Reading mode: Light Dark

LX3 & G1 Comparison?

Go to last post
W

WSLam

Veteran Member
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
377
Location
HK
I am interested in the G1 because of the possibility of using Leica M lenses on it via an adaptor.

I already have a LX3. Has anyone done a comparison between the LX3 and G1, especially at ISO800 and ISO1600? Any RAW to download? Thanks.

--
A CPS & NPS Member
Digital is not Polaroid. Shoot RAW.
 
Thanks. Wonder if anyone has any examples. I am used to the 5D, 5D2 D700, D3's High ISO performance. But obviously I do not expect the same level of performance, but usable ISO800 will be good.

--
A CPS & NPS Member
Digital is not Polaroid. Shoot RAW.
 
björn has posted lots of comparisons with G1, LX3 and D300, have a look into his gallery. there are also raw-files available. also consider, that the LX3 overstates its iso by 2/3 stops when directly compared to the G1.

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger
 
exdeejjjaaaa said:
John Bean (UK) said:
oluv said:
consider, that the LX3 overstates its iso by 2/3 stops when directly
compared to the G1.
Click to expand...
Would you like to elaborate on that statement?
Click to expand...
that is probably a reference to DxO tests...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-LX3
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, I hadn't seen that specific test but am well aware of the differences in apparent ISO in various cameras and FWIW the LX3 agrees quite well with other cameras and meters I use. Maybe they all lean the same way ;-)

The DxO database doesn't appear to have the G1 in its comparisons so I still don't understand the "when directly compared" part in the original assertion.

--
John Bean [GMT]

 
John Bean (UK) said:
Would you like to elaborate on that statement?
Click to expand...
what's not to understand? look at the corresponding images from both cameras and watch aperture/shutter speed. you will notice that the G1 always has 2/3 stops less exposure while achieving the same overall scene brightness:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/g1__lx3_night_comparison

with other words, choosing ISO1000 on the G1 will give you the same brightness as if you chose ISO1600 on the LX3 assuming you have selected the same aperture/shutter speed on both.

btw. it is the same story with G1 vs. D300 as björn has shown in this comparison:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/g1_d300_iso_equivalencyhttp://www.pbase.com/viztyger/g1_d300_iso_equivalency

so either the G1 understates its iso value or the LX3 and D300 overstate theirs.

i have done some tests with G1 and pentax K20D and discovered that there was even about 1 stop difference.

i wonder why there haven't been any exposure difference in dpreview's shooting, as all cameras had the same settings, but the resulting images have all more or less the same exposures.
 
oluv said:
John Bean (UK) said:
Would you like to elaborate on that statement?
Click to expand...
what's not to understand? look at the corresponding images from both
cameras and watch aperture/shutter speed. you will notice that the G1
always has 2/3 stops less exposure while achieving the same overall
scene brightness:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/g1__lx3_night_comparison

with other words, choosing ISO1000 on the G1 will give you the same
brightness as if you chose ISO1600 on the LX3 assuming you have
selected the same aperture/shutter speed on both.
Click to expand...
You can't use gamma-adjusted images to assess exposure, the comparison data needs to be linear. I can produce two images of exactly the same exposure from the same camera and with identical black and white points, yet make one look much darker than the other simply by using a slightly different gamma curve. Image "brightness" proves absolutely nothing related to ISO or exposure.

--
John Bean [GMT]

 
John Bean (UK) said:
You can't use gamma-adjusted images to assess exposure, the
comparison data needs to be linear. I can produce two images of
exactly the same exposure from the same camera and with identical
black and white points, yet make one look much darker than the other
simply by using a slightly different gamma curve. Image "brightness"
proves absolutely nothing related to ISO or exposure.
Click to expand...
what adjustment are you taliking about? all raw files are available for download, so you can play with the linear data.

or do you mean the gamma curve is applied before raw-conversion?

i would really like to see your "corrected" results!
 
oluv said:
what adjustment are you taliking about? all raw files are available
for download, so you can play with the linear data.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the problems of using apparent image brightness from two different cameras/sensors being used as some metric of the cameras ISO. There are numerous pitfalls that render any assumptions suspect, not least of which is that applying identical gamma correction to both at some nominal ISO will result in the same perceived brightness in the resulting images, then concluding that any such difference must be down to differences in the actual ISO value.

Some cameras for example may apply some ISO changes in software and some in hardware so the raw sensor data from two different ISOs can be identical, the ISO change being implemented during conversion. Comparing ISO between differing cameras by inspecting the resulting data is not always as straightforward as it may seem.
oluv said:
i would really like to see your "corrected" results!
Click to expand...
I presume the quote marks denote sarcasm. Feel free to continue, I'm immune and it only devalues your opinions.

--
John Bean [GMT]

 
no sarcasm at all, but as you seem to really know what you are talking about, i am really curious to see what you will be able to read out from the raw-files if you are willing to do this. i don't have enough technical knowledge to do so. i assume with tools like dcraw and some special parameters etc, it could be possible to "equalize" raw data from 2 different cameras. i think this is what DXO tries to do.
 
Interesting. I'd assumed that the G1's ISO was 2/3 stop faster than that of the LX3. No matter how I process the RAW files, this seems to be the case, although I'm only going by subjective observation.

Like oluv, I'm interested in a more scientific assessment; I've posted RAW files of the same scene at 1/3 stop ISO increments (all tripod mounted and taken within minutes of one another).

1. LX3
f/2.8 1/6s ISO400
http://www.esnips.com/doc/c65c831a-2234-4afb-9ad7-afadaaa4e7ae/P1010981

2. G1 same ISO, equivalent combination of aperture and shutter speed
f/4.0 1/3.2s ISO400
http://www.esnips.com/doc/f18ca260-bbc6-456e-a373-02627d945fcd/P1020118

3. G1 ISO 1/3 stop lower, equivalent combination of aperture and shutter speed
f/4.0 1/3.2s ISO320
http://www.esnips.com/doc/ca83151a-81b3-4bbd-a08b-d484d584cbf7/P1020119

4. G1 ISO 2/3 stop lower, equivalent combination of aperture and shutter speed
f/4.0 1/3.2s ISO250
http://www.esnips.com/doc/787d8060-25fb-4790-8cb8-416e4309472c/P1020120

This is the scene:


oluv said:
no sarcasm at all, but as you seem to really know what you are
talking about, i am really curious to see what you will be able to
read out from the raw-files if you are willing to do this. i don't
have enough technical knowledge to do so. i assume with tools like
dcraw and some special parameters etc, it could be possible to
"equalize" raw data from 2 different cameras. i think this is what
DXO tries to do.
Click to expand...
--
Björn

galleries: http://www.pbase.com/viztyger

 
viztyger said:
Interesting. I'd assumed that the G1's ISO was 2/3 stop faster than
that of the LX3. No matter how I process the RAW files, this seems to
be the case, although I'm only going by subjective observation.
Click to expand...
It may well be the case Bjorn, I wasn't actually challenging your subjective observations but the assumptions others make from them that may or may not be the case. I hadn't seen your tests when I asked for clarification of the rather unequivocal assertion "the LX3 overstates its iso by 2/3 stops when directly compared to the G1", and the answer was "what's not to understand? [...] look at the corresponding images [...] the G1 always has 2/3 stops less exposure while achieving the same overall scene brightness".

And that's when I pointed out that equating brightness to exposure (and by implication to effective ISO) isn't as clear-cut as it may seem. The physicist in me tends to over-react when a conclusion is made that can't be justified by results of the tests performed even though it looks as though that's what's happening. "Of course the Earth is flat. I can see it's flat. What's not to understand?" ;-)

I've noted your linked files and may look at some aspects from personal interest, though I admit up front that other than the occasional surprise that makes me look deeper I lose interest in this kind of test quite quickly...

--
John Bean [GMT]

 
Like you, I don't own both (I have the G1). However, some things are reasonably obvious from what I've seen on this forum. Firstly, JPEG images from Panasonic cameras of the LX3/G1 generation have pretty much the same "look" about them (both produce great B&W images straight out of the camera with Dymamic B&W for example). So, with the G1, what you're going to get is a camera that produces similar looking images (colour and so on) but with:
  • More resolved detail at any ISO (though perhaps depending on lens used - I've not seen a comparison of the G1 kit lens and LX3 lens)
  • Less noise at higher ISOs (though if at ISO 100, hardly enough difference to be crying into your beer)
  • Simple handling, use and performance (you'll perhaps not appreciate this if you've never owned an SLR)
  • SLR flexibility in a way that perhaps no SLR system offers when it comes to a camera that can shoot with just about any lens from any system with a manual focus system that's second to none.
And here ends post 2 of my posting while drunk experiment (I think I'll go to bed now at it's midnight here).

--
Regards
J



http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile
 
Hello Oluv,

this having different base ISO values within different cameras doesn't have a direct effect on the camera that one is using... right?
Only in comparison to, and with other camera's... or?

If I shoot at 100 and this actually is 160, this doesn't effect anything since the metering is an integration between aperture, shutter and ISO speed ....

Just a bit confused by this information.... in need of some clarity :-)
 
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