LX2 Wideangle -- Confused!

I'm a film camera guy thinking of getting an LX2 as his first digital, mainly because of the wide angle lens. I've read through the threads here on how the picture aspect ratio that you choose affects the image you end up with, and am thoroughly confused. Maybe you LX2 owners can help me out.

Some of what I've read seems to suggest that if I take a picture with the LX2 lens at its widest angle, and set the lens aspect ratio switch to 4:3, I will get basically the same image as if I were taking the same picture with a 28mm lens mounted on a 35mm film camera. And that if I then switch the aspect ratio to 16:9, I will get a WIDER (but not higher) image.

But other threads seem to say that a picture taken on the LX2 at the widest angle and the lens set to 4:3 will give the same image as a 35mm lens (not a 28) mounted on a 35mm film camera. Changing the aspect ratio to 16:9 is said to yield an image with the same width of one created by a 28mm lens on a film camera, but not one that's as high.

Which one is it? If it's the second, I'd be less enthusiastic about buying the camera.

Also, on the LX2, does setting the aspect ratio to 4:3 with the lens aspect ratio switch do the same thing as using the menu's [ASPECT CONV.] control to convert a 16:9 photo to 4:3?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

I don´t have a LX2, but I think, the chip has the 16:9 ratio. When you choose 4:3, there happens a in camera crop leaving the ends of tha chip unused. So the hight of the pic is the same in both ways, it only becames more wide horisontally when the whole chip area is used.
--
Cheers Jussi
My gallery: http://www.elisanet.fi/juhani.lofstrom/

The LX1/LX2's 16:9 sensor gives a different field of view. See this thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=18302849

At its widest in 16:9 mode it will be the equivalent of 24mm in other cameras.

In 3:2 mode, the LX1 chops off, 0.5 megapixels on each side of the sensor. In 4:3 mode, the LX1 chops off 1.0 megapixels on either side giving a 6 megapixel image at highest quality and representing about a 34 mm image in a regular camera.

The size of the images would be slightly larger with the LX2 in the different modes, 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3.

--
Bryon

My LX1 Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapleleafbryon/

MapleLeafBryon said:

At its widest in 16:9 mode it will be the equivalent of 24mm in
other cameras.

Bryon

Click to expand...

I have an LX2. When I take a photo at 16:9 mode, the EXIF data says: "focal length in 35 mm film: 28 mm."
I wish it were 24 mm at 16:9 aspect ratio.

Best regards,
Ali

Yes. But due to the wider 16:9 sensor in the LX1/LX2, at wide open 28mm on this camera, it captures an image that would be the equivalent to 24mm on a typical camera, which do not have the wider aspect ratio sensors.
--
Bryon

My LX1 Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapleleafbryon/

Because I read some different stories earlier on I did some checking. The LX2 on it's widest settings and on 16:9 has a horizontal FOV of 67,9 degrees.

Now in 35mm equivalent this is the same as as you would get with a 26,7mm on an 3:2 sensor.

When comparing a camera with a 4:3 sensor it is the way around. The nikon 8400 for instance has a 24mm lens (Hor. FOV of 71,6 degrees). This is the same Hor. FOV as a 25mm lens on a 3:2 sensor.

So, the LX2 has a wider view as a 28mm on a 3:2 camera ( 26,7mm) and even a little extra wider than a 4:3 camera ( 26mm).

Not as wide as the XPAN, which is a too bad, but then, there's a reason for the price difference...

Thanks to all who wrote in answer to my question. You've cleared things up. I was in a camera store here in London yesterday and was able to compare the LX2 to the new Panasonic S6500 (= S6000 in the US). At their widest angle, the lenses in both are supposed to be "equivalent" to a 28mm lens in 35mm format. Yet when I held up the cameras side by side, each set to its widest angle, and the LX2 lens set to 16:9 aspect ratio, the image on the LX2's screen was noticeably wider than the image on the Panasonic's screen. Higher too. Seems like the LX2 lens is indeed more like a 24mm lens at this setting. An impressive camera. (Well, so was the Panasonic.)

sircarl said:

Thanks to all who wrote in answer to my question. You've cleared
things up. I was in a camera store here in London yesterday and
was able to compare the LX2 to the new Panasonic S6500 (= S6000 in
the US). At their widest angle, the lenses in both are supposed to
be "equivalent" to a 28mm lens in 35mm format. Yet when I held up
the cameras side by side, each set to its widest angle, and the LX2
lens set to 16:9 aspect ratio, the image on the LX2's screen was
noticeably wider than the image on the Panasonic's screen. Higher
too. Seems like the LX2 lens is indeed more like a 24mm lens at
this setting. An impressive camera. (Well, so was the Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

I have also compared my Pentax (Espio 928 M) 28 mm FILM camera's angle with that of my LX2 and noticed that image LX2's screen is definitely wider at 16:9 aspect ratio. LX2's angle at 4:3 aspect ratio seems equal to the angle of my 28 mm film camera. Conclusion: Although the specs say that LX2's angle is equivalent to 28 mm lens in 35 mm format, I mysellf observed that, it is at least wider than 28 mm, may be 24 mm or so.

I wonder why the official Panasonic site declares that LX2's angle at 16:9 is equivalent to a 28 mm lens in 35 mm format ? ? ? ?

Best wishes,
Ali

sircarl said:

Thanks to all who wrote in answer to my question. You've cleared
things up. I was in a camera store here in London yesterday and
was able to compare the LX2 to the new Panasonic S6500 (= S6000 in
the US). At their widest angle, the lenses in both are supposed to
be "equivalent" to a 28mm lens in 35mm format. Yet when I held up
the cameras side by side, each set to its widest angle, and the LX2
lens set to 16:9 aspect ratio, the image on the LX2's screen was
noticeably wider than the image on the Panasonic's screen. Higher
too. Seems like the LX2 lens is indeed more like a 24mm lens at
this setting. An impressive camera. (Well, so was the Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

The S6500/S6000(FD) are Fuji cameras.

Jeff.

Olympus E-1 4:3 aspect ratio at 28mm



Panasonic LX-1 16:9 aspect ratio at 28mm



HTH,
Jeff.

Jeff,

Yes, of course they are Fuji cameras. I mis-typed! Thanks for the comparative 28mm photos, which are similar to what I saw in the camera store.

How do you know your film camera wasn't cheating? i.e. it was not really as wide as a true 28mm

Ali SULAY said:

sircarl said:

Thanks to all who wrote in answer to my question. You've cleared
things up. I was in a camera store here in London yesterday and
was able to compare the LX2 to the new Panasonic S6500 (= S6000 in
the US). At their widest angle, the lenses in both are supposed to
be "equivalent" to a 28mm lens in 35mm format. Yet when I held up
the cameras side by side, each set to its widest angle, and the LX2
lens set to 16:9 aspect ratio, the image on the LX2's screen was
noticeably wider than the image on the Panasonic's screen. Higher
too. Seems like the LX2 lens is indeed more like a 24mm lens at
this setting. An impressive camera. (Well, so was the Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

I have also compared my Pentax (Espio 928 M) 28 mm FILM camera's
angle with that of my LX2 and noticed that image LX2's screen is
definitely wider at 16:9 aspect ratio. LX2's angle at 4:3 aspect
ratio seems equal to the angle of my 28 mm film camera. Conclusion:
Although the specs say that LX2's angle is equivalent to 28 mm lens
in 35 mm format, I mysellf observed that, it is at least wider than
28 mm, may be 24 mm or so.
I wonder why the official Panasonic site declares that LX2's angle
at 16:9 is equivalent to a 28 mm lens in 35 mm format ? ? ? ?

Best wishes,
Ali

Click to expand...

Ali SULAY said:

sircarl wrote:
I have also compared my Pentax (Espio 928 M) 28 mm FILM camera's
angle with that of my LX2 and noticed that image LX2's screen is
definitely wider at 16:9 aspect ratio. LX2's angle at 4:3 aspect
ratio seems equal to the angle of my 28 mm film camera. Conclusion:
Although the specs say that LX2's angle is equivalent to 28 mm lens
in 35 mm format, I mysellf observed that, it is at least wider than
28 mm, may be 24 mm or so.
I wonder why the official Panasonic site declares that LX2's angle
at 16:9 is equivalent to a 28 mm lens in 35 mm format ? ? ? ?

Click to expand...

Hi Ali,

Panasonic did it the way they officially have to do it, which is to measure the FOV over the diagonal of the image. As the vertical FOV for the LX2 is smaller because 16:9 ratio you end up with a smaller diagonal FOV which is exactly comparable to 28mm.

Indeed the Horizontal FOV is larger (26,7mm), but this is not an official measurement for a lens. Maybe there marketing department didn't realise this otherwise they probably would have mentioned it ;-)

Regards,
Patrick

patLum said:

Panasonic did it the way they officially have to do it, which is to
measure the FOV over the diagonal of the image. As the vertical FOV
for the LX2 is smaller because 16:9 ratio you end up with a smaller
diagonal FOV which is exactly comparable to 28mm.
Indeed the Horizontal FOV is larger (26,7mm), but this is not an
official measurement for a lens. Maybe there marketing department
didn't realise this otherwise they probably would have mentioned it
;-)

Regards,
Patrick

Click to expand...

In my 2 images posted below, the LX1 image has aproximately an 8% larger FOW (linear) which would translate to a comfortable 26mm coverage. This blows me away, since for landscape work you're trying to maximize your horizontal FOV.
You're right, Panasonic missed their marketing boat on this one.

Jeff.

Jared Hunter said:

How do you know your film camera wasn't cheating? i.e. it was not
really as wide as a true 28mm

Click to expand...

My 28 mm film camera might be cheating. . . I have also 35 and 32 mm film cameras earlier and I bought the 28mm camera because I wanted to have a film camera which has a wider angle. At that time I checked that my 28 mm film camera had definitely a wider angle than my 35 and 32 mm film cameras. If my 35 and 32 mm film cameras were not as wide as a true 35 and 32mm cameras, this slight "untrue" possibility cannot be ruled out.

Others have thrown around the number 25.6 mm for 16:9 at full wide, and I have done tests like yours. Indeed the LXs have a horizontal field of view larger than 28mm.-- pretty much 26 mm. Yes, this is an opportunity missed by the marketing people of Panasonic!

Jeff Tokayer said:

patLum said:

Panasonic did it the way they officially have to do it, which is to
measure the FOV over the diagonal of the image. As the vertical FOV
for the LX2 is smaller because 16:9 ratio you end up with a smaller
diagonal FOV which is exactly comparable to 28mm.
Indeed the Horizontal FOV is larger (26,7mm), but this is not an
official measurement for a lens. Maybe there marketing department
didn't realise this otherwise they probably would have mentioned it
;-)

Regards,
Patrick

Click to expand...

In my 2 images posted below, the LX1 image has aproximately an 8%
larger FOW (linear) which would translate to a comfortable 26mm
coverage. This blows me away, since for landscape work you're
trying to maximize your horizontal FOV.
You're right, Panasonic missed their marketing boat on this one.

Jeff.

Click to expand...

Wow........26mm coverage ??? I wonder if this would apply to my FX50's 16:9 ratio at 28mm as well ? Very interesting, if it does.

Roger
--
If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody......

I don't think it applies to a native 4:3 sensor. As I understand it (from others in this forum), the measurment of FOV is on the diagnol. So the "bonus" coverage applies on 16:9 sensors, but not 4:3 sensors. Also, the other cameras get to 16:9 by cropping top/bottom, whereas the Lx1 gets to 3:2 and 4:3 by cropping the sides (and reducing FOV). I think that 28 mm with 4:3 native sensors is pretty close much 28mm (see the example with the Olympus) and switching to 16:9 does not change this FOV. At any rate, there have been others on this forum to describe this better, but it does bear out.

See this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=18302849