NR OFF" switch buried somewhere in [Pict. Adj.] menu. I'm playing with an idea to set up a public petition for this. What do you guys think of it? Here is my original post about Venus III NR "problem" and about the petition, I've made Yesterday..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=19830768
Adam-T said:
Adam-T 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

Click to expand...
 
I was anxious to get the GRD some time ago until I find the LX1 and then LX2! I'm not a big fan of bulky and hardly pocketable DSLR cameras. What I really want is rather small, pocketable camera, with full range of manual controls, raw writing and if possible, the flash hot-shoe (both for external flash or external viewfinder).

GRD has almost everything. The only problems are problematic QA, the prime lens is not so superb as it should and as promised, and finally, the RAW writing time over 10 secs is soooo depressing and simply unacceptable.

And if you check this Japanese review comparing GRD/LX1 you will clearly realize that the GRD lens is not so sharp and so superb in comparison with LX1! Simply, the details obtained by LX1 are much better to my eyes. Yes, these shots are far from scientific comparison, but still..I see the difference and I like LX1 zoom lens over GRD prime lens.
 
Having used a bunch of cameras including the Canon 20D and more recently the Panasonic FZ50 which mirrors the LX2 in noise performance I can seriously claim that unless you plan on printing posters, the noise reduction is of little consequence for web posting and 8x11" printouts. You can see for yourself by scaling the image to 1280 pixels and viewing on a 19" monitor.

Before you rush to judgement abount my comment, be advised that it is a result of much analysis with my recent FZ50 images. Panasonic is no champ when it comes to noise. But you are plain wrong in suggesting that eliminating NR in ISO400 would buy you much benefit. This is how ISO400 from the FZ50 looks when you turn it off:
http://www.pbase.com/fz50/image/65799149/original

You can use any NR tool you like and it's not going to make a big diff in recovering image detail.

I like pixel peeping but I also have enough experience to realize that it's pointless to complain about noise reduction when its effects are invisible in the image sizes you intend to mostly use them at.

I think we have another case of someone that is more pi ssed off about not being able to replace his toys rather than someone after a real gain in image quality at image size he mostly uses.
rayk said:
Every time I do someone a favor on this dpr website, someone like
you comes along and makes a smart a* e comment, and so I inevitably
regret it.

If the pictures look fine to you, then go for it. But the smearing
at high iso (even 400) is much worse than just plain noise would be.
--
rayk
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your statement..
Jared Hunter said:
You can use any NR tool you like and it's not going to make a big
diff in recovering image detail.
Click to expand...
Please, take a look at these two FZ50 shots..

JPEG ISO 400 NR LOW
http://www.pbase.com/fz3pics/image/65291801
RAW ISO 400
http://www.pbase.com/fz3pics/image/65294507

I'm sure, everyone see the amount of details obtained from RAW, which are destroyed in JPEG (especially take a look at pet toys fur). Yes, there is more noise in RAW file, but it's pleasant to look noise. Not the smudged water paint blotches. And I would really suggest you to see also the other JPEG/RAW shots, including the ISO 100. The significant difference is visible also here!

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

In short, after seeing these samples, I'm pretty sure we can get much more details from FZ50/LX2 raw files than we get from LOW NR JPEG.
Jared Hunter said:
Before you rush to judgement abount my comment, be advised that it
is a result of much analysis with my recent FZ50 images. Panasonic
is no champ when it comes to noise. But you are plain wrong in
suggesting that eliminating NR in ISO400 would buy you much
benefit. This is how ISO400 from the FZ50 looks when you turn it
off:
http://www.pbase.com/fz50/image/65799149/original

You can use any NR tool you like and it's not going to make a big
diff in recovering image detail.

I like pixel peeping but I also have enough experience to realize
that it's pointless to complain about noise reduction when its
effects are invisible in the image sizes you intend to mostly use
them at.

I think we have another case of someone that is more pi ssed off
about not being able to replace his toys rather than someone after
a real gain in image quality at image size he mostly uses.
rayk said:
Every time I do someone a favor on this dpr website, someone like
you comes along and makes a smart a* e comment, and so I inevitably
regret it.

If the pictures look fine to you, then go for it. But the smearing
at high iso (even 400) is much worse than just plain noise would be.
--
rayk
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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