Reading mode: Light Dark

lx2 review at dcresource

Go to last post
scott_SF said:
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.
Click to expand...
• Most consumers print 4x6 photos at Wal-Mart. You will NOT notice the "faults" of the LX2 at that size or lab quality.

• Serious photographers don't always want to be looked at like serious photographers. Have you ever gone to events or locations where "Pro" cameras were prohibited? I have.

This camera is NOT targeted at the FX crowd. It is in fact targeted at serious photographers that don't want to carry their gear. Plus, $450 is equivalent to a low/mid-range dSLR lens. For a user that invests quite a bit of money into their photographic tools, this isn't all that much.
 
atari1356 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right. I would have chosen the LX2 to complement my Sony R1 (not a DSLR, but just as big and as heavy). And for that I want manual controls, but sure as hell I am not going to spend more time post-processing images taken with what could have become my "always have it with me" camera.

I want a compact with full manual controls and decent JPEG output.

I don't want to mess around with RAW with that camera, even less since most likely there is no Linux software for that RAW format (didn't check yet, though).

Image quality is what counts most. Come to think of it, it's just about the only thing that counts. And this is what unfortunately the LX2 cannot deliver.

Panasonic, FORGET THE EXTRA 2 MEGAPIXELS! (LX1: 8 -> LX2: 10)

Get that noise issue right first! Fire those useless marketing people who claimed the customers want megapixels first! I'd be more than happy with 6-7 MPix if the image quality was good.
atari1356 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right. For sure I don't want that kind of image quality.

I would have loved the 16:9 format and the 28 mm wide angle. But I am not going to accept that crappy image quality.
--
Stefan Hundhammer
 
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.
Click to expand...
And you take the DSLR along when you go out with friends? You take social shots in dimly lit bars with the DSLR?

You always have your camera with you, just in case your friends talk you into an after-work beer?

Ah, come on.
Maverick_ said:
The picture quality I think is pretty incredible for a such a cheap
camera.
Click to expand...
Eh - cheap? What world are you living in?

Current street prices are 480 EUR, via web shops you can get one for 420 EUR (+ 10-20 EUR for shipping). I don't call that cheap.
Maverick_ said:
For those who's only concern is high ISO shooting, there is the
Fujifilm F30 and now F31.
Click to expand...
You don't get the point. It's not the ONLY concern. It is one of many uses for that camera.

I had considered it as an "always have it with me" camera to complement my big and bulky Sony R1. Social shots in bars would have been one use. Another would have been the occasional snapshot outdoors when I am on the road with my motorbike. Yet another would have been the occasional beautiful sunset you hadn't expected (and of course the "good" camera is safely back home; I could have bitten my ass off last week for that very reason).
Maverick_ said:
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...
The style of the Fuji F30/F31 series I also don't like. But style is a secondary consideration for me. Image quality and manual controls are a lot more important.
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.
Click to expand...
Eh - huh? Please speak for yourself.
Maverick_ said:
It's a point and shoot after all and all of them
including Canon produce crappy images period.
Click to expand...
The Canon A620 series has very good image quality. But that series is a bit larger; too large for a camera I would want to carry with me at all times.
Maverick_ said:
For those who are so hang up on image quality, they should never ever
shoot with anything but a DSLR.
Click to expand...
That's simply not true. There is a lot of room between the better DSLRs and the cheapo P&Ss, and it is getting increasingly crowded there.
Maverick_ said:
I am actually thinking of paying the extra $ and get the Leica
version.
Click to expand...
Hm - will that one be better or even just different in terms of image quality? Do they handle noise reduction differently? Or is it only rebranded?

Any hard information on that issue, anybody?

The most important point is: The best camera is always the one you have at hand when you need it. The best DSLR in the world is useless if you have it safely at home when all of a sudden there is the occasion of the year for a good photo.

I wish I could fill that gap with the LX2. But sadly enough, I don't think so.
--
Stefan Hundhammer
 
atari1356 said:
atari1356 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right. Like for me, for example. ;-)

I'd be perfectly willing to pay real money for a really good compact camera.

I'd like Fuji's SuperCCD with, say, 6 MPix (no more - avoiding noise) in 16:9 format (can't be so hard to cut the top and bottom edges off) inside the LX2. That would be my perfect camera.

I don't like Fuji's lenses, Fuji's menus and ergonomics (or lack thereof), Fuji's xD cards. But I do like their SuperCCD sensor.

I like Panasonic's lenses, ergonomics and just about everything else of the LX2. But I don't like their noisy sensor. And increasing meapixels with every generation doesn't help, either.

Please, Panasonic, buy Fuji's SuperCCD technology (or Fuji, Inc. completely should that become necessary) and have your CCD developers develop something else (toasters, TVs, nuclear submarines, whatever) and use those SuperCCDs for your cameras! You could blow the entire competition completely away!
--
Stefan Hundhammer
 
Maverick_ said:
I'd never use a compact to do a DSLR work.
Click to expand...
A bold claim. ;-)

Do the great photo occasions come along for you always pre-planned? Did you never shoot a great "target of opportunity" snapshot you could never have arranged like that? Did you never want a large print of such an image?

You just have to borrow me that great crystal ball of yours for a while, please... ;-)
--
Stefan Hundhammer
 
Yes, JPEGs may look fine at 4x6, but that's not the right ratio for 16:9 - the image will be cropped. The sensor ratio itself dictates who will buy it - only those interested in making custom prints. If you're making custom prints, you will not likely mind RAW. No one should worry too much about who buys LX2 - the LX1 sold very well, and the LX2 is certainly a better camera. The new Canon G7 cements the position of the LX2 - it doesn't have any competition right now (new Sigma?) at any price. And $450 is a bargain for what you get in the package.

As far as print size goes, I just got back a 36" wide glossy print from my lab yesterday, shot with my LX1 and processed from RAW. It took some doing to get the image to that size in a way that looks right, but I can tell you the result is quite a sight. I also shoot with a Canon 5D, and I doubt it could do much better. The per-pixel sharpness of the Panasonic is very good.
 
i think the bald claim is yours.

do you even know what type of photography I do? do you know what actually interests me? so how can you make a comment like that?

I don't do nature photography, neither do I chase after some cat or a bird.

All my pictures for the most part are preplanned. stop assuming that we are all just happen to be trespassing in your universe. S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com
 
Jamie Watts said:
Yes, JPEGs may look fine at 4x6, but that's not the right ratio for
16:9 - the image will be cropped. The sensor ratio itself dictates
who will buy it - only those interested in making custom prints.
Click to expand...
Some photo print services here in Germany (e.g., Pixaco) have already learned that lesson: They no longer force your prints to 3:2 format.

Rather, they use their paper height (10 cm) and cut off the width accordingly, no matter if it is 4:3 (-> 13.3x10) or 16:9 (17.8x10) or even wide "stitched" panoramas (limited by the width of the envelope - 30 cm IIRC).

So this argument is no longer valid. ;-)
--
Stefan Hundhammer
 
Stefan, I totally agree with you. I had the LX-1 and was really hoping the LX-2 sensor would be a real step forward. Now that I see how noisy it is, I went ahead and got the F30 after looking at a lot of online samples from both cameras. So far I am really impressed with the shots from the F30 - color, sharpness and low-noise. I was quite frustrated with trying to post-process the heck out of my LX-1 Raw shots to get really nice output.

As you say, a Fuji sensor in the LX-2 body would blow away the competition.

Peter
 
For me LX2 the best camera availibel for the moment.

If the camera is big it collects dust at home. Taking good pictures is a lot more than "noise at high iso in big prints." I somtimes want to control the aperture and/or shutter. I want at least 28mm wide. I love the wide format.

Raw gives me the possibility to choose the colours, contrast and such things at home and not have that stress at the fotomoment. If the files takes to much place on the puter so delete them and save a jpg much better than any "camerajpg" ever made.

But if you prefer a camera with low noise at high iso where you can control nothing so go for it. It can be good in some situations. Partys maybe. It´s the buyers decision.

Regards
Sören



http://www.pbase.com/sahlback/lx2
 
It you can make a 4x7" instead of a 4x6", Venus III JPEGs will still be fine. You get the JPEG when you shoot RAW, so print those at your custom service. We don't have that over here yet, but it may come soon (although outside of Walmart and Costco, Kodak and Fuji seem to dictate what goes on in the American mini-lab, and they have little interest in serving Panasonic).

I soot Fuji F10 also, and that camera has great qualities, but only has JPEG. A really fine big print shows artifacts - that's what happens with JPEGs. Color and dynamic range are not as good as with the Panasonic sensor. The Fuji lens is very good. The camera is also very fast. But the Fuji menu structure is awful. My wife uses it and loves it, but she does nothing but push the shutter button.

My major complaint with LX1 LX2 is the uncompressed RAW file - what a waste of disk space, and write time. RAW write times would be complaint number 2. Flash strength would be complaint number 3. And my final complaint is really a wish - for a PC synch or other flash connection.
 
What about the detail smearing/loss in dark/shadowy areas apparent in some of the photos posted in this thread? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&thread=20102885&page=1

I think the photos of the red brick building are most illustrative of this problem. From what I understand, there was no significant improvement using two different RAW converters. Was there ever any resolution/explanation for this? If not, I don't see how anyone could simply shrug off such an problem...it looks quite bad and I think would show up in even a small print of such a scene with fine details in a shadowy/dark area. To me it would be a dealbreaker.
 
it's less than ideal RAW converters. I know most will criticize of scoff at that, but I still get great shadow detail using DCRaw. I don't want to harp on it, but Silkypix has never produced that great of results for me and ACR is not yet LX2 "certified"...but DCRaw has had a release that specifically addresses LX2 RAW files.

Here's my comparison:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=20122168

I hope to have some "real" photos up soon.
 
I regard the issue as unresolved. James, it seemed that most raw converters gave similar results applied to Bjorn's raw files. Did you try dcraw on his image of the building (with brickwork in various amounts of light)? That seemed to show substantial problems for all conversions that I saw. What does dcraw show?
--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
Lx2 performance at 28mm eq is better (lower CA) than D200 + 18-200VR at wide angle from the samples have seen at DC Impress.....

If a compact, within its high ISO limits, can compete with pro DSLR, what can we ask more ?

In daylight most readings are ISO 100 1/500th F5.6, plenty of room for crisp pictures..., at least 5 stops available before needing ISO 200.
 
paulbod3 said:
Lx2 performance at 28mm eq is better (lower CA) than D200 +
18-200VR at wide angle from the samples have seen at DC Impress.....

If a compact, within its high ISO limits, can compete with pro
DSLR, what can we ask more ?

In daylight most readings are ISO 100 1/500th F5.6, plenty of room
for crisp pictures..., at least 5 stops available before needing
ISO 200.
Click to expand...
I think thats stretching things a tad far there. For starters the 20mb RAW file size isnt ideal...and there is no continuos shooting for RAW either. We know the lens is good...they all are on the pannies, its a real shame they have yet to match the good optics with a sensor worthy enough to really deliver. Venus III again rears its ugly head....
--

 
what i don't like about dcresource's reviews is that they don't really arrive to a conclusion. They only summarize what they see....

The main question for me is: is the LX-2 an improvement, IQ wise, or the detail smearing courtesy of the noise reduction system is actually worse than the noise on the LX-1????
 
Perfect camera doesn't exist.

We are comparing a pocketable to DSLRs, of course in limited conditions, other compacts do not even have the raw option.

Raw option is very suitable for layers in panoramas/landscape in order to increase DR and DOF, and eventually being able to print very large creating larger files from multiple exposures; in any case any camera must be on a tripod in such cases, be it a 617 film, a 4x5 or an H2D. If camera is on tripod, it is irrelevant the time needed to "digest" raw.

Another good use of raw+layers is for product, again it is preferable to use a support.

Snapshots are not expected top be printed larger than A4, and LX-2 is suitable up to ISO 200 for that.

It is a strange habit of these reviewers to sometimes compare some innovative cameras to an ideal (non existing) cameras, and other brands incrementally on previous models..

Have a look at the (blown highlights ?) sky of the 400D here... used by a reviewer...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/Photokina/pic07.jpg

I am quite sure that the LX-2 could do not worse...
 
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