Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
You can play stupid as long as you want.

That is a picture in daylight. It is NOT comparable with night shots. It could have been taken at ISO100. Even so, there are a lot of detail lost.

Here is a comparable shot from Fuji S100 (which has bigger sensor than F100):

http://www.pbase.com/hpicckcy/image/92939128

Even this one is at 1/50s; panasonic samples are at 1/10s. As you know the longer the exposure, the greater the noise.
 
From dcresource.com

"The F100fd performs slightly better than other compact cameras, up to a point (ISO 800), but above that, images become a noisy mess. The camera is marred by other flaws as well, including a slow lens, sluggish startup time, and poor battery life. The FinePix F100fd certainly isn't a bad camera -- it's just an average one -- which is a disappointment, considering its heritage."

Please the F100fd is disappointing. Never mind the pink banding issue.....
PixieGlitter said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
To compare the two cameras in flexability/capability let alone IQ strains any credability.

Brand issues and expectations are clouding honest judgment here.
sorinx said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Robert for being a voice of reason without resorting to calling people "stupid" and acting as if your very livelihood depended on how well the LX3 sold. You are calm and rational, and I appreciate that, and it is more than what I can say about other posters on here. I agree with your statements about the LX3. For a $500 camera, it has the IQ (to my eyes) of something like the TZ5, which is a letdown. It should be much better than that for the pricetag, and considering the audience it is aimed at. So far, the pictures above base ISO have yet to impress me, which is sad. Yes, the f2 lens is a touch faster than the standard f2.8/f3.3 lenses found on most digicams, but if I wanted a camera that had a fast lens and a zoom, I'd get myself an old Oly C-series camera with a 3x zoom and an f1.8 lens for peanuts on the used market, instead of spending it $500 on the LX3. That's just me though.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/bdwaydiva1/
 
sorinx said:
You can play stupid as long as you want.
That is a picture in daylight. It is NOT comparable with night shots.
It could have been taken at ISO100. Even so, there are a lot of
detail lost.

Here is a comparable shot from Fuji S100 (which has bigger sensor
than F100):

http://www.pbase.com/hpicckcy/image/92939128

Even this one is at 1/50s; panasonic samples are at 1/10s. As you
know the longer the exposure, the greater the noise.
Click to expand...
As I wrote in my previous comment that you replied to -- that F100fd image was post-processed in PS Elements -- therefore it shouldn't be compared to any other image...

If you want to compare how Fujifilm and Panasonic handle noise in their image -- there's no denying (at least for me) that Fujifilm wins by a mile... Proof? Here are 100% crops ISO test between the F100fd vs TZ5 with Exif data attached...

Panasonic TZ5 ISO 100



Fujifilm F100fd ISO 100



Panasonic TZ5 ISO 400



Fujifilm F100fd ISO 400



Panasonic TZ5 ISO 800



Fujifilm F100fd ISO 800

 
Why have you not addressed that you posted an image that was not comparable? I did not think my statement was a livid, or an irrational response to your post. I did not call you stupid either... so why are you grouping everyone that does not agree with you as not having a voice of reason, or being calm and rational? Your words are quite insulting.
PixieGlitter said:
Thank you Robert for being a voice of reason without resorting to
calling people "stupid" and acting as if your very livelihood
depended on how well the LX3 sold. You are calm and rational, and I
appreciate that, and it is more than what I can say about other
posters on here. I agree with your statements about the LX3. For a
$500 camera, it has the IQ (to my eyes) of something like the TZ5,
which is a letdown. It should be much better than that for the
pricetag, and considering the audience it is aimed at. So far, the
pictures above base ISO have yet to impress me, which is sad. Yes,
the f2 lens is a touch faster than the standard f2.8/f3.3 lenses
found on most digicams, but if I wanted a camera that had a fast lens
and a zoom, I'd get myself an old Oly C-series camera with a 3x zoom
and an f1.8 lens for peanuts on the used market, instead of spending
it $500 on the LX3. That's just me though.

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



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com
 
Yeah it was edited in PSE, but so what? I have PSE and it doesn't have NR to my knowledge (Or if does-like CS3, it's not exactly great) and speaking as someone who uses Lightroom and CS3 heavily, editing a photo INCREASES noise, not decreases it in most cases, so I think it's not a big deal to me. Others may disagree.

However, another poster posted F100fd and TZ5 images side by side that weren't altered in any way, and those pretty much illustrate what I was saying.

Anyways, to each his own, I guess. I'd just buy an entry-level DSLR for $500 or save up and buy a DP1 if I was going to invest in a portable solution.
--
http://flickr.com/photos/bdwaydiva1/
 
PixieGlitter said:
Yeah it was edited in PSE, but so what? I have PSE and it doesn't
have NR to my knowledge (Or if does-like CS3, it's not exactly great)
and speaking as someone who uses Lightroom and CS3 heavily, editing a
photo INCREASES noise, not decreases it in most cases, so I think
it's not a big deal to me. Others may disagree.
Click to expand...
Again the image you posted was not comparable. It was shot during the day and it was edited. What kind of an arguement is, 'but so what'. You still refuse to recognize this simple mistake. This just tells me you'll use anything even if it's false to bolster your point of view. No point in discussing anything further. It's just a waste of my time, as well as your own time.

--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com
 
PixieGlitter said:
However, another poster posted F100fd and TZ5 images side by side
that weren't altered in any way, and those pretty much illustrate
what I was saying.
Click to expand...
But we're talking about LX3, not TZ5. The sensors are different.
PixieGlitter said:
Anyways, to each his own, I guess. I'd just buy an entry-level DSLR
for $500 or save up and buy a DP1 if I was going to invest in a
portable solution.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can get a DP1 for better IQ in a compact or an Oly C-class for f/1.8. The list goes on, there are other cameras that one-up the LX3 in one area or another and you'll be carrying a lot of cameras. The value of the LX3 is in its brilliant combination of abilities and IQ is at the top of the list in my opinion. For anyone stuck on having the absolute best image quality, fastest lens, longest zoom, fastest continuous shooting, etc., there are better choices.
 
the problem with these pictures is that neither is really sharp. either a cause of camera-shake or they weren't focused properly. but an unsharp iso400 shot will look horrible with any camera.
 
Junho Shin said:
Click to expand...
I had a look at this one and I stopped there.
I am astonished by the lack of quality of this image.

I own at this moment a 4 year old nikon D70 that is out for service at this moment and I am looking for a compact camera that can somewhat produce decent images with a decent "camera experience". The lx3 is appealing in some respects. My exif reader says this image was taken at ISO 200. I find this image totally over processed in terms of noise reduction and the per pixel sharpness being amazingly low.

At first i read panasonic announcement, where they say a nice story about a compact camera that is aimed at DSLR owner ... or something like this pffff. For the price of the lx3 you get a 4 year old d70 (for example) and a lens that open at 1.8 and that gives an image quality that is by far superior that this sample. Of course the d70 is bigger and has about half of the pixels of the lx3, but maybe that's just the solution. I saw that panasonic claimed that they were proud to have only packed 10mpx in the lx3 sensor... wow! amazing effort. What a joke, i can only hope they would have put only 5mpx, maybe we would have a decent image quality at ISO 200. A bit disappointed, the lens seems like a really nice little thing and the camera looks pretty slick. Am I the only one feeling like that?

--
Nicolas
http://dishio.eu
 
the image is totally blurred, what do you expect?
 
sorinx said:
Just resize LX3 ISO400 picture to the same size as F100 picture. it
looks better.
Click to expand...
Yeah don't post web sized to compare to full size.
sorinx said:
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 !!!
Click to expand...
Enough said - 100x less light. 1/1200 vs 1/13 - hello there...
sorinx said:
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.
Click to expand...
F2.0 - worth the $500 right there
sorinx said:
+RAW
Click to expand...
Again, enough said. Don't like the NR, then shoot RAW and no worries. Use jpeg during the day with good light or for quick snaps. Use RAW in low light or for higher DR needs. Best of both!

--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - finally up, give a look
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site in the works...
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
oluv said:
the problem with these pictures is that neither is really sharp.
either a cause of camera-shake or they weren't focused properly. but
an unsharp iso400 shot will look horrible with any camera.
Click to expand...
It would appear the the photographer's enthusiam to handhold got the best of him or her at these ISO's. Blurring expected at some of those shutter speeds... even with OIS.

--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com
 
PixieGlitter said:
the f2 lens is a touch faster than the standard f2.8/f3.3 lenses
found on most digicams,
Click to expand...
that's at least TWICE as fast, 200mph is not a touch faster than 100mph...
PixieGlitter said:
but if I wanted a camera that had a fast lens
and a zoom, I'd get myself an old Oly C-series camera with a 3x zoom
and an f1.8 lens for peanuts on the used market, instead of spending
it $500 on the LX3. That's just me though.
Click to expand...
Yeah that camera (the C5050) can keep up, come on its a 5MP P&S. And you talk about the voice of reason - hmm...

Not trying to offend. But you have to be prepared to hear if you speak. BTW I'm ready to hear it :)
--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - finally up, give a look
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site in the works...
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
I was afraid this was going to happen. Images flawed by user error or poor conditions and the usual 'that one or that one is cheaper' crowd.

If you don't like it and don't ever plan on buying it why post your opinion? If your x or y or z camera is so much better why aren't using it instead of b* ching about other products?

This is tiresome.

--

 
dishio said:
Junho Shin said:
Click to expand...
I had a look at this one and I stopped there.
I am astonished by the lack of quality of this image.
Click to expand...
You saw one picture and formed your opinion?
dishio said:
I own at this moment a 4 year old nikon D70 that is out for service
at this moment and I am looking for a compact camera that can
somewhat produce decent images with a decent "camera experience". The
lx3 is appealing in some respects.
Click to expand...
DSLR's produce image quality X. Compact cameras produce quality Y. Keep the apples with the apples and oranges with oranges.
dishio said:
Of course the d70
is bigger and has about half of the pixels of the lx3, but maybe
that's just the solution. I saw that panasonic claimed that they were
proud to have only packed 10mpx in the lx3 sensor... wow! amazing
effort. What a joke, i can only hope they would have put only 5mpx,
maybe we would have a decent image quality at ISO 200. A bit
disappointed, the lens seems like a really nice little thing and the
camera looks pretty slick. Am I the only one feeling like that?
Click to expand...
I believe Panasonic was saying the LX3 is a good supplement or companion to a DSLR, not a replacement... just as a DSLR is a good accompaniment for a large or medium format film shooter. He/she won't expect the same quality. For large prints, the DSLR will not be used, but for the rest, the quality will be acceptable (even a D70) with the convenience of the DSLR.
 
I don't think you can fairly judge the high ISO performance of the LX3 from these poor quality pictures, but those hoping for the LX3 to perform as well as their DSLR may well be disappointed. We all just have to wait for a thorough in depth review.
 
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