Canon S95 - competition of LX5

x2

Pap38 said:

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

Click to expand...

The LX-5 narrowed the range on the zoom factor compared to the S90/LX3, and the S95 narrows the difference on video, so largely it comes down to pocketability and features. Of course now you have the Samsung EX1 with it's slightly faster lens and articulating screen. But it's a lot bigger and lacks HD video. For me tho, I've had so many quality issues with other Samsung products I would NEVER consider their cameras.

In any case, I love my LX3 and don't plan on trading up.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1Ds MkIII/Panasonic GH-1-LX-3-FZ-50

SF Photo Gal said:

The LX-5 narrowed the range on the zoom factor compared to the S90/LX3, and the S95 narrows the difference on video, so largely it comes down to pocketability and features. Of course now you have the Samsung EX1 with it's slightly faster lens and articulating screen. But it's a lot bigger and lacks HD video. For me tho, I've had so many quality issues with other Samsung products I would NEVER consider their cameras.

In any case, I love my LX3 and don't plan on trading up.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1Ds MkIII/Panasonic GH-1-LX-3-FZ-50

Click to expand...

I love Samsung products. Especially their LED TVs.

h00ligan said:

the lvf (i just received mine for gf1) is unusably bad imo. It is simply put... AWFUL.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not too encouraging. Two observations and a question:

• It get 4 stars out of 5 from buyers on Amazon and 3-1/2 out of 5 on B&H. One could argue, of course, that buyers have a rosier view than non-buyers.
• I've been assuming it's produces about the same quality view as the EVF of the FX35 -- which could, I suppose, be called AWFUL compared to the viewfinder of the Panasonic G1.
• Is it better or worse than no eye-level viewfinder at all? Are you going to return yours?

--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

Yes. Combines three images into one DR. See Canon's site.

Curtis2 said:

Does the LX5 have a high dynamic range mode?

Click to expand...

John McCormack said:

Curtis2 said:

Does the LX5 have a high dynamic range mode?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Canon discusses the LX5?

Misread the question. Sorry.

Curtis2 said:

John McCormack said:

Curtis2 said:

Does the LX5 have a high dynamic range mode?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Canon discusses the LX5?

Click to expand...

The Panny G10 has the same resolution and gets panned by dpreview:

morepix said:

The G10's EVF is very poor compared to these cameras, and almost unusable in bright conditions where light leak from around the edges of the viewfinder can be very destructive to the viewing experience. This is most problematic for glasses wearers, but even without glasses, using the G10's EVF is a trial rather than a pleasure.

Click to expand...

I have not gotten any responses to my post from yesterday ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=36071122 ) about the ClearViewer vs. the DMW-LVF1. The LX5's LCD has higher resolution than the EVF's, so maybe the ClearViewer would be a better option.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

well, i do also wear specs, so that could be part of it.. but generally it was like looking at a tony crappy tv from really far away.

yes, mine is going back. I find using it to be worse than the lcd, even in the bright sun in Arizona. The fact i'd rather use the screen in those conditions (and enjoy a real vf on a 7d) says a lot imo.

sherwoodpete said:

sherwoodpete wrote:
The same expression can be simplified slightly, as follows:

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

Click to expand...

Peter ,

I like the calculational form that you have come up with!

My palmtop has a LOG(base 2) function, so it is easy for me to type-in:

LOG2 ( ( (A) / (B) )^2 )

However, it seems that there are plenty of hand-held calculators which only feature a natural log(base e) function [and perhaps a log(base 10) function], only.

Thus, your specified form would likely be more easily and universally applicable.

Regards, DM

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the FX700 the better comparison? I own an LX3 and incant really call it a pocket camera. I'm in the market for a pocket camera, and would consider both the FX700 or the S95. How do those two compare?

Thanks

--
Ike

Detail Man said:

And the Canon only features a 28mm (wide-angle perspective), while the DMC-LX5 features a 24mm (wide-angle perspective).

Click to expand...

Attractive as the S95 is for its small size and lack of need for a lens cap, this is the difference that really matters to me more than any other.

Once you have become accustomed to shooting with the LX3 at 24mm (equivalent), it becomes almost impossible to think of 28mm (equivalent) as truly wide angle.

Landscape and architectural photographers everywhere who want a quality camera in a small package will probably stick to the LX3 and/or the LX5 despite Canon's noble attempts to party poop.

Not forgetting of course that the LX3/5 in 16:9 aspect ratio will actually give you a wider field of view still, and you can always make it wider still out to 18mm (equivalent) with the adapter and supplementary lens. I suspect that this will be beyond the reach (in a wideness sense) of either the S90 or S95.

I mostly take nature shots (flower macros, and the relatively unspoiled lush, riverine world of flora surrounding a favorite local creek). I sometimes take wide-field landscapes (but only around dusk/dawn when direct or first reflected sunlight does not tend to "blow the shot" somewhere critical within all that subject-coverage). The horizontal width of the "perspective" of my mostly closer-range shots seemed not (in many cases) to be a large problem. If anything, it was more often a larger vertical height "perspective" that I desired.

Having (only) 4:3 aspect ratio display devices, I have shot (only) in 4:3 aspect ratio throughout. I often like to consider rotating the camera by 90 degrees, as a fair number of my shots end up "framing" better as a "portrait" orientation. A similarly rotated 16:9 frame (just about always) does not seem to appeal to my eyes (in a compositional sense). Thus, I remain a "4:3 aspect-ratio type" as it stands.

My first DMC-LZ5 was 38mm, so when I took on a DMC-FZ30, then a DMC-FZ50 (which are both 35mm), I did not notice the difference very much. Around 28,000 shots taken with those three camera models got me pretty used to an (approximately) 35mm perspective.

My DMC-TZ4 was 28mm which (at first) struck my senses as "more wide than necessary". It wasn't until I picked-up my (38mm) DMC-LZ5 again for a while that I noticed (and missed) the significant additional perspective of 28mm ...

Trading in my (28mm) DMC-TZ4 for the (24mm) DMC-LX3 in Dec 2009, I had a similar initial perception of "more wide than necessary". Now, 24mm seems "normal".

I am not saying that (full wide-angle) perspective is arbitrary - I am saying that (in my case) it is one of those things that is most fully appreciated when it becomes more limited by some means (such as by using another camera with less perspective).

While the axis that people tend to concentrate upon and write specifications for is the horizontal-axis , the "vertical height perspective" on the vertical-axis can (in certain cases) be every bit as (or perhaps more) useful and valuable. It all depends on what you like to photograph.

That 24mm perspective may well have a hand in the DMC-LX3 lens-system having something on the order of 10% barrel-distortion. Panasonic in-camera JPG-engine and Silkypix (SE and Pro) seem to do only a half-ass job of correcting for this distortion over the range of focal length and aperture

Solution : Record RW2 image-files and process with DxO Optics Pro 6.x. It's fully automatic and comprehensive DMC-LX3 RAW Optical Corrections Module (based on over 1000 test-shots taken over a wide range of focal length and aperture settings) with "Lens Softness" (lens-blur) corrections (including "deconvolution-deblurring" performed prior to any de-mosaicing of the "raw" photo-sensor data) will likely "blow your mind". Your DMC-LX3 will never seem the same (in a very pleasing way), and future DxO support (who knows?) of the DMC-LX5 will likely play a very large part in how you view the potential of purchasing a DMC-LX5 ...

BTW - DxO Supports the Canon G10, G11, and S90 CR2 image-files as well. You just might well find yourself with similar (DxO-dependent) sentiments about whether to purchase a S95, as well.

Note : DxO might well choose to ignore the possibility of supporting the LX5 as well as the S95 (in that they are both so essentially similar to their predecessors).

Opinion : I would take the LX3 over a S90 any day. The Canon G11 image-sensor performs as well as the LX3's image-sensor at around +2/3 "stop" higher ISO Sensitivities - but the LX3's minimum F-Number of 2.0 gathers a "full-stop" more light than does the G11's minimum F=2.8. Optical "gain" beats "electronic gain" any day. And the G11 is one hulking, heavier, butt-ugly tank that is very hard to describe as "readily-pocket-able". Keep your DMC-LX3. You may (in retrospect) be glad that you did. Or, (alternatively), perhaps you could just send your DMC-LX3 along to me ...

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...

The S95 is quoted as 28-105mm(equiv) F2-4.9. So just to be clear, it's the 24 versus the 28 that is way better? Or the three-quarters of a stop (-ish) advantage at the long end? (Or something else not listed in the specs?)

What is the best for video recording ? (incluse audio quality).

I curious why people say S90's images are superior to LX3.

S90 images are heavily over-smoothed by the S90 firmware. LX3 got the noise-reduction just right.

I hope they haven't broken that in the LX5
.

It seems to me that both the LX5 and S95 are only slight upgrades to the previous models. Regardless of the name on the lens and the perceived quality of that name, the reviews of the S90 and LX3 over the past year show the image quality of these cameras almost indistinguishable. Both are excellent cameras (for P&S) with only slight differences in range and light gathering.
J.

Jack Webb said:

the reviews of the S90 and LX3 over the past year show the image quality of these cameras almost indistinguishable

Click to expand...

Does everyone else agree with this? That the IQ is about the same?