Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Just looking at these images I don't have much of a problem with the noise levels a bit better than average for a compact actually. What makes them look bad IMHO is the fact that the highlights blow out. I don't have highlights in my night shots blow out like that on DSLRs... I could live with the LX3 noise levels if they fixed it's night shot Dynamic Range.

--
James Clarke

http://pbase.com/jameslclarke
http://jamri.smugmug.com
 
jamriphoto said:
Just looking at these images I don't have much of a problem with the
noise levels a bit better than average for a compact actually. What
makes them look bad IMHO is the fact that the highlights blow out. I
don't have highlights in my night shots blow out like that on
DSLRs... I could live with the LX3 noise levels if they fixed it's
night shot Dynamic Range.

--
James Clarke

http://pbase.com/jameslclarke
http://jamri.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Best to shoot RAW for recapturing highlights. I have a real nice pile of Canon DSLRs and still need RAW as my copilot. Makes things more doable. The reason I gave up shooting slides years ago was the limited DR. I want details, RAW helps with that.

Seems a lot of folks here fear RAW. I simply open everything in Silkypix and go to town. JPG to me is s set of other people's compromises. These compromises may be fine at times, but I want the ability to override them. I don't find a RAW workflow any more cumbersome, though some folks do.

Nightshots especially need tome extra TLC

Here's a merged shot taken with RAW. I controlled the highlights in ways that JPG would not have given me.



Canon 5D 24-70 L Canon lens ISO 100 at 70mm shot in Canon RAW format , F11 280 seconds. Merged with another at f11 sixty seconds. Tone mapped, a little cloning of the star trails.

Can't wait to get a decent smaller digicam to keep with me. This Panasonic looks like the one. Wish it had a tilt and swivel LCD though...............

--
Best,
Robert

 
to let people know how this small P&S is useful when you want to take a snap shot even at night without a tripod.
Note that these are not the best pictures ...
Some of the images may be blurred because those were taken without a tripod.
And I also think the pictures are beautiful and IQs of them are acceptable
for someone who usually doesn't want to carry big and heavy DSLR equipment.
(This is not a DSLR ...)

--
Junho Shin
 
Junho Shin said:
to let people know how this small P&S is useful when you want to take
a snap shot even at night without a tripod.
Note that these are not the best pictures ...
Some of the images may be blurred because those were taken without a
tripod.
And I also think the pictures are beautiful and IQs of them are
acceptable
for someone who usually doesn't want to carry big and heavy DSLR
equipment.
(This is not a DSLR ...)

--
Junho Shin
Click to expand...
I agree that your goal was successful in these areas.

What was posted looked like a decent demo of what could be accomplished hand-held at night. Besides, we are looking at huge files. They look a LOT better at 5 x 7 etc. Really, how large are we going to look at most shots?

--
Best,
Robert

 
Robert P Miller said:
What was posted looked like a decent demo of what could be
accomplished hand-held at night. Besides, we are looking at huge
files. They look a LOT better at 5 x 7 etc. Really, how large are we
going to look at most shots?
Click to expand...
That's true, so far as it goes. But there are many digicams with no great pretensions of outstanding IQ which produce images that look poor at 100% but can still be turned into very good 5x7 prints. Panasonic's claims for the LX3 go beyond that, and these posted photos don't demonstrate anything more than what you can get with a cheaper, fuller-featured camera like the TZ5. That's what's disappointing.

Bob
 
That's right, these pictures don't show anything special in terms of IQ. But 98% of the other 300 we've seen do. I wonder if.. GASP .. different people have different skill levels when it comes to how to use the camera? Maybe a person needs to look at more than one or two pictures taken by one person to cast judgement on the quality of a camera?

Well, that's reality in my little head anyway..
 
At times I think some people want to find something to justify what they WANT to be the case....
drvelocity said:
That's right, these pictures don't show anything special in terms of
IQ. But 98% of the other 300 we've seen do. I wonder if.. GASP ..
different people have different skill levels when it comes to how to
use the camera? Maybe a person needs to look at more than one or two
pictures taken by one person to cast judgement on the quality of a
camera?

Well, that's reality in my little head anyway..
Click to expand...
 
Robert Deutsch said:
That's true, so far as it goes. But there are many digicams with no
great pretensions of outstanding IQ which produce images that look
poor at 100% but can still be turned into very good 5x7 prints.
Panasonic's claims for the LX3 go beyond that, and these posted
photos don't demonstrate anything more than what you can get with a
cheaper, fuller-featured camera like the TZ5. That's what's
disappointing.
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to rate the LX3 against any of my cameras without a side-by-side comparison. Until we see some, it's all conjecture. I like what I see so far however.

TZ5 is not 'fuller-featured', it's targeted at a different buyer; those looking for more reach 28-280mm, 1/2.33" sensor, slow f3.3 - f4.9 aperture, 5cm macro vs 1cm, 33% weaker flash, 5 shot continuous shooting vs 8, no hot shoe, no manual setting, no raw format, no 24mm, geez.....
 
Thanks for posting the link to the samples. However, these photos are marred by hand-shake. Even a fast lens and OIS need help from a tripod under these conditions, at night.

Thus, I will wait for a properly taken night photograph at ISO 400, with a tripod. Also, all small-sensor digicams produce ugly results at 100% size and ISO 400 at night. The discernible user needs to downsize at his/her's normal print size and see what the image looks like. In this regard, even the LX2 would produce good prints at A4 size at ISO 200. My G9 produces nice A4 prints at ISO 400.

I rarely shoot at ISO 400 anyway. I also expect the ISO 400 in the LX3 to be better than the ISO 400 in the LX2, and to be on par with the ISO 400 of the G9. So it will probably be good enough for me.

For others, who like to pixel peep at 100%, small sensor digicams will still be flawed, of course. But that are sure missing some fun!
 
paulobiz said:
Thanks for posting the link to the samples. However, these photos are
marred by hand-shake. Even a fast lens and OIS need help from a
tripod under these conditions, at night.

Thus, I will wait for a properly taken night photograph at ISO 400,
with a tripod.
Click to expand...
I was thinking these night shots were posted to show what is possible without a tripod at night and, frankly, I'm impressed. 1/6 shutter speed for the green fountain? are you kidding me? It's not an award winning shot, it's a hand held night shot taken within a very limited time working with the camera presumably.
 
Overall the shots look quite clean and detailed, for what are "high iso's" (for a compact), and considering the slow shutter used.

It sure would be nice to have higher ISO, low light, slow shutter shots but w tripod, to remove any effects from camera movement (the OIS is good but at 1/10th there will be some left over)

thanks again
 
antoineb said:
Overall the shots look quite clean and detailed, for what are "high
iso's" (for a compact), and considering the slow shutter used.

It sure would be nice to have higher ISO, low light, slow shutter
shots but w tripod, to remove any effects from camera movement (the
OIS is good but at 1/10th there will be some left over)

thanks again
Click to expand...
 
bstring said:
TZ5 is not 'fuller-featured', it's targeted at a different buyer;
Click to expand...
Would you be happier if I had said "less expensive camera with a smaller sensor and a much greater zoom ratio"?

The point is that, features aside, the LX3 should have IQ that's clearly superior to a camera like the TZ5. As I've said in another posting in this thread, what we really need are controlled comparisons of the type done by DPR, but the examples posted here seem roughly in the same league as photos taken by the TZ5. That, to me, is disappointing. I look forward to seeing some well-controlled comparison shots, and, especially, IQ with RAW.

Bob
 
bstring said:
paulobiz said:
Thanks for posting the link to the samples. However, these photos are
marred by hand-shake. Even a fast lens and OIS need help from a
tripod under these conditions, at night.

Thus, I will wait for a properly taken night photograph at ISO 400,
with a tripod.
Click to expand...
I was thinking these night shots were posted to show what is possible
without a tripod at night and, frankly, I'm impressed. 1/6 shutter
speed for the green fountain? are you kidding me? It's not an award
winning shot, it's a hand held night shot taken within a very limited
time working with the camera presumably.
Click to expand...
Hand-held 1/6 sec. at wide angle is not that difficult with any Panasonic camera that has OIS. Here's a shot at 1/5 taken with the TZ5--and I don't consider myself to have extraordinary skill in keeping the camera steady.

Bob

 
Robert Deutsch said:
bstring said:
TZ5 is not 'fuller-featured', it's targeted at a different buyer;
Click to expand...
Would you be happier if I had said "less expensive camera with a
smaller sensor and a much greater zoom ratio"?
Click to expand...
Sure, we don't want the casual reader to assume a TZ5 has a 'fuller' set of features at a much lower price.
Robert Deutsch said:
The point is that, features aside, the LX3 should have IQ that's
clearly superior to a camera like the TZ5. As I've said in another
posting in this thread, what we really need are controlled
comparisons of the type done by DPR, but the examples posted here
seem roughly in the same league as photos taken by the TZ5. That, to
me, is disappointing. I look forward to seeing some well-controlled
comparison shots, and, especially, IQ with RAW.
Click to expand...
We agree. I look forward to reading full reviews with comparisons in the coming weeks. I understand your point as someone perhaps looking to upgrade from the TZ5 and expecting a clearer gain in image quality to justify the cost. As a lay person looking at the size of the two sensors coming from the same manufacturer, it would be a good bet that the larger one with more development time behind it will outperform the smaller sensor in a side-by-side comparison, even with the added megapixel. Let's hope I'm right.
 
I hope you're right, too. Panasonic claims "the highest-quality images ever from a compact digital camera," The press release also says "making the intentional choice to limit the number of mega pixels to 10.1 on its CCD, Panasonic was able to give more space for each pixel and also redesigned the peripheral circuits and other components to further minimize noise generation. As a result, sensitivity is almost 40 percent higher and saturation is increased by 35 percent, when compared to Panasonics 10 MP digital cameras."

The redesign of the peripheral circuits sounds like a good thing, but I can't help feeling that there is an element of hype to Panasonic's boasting of limiting the number of megapixels. The pixel density of the LX3 is 24MP/cm--considerably lower than the 36MP/cm of the TZ5, but not exactly a huge difference from the 24MP/cm of the LX2. (That's cm-squared, of course; I don't know how to do superscripts.). The Fuji F31fd, another point of reference, is 14MP/cm. Of course, there is more to IQ than pixel density, so let's not start an argument about that... For a detailed comparison of specs, see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=panasonic_dmclx2%2Cpanasonic_dmclx3%2Cpanasonic_dmctz5%2Cfuji_finepixf31fd&show=all

Bob
 
Robert Deutsch said:
Panasonic claims "the highest-quality
images ever from a compact digital camera,"
Click to expand...
A marketing department that only makes scientifically accurate and quantifiable claims could hardly be called a marketing department and would quickly be replaced. Note they didn't say, the least amount of noise or sharpest images. What does 'highest-quality images' really mean to you or to them? It's the beauty of marketing hype, vagueness. What they've generated is some animosity and desire to disprove them, therefore more publicity. They'll surely get it.
Robert Deutsch said:
The redesign of the peripheral circuits sounds like a good thing, but
I can't help feeling that there is an element of hype to Panasonic's
boasting of limiting the number of megapixels. The pixel density of
the LX3 is 24MP/cm--considerably lower than the 36MP/cm of the TZ5,
but not exactly a huge difference from the 24MP/cm of the LX2.
(That's cm-squared, of course; I don't know how to do superscripts.).
The Fuji F31fd, another point of reference, is 14MP/cm. Of course,
there is more to IQ than pixel density, so let's not start an
argument about that... For a detailed comparison of specs, see
Click to expand...
My Z750's pixel desity is 19MP/sqcm and produces a fair amount of noise, but it's nearly 4 years old. Casio's newer and smaller sensors produce about the same amount of noise at much higher pixel densities. Along came the F1 eight months ago at 16MP/sqcm, which is much cleaner. The trend will surely continue; quality at a given pixel density will improve over time for each manufacturer, some faster than others.
 
Hmm... I thought folks were excited about the LX3 because it was not keeping pace in the silly megapixel wars. so why bash the C5050's resolution?

Instead, the key point is the LX3's ultra wide lens -- 24mm! And it's also a bit smaller than the C5050.

Personally, I can't wait to see if the LX3 lives up to its specs. My fingers are crossed. How many more days do we have to wait?
 
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