S90 vs. LX3

Canon has just brought out a pretty cool little 270ex two battery flash unit that has a swivel head for bouncing. I can't believe it won't have a hotshoe to compliment it.

Maybe the idea is that it's sensitivity is so good you wouldn't need a powerful flash.

LX3 with Jinbei Radio trigger (like Cactus V4) firing studio Beauty Dish for Key and Large soft box for fill. The trigger unit is small and does not even look silly or out of proportion in the hot shoe either.

Yes i was shooting with a D200 but I tried the LX3 out to see how it worked. It is feasible to do small presentation studio work with an LX3. You cant do that with a non hot shoe camera



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-blad/

What is all this hype about? Soon there will be an Iphone with 10mp that has HD video. So Charlie, is that an S90 in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me! Why don't you just get a purse, as those baggy cargo pants don't become you.

Ciao....Barry (LX3'ing and loving it)

Doesn't interest me.

28mm and no vari-angle is too limiting.

Instead of the bragging rights of f/2, I'd like to see an f/2.8-3.3 or similar lens, which is reasonably fast where it's needed the most. Not f/4.9 like the S90.

Pixel density: Probably as usual of only marginal importance to image noise.

Big noise improvement: Deceiving marketing when comparing to a smaller sensor (!) and relying on JPEG noise filtering.

Blue skies: Easy to fix in PP.

Smaller and no lens cap: That's very welcome of course.

Lack of EVF: Has kept me from buying the LX3 so far (and the effects currency fluctuations and shortage has had on price). S90 also lacks this.

No HD video: No deal breaker for me, but why not offer it; it's 2009.

No filter adapter: Really? Geez. Disqualifies it as an advanced camera for enthusiasts.

Just my two oere,
Erik from Sweden

ANAYV said:

graphikal said:

No, because there is no "DOF advantage".

Click to expand...

huh...I would think there is in macro..

Click to expand...

No. Diffraction becomes an issue at wider apertures, the smaller the format.

ANAYV said:

They needed to stop down there lens,to show a more in- focus shot,IMHO. I can get nice butterfly shots,were ALL of the butterfly is in focus (both wings,lol) ,and ALL of the background is OOF. Would be much harder,with D-SLR,than with compact camera.At least I think so

Click to expand...

You're wrong.

Brad Morris said:

LX3 with Jinbei Radio trigger (like Cactus V4) firing studio Beauty Dish for Key and Large soft box for fill. The trigger unit is small and does not even look silly or out of proportion in the hot shoe either.

Yes i was shooting with a D200 but I tried the LX3 out to see how it worked. It is feasible to do small presentation studio work with an LX3. You cant do that with a non hot shoe camera

Click to expand...

Okay, I will keep that in mind. If I sell my DSLRs and want to do (exclusively small presentation ) studio work, I will make sure to pick up a compact with a hot shoe.

graphikal said:

graphikal said:

graphikal said:

No, because there is no "DOF advantage".

Click to expand...

huh...I would think there is in macro..

Click to expand...

No. Diffraction becomes an issue at wider apertures, the smaller the format.

Click to expand...

Huh...diffraction at f2.8...get serious. I don't think you have ever taken a macro shot,with a small sensored digital camera....you have experience?

Or only SLR/D-SLR...sounds like you need to update your information...since so many of us,have already proven more DOF ,for macro ,with compacts,than with APS-c sensored camera's. I wont argue this anymore,since I know a host of photographers,who have experienced what I have..and you haven't (from your comments)

F2.8 will give more DOF,than f8 on a D-SLR. You can't argue these facts,and at f2-f5.6 Diffraction is not an issue.Proven facts,my friend.

Trevor just bought a Oly E-520 ,and said for macro's he'd like to go to f22 (for DOF),but also needs fast shutter speeds...so there is a compromise,from his comments (but we already knew that). His FZ50 is better,in his opinion (no surprize,for close up shots). that's cause f2.8 will give more DOF on his FZ50,than F8 (or even f16) on his D-SLR. there's NO diffraction at this aperture (2.8)

graphikal said:

graphikal said:

They needed to stop down there lens,to show a more in- focus shot,IMHO. I can get nice butterfly shots,were ALL of the butterfly is in focus (both wings,lol) ,and ALL of the background is OOF. Would be much harder,with D-SLR,than with compact camera.At least I think so

Click to expand...

You're wrong.

Click to expand...

no...this has already been proven...where have you been?

Cave dwellers need to come out,and read the news,and experience some more.....before they claim facts they don't know

ANAYV

tkpatric said:

A viewring is simply clumsy when the camera is 30 or more cm from your face.
It looses its advantage.

Click to expand...

I would disagree with that, because having the ability to adjust camera settings with a both hands is more useful because they can be better spread out over the small surface of the camera. IMO it's probably better than cramming all controls on the right side of the camera for one hand to have to control.

FWIW, I have zero problems adjusting the AF/MF/Macro switch on my LX3 and that switch is located at the base of the lens barrel, on the front of the camera. I don't foresee the control ring's location being problematic.

In any case, an EVF camera would be fine, given your criteria of the camera having to be close to the photographer's face. In other words, your issue doesn't absolutely require an OVF to be resolved.

larsbc

you can do what ever you like
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-blad/

As I understand it, the S90 does not offer a 3:2 format.

Well, that clinches it -- no S90 for me.

First, let me establish my bona fide's: I use RAW exclusively with my D40, and very few of my previous P&S's emerge without a little post-processing.

With the LX3, I'm tending not to use RAW, and many of the images are acceptable right out of the camera, particularly for the "vacation snaps" for which it is used the most.

Here's the thing: My Significant Other still believes in prints. The instant we return from any special occasion she'll want Costco $0.13 4x6's of virtually everything. I am not prepared to post process every photo just to get the right print ratio and Costco's cropping facility is, of course, gawdawful.

It seems to me that this should be a much bigger issue, one that I have not heard discussed very much. Since Costco (and similar outfits) is processing 14 zillion of the 18 zillion 4x6 consumer prints nowadays, how can any camera not offer 3:2 format?

-- Mike

Indeed, I'm Russian and I have the batch that looks in specified folder (and subfolders) and changing metadata in all .rw2 files . Takes less than a minute for 1000 files. Let me know if you need it, nothing fancy really.

Mike__ said:

As I understand it, the S90 does not offer a 3:2 format.

Well, that clinches it -- no S90 for me.

First, let me establish my bona fide's: I use RAW exclusively with my D40, and very few of my previous P&S's emerge without a little post-processing.

With the LX3, I'm tending not to use RAW, and many of the images are acceptable right out of the camera, particularly for the "vacation snaps" for which it is used the most.

Here's the thing: My Significant Other still believes in prints. The instant we return from any special occasion she'll want Costco $0.13 4x6's of virtually everything. I am not prepared to post process every photo just to get the right print ratio and Costco's cropping facility is, of course, gawdawful.

It seems to me that this should be a much bigger issue, one that I have not heard discussed very much. Since Costco (and similar outfits) is processing 14 zillion of the 18 zillion 4x6 consumer prints nowadays, how can any camera not offer 3:2 format?

-- Mike

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the S90 DOES offer a 3:2 pixel mode, which is a simple crop already done for you. I think.

Ehrik said:

28mm and no vari-angle is too limiting.

Instead of the bragging rights of f/2, I'd like to see an f/2.8-3.3 or similar lens, which is reasonably fast where it's needed the most. Not f/4.9 like the S90.

Click to expand...

Erik, I disagree with you for a change

I'd be happy to give up one stop at the long end for a stop at the wide end, heck, I'd even do it 1:2! The reason is the following, the long end is virtually only usable in daylight anyway. f/4.9 or f/3.3 wouldn't change too much. When the night comes, every bit of lens speed is crucial around the EV3 mark especially in the sub 3000K territory (I hate yellow light, I've just bought 15x 4000K energy saving bulbs) ISO 400 is the bleeding edge for 1/1.7" IMO, and 1/8 - 1/4 sec shutter speeds are unrealistic/ unreliable at the long end.

Ehrik said:

Big noise improvement: Deceiving marketing when comparing to a smaller sensor (!) and relying on JPEG noise filtering.

Click to expand...

Haha, one of the Canonites wrote something like "we can trust these figures cuz Canon cannot afford to lie about it" Right...

Ehrik said:

Blue skies: Easy to fix in PP.

Click to expand...

Suppose you're not talking about blow high lights. I'm getting a bit fed up with this 'colour magic' that surrounds some brands, according to some people. At least I will only take those seriously who at least have a hardware calibrated monitor...

Ehrik said:

Smaller and no lens cap: That's very welcome of course.

Click to expand...

Even though the Ricoh cap is a viable solution, the built is the real deal.

Ehrik said:

Lack of EVF: Has kept me from buying the LX3 so far (and the effects currency fluctuations and shortage has had on price). S90 also lacks this.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's never going to happen, a compact with a (decent) VF, let it be electric or optical.

Ehrik said:

No HD video: No deal breaker for me, but why not offer it; it's 2009.

Click to expand...

It is really close to being a deal breaker, actually it is for me at the moment. With some hefty discounts I might reconsider, if there aren't other more promising alternatives.

Ehrik said:

No filter adapter: Really? Geez. Disqualifies it as an advanced camera for enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

As a one-cam-do-it-all, yes, but I would primarily use it when I'd need some kind of discretion, where even an FZ38/GH1 would be too large. With the allegedly improved DR and shooting RAW, I think I could live without a polarizer, but I'm not sure

Photo-Wiz said:

Tom you have the "bug" worse than me.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's just the usual lust for a tiny yet high-quality camera. And really, the S90 didn't trigger it -- not by far.

As I've said plenty of times, I've been carrying a camera around with me for about a decade -- in that left-front pants pocket. "Once upon a time," it was "the only camera I owned," if you can believe that -- like the original Canon Digital ELPH, the S100. Then, as I got "better" cameras, I always had a little ELPH or similar camera to carry around, but none of them could produce image quality like my "big" cameras could. So, I've gone through a bunch of not-quite-so-satisfying little compacts over the years.

The LX3 was the first time that my "main" camera could be "carry around" camera, but in reality, it didn't take too long for carrying the LX3 around everywhere to "get old." So, it was back to looking for even-smaller cameras again. And, again, I've already gone through the Canon SD880IS and the Panasonic FX500.

The FX500 was the last one to go, mainly because the ZS3 dropped in my lap -- literally. I won it in one of Panasonic's "Living in HD" web site's contests. And I'm pretty happy with it -- it is now my "carry around" camera. But.... Things could be better. It's not a whole lot smaller than the LX3, and the whole "color cast" issue does bug me a bit.

It was really the new Sony WX1 that really gave me the new camera bug -- it sure looks like "a typical teensy Sony without the typical mediocre Sony image quality. With a high-quality wide, fast lens, and it's so teensy.... And I've been busy over in the Fuji forum talking about that. Not in the Sony forum -- it seems they couldn't care less about the thing. The Fuji folks are far more interested in it, as compared to the Fuji F70EXR.

But.... The first WX1 images are in -- not from Sony itself, but rather, from some Chinese sites that have gotten pre-production cameras. And the WX1's wide lens is showing no Panasonic-like wide-angle distortion correction -- it's a sea of curvy verticals everywhere. And all we've seen have been ISO 160 images at the lowest ISO setting -- "Can't wait to see those base-ISO 80 shots to see what this thing can really do." But.... Some Sony sites show the WX1 as having ISO 160 as its lowest ISO. Others show it as ISO 80. Some sites say both. The fact that we've seen nothing lower than ISO 160, though, speaks volumes towards the fact that ISO 160 is indeed the lowest -- and so far the ISO 160 picturs have been "eeesh, that's not really good enough, is it?"

So, then there's the F70EXR. An impressive 10x zoom in a relatively small package. But.... It's a slow lens, with rather ineffective sensor-shift IS. And a whole lot more purple fringing than I'm seen in anything else these days.

Perhaps not that, either.

Then there's the Panasonic ZR1, which doesn't appear to have the kind of "gizmos" and "low-light image stacking" features that the others have. But it's got a doubly-good OIS, or so Panny says. So, what about that?

And then came the S90 announcement. I think it'll produce better image quality than the other three I just mentioned. It's got a faster lens than any of them. And I really like how all of the surfaces are "smooth" -- everything has been mounted flush to make it really more of a "pure pocket camera."

But.... We're just learning that, apparently, Canon has done away with its "ultrafine" image quality setting. It appears to be missing in the G11, S90, and other "2009" cameras. Compared to the LX3, most LX3 files will be from about 3,000 KB to 4,500 KB, and most S90 files will be 2,000 KB to 3,500 KB. S90 image sizes are slightly smaller than LX3 sizes, but still, this represents quite a bit more JPEG compression for the Canon cameras than Panasonic equivalents. It's good for hard drive space and memory card room -- no need to go for that 16-gig SD card. But it's got to have a hit on the ultimate JPEG image quality. No problem for the RAW shooters, but not good news for the JPEG folks who don't want to touch RAW with a ten-foot pole.

So.....

We'll see. We have some specifications to confirm, and plenty of sample images to see before we'll really see which one of these cameras might win me over. And that's how the story goes, so far.

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com

Mike__ said:

As I understand it, the S90 does not offer a 3:2 format.

Click to expand...

I have heard that most (all?) recent Canon digicams offer a 3:2 mask on the LCD to assist composition, and in DPP you can batch process a corresponding 3:2 trim. Granted, this isn't as desirable as having a 3:2 option in the camera, but the workaround doesn't sound horrible to me.

Again, I have never owned a Canon P&S, S90 may be my first. So if I'm completely wrong in this, do correct me.

Although I've watched this forum for some time (LX3 fan, but not an owner, yet), I just joined this afternoon and this is my first post.

The one big diff' to me is the S90 has a 28mm lens compared to the LX3's wider 24mm lens. I'm a big fan of wide angle shots, but also a fan of good zoom. Now, if the LX4/5 comes out with a sweet 5x or more zoom while still retaining that 24mm wide end, I'd be hooked.

Any more word on Panny press releases re the LX4/5? I wonder if it's be announced with the GF1?

--
Dave
Blog: http://lazyphotog.wordpress.com
Gear: Panasonic LZ2 point & shoot (5 megs / 6x zoom)

ANAYV said:

graphikal said:

ANAYV said:

graphikal said:

No, because there is no "DOF advantage".

Click to expand...

huh...I would think there is in macro..

Click to expand...

No. Diffraction becomes an issue at wider apertures, the smaller the format.

Click to expand...

Huh...diffraction at f2.8...get serious. I don't think you have ever taken a macro shot,with a small sensored digital camera....you have experience?

Or only SLR/D-SLR...sounds like you need to update your information...since so many of us,have already proven more DOF ,for macro ,with compacts,than with APS-c sensored camera's. I wont argue this anymore

Click to expand...

Fantastic! The well-known truth is that smaller formats have no DOF advantage.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/
http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27386487

ANAYV said:

since I know a host of photographers,who have experienced what I have..

Click to expand...

Err nope. It is sometimes startling to me how the uneducated try to "educate" others on this website.

Okay, Here's my past cameras

Lots of 35mm GR1 being the best of the pocket cameras - and an Olympus 35-80mm zoom was pretty good to. I'll just skip over to the digital cams so I don't bore you too much:

Started with the Sony 707 (I think) - I had two different models of that genre.

Casio - 4 megapixel - can't recall model number

Nikon Coolpix 2500 - takes excellent pics even with its 2 megapixel limitation

Sony W1 -great camera

Fuji F30 - didn't care for the erratic exposures

Casio 750Z - nice little camera - cumbersome charger.

Panasonic LX2 - Didn't like the watercolors
Panasonic TZ3 - nice

Panasonic TZ5 - nicer - gave it to my daughter, and it was stolen from her in London

Went through Panasonic FZ10, FZ20 and currently have the FZ50 - all great cameras ...especially the FZ20.

Canon IS3 - Not bad - but prefered the Pannies

Sony R1 - too cumbersome for me. Returned it.

A couple of small Olympuses (can't recall model number) - not enamored with either.

Nikon 5200
Ricoh GX100 - didn't care for it at all - thought the reviews overrated it.

Canon 870IS - nice enough.

Canon G9- Nicely designed. Good pics. Too bad the viewfinder is so pitiful.

Panasonic LX3 - Didn't think I could live with the 60mm limitation...but it's taken such great pictures, I've really grown to love this camera. Beautiful even at higher ISO: Here's a 400 ISO:



Olympus EP1 - Didn't like and returned. Not small enough to be pocketable - rotating dial on the back is not well designed.

I'm sure there are a few more I forgot, and I haven't gone through the DSLRs. But you get the picture. I've got the bug too.

Currently awaiting the Panasonic ZS-3.

Will probably be to release the m4/3 camera first - that way they can nicely tout it as the next step up/upgrade from LX3. They will want maximum buzz for the m4/3 - I don't think they'll want to dilute its impact by releasing the LX4 to quickly.

--
New Zealand Landscape Photography:
http://www.newzealandscape.com

OK, I'll bite. I can take some time away from my super-charged Friday night social life and take a stroll through memory (card) lane:

BD (Before Digital), I only used a couple of those disposable cameras for a few things. Then, Digital arrived, and....

Canon S100. The original digital ELPH. Got me started with that "camera in my pocket" thing, right off the bat. By the way, I've got pictures from a lot of the cameras I'll be mentioning here posted on my Zenfolio site, linked to below, if you'd like to check them out. Like the one I snagged of Mario Andretti at an auto race -- "Hey, Mario!" (Click!) Do you think he looked happy to see me?

Canon S40. Yeah, I stuffed that thing into my pocket, too. Lots of good times with that.

Minolta A1. My arch-nemesis. For fun, and to waste a whole bunch of time, go deep into my past here, and see how much I whined about that thing. I even re-connected with an old friend who became a stalker -- apparently he liked it better than I did. Noisy, just plain awful auto white balance, some of the worst images I've ever taken, and so on. But, I got some good stuff with it, too. The good stuff is posted on my Zenfolio site, with straight-out-of-the-camera originals available for every one.

Canon S1IS. I got into the Minolta for one reason, mostly: "Anti-Shake." So, when I finally put myself out of my misery, I went for IS. And mainly, "three megapixels wasn't enough." And the thing must have created more purple fringing than any other camera in the history of photography. Gaah.

Canon G5. I actually liked that thing quite a bit, but it really had a bunch of geometric distortion on the right side of the image. Light poles REALLY leaning over on the right, while they were reasonably upright on the left side. I returned it, and got another that was just as bad. I gave up on it -- and that was all just barely one weekend's worth of shooting.

Canon Pro1. "Perfect image quality" as far as I was concerned. Perfect colors, perfect resolution, and so on. Of course, I never took it out of ISO 50. Except for a few times when I bumped it all the way up to ISO 100, like for my "famous squirrel picture."



So, I guess ISO 100 was OK, too. I've heard some whining about "noise" -- perhaps that was at higher ISO settings, which I never used. From what I understand, the Pro1 had very, very, very minimal noise processing, if any. Wonderful.

But slow! About 8 shots, and.... Might as well set the thing down and go for coffee. It really took several minutes for the thing to write that many images to the memory card. All I ever wanted was a faster-writing Pro1 with IS. Was that too much to ask? Guess so.

Canon G6. Ick. Bought it as a "backup" to the Pro1, because I hadn't put enough bucks together to get another Pro1. Didn't like the G6 at all. The LCD wasn't very good, and the OVF is, as they always are, "useless." I can't frame accurately when I can only see 80% of the image. Returned it.

Canon Pro1. Saved up a bit, and finally got my backup. I used it mainly for my 2005 Las Vegas shots -- all at ISO 50 -- and all of which are on my Zenfolio site. I've since sold the original, and keep this barely-used one in ultra-pampered shape, bringing it out to play every now and then.

Canon SD300. Time to get that pocket camera again. Early complaints were made against the LCD screen "breaking for no good reason." Aww, I take exemplary care of my equipment -- it won't happen to me. Picked it up exactly 11 days after I purchased it, and the screen was cracked and broken. I have no idea when and/or how that happened. "For no good reason." I managed to return it and get my money back. (Whew!)

Canon SD550. Not bad at all. "The last of the 1/1.8" sensors." Served me well until I started getting into all of the Panasonic stuff.

Canon 400D/XTi. I finally gave in to Canon's "Pro1 replacement strategy." $800 for the body, $1,100 for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens, another $650 for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens, many bags (need a bigger bag syndrome), $50 lens hoods for each lens, sensor cleaning kits -- well over three grand. Still got all of it, rarely drag it out to use it. But I've got some excellent images I took with it, again, in my Zenfolio galleries.

Panasonic TZ3. Liked it a lot. Didn't like its image quality much, though. Blew out highlights like no other camera I've ever seen. Teal Panasonic skies. And I seem to recall that I wasn't happy with the long end. Managed to hook a good half a dozen friends and co-workers on getting one, though.

Canon TX1. The little vertical thing. Neato toy, "unobtanium." You think getting an LX3 is tough....

Canon S5IS. Finally, a long zoom I was happy with. Kind of. Didn't quite fit in my pocket. And I just hate-hate-hate-hate AA batteries.

Panasonic LX3. Yep. Finally got rid of the TZ3 -- now I've got a better pocket camera.

Canon SD880IS. Got one of the rare "gold" ones. Yeah, I was alreay growing tired of hobbling around with an LX3 in my pocket. Typical ELPH -- fine if you can fill the image with something close-up. Really really mediocre at anything else. Beautiful camera, though.

Panasonic LX3. When the mail-order sites really started drying up, I dumped my tax refund dough into a spare LX3.

Panasonic FX500. Neat in a number of ways, but I thought the image quality was "meh." Got it about a day before B&H ran out of them at $200 a pop.

Panasonic ZS3. Generally happy with the thing, except for the color cast issue.

That's it!! Today, I've got the two LX3's, the ZS3, the Pro1, and the XTi kit, out of all of the above. I have bloodsuckers friends and co-workers who have learned to hover around me when I start talking about buying new cameras -- I have no problems selling my cast-offs.

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com