Reading mode: Light Dark

DMC-LX3 has the most amazing sensor I've ever seen!

Go to last post
Let me try to spell it out for you again, in the vain hope that even you might be able to comprehend what I'm talking about:

1) When it comes to current high MP compacts, I only compare them at base ISO, as the results above that are all just so unacceptable that they're irrelevent - they're either awash in noise or NR (or both).

2) HOWEVER, as the sensor gets larger, you SHOULD be able to go to higher ISOs without sacrificing IQ. This assumption holds up well with DSLRs, but it breaks down with medium format. Hence, the fact that medium format doesn't even go to high ISO strongly suggests sub-par noise performance relative to DSLR sensors.

Do you get it now? This is why I only talk about low ISO performance in compacts, but criticise Kodak's medium format sensors for their lack of high ISO.

All the reviews you cite show very obvious grain in the E-400 images, even at base ISO. If you can't see it, that's your problem, but it's very clear to me. It is certainly far noisier than any other 4/3rds camera ever made.

It is very obvious to me that the low ISO output of the LX3 is far less smeared AND less noisy than competing compacts (including the S100fs and my previous favourite, the Canon G9) - it is simply the first compact that produces real photos I've seen in ages. If you can't see the Fuji artifacts that bother me so much, fine, but I most certainly can - clearly I am much more sensitive to these artifacts than you are.
 
ljmac said:
Let me try to spell it out for you again, in the vain hope that even
you might be able to comprehend what I'm talking about:

1) When it comes to current high MP compacts, I only compare them at
base ISO, as the results above that are all just so unacceptable that
they're irrelevent - they're either awash in noise or NR (or both).
Click to expand...
So then, where exactly Kodak performed bad in 4/3rds? I even searched for reviews of the e-400, that link is in this thread now.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29750371
ljmac said:
2) HOWEVER, as the sensor gets larger, you SHOULD be able to go to
higher ISOs without sacrificing IQ. This assumption holds up well
with DSLRs, but it breaks down with medium format. Hence, the fact
that medium format doesn't even go to high ISO strongly suggests
sub-par noise performance relative to DSLR sensors.
Click to expand...
Not at all. In fact, those camera models have very strict color, dynamic range and low noise requirements for that market. 14/16 bit capture (14 bit way before anyone else but Fuji had it. Fuji had 14 bit capture for a while now). The quality of the pixels they capture is superb.
ljmac said:
Do you get it now? This is why I only talk about low ISO performance
in compacts, but criticise Kodak's medium format sensors for their
lack of high ISO.
Click to expand...
Oh, I "get it." You are wrong, as simple as that. You make comparisons about one range of ISO's when it's convenient then "extrapolate" reaching wrong conclusions due to wrong logic. Just like you did with the S100FS Fuji Super CCD noise characteristics based on a JPEG engine result.
ljmac said:
One of the reviews I read of the E-400 gave it a really good rating
overall, but listed three cons: "noise", "noise" and "did I mention
noise?".
Click to expand...
Which review is that? And were they saying that about low ISO, which is what you say you talk about. I even diged some reviews and none of them agree with you. So which reviews are they?
ljmac said:
I think this gives you some idea of how noisy they thought
it was!
Click to expand...
Again, which reviews! The ones I saw prove you wrong.
ljmac said:
But they did think its IQ was excellent in all other
respects. If you can't see the E-400's obvious noise at base ISO,
then your eyes are obviously a lot less accute than mine (this
wouldn't be surprising actually - my vision actually has been tested
as being far better than the average person's).
Click to expand...
LOL that's hilarious boy! I still test superb at vision too, so we must both have super powers. Now, any photographs you have taken? I mean, surely someone with your super powers must have some great photographs due to the extra sensibility to resolution, color and all that right? Haven't seen you post any, but I am probably wrong. You must have posted something.
ljmac said:
It is very obvious to me that the low ISO output of the LX3 is far
less smeared AND less noisy than competing compacts (including the
S100fs and my previous favourite, the Canon G9) - it is simply the
first compact that produces real photos I've seen in ages. If you
can't see the Fuji artifacts that bother me so much, fine, but I most
certainly can - clearly I am much more sensitive to these artifacts
than you are.
Click to expand...
What I find hilarious is that you don't have the LX3 then you make comments as if you had any experience with it! You think I haven't already checked my camera in this dept? LOL :-)

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Let me try to spell it out for you again, in the vain hope that even you might be able to comprehend what I'm talking about:

1) When it comes to current high MP compacts, I only compare them at base ISO, as the results above that are all just so unacceptable that they're irrelevent - they're either awash in noise or NR (or both).

2) HOWEVER, as the sensor gets larger, you SHOULD be able to go to higher ISOs without sacrificing IQ. This assumption holds up well with DSLRs, but it breaks down with medium format. Hence, the fact that medium format doesn't even go to high ISO strongly suggests sub-par noise performance relative to DSLR sensors.

Do you get it now? This is why I only talk about low ISO performance in compacts, but criticise Kodak's medium format sensors for their lack of high ISO.

One of the reviews I read of the E-400 gave it a really good rating overall, but listed three cons: "noise", "noise" and "did I mention noise?". I think this gives you some idea of how noisy they thought it was! But they did think its IQ was excellent in all other respects. If you can't see the E-400's obvious noise at base ISO, then your eyes are obviously a lot less accute than mine (this wouldn't be surprising actually - my vision actually has been tested as being far better than the average person's).

It is very obvious to me that the low ISO output of the LX3 is far less smeared AND less noisy than competing compacts (including the S100fs and my previous favourite, the Canon G9) - it is simply the first compact that produces real photos I've seen in ages. If you can't see the Fuji artifacts that bother me so much, fine, but I most certainly can - clearly I am much more sensitive to these artifacts than you are.
 
the same nonsense you did here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29750420

is not going to answer one bit my question to you about which reviews you are referring to. I did the work of digging some reviews and not a single one of them proved you right on the base noise ISO of the e-400.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29750687

Hm ok.

You win. You can copy and paste.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
ljmac said:
The review sites provide enough information to make this judgement.
If you're too blind to see the obvious smearing in the Fujis
(particularly in folaige), then I can't help you.
Click to expand...
So in other words, you don't have the experience and you don't know what you are talking about. Here's one hint though: JPEG engine is not the same as sensor performance.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
It was a magazine review I read at the time, but I cannot remember which one. However, the noise in the online review samples of the E-400 (as well as samples posted here) confirim it is very noisy, even at base ISO (by DSLR standards). And following my logic regarding sensor size relative to ISO, it should be able to go to 400 or so without problems. This is where the E-330 beats the E-500 (it performs much better at 200-400 ISO) and soundly trounces the E-400 (at a higher pixel density of course, but with a much newer sensor). Where's the evidence that Kodak is better than Panny?

Once again, if you can't see the E-400's obvious noise, that's your problem, not mine. If you can't see SuperCCD artifacts, that's your problem, not mine. You are simply unable to see what I can - don't dare to presume what I see isn't real, just because you are too blind (either through poor eye sight, or seeing what you want to see) to see it yourself.
 
So I thought I might as well copy and paste, especially as I was hoping that - by repeating it over and over again - you might actually read it and comprehend it.
 
ljmac said:
It was a magazine review I read at the time, but I cannot remember
which one.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you don't have anything to back it up then. I mean, you said "reviews" said this, yet I find several reviews that didn't agree with you.
ljmac said:
However, the noise in the online review samples of the
E-400 (as well as samples posted here) confirim it is very noisy,
even at base ISO (by DSLR standards).
Click to expand...
Again, which reviews? All the reviews I cited at base ISO look crystal clear. Care to mention which? In fact, the review themselves state so too. Where exactly are you seeing these images at base ISO in what review that are oh-so noisy? Put up, or shut up.
ljmac said:
And following my logic
regarding sensor size relative to ISO, it should be able to go to 400
or so without problems. This is where the E-330 beats the E-500 (it
performs much better at 200-400 ISO) and soundly trounces the E-400
(at a higher pixel density of course, but with a much newer sensor).
Where's the evidence that Kodak is better than Panny?
Click to expand...
I have never said the Kodak is better than Panasonic. YOU are making the claim that Kodak is so horrible and I question that claim. I even gave links to several reviews that do nothing else but contradict everything you said. Those reviews have base ISO images for comparison and they look great. They say so themselves. Again, which image specifically, from which review at base ISO is oh so noisy?
ljmac said:
Once again, if you can't see the E-400's obvious noise, that's your
problem, not mine.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you choose so foolishly as to make claims and provide nothing. You are not backing up any of your claims, when I dig for reviews around they say nothing like what you have said. I even put some evidence and I am asking you point blank where are the images that you found in which review that are oh so noisy at base ISO, but you don't come up with anything. Care to specify which in particular?

For the readers, here's some links:

http://www . 4-3system.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=86

You can click on the image, then click on the ISO links at the bottom to change it, click on the image highlighted squares to see a 100% crop.

Here are also full resolution crops:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2006/11/24/Olympus-E-400/p5
ljmac said:
If you can't see SuperCCD artifacts, that's your
problem, not mine.
Click to expand...
Hold on a second, where are teh SuperCCD artifacts in the Adobe Camera RAw conversion of dpreview? You know the ISO 1600 shot the LX3 can't do like that?
ljmac said:
You are simply unable to see what I can - don't
dare to presume what I see isn't real, just because you are too blind
(either through poor eye sight, or seeing what you want to see) to
see it yourself.
Click to expand...
What a copout. I am giving you specifically where to look. You talk about JPEG engines and mix it all. I could be completely blind (I am certainly not) and it wouldn't make the difference because apparently you brain can't even distinguish or refuses to understand some basics first.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
links to reviews that disprove what you said? Tell you to check the ISO 1600 RAW conversion of the S100FS of this website to see what I mean that the LX3 is not ahead of Fuji? Or the link I just put to several shots at 100% of the e-400 that contradict your claims?
ljmac said:
So I thought I might as well copy and paste, especially as I was
hoping that - by repeating it over and over again - you might
actually read it and comprehend it.
Click to expand...
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Isn't this commercial a re-run?
We were sent to this same web site, with the same pictures, last year.
And I remember commenting then that the pictures were very noisy.

Especially look at the interior of the church. It is crawling with noise. Not high image quality at all.
 
The E-400 samples you point to in this review are exactly the sorts of crops that will NOT show up noise on just about anything - that's why I don't put much faith in the reviews you cite when judging noise. I mean, they don't even allow you to download full resolution images! I like camera labs' reviews in many respects (particularly the fact that they judge cameras as a system, rather than in isolation), but they aren't very useful for judging noise. But even then, the grain in the landscape crops is very clear anyway.

The E-400 has a very well deserved reputation for being the noisiest 4/3rds body ever. No matter how much you might try to rewrite history, it has this reputation for a reason.
 
ljmac said:
The E-400 samples you point to in this review are exactly the sorts
of crops that will NOT show up noise on just about anything - that's
why I don't put much faith in the reviews you cite when judging
noise.
Click to expand...
The crops are 100% crops!
ljmac said:
I mean, they don't even allow you to download full resolution
images! I like camera labs' reviews in many respects (particularly
the fact that they judge cameras as a system, rather than in
isolation), but they aren't very useful for judging noise. But even
then, the grain in the landscape crops is very clear anyway.
Click to expand...
They are showing base ISO 100% crops and they don't have noise.
ljmac said:
The E-400 has a very well deserved reputation for being the noisiest
4/3rds body ever. No matter how much you might try to rewrite
history, it has this reputation for a reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but for some reason you don't back up your claim with evidence. I gave you links to reviews that contradict what you are saying- they found no issues at base ISO but you continue banging on the drum. Then I post two links to photos with 100% crops, yet you continue banging your drum despite the evidence I linked to.

So, since you mentioned so many reviews did (or is that now just hearsay reputation? You backing off from reviews?), please mention and give the example of photos of the review that proves your claim. You know, 100% downloadable shots of final production shots, that prove your claim? Where is it? I mean, there are so many according to you... why don't you provide evidence?

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
ljmac said:
Your blind faith in Kodak boirders on religious fervour.
Click to expand...
I would like to know how. I mean, I am not saying Panasonic sensors are bad. I am also praising Fuji Super CCD's. So please explain, how is my "blind faith in Kodak" bordering on "religious fervor." Quite in fact, the same could be said about you, having "faith" in the "bad Kodak" meme.
ljmac said:
The fact is,
they have never delievered a sensor that is competitive on noise, and
I'm not going to believe they can until they actually do. That's just
common sense.
Click to expand...
The fact is, I posted links that prove your Kodak 4/3rds assesment wrong, yet you fail to provide your evidence. Nice job.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
ljmac said:
The E-400 samples you point to in this review are exactly the sorts
of crops that will NOT show up noise on just about anything - that's
why I don't put much faith in the reviews you cite when judging
noise. I mean, they don't even allow you to download full resolution
images! I like camera labs' reviews in many respects (particularly
the fact that they judge cameras as a system, rather than in
isolation), but they aren't very useful for judging noise. But even
then, the grain in the landscape crops is very clear anyway.

The E-400 has a very well deserved reputation for being the noisiest
4/3rds body ever. No matter how much you might try to rewrite
history, it has this reputation for a reason.
Click to expand...
--
All this trash from someone that got his first DSLR 6 monts ago.

If the E400 is noisy, the E330 will be too. There simply will not be a large difference.

Kodak and Panny are different sensors. There is little to place one as superior to the other. To claim that there is just betrays a lack of knowledge. Push "print" and any small differences simply disappear.

I have the E-3, and its the finest camera I've ever owned. I have the E500, and it is a camera that will give the E-3 a run for its money. My experience with the E330 is limited, as is your experience with the other cameras you bash. You simply do not know. I repeat, you simply do not know.

I don't know where you've come up with the pro Panny, anti Kodak bias, other than it has nothing to do with real photography.

You like the E330, good, great and fine. You got it at a fantastic price.

Others have different cameras, and they are as capable as yours at capturing images.

Get over it lil mac.

-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/
 
My so-called "Kodak bashing" is merely a response to all the ridiculous Panasonic bashing that goes on around here. Kodak may not be worse than Panny, but there certainly isn't any evidence to suggest that Kodak is better, which is what I strongly object to. Panasonic has been the only other company apart from Oly who've really invested in 4/3rds, and I think they deserve better than the bad rap they get around here. If people didn't keep bashing Panny here, I wouldn't feel any need to defend them - there simply isn't any evidence to support the "Kodak is better than Panny" myth.
 
They're 100% crops of the sorts of grainly, well-lit subjects that will do almost nothing to show noise. Got it now?
 
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