Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon S95 - competition of LX5

Go to last post
Trensamiro ,

Oh, my friend, I must be getting old and flaccid in the head ... :)
Have figured out my more recent error in thinking in our communication.
Detail Man said:
... if you refer to light gathering capability, F3.3 if brighter than F4.9 by a factor of 2.20 , not 3.03, i.e., it provides 2.20 times more light to the sensor per unit of time
Click to expand...
You are correct. ( (4.9) / (3.3) ) ^ (2) = 2.2047

(Of course) the amount of light changes with the square of ratio of the chnage in F-Number ...

While these two recent stumblings over F-Number values are embarrassing, (in case that you have read or may read some of my other mathematical derivations), know that I do spend a great deal of time attempting to ensure that I get things right!

However, I really do appreciate your feedback if/when you may find errors - as it keeps me alert (knowing that someone is actually reading what I write), and I would far rather correct any errors as early on as possible - so as not to mislead those who may rely upon my assertions without the ability or the inclination to notice any errors.

Regards, DM ... :)
 
kenny_c said:
The competition is real. I have ordered an LX5. I am now tempted to re-consider. The S95 is far more "pocketable" than the LX5, and it has an auto-lens cap which is very important for my shooting style.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, I ordered an LX5 last night, and see the S95 announcement this morning.

I need more info about the S95, but I'll probably stay with the LX5 for the 24mm and better video (as long as the mono audio quality is greatly improved!).
a more pocketable camera would be real nice though.

I've gotten used to the WX1 after I sold the LX3 and it's so easy to throw in your pocket.

But I've pocketed the LX3 before and I know it doable. And when I look back at the incredible pictures I get from it, it's all worth it.
 
John Tracy said:
Personally I tried following some of your long drawn out mathematical posts and speaking for myself, you lose me early on. All I need to know about this hobbly is already out there posted by the many pro review sites and I'm not going to use my precious time to second guess them or dissect everything written just to find an error in their findings.
Click to expand...
That's fine by me, John. I am not personally offended by others being averse to math (if I were, I would have become a bitter man a long time ago). I hope that you were not in some way personally offended by my reference to "math averse" people ... Everybody's time is limited (if not "precious"). No explanations required.
John Tracy said:
Obviously your math and knowledge of photographic related equations are beyond most of us ...
Click to expand...
I'm just a (mostly) self-taught individual who like to think of myself as just smart enough to appreciate the vast amount of things that I do not understand ...
John Tracy said:
but that's probably because we didn't choose a mathematical vocation. We have other skills and professions that take up our time. We rely on other professionals in their specialized fields to provide for specific needs.
Click to expand...
Again, fine (and understandable). You seem to be attempting to speak on behalf of (at least some segment of) this forum's readership. I hope that you (and the other people who you perhaps do speak for) don't mind too much if I occasionally post a thought or two (which you are always free to completely ignore).
John Tracy said:
I'd have to think the above is why you feel you are talking to a void of largely math-adverse people.
Click to expand...
I can live with it (have for many decades). Everybody is different!
John Tracy said:
This simply isn't an engineering forum.
Click to expand...
You are correct - this is not an engineering forum. It is a forum entirely concerned with that which is engineered , however. Feel free to choose your own "authorities" ... If they "boil the math down" to an output that is more understandable for you - more power to them!

I try to (also) include some relatively simple algebraic equations (for those who might want to calculate their own results for specific cases). Seems like a potentially helpful addition to me - but there is by no means an expectation on my part that (all) readers will choose to spend their precious time flagellating themselves in trying to digest material that does not personally interest them.

Regards, DM
 
I'm not maths averse, I quite enjoy it, and its helped me live a fairly prosperous life... I just don't get too excited by working out how many times one stop is greater than another :D , I just know what stops I need to achieve what effect and let the camera work out the rest - the days of manual exposure calcualtions are long behind me
Detail Man said:
John Tracy said:
Personally I tried following some of your long drawn out mathematical posts and speaking for myself, you lose me early on. All I need to know about this hobbly is already out there posted by the many pro review sites and I'm not going to use my precious time to second guess them or dissect everything written just to find an error in their findings.
Click to expand...
That's fine by me, John. I am not personally offended by others being averse to math (if I were, I would have become a bitter man a long time ago). I hope that you were not in some way personally offended by my reference to "math averse" people ... Everybody's time is limited (if not "precious"). No explanations required.
Detail Man said:
Obviously your math and knowledge of photographic related equations are beyond most of us ...
Click to expand...
I'm just a (mostly) self-taught individual who like to think of myself as just smart enough to appreciate the vast amount of things that I do not understand ...
Detail Man said:
but that's probably because we didn't choose a mathematical vocation. We have other skills and professions that take up our time. We rely on other professionals in their specialized fields to provide for specific needs.
Click to expand...
Again, fine (and understandable). You seem to be attempting to speak on behalf of (at least some segment of) this forum's readership. I hope that you (and the other people who you perhaps do speak for) don't mind too much if I occasionally post a thought or two (which you are always free to completely ignore).
Detail Man said:
I'd have to think the above is why you feel you are talking to a void of largely math-adverse people.
Click to expand...
I can live with it (have for many decades). Everybody is different!
Detail Man said:
This simply isn't an engineering forum.
Click to expand...
You are correct - this is not an engineering forum. It is a forum entirely concerned with that which is engineered , however. Feel free to choose your own "authorities" ... If they "boil the math down" to an output that is more understandable for you - more power to them!

I try to (also) include some relatively simple algebraic equations (for those who might want to calculate their own results for specific cases). Seems like a potentially helpful addition to me - but there is by no means an expectation on my part that (all) readers will choose to spend their precious time flagellating themselves in trying to digest material that does not personally interest them.

Regards, DM
Click to expand...
--

'Every portrait that is painted with feeling, is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.' Oscar Wilde
 
There is one thing the release of the s95 shows us, panasonic will not hold the $499 price tag on their camera. We hobbyists and pros here may say - oh the lx5 is better for xyz reason, but the s95 is more pocketable, doesn't suffer from an annoying lenscap, and is also 100 cheaper? Panasonic must drop their price to compete imo. I've been saying since the lx5 was announced a $499 street price wouldn't live for more than a couple months.. now I think it will drop before launch.

For me, as a small pocket cam, they are probably going to be close enough in iq that i'll take the one costing 20% less I'd think.
 
Yep, the lens specs for the LX5 are so much better, at least from my perspective. In this round, Panasonic up the bar and Canon maintained theirs. I have an LX3 and am not in the market now for this type of camera, but, if I were, I would go for the LX5 (provided IQ is up to par) in a heartbeat. I like the idea of the S90/s95 (especially smaller size) but the 24-90 mm f2-3.3 lens of the LX5 is way, way better than that of the S95.
 
I'm glad you weren't offended by my post. I should have made it more clear that I'm not opposed to anything you write, just that it is over some of our heads.
Of course there's always the chance I'm alone in that.
Detail Man said:
John Tracy said:
Personally I tried following some of your long drawn out mathematical posts and speaking for myself, you lose me early on. All I need to know about this hobbly is already out there posted by the many pro review sites and I'm not going to use my precious time to second guess them or dissect everything written just to find an error in their findings.
Click to expand...
That's fine by me, John. I am not personally offended by others being averse to math (if I were, I would have become a bitter man a long time ago). I hope that you were not in some way personally offended by my reference to "math averse" people ... Everybody's time is limited (if not "precious"). No explanations required.
Detail Man said:
Obviously your math and knowledge of photographic related equations are beyond most of us ...
Click to expand...
I'm just a (mostly) self-taught individual who like to think of myself as just smart enough to appreciate the vast amount of things that I do not understand ...
Detail Man said:
but that's probably because we didn't choose a mathematical vocation. We have other skills and professions that take up our time. We rely on other professionals in their specialized fields to provide for specific needs.
Click to expand...
Again, fine (and understandable). You seem to be attempting to speak on behalf of (at least some segment of) this forum's readership. I hope that you (and the other people who you perhaps do speak for) don't mind too much if I occasionally post a thought or two (which you are always free to completely ignore).
Detail Man said:
I'd have to think the above is why you feel you are talking to a void of largely math-adverse people.
Click to expand...
I can live with it (have for many decades). Everybody is different!
Detail Man said:
This simply isn't an engineering forum.
Click to expand...
You are correct - this is not an engineering forum. It is a forum entirely concerned with that which is engineered , however. Feel free to choose your own "authorities" ... If they "boil the math down" to an output that is more understandable for you - more power to them!

I try to (also) include some relatively simple algebraic equations (for those who might want to calculate their own results for specific cases). Seems like a potentially helpful addition to me - but there is by no means an expectation on my part that (all) readers will choose to spend their precious time flagellating themselves in trying to digest material that does not personally interest them.

Regards, DM
Click to expand...
 
x2...you nailed it neuron09.

I actually was looking forward to the S95, but it all comes down to the lens and until Canon can offer a lens on par with the LX5, there is no competition. If you are after the smallest of the two, well, then the S95 wins, but I am more concerned with the true wide angle lens, IQ, and the overall usability.

When is the S100 due out? ;)
neuron09 said:
Yep, the lens specs for the LX5 are so much better, at least from my perspective. In this round, Panasonic up the bar and Canon maintained theirs. I have an LX3 and am not in the market now for this type of camera, but, if I were, I would go for the LX5 (provided IQ is up to par) in a heartbeat. I like the idea of the S90/s95 (especially smaller size) but the 24-90 mm f2-3.3 lens of the LX5 is way, way better than that of the S95.
Click to expand...
 
In terms of competition, it really comes down to whats most important to you. If you want the smallest camera, get the S95. However, if you are like me and care more about the lens and getting a true wide angle camera, then its the LX5.
kenny_c said:
The competition is real. I have ordered an LX5. I am now tempted to re-consider. The S95 is far more "pocketable" than the LX5, and it has an auto-lens cap which is very important for my shooting style.
Click to expand...
 
The last great P&S Canon for me was the TX1. Great video and stereo sound. But this S95 just can't cut the mustard next to the LX5. The key features I use and like is the hot shoe, viewfinder capability, wider angle, up to 60 sec exposure, and expansion capability (for digiscoping/afocal attachments). IMO, no P&S comes close to the LX3, and now LX5 in these areas. I had no problem pocketing an LX3 during a month vacation in the Philippines.

LX3 and TX1:



Ciao....Barry
 
Trensamiro said:
Detail Man said:
Note that the minimum F-Number at full telephoto appears to be a whopping 4.9 for the PS-S95, but only 3.3 for the DMC-LX5. That is a huge difference (1.6 "stops", a linear factor of 3.03 !
Click to expand...
.

I don't know what are you calling "a linear factor" but if you refer to light gathering capability, F3.3 if brighter than F4.9 by a factor of 2.20 , not 3.03, i.e., it provides 2.20 times more light to the sensor per unit of time.

And, by the way, F3.3 is not 1.6 stops faster than F4.9 because you don't get the difference in stops by subtracting F-numbers.

Else, by your subtraction procedure, you'd get that, for instance, F4 is 1.2 stops slower than F2.8 while obviously it's just exactly 1 stop slower, not 1.2 stops (4 - 2.8 = 1.2).

The difference gets worse for higher F-numbers. For instance, F16 is not 5 stops slower than F11 (16 - 11 = 5) but, again, just 1 stop slower.

Just minor details that you, Detail Man , are sure to appreciate ... :D

-
See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

Click to expand...
Another look at the maths.

To compare two f-numbers such as 11 and 4, we can use this expression:
(log(11)-log(4))/log(sqrt(2))

the result is 2.9, which agrees with the known difference of 3 stops.

Or generally,
(log(A)-log(B))/log(sqrt(2))

where A and B are the two f-stops we are comparing.

Similarly, the difference between f/4.9 and f/3.3 is given by this expression:
(log(4.9)-log(3.3))/log(sqrt(2))

Result = 1.14
That means f/3.3 is about 1.14 stops faster than f/4.9.

Hope this helps (and hope it doesn't confuse).

Regards,
Peter
 
The optional LVF1 eye-level viewfinder. After living with a G10 for a year, and having to resort to a Hoodloupe to see what I was shooting, I'm going to remember:
It has to have an eye-level viewfinder.
It has to have an eye-level viewfinder.
It has to have an eye-level viewfinder.
... written 100 times.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix
 
No canon lens, or Nikon lens for that matter, is a match for the lens on the Lx3 – that’s what the lx3 is about. The lx3 camera is not the special bit, the camera tries to keep up with the lens, it hangs off the lens, it serves the lens – the camera is by far the weakest part of the combination.

You can test, pixel peep to the cows come home, but if one has the ability to get the absolute best out of the camera and its little sensor to take advantage of the lens then the lx3 will always come up trumps. The lx5 will be the same.

Nobody will say, not even the most canon enamoured, that the lens on any canon compact is better or indeed anywhere near the quality of the canon 17-55mm f2.8. The lx3 lens is, as is the lx5 lens.

--

 
sherwoodpete said:
Another look at the maths.

To compare two f-numbers such as 11 and 4, we can use this expression:
(log(11)-log(4))/log(sqrt(2))

the result is 2.9, which agrees with the known difference of 3 stops.

Or generally,
(log(A)-log(B))/log(sqrt(2))

where A and B are the two f-stops we are comparing.

Similarly, the difference between f/4.9 and f/3.3 is given by this expression:
(log(4.9)-log(3.3))/log(sqrt(2))

Result = 1.14
That means f/3.3 is about 1.14 stops faster than f/4.9.

Hope this helps (and hope it doesn't confuse).

Regards,
Peter
Click to expand...
The same expression can be simplified slightly, as follows:

2*log(A/B)/log(2)

2*log(4.9/3.3)/log(2)
 
digby dart said:
No canon lens, or Nikon lens for that matter, is a match for the lens on the Lx3 – that’s what the lx3 is about. The lx3 camera is not the special bit, the camera tries to keep up with the lens, it hangs off the lens, it serves the lens – the camera is by far the weakest part of the combination.

You can test, pixel peep to the cows come home, but if one has the ability to get the absolute best out of the camera and its little sensor to take advantage of the lens then the lx3 will always come up trumps. The lx5 will be the same.

Nobody will say, not even the most canon enamoured, that the lens on any canon compact is better or indeed anywhere near the quality of the canon 17-55mm f2.8. The lx3 lens is, as is the lx5 lens.
Click to expand...
My sentiments, exactly. I've always felt that in purchasing the LX3 that I was purchasing a fantastic, Leica lens, with a camera attached. And to me, anyway, the lens cap protects that fantastic lens better than the alternative.

--
Tom

 
I suppose a lot depends on your own personal preference as it always does. If you want a slip into your pocket/pocketbook then the S95 would have appeal, The video is unimportant to me but to you it may be an issue I suppose. The cost difference may play a role. The addition of an eye-level viewfinder will be a selling point for others with the LX5. The lens cap thing is not, for most, a problem although some seem to think it is.

I would have believed Cannon would have realized by now that good many folks want something wider than what has become yesterday’s news in a 28mm wide angle. Guess they haven’t. And while I have seen very good images come off the S90 the Leica lens still would appear to be the better of the two. My guess is that the lens on the S95 is the same lens found on the S90. Not that this is bad, but certainly could be called a “safe” decision.
Pap
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08
 
Pap38 said:
If you want a slip into your pocket/pocketbook then the S95 would have appeal,
Click to expand...
The other size-related issue is that a sure way to get your subjects to 'freeze' is to focus an SLR on them. These tiny cameras are less of an intrusion, and often allow better candid shooting :)
.
 
I don't believe I mentioned DSLR's. I was speaking about compacts. If you like the Canon then buy it. If your comparison was indeed between the S95 and the LX5 I’m certain there will be sales for both.

It seems somewhat obvious that you are a fan of Canon. Nothing wrong with that. On the other hand if your responses were intended to argue your point in favor of the S95 so be it. That is simply your opinion which you have a right to. But it means nothing more.
Pap
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08
 
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