Re: Just Posted: Panasonic DMC-LX5 sample gallery

Pictures with lower ISO-settings look pretty clean, the only ISO-1600 picture is quite disappointing. But of course I don't know anything about the light conditions over there.

Hanoi

right side of the lens is unsharp. seems to be decentered. mostly visible in the wideangle shots.

Is it me...or are these photos just "not very sharp"?

For instance...look at the shot of the side of the gray ship...load the image to full resolution and zoom in on the vent on the side of the ship. (shot at 1/200 f/3.1, ISO 80) so it could be out of focus ..but it can't be camera shake or resolution) May just be out of focus...but after looking at the rest of the images I am kind of soured. The WHOLE image looks soft to me! I am used to looking at my G1 and GF1 images...and if Panasonic is touting that these images can be blown up to poster size....um...I am not buying that. I am not impressed at all. The image detail is disappointing, really.
Could be operator error...but it is a "Point-&-Shoot"?

as usuall, only ISO80/100 ... Is it a agreement with Panasonic to obtain sample camera or why ?

Lots of dark faces. Get some face-detection on that thing!

.

notext

honza_pl said:

as usuall, only ISO80/100 ... Is it a agreement with Panasonic to obtain sample camera or why ?

Click to expand...

Hanoi said:

Pictures with lower ISO-settings look pretty clean, the only ISO-1600 picture is quite disappointing. But of course I don't know anything about the light conditions over there.

Click to expand...

I don't find ISO 1600 disappointing at all. It's at least a stop better than the LX3, maybe more.

Yes, it's grainy and messy, but these are surely out-of-camera JPEGs at default settings. A skilled post-processor working with RAW should be able to get pretty decent results. Even just tweaking the in-camera settings should yield better JPEGs.

We sometimes lose perspective on these things. Just five years ago, the LX1 was an amazing camera at ISO 80 (and it still is), but virtually unusable at 200 let alone its top setting, 400. Even remotely usable ISO 1600 was the stuff of dreams.... and I'd say LX5 @ 1600 is better than the LX1 @ 200, which of course means that you'll be getting shots, however grainy, that you simply wouldn't have even bothered trying to get with a compact camera five years ago.

Some small sensors have been improved at a rate of roughly a stop of low-light capability every year or two... maybe it's just me, but I find that pretty amazing.

Anyone expecting a two or three stop leap this time around probably had overly high expectations. And I hope nobody seriously expects the LX5's ISO 6400 or 12800 to be good for much.

mattmtl said:

Hanoi said:

Pictures with lower ISO-settings look pretty clean, the only ISO-1600 picture is quite disappointing. But of course I don't know anything about the light conditions over there.

Click to expand...

I don't find ISO 1600 disappointing at all. It's at least a stop better than the LX3, maybe more.

Yes, it's grainy and messy, but these are surely out-of-camera JPEGs at default settings. A skilled post-processor working with RAW should be able to get pretty decent results. Even just tweaking the in-camera settings should yield better JPEGs.

Click to expand...

Agreed, there is pretty good detail in the ISO1600 shot, look at the center guys shirt. I think the JPG processing is really smearing away everything. I'd love to see what a RAW developed ISO 800 or 1600 looks like. With the new sensor, it should be markedly better than the LX3 which is great!
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com

Wow, look at all the noise on the low light shots. They seem very- oh wait, it's a Panasonic. Sorry about that.

--
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
-Harlan Ellison

mattmtl said:

Hanoi said:

Pictures with lower ISO-settings look pretty clean, the only ISO-1600 picture is quite disappointing. But of course I don't know anything about the light conditions over there.

Click to expand...

I don't find ISO 1600 disappointing at all. It's at least a stop better than the LX3, maybe more.

Yes, it's grainy and messy, but these are surely out-of-camera JPEGs at default settings. A skilled post-processor working with RAW should be able to get pretty decent results. Even just tweaking the in-camera settings should yield better JPEGs.

Click to expand...

I still find the 1600 image very poor. Some other current small sensor cameras, like Fujifilm, produce significantly better results - and the LX5 is positioned as a premium compact.
--
Misha

yes, I know, there are some high ISO. But ISO 1600 photos - not much interesting, 1600 is too much, it looks ugly. ISO 200 sunset - it shows only quite noisy sky, for another judgement this photo is not really appropriate as ISO800/640 chain and rusted metal plate. It says not much about IQ, I miss some nature, trees, grass, portraits to see how details are preserved and how colors depends on ISO.