Reading mode: Light Dark

LX3: A few more night shots (ISO 200 or 400 / F2.0)

Go to last post
J

Junho Shin

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Gaithersburg, US
I once posted the link of LX3 samples images from Popco.net (Korean Site).
Now, there's a few more night shots that's taken without a tripod,
but by a skilled photographer.
Of course, they are in original sizes.
Check it out!
---------------
Junho Shin
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
We need comparison shots in order to make sense of this pics
Click to expand...
Not always!

Good cameras will be able to take good pics. Inferior cameras won't be able to keep up.

The problem I often notice on these forums is how easily newbies can make the mistake of judging a camera's performance based upon noise output. Their general logic goes something like 'if I see noise, then camera is not good!'

But more experienced members here know that all cameras WILL generate noise under certain conditions. It is understanding these conditions that help us to make sense of pics without having comparison pics.

Many of us do not need comparison pics for the type of pics displayed by the OP in this thread. I, for one, already know for sure that the LX3 will be better low-light camera than my current low-light king F31fd under the same conditions.

The time has now come to give the "low-light shooting at high ISOs with a compact" mantle to Panasonic. Fuji may lose other leadership positions if they continue to ignore what the market needs OR do not adhere to acceptable testing/quality control measures (reference to F100fd's pink banding... a testing/quality control failure in my eyes.)

--
Click

 
Heavy NR and smearing at ISO 200... I know LX3's NR can be set down to -2... But how about a firmware update to completely turn the NR to OFF? That way I don't have to shoot RAW all the time...
 
Take a look at the EXIF... especially at the shutter speeds. That may explain the 'over-smearing'.

Compare this pic to other similar low light pics now available... especially those in which the shutter speeds were little faster. Whale of a difference! So is the sensor to be blamed? Is the in-camera NR to be blamed? OR is it the manner in which the user used the camera?

In the case above, camera-shake cannot be completely ruled out. Mega OIS can only help so much. That said, the photographer who shot these pics seems to be quite competent... but then again, a human hand is not a robotic hand at these shutter speeds.

Obviously the image quality won't rival that of a DSLR with a much larger sensor and lower pixel-density, but when comparing the LX3 to the LX2 or the F31fd (I use the F31fd heavily)... I have no hesitation to say the LX3 generally appears to be noticeably better, in my opinion.

--
Click

 
I really like the photos themselves-that wiiiiiide lens is very nice, but the ISO performance is still very weak. ISO 400 on the LX3 looks like ISO 1600 or 3200 on a DSLR. It's not exactly reinventing the wheel or anything. Just looks like your slightly better than average P&S shot. It's not exactly worth $500 in my opinion, when you can buy a Fuji F100fd for $300 and gain a more versatile lens range and better DR and noise handling.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/bdwaydiva1/
 
PixieGlitter said:
Here's an ISO 400 shot from the F100fd (not my shot). This camera is
a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the LX3:
Click to expand...
The F100fd has probably the best NR amongst all P&S cameras out there... While Panasonic has probably the most aggressive... But NR shouldn't be an issue if you prefer shooting in RAW (like I do)... I just wish that the LX3's NR could be completely set to OFF instead of just -2 so I won't have to shoot in RAW all the time... That'd really make things a lot more easier (less post processing) and save a lot of memory space (smaller file size when shooting in JPEG).
 
Just resize LX3 ISO400 picture to the same size as F100 picture. it looks better.

Not to forget that F100 picture was taken in very good light (1/1200 exposure) while Lx3 was taken at night (1/13s exposure time) That is 100x less light !!!

And not to forget 3x advantage in lens aperture for LX3; and IS from panasonic is better than the one from Fuji.
So, you will need ISO100 with LX3 when you need ISO400 for F100. No contest.

+RAW

From the few samples at dc.watch it looks like LX3 is comparable to F31 at the same ISO. Still it has f2 lens and IS. I think this makes it the best low light P&S.
If canon does not unveil Pro2, probably I will buy one.
 
PixieGlitter said:
I'm not a newbie and even I can tell those samples are terrible.
ISO 200 shouldn't look all splotchy and soft like that. Eww. That
sensor isn't even up to Sony or Canon P&S standards, let alone the
great Fuji's.
Click to expand...
I agree. NR seems to be by far too agressive. I am very impressed by the lens, though. Let's wait for the reviews to see if reducing NR will help. For me, RAW as a standard shooting mode is not an option.
--
Gabi

http://www.gabis-galleries.com/
 
Maybe you shall post a link to a picture with a P&S that looks better. ISO400 && 1/10s at night. Full picture. not 0.5MP one. I would love to buy such a camera.

Of course I have seen better ISO400 pictures taken at 1/1000sec in good light. But it's not the point.

See here G9 picture at ISO400 1/6sec:



and 1sec exposure ISO400:



I think LX3 will equal F31Fd in terms of noise; but with F2 lens, IS and RAW it will be better. Now I need to find a 2x converter. This will transform it to F2-F2.8 44-120mm lens.
 
I totally agree with you.

The picture should've taken at ISO 800 or 1600 with f100fd in such low-light condition to obtain minimum possible shutter speed (without a tripod).

--
Junho Shin
 
The original sized F100fd shot can be seen here if anyone is interested.

http://flickr.com/photos/rexton/2640506292/sizes/o/

I think it looks better than the LX3's ISO 400 shot, and for everyone that always screams DIFFRACTION!!!! DIFFRACTION!!!! whenever a Panny sample photo is shot at anything above f5.6 and says that it severly degrades IQ-this boat shot was taken at f11.

It's also $200 less than the LX3.

I'm not saying the LX3 is a bad camera-it looks really great for landscaps and good light shooting, but the ISO performance looks like typical messy Panny.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/bdwaydiva1/
 
PixieGlitter said:
The original sized F100fd shot can be seen here if anyone is interested.

http://flickr.com/photos/rexton/2640506292/sizes/o/

I think it looks better than the LX3's ISO 400 shot, and for everyone
that always screams DIFFRACTION!!!! DIFFRACTION!!!! whenever a Panny
sample photo is shot at anything above f5.6 and says that it severly
degrades IQ-this boat shot was taken at f11.

It's also $200 less than the LX3.

I'm not saying the LX3 is a bad camera-it looks really great for
landscaps and good light shooting, but the ISO performance looks like
typical messy Panny.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/bdwaydiva1/
Click to expand...
--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com
 
PixieGlitter said:
The original sized F100fd shot can be seen here if anyone is interested.

http://flickr.com/photos/rexton/2640506292/sizes/o/

I think it looks better than the LX3's ISO 400 shot, and for everyone
that always screams DIFFRACTION!!!! DIFFRACTION!!!! whenever a Panny
sample photo is shot at anything above f5.6 and says that it severly
degrades IQ-this boat shot was taken at f11.

It's also $200 less than the LX3.
Click to expand...
Just in case you didn't know -- that image was post processed in PS Elements (as it says in its Exif data).
PixieGlitter said:
I'm not saying the LX3 is a bad camera-it looks really great for
landscaps and good light shooting, but the ISO performance looks like
typical messy Panny.
Click to expand...
The LX3's fast F/2.0 lens obviously also means great lowlight shooting... And anyone who doesn't prefer Panasonic's handling of noise would be better off shooting in RAW.
 
...these images are not too impressive. Noise and NR artifacts at ISO200 are higher than I had hoped for. This performance seems roughly in the same class as the TZ5--and it really should be considerably better. Of course, what we need are some tests under controlled conditions, involving comparisons with other cameras. Hope DPR has a review sample and that they give this review priority. The LX3 is, on paper, the most exciting new digicam.

Bob
 
drvelocity said:
So shooting in RAW disables noise processing as well? I wasn't aware
of that.
Click to expand...
Yes... RAW means image taken directly from the camera's sensor -- meaning no NR applied as well as WB, contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc... It's like "raw" meat -- you buy it and you do the cooking (whatever the way you want to)... My Lightroom 2.0, Photoshop CS3, and Noiseware Pro have been waiting for me to buy a RAW shooting camera actually...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lance B
A few more Z9 shots
2
Replies
36
Views
393
Lance B
Lance B
bryanA9
Sigma 100-400 Action shots
Replies
14
Views
641
bryanA9
bryanA9
N
Canon 100-400 IS II or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
2
Replies
23
Views
24
George Zip
G
Phocal
Micro Focus Adjustment
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
6K
Wigelii
W
Lance B
I now have the 200-500 a couple more sample shots
Replies
18
Views
19
Lance B
Lance B

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