LX2 noise

I am looking at getting either the ricoh grd2 in the future or the Panosonic Lx2. The Lx2 really takes a beating in the reviews(I just read cameralabs.com review) Is the lx2 so noisy that it overshadows the good qualitys of the camera? should I wait for the LX3? Ricoh grd loks like it could be noisy too but the owners seem to call this good noise.

With 3 Panasonic cameras around the house, as well as an Olympus and a Canon and s couple of 35mm SLRs and a TLR, I find that, since I bought my LX1, that it's the camera I use almost always these days. These things are like jewells. My only complaint with it is with Panasonic's refusal to put an OVF on them.

I can't speak for the Ricoh, but I can say I find nothing at all to complain about with the images I get from the LX1, and I haven't shot a raw file yet, only in camera jpegs.

There is a recent post from a D-Lux3 owner, which gives a good idea of the IQ you will get from an LX2.

--
william olive

http://bolive.fotki.com/

pana fzed5, fzed30 & ellex1

Hi!

I was in the same situation as you. I really wanted to buy a Ricoh again since I liked the pictures and handling of my R6 very much. I didn't look at Panasonic cameras since my FZ30.

What can I say? The LX2 has this certain kind of magic. I love it. I love the pictures I take with it. I really can't describe it. But here are some links - take a look (please note that the Leica D-Lux 3 is the twin of the LX2).

Noise is no issue with me. Really. I like the pictures more than those taken by Fuji F50fd and F40fd.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&thread=25851114

http://www.boxedlight.com/dlux3/

http://www.skiphuntphotography.com/ (pictures are said to be taken with LX1/2)

I love it.

Greetings
plant

and plantagoo. I am wondering if you looked at the grd2 before you bought the Lx2. I currently have the canon sd870 and think it is a very fine predictable reliable camera and it is perfect for what it is but when I compare photos of the sd870 to the grd2 and lX2 on flickr.com, Generally speaking I am more drawn to the ricoh and panasonic pics, I think they have more creative potential then the sd870. I want to get creative. I believe you like your panasonic, but why does it get beat up so much in the press? Thanks

You need to make sure users of either model you are listening to are using the camera as you would. I bet many Ricoh users are utilizing RAW capture, which will give much different results from what you'll see in JPEG capture. It makes a big difference in using an LX2 above ISO 100.

Sorry I May be missing your point. Are you saying GRD2 is better than the LX2 in raw over 100iso. I assume that most of the amazing images I am seen from both cameras are shot in raw?

that the major reviews of the LX2 are only concidering JPEG results and that is why they beat it up so much?

Hi!

It depends on YOUR needs. Can you live with the fixed lens of the GRDII?

I never used the GRDII but I like all the Ricohs in general but I do love the LX2. It's very flexible and has this certain magic to me as I told before.

Another point may be that a lot of people are talking about a flaw in the JPG-engine of the GRDII which doesn't bother the RAW files. But I read a lot of statements that the jpgs out of the GRD look better than those out of the GRDII. So if you want to shoot jpg with the GRDII you should be aware of this issue and read the corresponding posts in the Ricoh-Forum.

Did you handle the cameras in a store? Which one do you like? Which one feels "right"? When you like your Canon why would you switch?

Greetings
plant

lawnpotter said:

and plantagoo. I am wondering if you looked at the grd2 before you
bought the Lx2. I currently have the canon sd870 and think it is a
very fine predictable reliable camera and it is perfect for what it
is but when I compare photos of the sd870 to the grd2 and lX2 on
flickr.com, Generally speaking I am more drawn to the ricoh and
panasonic pics, I think they have more creative potential then the
sd870. I want to get creative. I believe you like your panasonic, but
why does it get beat up so much in the press? Thanks

Click to expand...

Yes, I like my LX1 (and please bear in mind that it is an LX1, and not an LX2). Of course, there's no perfect camera, but I find it a joy to use. I compared it with a Canon G9 (my brother in law owns one), but not the Ricoh.

For the life of me, I do not know why Panasonic cameras get such a beat up in the press. I have, at the moment, a Canon, Olympus and a Sony Digicam in the house, and they all exhibit noise and NR. the Sony chip, in particular, is suggested to be not too noisy. But looking at my images from it, I see too much sharpening, jaggies and NR artefacts. But print them, and it's a different story. I have hundreds of prints from this camera, and they all look excellent. I have hundreds of prints from my FZ30 and Fz5, and they are all excellent too.

To quote from the Dpreview on the LX1 "Now I'm going to qualify this slightly; at ISO 80 and 100 the results are slightly noisier than most 6 and 7MP cameras, but they also show a lot more detail and look a lot sharper, so this is probably more a reflection of Panasonic's approach to noise reduction than a serious problem with the chip. You can tease some amazing results from the LX1 at low ISOs if you're prepared to do some work"

I guess what I am saying is, you need to take a grain of salt with what you read, from a reviewer or from an owner. Personally, I think the noise issue is vastly overstated. But that is my personal opinion. You might find it so offensive that you could not enjoy the camera.

--
william olive

http://bolive.fotki.com/

pana fzed5, fzed30 & ellex1

I used to own a minolta xd11 25 years ago and I used it alot but since then I never touched another camera. I had the bug again so I bought the sd870.I thought I wanted a point and shoot but I realize that I want something that looks like a point and shoot but acts like a real camera( creative control)I handled the LX2 and I liked it but I can not see the GRD2 in Vancouver, so I have to puchase it on the net.As far as living with the fixed lens of the grd2, I wouldnt mind to have a couple of cameras for diferent uses. However, I dont want 10 cameras so I want to make sure I keep only what I use. I will look into the flaw of the GRD2 JPEG engine. I like that you love your LX2. Thanks

Thanks again William

lawnpotter said:

Sorry I May be missing your point. Are you saying GRD2 is better than
the LX2 in raw over 100iso.

Click to expand...

No. How do you plan to use either camera, using RAW or JPEG capture?

The reviews you refer to about the LX2 where it is criticized are all performed with the camera set to JPEG capture. Both cameras will do their best using RAW capture. If you see an image someone posts and like it, see if you can determine, or ask, if it was an in-camera JPEG or if it was a file that was a conversion from a RAW file. The last thing you want to assume is you'll be able to do the same thing with either camera if you only plan to shoot JPEG and all the pictures you are using to determine the image quality of the camera were RAW conversions.

lawnpotter said:

I assume that most of the amazing images
I am seen from both cameras are shot in raw?

Click to expand...

To a large degree I would say yes, especially if they wer shot above their base ISO setting.

lawnpotter said:

that the major reviews of the LX2 are only concidering JPEG results
and that is why they beat it up so much?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Thanks. An asian esl student I met once, had The LX2, and I said "wow, that is a great camera, you have all sorts of creative control" she said, "I dont care about the manual features, I just like the wide screen, I just point and shoot" She stumbled on to a great camera without any research. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss

I got it now. Thanks

I have the LX1 and find that, in terms of noise, it's pretty bad above ISO 100. In good lighting conditions this camera is a jewel and I love it. I have heard that LX2 noise is worse. When I want to travel light I take my and Fuji F31d for high ISO shooting and the LX1 for everything else.

Do you shoot JPEGs ? At 100 ISO, what print size can I go up to with out noise been a problem? Thanks

i have the LX1 and i only shoot raw. i also rarely go over iso80. iso200-400 is hardly usable but for snapshots it is ok.

but even iso80 shots can be quite noisy, especially shadow-noise is a problem and it contains lots of uncontrolled color-noise.

the fine thing is, that with raw you have much more control over the noise. i prefer to shoot raw and then denoise it with some software afterwards, the result will always be much better than the original jpeg.

i know from my own experience that the LX2 sensor is slightly less noisy than the LX1 sensor, but this can be a result from some slight noise-reduction applied already on raw-files. especially shadow-noise is blurred in the LX2.

JPEG also look different from both cameras, as they have different VENUS processing engines. but i wouldn't take neither as RAW always gives me better quality.

i attached you a 100% crop from my LX1. on the left is the original jpeg, on the right is the raw processed with ACR4.0 and some neatimage applied for noise reduction.

have a look at the wooden structure. it is much better defined in the raw-version.

also look at the ring-binder in the background. the jpeg contains lots of color-noise. this is even better visible in the iso400-shot.

ISO80:



ISO400:



even at iso80 some slight neatimage processing can boost image quality a lot. i never filter all the noise, but rather half of it, so that the image still looks natural unlike an aquarell painting.

most of the time i use ACR4.0 for raw-processing as i find that 4.0 makes some natural grain-like noise out from LX1-files, whereas the newer version 4.3 has some other demosaicing and stronger noise-reduction which you cannot turn off. this way the noise can become quite a mess. therefore i still prefer 4.0.

i also tried other raw-converters and they produce different noise-structures. raw shooter had some block-structure, bibble and raw therapee produce much finer noise, which can be hard to deal with.

my former camera was a canon G5 which most of the time was also claimed to have a noisy sensor.

i could make some comparisons between the G5 and the LX1, and the LX1 was not much noisier than the G5 of course with RAW-files as basis.

thanks Oluv, lots of good info to learn from.

but then, i feel no need to go above iso 100.

The camera is a jewel.