LX5 vs. S95

I looked at your web site and your photography and web site are fabulous!

Terri French said:

Now that sounds like a pretty compelling reason to get the LX5. I have an s90 that I love, but instant focus and shutter release would be a pretty compelling reason to buy the LX5. I photograph 6 little grandkids, usually with my DSLR because of the quick response of the camera.
--
Terri F.
http://terrif.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

--
--- Norglen

By-eye said:

...

Now they need to work on the speed to go to full zoom. I could have made a coffee while I was waiting!

Click to expand...

How quick is the step zoom? I assume it's not any quicker than the regular zoom from wide to tele.
--
Jeff

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

By-eye said:

My new LX5 has finally fixed an issue I have always had with compact digital cameras though - and for that reason everything else I have is being sold.

When I press the shutter button, it focusses instantly and when I press it again it takes the picture instantly. There is no delay - so I now have a camera that can genuinely do action shots alongside landscapes and portraits.

Click to expand...

God bless you, By-eye, and may your tribe increase. I've been worrying that I've been chasing an impossibility having previously sold or returned a G7, Nikon P5100 and just recently a Samsung EX1, all for too slow AF in standard room light. Both the Canon S90 and G12 seemed to exhibit the same difficulty in my camera shop tests. I've just heard that my pre-ordered LX5 should be shipping this week and I've got some some grandchildren shots to take before school beckons.

By-eye said:

Forget the details of marginal improvements, one over the other - this is a big step forward for any compact camera and for me, is a keeper!

Click to expand...

Totally spot on - the most important compact camera parameter of all (combined with accuracy of focussing). I don't give a fig for all these minor IQ and noise issues everyone else is wobbling on about - let me capture the image first.

Ray

The choice is a good one both are very nice cameras. The S90 and the LX3 are both reviewed here and both are recommended highly. So the choice is as I see it between the way the controls work and how you feel about the ergonomics from your point of view.

Thanks for your comments - although I really can't afford to increase my tribe any more!

The bit that had been getting me annoyed is peoples' obsession with comparing the LX5 (or any compact, for that matter) with a DSLR.

Having used the LX5 for only a short time, and been clear in my mind what kind of photographic tool I was looking for (compact, able to produce decent IQ to at least A3 print, responsive, adaptable, quiet, well built, intuitive controls, discrete etc.), I am sure this is a great piece of design.

It's not a DSLR. But I have a 27" hi-def screen and I can't tell the difference at a size that fills it between my old 500D and this. And I printed a landscape yesterday at A3+ (on a Canon Pro 9500) and it was so sharp and well balanced that I just grinned. And before any asks me to post it - I've seen too many assassinations from the pixel-obsessed to want any of its pleasure to me diluted.

I don't doubt that in a year or so's time someone will either get the BSI CMOS sensor to work at this size without NR that smudges - and I don't doubt that somewhere in a manufacturer's R&D facility there's a 4/3rds type system with tiny, interchangeable, flat, diffracted optics or Fresnel zooms that would make a compact closer to a DSLR.

But I think you really have to question the use of a piece of equipment to really need that. So for now, I'm going to go and take photographs with a piece of kit that I know will stretch my ability long before I can genuinely question its capability!

Step zoom is actually a bit slower as it pauses at each step (which is fine if that's what you need!).

I think the relative speed of the focus and shutter release simply makes it feel slow. I tried it against the LX3 and it's a tiny fraction slower - but then it's got a longer zoom range too.

The great difference on this bit of the camera is that the LX5 is much quieter when zooming.

The video modus from LX5 has only monaural sound, the S95 has stereo, do I need stereo?

Thank you so much for taking the time to look. I'm glad you like what I am doing.
--
Terri F.
http://terrif.zenfolio.com/

I know that ISO is not the sole determinant of IQ but it does give an idea of IQ, see this link, the S95 is better at higher ISO (by quite a bit and images are crisper too) so I'm leaning towards the S95 as IQ is the most important aspect to me.

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/panasonic-lumix-lx5-vs-canon-powershot-s95-6558-article
--
Jostian

Jostian said:

I know that ISO is not the sole determinant of IQ but it does give an idea of IQ, see this link, the S95 is better at higher ISO (by quite a bit and images are crisper too) so I'm leaning towards the S95 as IQ is the most important aspect to me.

Click to expand...

If one compares the DxOMark data for the DMC-LX3 as compared to the S90 or the G11 at:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors

The (same, I believe) image-sensor that is in both Canons performs (roughly) equally in terms of Dynamic-Range and Signal/Noise Ratio with the DMC-LX3 image-sensor, but at a (DxOMark "raw"-referenced ISO Sensitivity level) that is (around) +0.75 "stop" greater than is the case with the DMC-LX3 sensor.

In the case of the S90/S95 (which have a minimum F-Number of F=2.0, as opposed to the minimum F-Number of F=2.8 in the G11/G12), this (at full wide-angle) translates to an improved "light efficiency" relative to the DMC-LX3.

Here's the catch. At focal lengths greater than full wide-angle, the minimum F-Number of the DMC-LX5 varies from F=2.0 to F=3.3. However, in the case of the S95, the minimum F-Number varies from F=2.0 to F=4.7. As more and more telephoto optical zoom is used, the higher minimum F-Number of the S95 will give up all of the "light efficiency" advantages of the S95 (due to the loss of incoming light), and more (a full "stop" of light loss).

So, it would be fair to say that the S95 likely outperforms (at full-wide angle), but that + 0.75 "stop" advantage gradually disappears completely at higher focal lengths, and appears to even become a slight (-0.25 "stop") disadvantage of the S95 relative to the LX5 at full telephoto zoom settings of both cameras ...

It's interesting that (despite the S95's apparent slight SNR advantage over most of the telephoto zoom-range), canon (nevertheless) chooses to employ (what is reputed by many, but not observed by me personally) more aggressive in-camera JPG Noise Reduction.

Depending on your tolerance for lessened fine-detail (as a consequence of more aggressive NR), the S95 images may well look a bit "cleaner" than the LX5.

From my perspective (owning a DMC-LX3), I think that both the LX5 as well as the S95 may (where it comes to in-camera JPGs) smear image-detail more than is to my liking. Thankfully, I shoot in "raw" these days ... ... which does nothing to mitigate the above-described trade-offs.

Note : Since the LX5 and the S95 (new, improved, etc.) image-sensors are not yet characterized, I have used the know DxOMark test data that exists for the LX3 and the (S90 and G11) image-sensors.

Thus, "results" may vary slightly in the case of the new Panasonic and Canon image-sensors ...

Can't help noticing that the Canon S95 "color-rendering" absolutely falls-apart at ISO=1600, then "bounces-back" at ISO=3200. What the heck is that all about? ...

I agree that the Canon S95 samples look noticeably sharper than do the LX5 JPGs (concentrating on the ISO=400 and ISO=800 test-shots). Clearly, more "sharpening" has been applied by the S95 in-camera JPG "engine".

As is the case with all (user-adjustable, let us pray) in-camera JPG "recipes", it does not necessarily tell the entire story simply to compare "default" settings between various cameras - as the comparison could just as easily look much different if/when the cameras are adjusted differently.

Does the Canon offer the user-adjust-ability of the LX3/LX5 Film Modes (NR, SHARPNESS, CONTRAST, SATURATION)? Or are things done "Canon's way" (which I think looks rather nice, BTW). Nevertheless, user-adjust-ability seems absolutely key here. Without it, the user has little ability to customize these image-processing characteristics.