LX3 vs Canon G11

Does anyone have any image comparisons? I am more interested in RAW and manual processed high iso images.
--
http://markkayphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1305161

I have made a quick and dirty comparison, and here are my preliminary thoughts

• LX3 raw and jpeg are absolutely the same, when viewed at 100% on a high quality calibrated screen (provided the raw is converted with natural colours and correct WB and no extra sharpening, in my experience with C1Pro raw converter). I had wished RAW would be slight more detailed, but impossible to see the slightest difference, at least at low iso. perhaps at high iso, there is a small difference, but really have to look at 100 % very very closely. some people on this forum pretended there is a difference in detail, but I wonder how they achieved this, as I reviewed many photo with my eyes as close as the clear I could manage and could not see any, again on a very high def calibrated screen. There is no benefit in shooting raw with the LX3 unless you want more flexibility to readjust for example the WB , etc.

• however, the G11 Raw seem to be very slightly better in detail than jpeg, when using the C1Pro raw converter, and no extra sharpening provided, again, applying neutral colours.

LX3 photos are definitely sharper edge to edge than canon G11 at low iso (80 and 100). whether it is the LX3 leica lense that is better or the processing I do not know. My guess is the lens is definitely better, but we have to recognise it is only 24 to 60 mm. Actually, the sharpness of the leica lens is so good that it gives a better overall feel than pictures shot with a canon 5D + 24-70. f2.8, that I thought were good. It shows how good the LX3 is as a second camera.

Above 200 iso, the canon has a lot less noise, but a lot less detail than the LX3.

In my experience, using Lx3 photos and removing the noise with an external program provides more detailed pictures than the G11 out of the box, because of canon strong noise reduction processing.

in terms of colours, both cameras produce different colours, and inconsistent WB. I compared readings with both a sekonic colour meter and a WB card, and the only way to achieve real colour matching, I am afraid is to use one of these 2 tools, as both the G11 and LX3 are inconsistent, but not necessarily in the same situations. If real colours are important to you, get the WB right. Please note in that respect that the firmware 2.0 for the lumix is a real improvement, and even gives you WB bracketing. If un-natural colours are fine with you, just pick the camera you prefer.

Also, in my experience, both cameras can clip very easily, but the LX£ seems to clip a tiny bit less in most of the situations I encountered. Still a good margin of improvement for future models

In regards of LX3 raw files, what values/presets in C1 are you usually using for sharpening and noise reduction?

photo4me said:

I have made a quick and dirty comparison, and here are my preliminary thoughts

• LX3 raw and jpeg are absolutely the same, when viewed at 100% on a high quality calibrated screen (provided the raw is converted with natural colours and correct WB and no extra sharpening, in my experience with C1Pro raw converter). I had wished RAW would be slight more detailed, but impossible to see the slightest difference, at least at low iso. perhaps at high iso, there is a small difference, but really have to look at 100 % very very closely.

Click to expand...

I would dispute this. Using Lightroom I have found that raw files are substantially more detailed at moderate to high ISOs, and also the noise has a less offensive quality. I saw it described elsewhere as 'pointilliste' and I think that is apt - certainly better than the sludgy quality of high-ISO jpegs, and benefitting greatly from Noise Ninja or similar noise reduction, where you can control the degree of reduction. I actually prefer the raw files even at 80 ISO, but I agree the difference is probably not enough to get uptight about there.
--
tim
http://www.pbase.com/timotheus

I do not add extra sharpening or NR in C1. When using sharpening it is just too much, whatever the level

the in-camera jpegs from the LX3 with default setting gives the maximum sharpening that can be acceptable for me if the image is viewed at 100%. In C1, I do not add any sharpening as it becomes destructive. unless you print in small. If you really want extra sharpening, I would not go beyond 80, radius 0.8, radius 1. But, there is just no difference between the raw with 0 sharpening and the jpeg in default setting in terms of details at all. Again, I really wish there your be more detail in raw, but unfortunately there is no benefit from that standpoint.

if you want to avoid destroying your files with sharpening, sometimes, playing with different profiles can bring extra detail and contrast that you thought were lost, but you will have to experiment, as there is no golden rule of which profile would work best for each picture. however, it really does sometimes absolute miracles.

thanks. good to know. I shall try lightroom than to see if I can get some extra detail. C1Pro is expensive and I was disappointed it does not offer extra detail, except as I mentioned perhaps at high iso. just any difference would have please me, as more detail in the highlights, etc, but no. the problem with the raw converters is that there is no ideal one. some are better with some cameras then others. disappointing.

I also had this problem when using raw from my canon 5D. I had tries 3 different raw converters, and each had flaws, but different ones. the most noticeable difference was the ability to give detail on the structure of buildings and each gave colours fringes and moire but at different places.

To see how much "extra details" you can catch from LX3 (and 5D) RAW, you need to run DCRAW with 16-bit processing. And this experiment will be completely free, you spend just your time.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=33343996

Looks like G11 is much better in terms of noise and details at all ISOs.

Gena said:

Looks like G11 is much better in terms of noise and details at all ISOs.

Click to expand...

He posted some more photos below. Very impressive for the G11

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=33346050

.
Need to have RAW from both cameras to say this.

Gena said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=33343996

Looks like G11 is much better in terms of noise and details at all ISOs.

Click to expand...

Hi!
My first post here, have been reading alot here though - good information here.
Can't decide which one to go for either...
If you haven't seen this page it's quite good for comparing.

http://www.dkamera.de/testbericht/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx3/bildqualitaet.html
--
Rune

I tried lightoom as you suggested this morning using the 16 bit mode and tried different sharpening and the results were a lot better with C1Pro on the particular picture I tested. If this is it, I'll stick with C1Pro. Perhaps I ll post the raw file later this week end and you can show me the result you can obtain with lightoom for this picture, and i'll post the jpeg to compare and the c1 pro. Curious to see if it is really possible to get better detail in raw. Have tried very hard but could not achieve this.

Great first post! Welcome and thanks. Quite good comparison feature, indeed, and this is a new Favorite for me. The noise differences, especially by 200, would do it for me; although for the really-important-to-stay-with-Canon types, I can see improvement in the G11 over the G9 und G10. That LX3 lens and sensor combo really is hard to beat.

LX3 jpegs display too much green and magenta. In RAW, better, more accurate color is delivered even without adjusting WB. Of course, with tweaks to WB and tint even greater accuracy can be realized.

It's probably an odd notion, but after reading the new GF1 review I think this question needs to be recast: who has compared the GF1 vs G11?

LX3 vs G10 was the de facto comparison when the latter was the only high-end Canon compact but now with the S90, the rather giant, heavy G-series looks like a µ4/3 competitor.

Cheers,

Rick