lx2 review at dcresource

Hello
Just found out that DCRP put the LX2 review online..

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/index_pfv.shtml

I'm going to pick up mine this afternoon.

Thanks for that link - had to read immediately, of course.

I find the review quite fair so far.

However, one thing I found strange is that "the Venus III engine removes purple fringing electronically". Is that true?

If yes, that would mean that there's evidence for purple fringing in the RAW data. And if there's nothing in the RAW (but still the fringes are removed), then the RAW is not raw, but cooked!

If no, well, then....

What do you think?

-Simon

This review is excellent, just as all the other reviews on dcresource.com!

Even though it is about the LX2, they pinpoint the exact same problem that I have with my FX07: the low-light noise reduction soup. Except that there's no RAW mode on FX07...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pan-quick06.shtml

Pana-Leica sucks in the most important field when it comes to cameras - Image quality.

They wanna sell, they are aiming at the uninformed buyers which happen to outnumber the pros like us...

But we discussed that a number of times...

However, considering that Leica is adopting the same cams and they claim to be pro and aiming at real photographers who are desiring the extra tiny bit of image quality, then this is a real disappointment.

Maybe they get their ship around with the next generation.

Mr Ralf

simima said:

I find the review quite fair so far.

However, one thing I found strange is that "the Venus III engine
removes purple fringing electronically". Is that true?

If yes, that would mean that there's evidence for purple fringing
in the RAW data. And if there's nothing in the RAW (but still the
fringes are removed), then the RAW is not raw, but cooked!

Click to expand...

Though there are rumours that the LX2 RAW is not so much raw as half-baked (pardon the pun) I have to say that I have seen PF in shots. Easily removed in Lightroom. But VenusIII, if it is doing anything to RAW, is at least not doing that one thing I'd like it to do.

Otherwise the review concurs exactly with my findings: the camera is not for large prints in colour. However the one thing it didn't point out is that it is wonderful for big B&W prints!

Tim

--
http://web.mac.com/tashley1/iWeb/timashley.com/Home.html

dcresource summary:

Reality Bites

why does it say in the summary it doesnt support usb 2.0 but the UK camera manual says it does..Who do I sue
--
http://danandjackievideo.blogspot.com/

Dan_Jackie said:

why does it say in the summary it doesnt support usb 2.0 but the UK
camera manual says it does..Who do I sue

Click to expand...

It's a marketing trick, the LX2 supports USB2.0 full speed (which unlike it name suggests is pretty slow). What the review says is that it misses support for USB2.0 High speed (which is much much faster). My TZ1 as most (all?) Panasonic camera only does support full speed which to me is quite annoying.

Yes, the same awful and really stupid marketing trick did Nikon in their D70. Personally, I don't care about USB speed, because everywhere I go I have this
little thing with me.



But it's really a shame to use crippled USB2.0 in today's cameras and other gadgets. You can bet the LX3 will have full speed USB2.0, optional noise reduction, etc...

CSPronken said:

Dan_Jackie said:

why does it say in the summary it doesnt support usb 2.0 but the UK
camera manual says it does..Who do I sue

Click to expand...

It's a marketing trick, the LX2 supports USB2.0 full speed (which
unlike it name suggests is pretty slow). What the review says is
that it misses support for USB2.0 High speed (which is much much
faster). My TZ1 as most (all?) Panasonic camera only does support
full speed which to me is quite annoying.

Click to expand...

--



Vote Now!...
http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html

Mr Ralf said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pan-quick06.shtml

Pana-Leica sucks in the most important field when it comes to
cameras - Image quality.

They wanna sell, they are aiming at the uninformed buyers which
happen to outnumber the pros like us...

But we discussed that a number of times...

However, considering that Leica is adopting the same cams and they
claim to be pro and aiming at real photographers who are desiring
the extra tiny bit of image quality, then this is a real
disappointment.

Maybe they get their ship around with the next generation.

Mr Ralf

Click to expand...

Well the review seemed fair enough to me. As was the case with the Lx-1..you had to put more effort in to get better IQ out of the camera. I guess jpeg isnt a serious option for larger prints. Whilst I found the Lx-1 a bit on the noisy side...least you had the option to remove it yourself...meaning jpeg was ok...if you were prepared to put the effort in.

Being blunt I see little point going to 10mp...rather they kept it as was and delivered more dr and less nr processing.

Not sure why any lx-1 users would bother to upgrade myself..I guess the screen is nice...

--

I found this funny in the review:

Member said:

I did get a laugh after seeing "turn the camera off when
taking off or landing' and "follow all instructions from
camera crew" in the manual.

Click to expand...

This shows that he has obviously never actually used the scene. If he had, he would have been commenting on the fact that these words actually appear on the camera screen when you choose the aerial photo scene!

This scene is actually pretty damn good at taking photos from inside your car - I guess anywhere behind glass It seems to bias the automatic focus to ignore the glass (and anything on the glass), and does a fairly good job.

-simon

This review confirmed what most of us already knew. This is an excellent camera period. You guys are so hooked on noise, you are missing the forest. Considering this camera is going to be sold at around US$400 in a month or two after release (already at 449), this is an amazing value for the money.

The reviewer is calling the focusing speed amazing. And all in all a great camera to shoot at under 200 ISO. I never shoot above 100 on my point and shoot anyway. Who cares about high ISO on these tiny point and shoot digicams. I have a DSLR for that. The picture quality I think is pretty incredible for a such a cheap camera.

For those who's only concern is high ISO shooting, there is the Fujifilm F30 and now F31. I wouldn't use that if it was given to me for free. For me it has no style and offers no enjoyment.

In this compact class of cameras, style, look and list of features and overall feel of the camera matters more than ultimate image quality. It's a point and shoot after all and all of them including Canon produce crappy images period. For those who are so hang up on image quality, they should never ever shoot with anything but a DSLR.

I am actually thinking of paying the extra $ and get the Leica version. That's one sweet camera and it will give me the pleasure of ownership and I think quite amazing images for a POINT AND SHOOT.

Cheers, S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

Well said.

-simon

Maverick_ said:

This review confirmed what most of us already knew. This is an
excellent camera period. You guys are so hooked on noise, you are
missing the forest. Considering this camera is going to be sold at
around US$400 in a month or two after release (already at 449),
this is an amazing value for the money.

The reviewer is calling the focusing speed amazing. And all in all
a great camera to shoot at under 200 ISO. I never shoot above 100
on my point and shoot anyway. Who cares about high ISO on these
tiny point and shoot digicams. I have a DSLR for that. The
picture quality I think is pretty incredible for a such a cheap
camera.

For those who's only concern is high ISO shooting, there is the
Fujifilm F30 and now F31. I wouldn't use that if it was given to
me for free. For me it has no style and offers no enjoyment.

In this compact class of cameras, style, look and list of features
and overall feel of the camera matters more than ultimate image
quality. It's a point and shoot after all and all of them
including Canon produce crappy images period. For those who are so
hang up on image quality, they should never ever shoot with
anything but a DSLR.

I am actually thinking of paying the extra $ and get the Leica
version. That's one sweet camera and it will give me the pleasure
of ownership and I think quite amazing images for a POINT AND SHOOT.

Cheers, S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

Click to expand...

I'm in no way knocking the reviewer, he did a great job. But I feel he says some things that are somewhat off mark. The facts are the facts, yes the sensor is noisy at high iso when shooting JPEGS. Yes there is excessive NR with JPEGS. There is no argument there and this can be seen on almost all current P&S cameras. But manual control and RAW is where it is at with this camera. No other manufacturer can touch the 28mm wide angle, full control of the LX2.

So that brings me to the part disagree with. He comments by saying using RAW is too much of a hassle and the average consumer will have an unpleasant experience with the camera "out of the box" usless they spend significant time post processing, is way off mark. The problem with this logic is that this camera isn't designed for the average consumer looking for a simple out of the box experience. This camera offers control, control that only experienced users will utilize and value. If the average consumer wants a simple camera from Panny, they have the FX series.

Furthermore, he says the output is limited to small prints at high ISO when shooting JPEGS, and doesn't recommend printing large. Since when does the average consumer regularly print large? Most print 4x6, and for that the camera is "perfect." For those of us that want to print large, we wouldn't even think of shooting JPEG no matter how good the IQ was. For large prints you need PP control and that's where RAW shines.

Do I wish Panny would turn off NR for JPEGS? Yes.
Can I turn off NR mylelf by using RAW? Yes.
Can the camera produce beautiful 4x6 prints w/ JPEG? Yes.
Can the camera produce awesome large prints w/ RAW? Yes.

Is there any other compact camera on the market that can compete with 28mm wide, 16:9 aspect, full manual control? No.

You decide.

I have the LX1 and F30--I use the LX1 much more and love it--but the F30 is a sweet camera for ambiant lighting opportunities.

I am curious what the definition is of a 'large print'. Is that over 8 X 10 ?

Regardless, with as many cameras as I have, I can't be accused of being someone who defends one brand or another. I simply find that some cameras are more enjoyable for me, personally, based on what I like to do, my style, my level of expertise, the time I am willing or not willing to invest in learning one skill or another, my opinions on what is or isn't a good photo and so forth.

So, we can argue noise, magnify, be purists. I used to watch soap operas many, many years ago and if I tune one in today it is like I watched it yesterday-same storyline.

It is like that with each new camera at times. Sometimes there is a wonderful and useful new step forward-as I truly consider image stabilization for some people like me in certain situations.

That said, I very much enjoy my LX1. I hope the new owners of the LX2 enjoy their cameras.

It is a real world of marketers and consumers. We vote by making our purchases.

The technical information helps me understand what a camera might be capable of--but in the end I have to want to pick it up and use it.

Special regards to Ceci who will soon get her LX2 and delight us with her
photographer's eye. I will be waiting for her posts and others.

Linda

Maverick_ said:

The reviewer is calling the focusing speed amazing. And all in all
a great camera to shoot at under 200 ISO. I never shoot above 100
on my point and shoot anyway. Who cares about high ISO on these
tiny point and shoot digicams. I have a DSLR for that. The
picture quality I think is pretty incredible for a such a cheap
camera.

Click to expand...

Yes, all people own P&S and a DSLR, we all do... So with your logic(or lack of it) people should be just happy with not shooting inside where there's bad lighting or at night since the outcome will be terrible. They should just bring their DSLR with them at the parties, holidays and so on. High ISO is very useful and so is detail just look at these samples, just add http://www .

dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/nightshot800.jpg ISO800
dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/P1000075.JPG ISO200

dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/P1000073.JPG ISO100 nice detail with the grass

Maverick_ said:

For those who's only concern is high ISO shooting, there is the
Fujifilm F30 and now F31. I wouldn't use that if it was given to
me for free. For me it has no style and offers no enjoyment.

Click to expand...

Who cares about style with these tiny point and shoot digicams. Answer must be no one since I just said it.

Maverick_ said:

In this compact class of cameras, style, look and list of features
and overall feel of the camera matters more than ultimate image
quality. It's a point and shoot after all and all of them
including Canon produce crappy images period. For those who are so
hang up on image quality, they should never ever shoot with
anything but a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Well said grandpa, let's all just be happy with our crappy P&S.

This could be a great camera(for many more people other than those who take pictures with RAW and ISO100 at daylight) if Panasonic had done some development considering noise. But as we have seen there's just no reason for R&D since we are all happy with crappy IQ of P&S.

--

If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it away from him. An investment of knowledge always pays the best interest.

I didn't get the "grandpa" part, is this a term you use often?

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

Contradictions:

• The LX2 only works well in RAW, which most consumers don't want.

• Serious photographers will appreciate RAW, but serious photographers don't use P&S cameras for serious photography.

I can't figure out who will actually appreciate this camera, much less spend $450 on it.

--Scott

--
http://www.wanderlost.com

scott_SF said:

• Serious photographers will appreciate RAW, but serious
photographers don't use P&S cameras for serious photography.

I can't figure out who will actually appreciate this camera, much
less spend $450 on it.

Click to expand...

It's for serious photographers who want a small camera to use when they don't want or need to lug around a heavy bag of DSLR gear.

Although, it would certainly be more attractive to that group of people if the images didn't have as much noise/Venus III detail smearing.

this is a good group of replies. since I charge for when I shoot images, I am technically a pro. I would never use a point and shoot for print use. however, I would use point and shoot for web use any day. web images are normally never larger than 800 pixels, a 5MP camera is already over-qualified, let alone a 10mp.

for web use only, a serious pocketable (most important factor) digicam is the most ideal tool. it has to be small, otherwise there would be no advantage over a DSLR.

In my web use only compact digicam I need:

28mm
OIS
4X zoom
minimum 1/1.8 chip
RAW (just in case)
large and bright LCD
good movie quality
style and joy of use

I was hoping for Canon S90 with OIS, but since that camera is a no show, the LX2 and D-Lux 3 are the only players. I couldn't care less about noise, nor how the images might use at 11X14, I'd never use a compact to do a DSLR work.

Cheers, S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com