-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Fuji F200 EXR vs LX3
- Thread starter arinel
- Start date
Bellefield
Leading Member
Hopefully it will be up with the LX3's low light performance, and its dynamic range, not sure why it has to be either / or and not both, but maybe its just a function of the type of shot. Can't see it being anywhere near the LX3 comprehensive control set though.
--
'100% of the shots you don't take don't go in' -
Duncan Ferguson
--
'100% of the shots you don't take don't go in' -
Duncan Ferguson
sheikher
Member
ugly design and no hd video, so still the TZ7 for me 
Entropius
Veteran Member
... at least as far as low-light performance is concerned.
f/3.3-5.1
vs.
f/2-2.8
It'll take more than a magic sensor to overcome that huge disparity in aperture.
f/3.3-5.1
vs.
f/2-2.8
It'll take more than a magic sensor to overcome that huge disparity in aperture.
viztyger
Veteran Member
Exactly.....and only time will tell whether the new EXR sensor is more "magic" or more marketing hype. Still it's good to see Fuji's innovative approach to sensor design.
--
Björn
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/viztyger
stefaan
Senior Member
Marketing hype too, but the Fuji sensors do have some incredible nice colors and DR.
This new big(ger) Fuji 1/1.6 sensor in such a small Fuji camera ... I can only imagine what it could do in the LX3/D-LUX4 with F2 lens.
This new big(ger) Fuji 1/1.6 sensor in such a small Fuji camera ... I can only imagine what it could do in the LX3/D-LUX4 with F2 lens.
Agreed, at least Fuji are trying to push the boundary's and if this latest initiative yeilds a noticeable improvement in DR, it will interest me. This new Fuji will challenge other Pana models like the FX550/150.
Nick
some new sensor devolpment ist fine, but fuji should also concentrate on cameras.
the F100 already was a simple P&S with a sub-standard lens and a sub-par user interface.
they should be able to do better. what about an E900 successor?
the F100 already was a simple P&S with a sub-standard lens and a sub-par user interface.
they should be able to do better. what about an E900 successor?
B
Barry Carter
Guest
So far I have seen nothing that is even close to the Panasonic LX3 as a competitor. I MEAN Nothing, Nada, Nyet,.....!
Ciao...Barry
Ciao...Barry
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
It's not in the LX-3 class, and the lens ins't fast..
On the other hand, it might have a great sensor, so we will have to wait and see.
Someone said something about marketing earlier, well companies do hype things up, we will see if it delivers.
Oh BTW, I keep reading posts about the LX-3 ISO values being grossly overstated (in other words not accurate, DXo tests of something like it) So maybe the speed difference won't be as massive as some suggest (if fuji do accurate ISO values)
And the mega distortion lx-3 lens, is corrected in software..
So it ain't just fuji making up hype!
On the other hand, it might have a great sensor, so we will have to wait and see.
Someone said something about marketing earlier, well companies do hype things up, we will see if it delivers.
Oh BTW, I keep reading posts about the LX-3 ISO values being grossly overstated (in other words not accurate, DXo tests of something like it) So maybe the speed difference won't be as massive as some suggest (if fuji do accurate ISO values)
And the mega distortion lx-3 lens, is corrected in software..
So it ain't just fuji making up hype!
fuji also applied heavy in-camera corrections starting with their F10, and i am sure the F200 will do the same.
the overstated ISO is blabla IMO. björn did 1:1 comparisons with his G1 and he found that there was about 2/3 stops difference between G1 and LX3. but the G1 is also claimed for being more sensitve at given ISO, so in reality the LX3 might just be in the middle.
also comparisons with G10 show that both have more or less the same sensitivity.
the overstated ISO is blabla IMO. björn did 1:1 comparisons with his G1 and he found that there was about 2/3 stops difference between G1 and LX3. but the G1 is also claimed for being more sensitve at given ISO, so in reality the LX3 might just be in the middle.
also comparisons with G10 show that both have more or less the same sensitivity.
I don't know why Fuji killed the E series. An E900 successor with a better lens and the same control set as the LX3 would be nice.
--
http://www.pbase.com/lhlim
--
http://www.pbase.com/lhlim
penn_boysen
Forum Enthusiast
Who cares? I hope it is a great camera... Gotta start shaking things up, get people excited in this depressing economy. Jeeze,,, it's not like the LX3 the only camera to love, spread the love around man.
penn
--
http://theobservantimagist.wordpress.com/
penn
--
http://theobservantimagist.wordpress.com/
John Bean (UK)
Forum Pro
And since they don't output raw it doesn't give the obsessives something to agonise over as they do with the LX3.
Plus the small detail that there's no formal standard to determine it as there is with film. Complaining about the stated ISO is not entirely meaningless but it comes pretty damned close.
--
John Bean [GMT]
JortS29
Veteran Member
All recent P&S cameras I tested overstate ISO (my ancient Sony S85 is twice(!) as sensitive compared to most) anyway.
John Carson
Veteran Member
Just quoting those numbers gives a somewhat misleading impression. f/5.1 for the Fuji is at a focal length of 140 mm (35 mm equivalent). At the maximum LX3 focal length of 60 mm, you are comparing f/2.8 for the LX3 with something like f/4 for the Fuji. That is a significant difference but not "huge".
--
john carson
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I just find it amusing that the G1 is hailed as being more sensitive..
It's a notable drum bashing sound for pannie fans. But when the tables are turned (lx-3 not as sensitive, and fisheye optics, cleverly corrected) it's sssshhhhhhh, say nothing!
Now I couldn't tell you what the real story is..maybe none of that is true. Just an curious observation.
IMO fuji have had some potential, but have tended to cram decent stuff, into a less than spectacular camera, F31..nice machine, but rather ho hum design/menu wise, and handling..but nice IQ.
I would love for fuji to do an LX-3 or something close..this isn't it though..
It might be pretty good, we will have to wait on that one
LiteFast
Well-known member
I have a different take on the DxOMark data for the LX3, G10, and P6000. The LX3 does indeed overstate its ISO, actually shooting about 50 instead of 80 at base, but this may be an important part of the LX3's performance advantage. All three of the cameras are boosting sensor data at base ISO, but the LX3 is boosting less than the Canon and Nikon. As a result, it returns better signal-to-noise, DR, tonal range, and color sensitivity. It's a shame that the LX3 is not honest about its ISO, but we can just bump the exposure to +1/3 or +2/3 and benefit anyway.
What we really need is an enthusiast P&S that gives us an honest base ISO with no boost. It might be 25, or maybe even 12, but unless you never go outside during the day there will be plenty of times when you could shoot just fine with that low an ISO. This is the last major hurdle keeping P&S IQ from matching DSLR IQ. The two camera types could produce the same IQ except the DSLRs shooting in 3 or 4 stops lower light. The irony is that the Panasonic could probably do this for the LX3 with a simple firmware change. v1.3?
What we really need is an enthusiast P&S that gives us an honest base ISO with no boost. It might be 25, or maybe even 12, but unless you never go outside during the day there will be plenty of times when you could shoot just fine with that low an ISO. This is the last major hurdle keeping P&S IQ from matching DSLR IQ. The two camera types could produce the same IQ except the DSLRs shooting in 3 or 4 stops lower light. The irony is that the Panasonic could probably do this for the LX3 with a simple firmware change. v1.3?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum