Reading mode: Light Dark

G9 vs LX3

Go to last post
MartyG9 said:
Put a 24 to 200mm lens that is significantly faster than the current
G9 lens on a G9 and perhaps the words all around would be fitting.

Put the Raynox 5 oz Pro 6600 WA on the G9 and you have 24mm.... and
filter threads, case closed.
Click to expand...
Case WIDE OPEN....Not 24 mm at F2.0 and not at 19mm F2.0 with an adapter as on the LZ3..
MartyG9 said:
Just Marty
Click to expand...
As for the G10...only time will tell. Give us a 24 to 200 with F2.0 and we will all be jumping for joy....meanwhile we know what the LZ3 offers and it is very impressive.
 
The image doesn't display. Can you post it so that it can ve viewed without having to join Savefile?

Bob
IIIV said:
I personally hate Panasonic's Venus Engine IV because of its
aggressive NR (I know it's been improved but it's still
aggressive)... But the good thing about the LX3 is it can shoot
RAW... Here's a RAW image taken with the LX3 @ ISO 800...

http://www.pbase.com/oluv/image/101706377/original

Here's the same image after noise reduction using Noiseware Pro...

http://www.savefile.com/files/1732779

What do you ladies and gents think?
Click to expand...
 
Downloaded fine for me without joining.
 
The RAW-based Noiseware-treated version is much better than the jpeg. It's not just the amount of noise that's different, but the form that it takes. The jpeg's is a really ugly non-random grainy quality, whereas the Noiseware's is smooth. This is really the first encouraging indication I've seen that the LX3 might live up to the hype, at least when shooting RAW. (Reduced in size, the various sample images look OK, but then so do images from cameras with no great claim to IQ, like the TZ5.) It would be good if ACR was updated to include the LX3, but, according to a comment from one of Adobe's people that I saw on an Adobe forum, since they're updated ACR just recently, this is not going to happen for some time..

Bob
 
one of the biggest problems with the progression of the LX series was that the original camera was critiqued for noise at the higher iso. The second version improved the noise at high iso but the algorithm for noise reduction was built into the raw file. As a result, there was a great loss of detail at the higher iso images with the last version of the camera. There was no way to turn this off and it really turned me off. I still have a Leica DLUX-2, (same as the Panasonic LX-1) and find it to be superior to the second release. So my concern is if the noise is reduced further in the LX-3-- is it at the expense of loss of detail.

--
http://markkayphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1305161
 
the LX3 performs much better at higher iso than the LX1 and LX2 hands down, i didn't expect it to be that good. jpeg is ok, but you have to shoot raw to get the best out of it.

here some examples

iso200:
http://www.pbase.com/oluv/image/101698840/original

iso400:
http://www.pbase.com/oluv/image/101731583/original

iso800 with some slight neatimage processing:
http://www.pbase.com/oluv/image/101730877/original

iso800 with noiseware:
http://www.pbase.com/oluv/image/101730102/original

and here an iso400 crop with the LX1 as comparison:
http://www.pbase.com/oluv/image/101705193/original
 
WoodWorks said:
One of the things many of those who are dismissing the LX3 seem to
ignore is the faster lens. At WA, the LX3's f/2.0 lens is allows
twice as much light in as most other's (including the G9 and F31)
f/2.8 lens. And at full tele (yes, it's only 60mm) the LX3 is still
only f/2.8. So at WA (and it's 24mm on the LX3!) what you're seeing
at ISO 400 on the LX3 is equivalent to the G9's and F31's ISO 800. At
full tele, it's even less of a contest. Comparing apples to apples,
I'd say the LX3 is quite impressive in low light.

David
Click to expand...
 
oluv's tests are quite informative. i still think the LX3 is a capable low-light camera... and see no reason yet to think otherwise. of course I am not going to compare it to a DSLR. i am comparing it to recent offerings by other manufacturers within the same compact class of cameras.

i think it is as good, perhaps even better, in low light than Fuji's recent F100fd. though the F100fd has nice sharp images straight out of the camera, its low light capabilities have definitely taken a beating when compared to my F31fd. on the other hand, Panasonic has increased the low light capability in its newer LX3 as compared to older previous LX2/LX1 models.

If only Fuji provided the F100fd with RAW capability... maybe that would make the F100fd more useful as a DSLR backup. Not saying that the F100fd is not a good camera - because it definitely is. Its just that Fuji seems to have problems in catching up with the competition. High time Fuji stopped dumbing down its F-series a la Canon.

The LX3 RAW offering combined with its fast F2.0 lens plus its impressive optical stabilization and its more powerful in-camera flash do help the camera easily climb a long way up the chain rapidly... and thus make it great value for money for some of us.

--
Click

 
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