The Great LC5 DEbate.

Hi. This is, I'm sure, old news by now but I just caught it. And this was the conclusion I was coming to on the matter.

Frankly, scaled down to screen viewing size, I havent seen any bizarre effects on either the P or the L.

Any case, here's what Steve said:

--06/24/02 update: The LC5 (and LC40) images seem to be interpreted in one of two ways, either examined on the monitor screen or the printed results. Those of us that were basing our image quality remarks on the images alone seemed to come to the same conclusion that the images just didn't "look" right. And then there were those that were looking at the printed results and most of them said that they thought the image quality was as good or better than other cameras of similar resolution. I've said it myself many times, since the advent of three, four and five megapixel cameras we are "seeing" smaller and smaller portions of the image at 100% on our 800x600 or 1024x768 sized screens. We are now being a lot more critical of these images on a pixel level whereas we used to judge an entire one megapixel image on the screen without the need for it being scaled down to fit. We post 640x480 (or smaller) images on web sites and most people don't use images larger than 800x600 for on-screen viewing. Two, three, four, five and six megapixel images are for making prints and maybe we should change our mindset to reflect this new reality. The same images that I said looked "blotchy" or solarized make perfectly good prints on my Canon S9000 printer. Panasonic says that the camera has been optimized for printing and they may just be right about this.

Of course, here's Jeff's comment/update at DC Resource:

Updated 8/10/02: Some people have pointed out that the photos look fine when downsized or printed. I am of the belief that you should have acceptable photo quality right out of the camera. The LC5's photos do look decent at 4 x 6 inches, but the flaws are noticeable at larger print sizes.)

Two other considerations:

1. Many people don't print all of the images they shoot, and like to simply view them onscreen. If "flaws" are masked or hidden at small print sizes, that may be acceptable to some, but not everyone.

2. If you do any image manipulation, retouching, etc., it should always be done at a larger screen size than will be shown in the eventual form: print or screen. So, one has to magnify the image, or at least look at it / pieces of it "large," onscreen, and those "flaws" are then easily seen.

It can be a bit disconcerting to see certain processing artifacts onscreen and then have to Trust that they will be disguised/hidden in printed output. I know I feel better seeing continuous tone at all stages of image review, editing, AND output.

Whether or not the images do/do not print acceptably is one question. The more interesting discussion may be relative to WHY these images are processed in this way, when no other imaging device works in this way or imposes so many restrictions upon the photographer.

jrg said:

Of course, here's Jeff's comment/update at DC Resource:

Updated 8/10/02: Some people have pointed out that the photos look
fine when downsized or printed. I am of the belief that you should
have acceptable photo quality right out of the camera. The LC5's
photos do look decent at 4 x 6 inches, but the flaws are noticeable
at larger print sizes.)

Click to expand...

use irfanview as your basic picture viewer (fullscreen option) and they will look very nice on your monitor.. i also think they make very nice A4 type prints as well.. steves "how we view our images" comments are entirely correct..

the other guys "might be okay at 6 x 4 " comment is total rubbish..

trog100

Someone says he sees "flaws" at larger print sizes, and you're calling that "drivel/rubbish?" Is he lying? Imagining things? What I don't understand is the inability to acknowledge that different people have different standards of "acceptability." Just as there are different uses for cameras, there are different levels of expectations, and just because one tool works for one person doesn't mean that it's appropriate for the next person. I've read that people have been using LC5s or Digiluxes for newspaper photos. Then, a reader of this used that information to conclude that these cameras are "good enough" for "advertising." But, a newspaper prints at a Significantly Lower linescreen resolution than a magazine or even an inkjet/digital print. So, the standard of acceptability is different. Appropriate for one, not appropriate for another.

I use Photoshop to view and manipulate images. I don't find it reasonable to have to buy/use a different application (Ifranview?) to have my pictures 'appear' "nice." With Photoshop (the industry standard) my LC5 pictures did not look "very nice" to me. While they may have looked "okay" at small screen sizes, when they are seen at the same (various) sizes as I normally view/work with digital images, the "flaws" are quite apparent. These "flaws" are MORE apparent when similar images made with different cameras are compared. If the 'answer' then is "if you have to compare to see the problems then it's not really a problem," then I would have to say that one sometimes doesn't know what one is missing until it's pointed out. That doesn't exclude the fact that something is still, indeed, missing.

So, "rubbish?" I don't concur. That was an expressed OPINION, and one that is shared by a significant group of people. Unless we're all just imagining things, it's a valid comment on our perception. While you may have different perceptions and experiences, they don't negate ours. There can be More Than One set of valid perceptions. If you're entitled to yours, I would hope that you'd allow the existence of a counter-perspective.

By the way: there is more 'evidence' of the existence of the "flaws" than the non-existence, so the "rubbish" characterization is especially strange. Other than the first Impress images, where are the pictures Without the "flaws?"

But, I'm tired of this "debate." I would just like to be able to participate in a forum that allows for more than one perspective. I know I've shown my mother certain of my pictures, and she raves about them, while I can then point out scads of technical and 'artistic' problems in that same image. Does that mean that she's Wrong? Or that I'm wrong? Different people. Different experiences. Different standards. Different expectations. All of them VALID.

Warm regards,
Ze Pequeno

trog100 said:

use irfanview as your basic picture viewer (fullscreen option) and
they will look very nice on your monitor.. i also think they make
very nice A4 type prints as well.. steves "how we view our images"
comments are entirely correct..

the other guys "might be okay at 6 x 4 " comment is total rubbish..

trog100

Click to expand...

Regardless of my personal assessment, I'm with Ze on this.

I think it's perfectly possible to express your opinion without having to negate anyone else's.

I personally like this camera very much. However, it does have an unusual sharpening algorithm that can create certain flaws in areas of low detail. Areas with lots of detail are captured very well IMO, I've been very satisfied with macros. I don't shoot a LOT of macros though, so take that for what it's worth.

I know that Bob is evaluating some firmware revisions that might be made available to LC5 owners. Hopefully that will lower that effect somewhat.

Thanks,
Steve

Ze Pequeno said:

I use Photoshop to view and manipulate images. I don't find it
reasonable to have to buy/use a different application (Ifranview?)
to have my pictures 'appear' "nice." With Photoshop (the industry
standard) my LC5 pictures did not look "very nice" to me. While
they may have looked "okay" at small screen sizes, when they are
seen at the same (various) sizes as I normally view/work with
digital images, the "flaws" are quite apparent. These "flaws" are
MORE apparent when similar images made with different cameras are
compared. If the 'answer' then is "if you have to compare to see
the problems then it's not really a problem," then I would have to
say that one sometimes doesn't know what one is missing until it's
pointed out. That doesn't exclude the fact that something is still,
indeed, missing.

So, "rubbish?" I don't concur. That was an expressed OPINION, and
one that is shared by a significant group of people. Unless we're
all just imagining things, it's a valid comment on our perception.
While you may have different perceptions and experiences, they
don't negate ours. There can be More Than One set of valid
perceptions. If you're entitled to yours, I would hope that you'd
allow the existence of a counter-perspective.

By the way: there is more 'evidence' of the existence of the
"flaws" than the non-existence, so the "rubbish" characterization
is especially strange. Other than the first Impress images, where
are the pictures Without the "flaws?"

But, I'm tired of this "debate." I would just like to be able to
participate in a forum that allows for more than one perspective. I
know I've shown my mother certain of my pictures, and she raves
about them, while I can then point out scads of technical and
'artistic' problems in that same image. Does that mean that she's
Wrong? Or that I'm wrong? Different people. Different experiences.
Different standards. Different expectations. All of them VALID.

Warm regards,
Ze Pequeno

trog100 said:

use irfanview as your basic picture viewer (fullscreen option) and
they will look very nice on your monitor.. i also think they make
very nice A4 type prints as well.. steves "how we view our images"
comments are entirely correct..

the other guys "might be okay at 6 x 4 " comment is total rubbish..

trog100

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

if i express a daft "oppinion" i expect to be told so.. this has very little to do with cameras.. we all have opinions.. some are pretty wierd.. we all have a right to express our oppinions in public.. but we dont have the right to talk rubbish without being told so..

i still think that the (reviewers) comment about the LC5 being only good enough for 6 x 4 prints is rubbish.. mind u thats only my oppinion.. ???.. i also think that viewing images full size on your monitor its pretty stupid way of looking at them (editing apart) unless of course u really are looking for flaws.. personally i try and let the flaws come looking for me as opposed to me going looking for them.. surely an image shown at monitor size is big enough.. isnt it.. ???

i listened to a TV piece the other day.. a guy who had been blind all his life was given his sight back.. was he happy.. no he couldnt tolerate all the marks and blemishes most things have.. lets call them "flaws".. somehow in his blind state he never imagined things being not visually perfect.. sad story really but it makes u think.. okay some flaws are more apparent than others.. but everything has them if u look close enough.. quite how close we should be looking at our digital images is the thing in question here.. as they get bigger looking at them full size is going to get more and more silly.. i think for normal veiwing.. monitor size is a good idea.. he he

the standard reply to "the LC5 images look okay when printed" is always met by "yes but some folks like to view their imgages on a monitor".. i say they can if they do it sensibly.. pretty simple really..

trog100

1. #

Steve Lang said:

I think it's perfectly possible to express your opinion without
having to negate anyone else's.

I personally like this camera very much. However, it does have an
unusual sharpening algorithm that can create certain flaws in areas
of low detail. Areas with lots of detail are captured very well
IMO, I've been very satisfied with macros. I don't shoot a LOT of
macros though, so take that for what it's worth.

I know that Bob is evaluating some firmware revisions that might be
made available to LC5 owners. Hopefully that will lower that effect
somewhat.

Thanks,
Steve

Ze Pequeno said:

I use Photoshop to view and manipulate images. I don't find it
reasonable to have to buy/use a different application (Ifranview?)
to have my pictures 'appear' "nice." With Photoshop (the industry
standard) my LC5 pictures did not look "very nice" to me. While
they may have looked "okay" at small screen sizes, when they are
seen at the same (various) sizes as I normally view/work with
digital images, the "flaws" are quite apparent. These "flaws" are
MORE apparent when similar images made with different cameras are
compared. If the 'answer' then is "if you have to compare to see
the problems then it's not really a problem," then I would have to
say that one sometimes doesn't know what one is missing until it's
pointed out. That doesn't exclude the fact that something is still,
indeed, missing.

So, "rubbish?" I don't concur. That was an expressed OPINION, and
one that is shared by a significant group of people. Unless we're
all just imagining things, it's a valid comment on our perception.
While you may have different perceptions and experiences, they
don't negate ours. There can be More Than One set of valid
perceptions. If you're entitled to yours, I would hope that you'd
allow the existence of a counter-perspective.

By the way: there is more 'evidence' of the existence of the
"flaws" than the non-existence, so the "rubbish" characterization
is especially strange. Other than the first Impress images, where
are the pictures Without the "flaws?"

But, I'm tired of this "debate." I would just like to be able to
participate in a forum that allows for more than one perspective. I
know I've shown my mother certain of my pictures, and she raves
about them, while I can then point out scads of technical and
'artistic' problems in that same image. Does that mean that she's
Wrong? Or that I'm wrong? Different people. Different experiences.
Different standards. Different expectations. All of them VALID.

Warm regards,
Ze Pequeno

trog100 said:

use irfanview as your basic picture viewer (fullscreen option) and
they will look very nice on your monitor.. i also think they make
very nice A4 type prints as well.. steves "how we view our images"
comments are entirely correct..

the other guys "might be okay at 6 x 4 " comment is total rubbish..

trog100

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

trog100 said:

if i express a daft "oppinion" i expect to be told so... but we dont have the right to talk rubbish without being told so..

Click to expand...

So far, it seems the "rubbish" is the only thing supported by publicly viewable evidence.

trog100 said:

i still think that the (reviewers) comment about the LC5 being only
good enough for 6 x 4 prints is rubbish..

Click to expand...

Just shows that everyone has different ideas about what is "acceptable." Seems that the reviewer has more demanding standards, which is what I would hope for from a review. It's then up to the individual consumer to decide what he/she can live with. Since we all have different uses for these cameras, there are bound to be different requirements. The eventual usage will then determine the standards. To say that an image is "fine" at larger than 4x6" is to suggest that it doesn't have any restrictions. But, any competent art director will surely see that those same images are not up to reproduction standards which will reveal more than an inkjet.... But, if you don't intend for your images to be submitted for that purpose, "fine" has a different meaning.

" i also think that viewing images full size on your

trog100 said:

monitor its pretty stupid way of looking at them (editing apart)
unless of course u really are looking for flaws.. personally i try
and let the flaws come looking for me as opposed to me going
looking for them.. surely an image shown at monitor size is big
enough.. isnt it.. ???

Click to expand...

Well, that's all only one person's perspective. There are as many perspectives, needs, and requirements as there are people using the cameras. If my monitor's 23" and yours is 15", that affects the reasonableness of your statement, doesn't it? If one has a large monitor, why wouldn't one want to look at the images as large as possible (without scrolling)? What is big enough? Depends on who you ask. But, that question can't be answered by any one person.

Should you "go looking" for flaws? Yes, if you're going to print anything or submit it for printing. Close inspection is necessary to maintain certain standards, which is why we have loupes and magnifiers. But, again, if snapshots are the end goal, you can have a more relaxed approach to viewing images. Some (very reasonable) people have more stringent requirements.

okay some flaws are more apparent than others..

trog100 said:

but everything has them if u look close enough.. quite how close we
should be looking at our digital images is the thing in question
here.. as they get bigger looking at them full size is going to get
more and more silly.. i think for normal veiwing.. monitor size is
a good idea.. he he

Click to expand...

Who is defining "normal viewing?" Your version of normal is probably different from everyone else's.

trog100 said:

the standard reply to "the LC5 images look okay when printed" is
always met by "yes but some folks like to view their imgages on a
monitor".. i say they can if they do it sensibly.. pretty simple
really..

Click to expand...

Again, you're defining what is "sensible" for everyone else. And, based on what? If someone were to even attempt to define what is reasonable or sensible for the population, he'd have to define a heck of a lot more parameters -- not just "images look okay." I, for one, am not spending so much time and money in my involvement with photography just to get "images that look okay."

Ze

okay lets use this one..

"Conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal".. ie.. not abnormal

a mean average.. something that fits within a widely accepted norm.. ie something that most folks would go for.. or in other words something that most folks would consider okay..

when i use the words normal.. when i say "normal viewing".. i mean just that.. normal looking at pictures for pleasure.. not inspecting them to see if they have reached some exacting standard.. looking at onscreen images in the same way as one would look at prints.. simply looking at them for pleasure..

i also make reasonably sure that when i say normal i mean normal.. not just my "abnormal" oppinion.. okay for "snapshots" u seem to have only two alternatives here dont u..??.. demanding proffessional standards or "snapshots".. he he he..

come on dude.. u are not "normal".. the standards u are setting for acceptability are not "normal" standards.. they are very exacting proffessional standards.. u hide behind one guys oppinion being different than anothers.. u imply that your standards are "normal" when in fact they are not...

okay.. what is the LC5..??.. its a consumer camera simple as that.. it should be judged as a consumer camera.. not as some high-end proffessional device.. i have no problems with your higher than nomal standards of acceptablity.. i do have prblems with the fact that u do not make your "abnormal" standards clear thow..

as for my own standards of "acceptabilty".. well.. i do try and keep them within an acceptable norm.. i also think reviewers should attempt to do the same.. if i show my pictures to a number of people who think they are all very good.. even if i think they are not.. it would be my own judgment i would doubt not that of the others..

judged in a reasonable way there is not that much wrong with the output of the LC5.. by reasonable i dont mean by my "unreasonable" oppinion either.. i mean that 95% of its users would be happy with it.. as for those other 5%.. well they have the wrong camera.. he he

okay i might sound arrogant apparently speaking for others.. but surely aint this the way we try and stay sane.. i am reasonably sure of my idea of "normal" and what would be acceptable to "normal" people who use "normal" standards.. are you..???

course there is a problem for folks who have very high standards.. quite how high are they permitted to go before they become a "mental condition"..??.. just when does that feeling of superiority turn into a feeling of mild paranoia.. he he

dont take my commenst to seriously.. they probably dont apply to u.. but one thing is for certain.. they do apply to some.. which is probably why those with very high standards try so damned hard to justify em.. he he..

and yes there is a place for those very high standards.. but the great 90% of folks who dont suffer from em should not be unduely influenced by em.. at least where something as relatively unimportant as the pixel by pixel image quality of a consumer digicam is concerned..

to put this simply.. my comments are really aimed at the 90% not the other 10%.. the problem as i see it is this.. that minority 10% is overly vociferous and yes it does confuse and unduely influence the oppinion of the majority of potential users.. and yes.. the reviewer are also unduely influenced by that minority 10% also..

as for the pictures i take.. i dont take them for proffesional purposes.. they are not "snapshots" either.. i print A4 size prints (on a decent printer) not 6 x 4 .. some are good most are average.. i expect to bin at least 30% of my pics at first inspection.. what are my main problems.. certainly not the posterization issues with my poor old leica D1.. my picture taking problems are far more fundermantal than that.. he he

just "my oppinion" with the implication that we all have different ones and the other implication that they are all equally valid really is bullsh-t".. it demeans all comment.. in fact it makes most comment redundant.. good stuff for a fake idea of "free speech" thow and good for forum traffic.. he he..

we might well all be entitled to our oppinions.. but we certainly aint entitled to voice em without the possibility of adverse comment and thats a fact..

okay to finish of.. my oppinon of the leica/posterization issue is this.. for those with very exacting standards (a small minority) the posterizaation issue is there and it does make the camera unacceptable.. but for the vast majority of users the posterization issues is of no relevance at all.. it will not affect their enjoyment of what in effect is a very nice and easy to use camera..

now to the important bit.. for the vast majority of users the fullscreen output will be highly acceptable and so will A4 size prints.. the idea that these cameras are only good for "snapshots" is pure rubbish..

now this is my oppinion.. i consider it a valid oppinion based on sound reasoning.. i believe comments along the lines of "well thats just your oppinion" are simply insulting.. now my oppinion is either a sound one worthy of consideration or it isnt.. lets have none of this we all have oppinons cr-p..

trog100

This isn’t going to resolve anything relative to our differences, but it is an excercise in communciation, so:

You’ve chosen to quote a definition of “normal” - a term you use quite frequently. But, without Specific Context, they are meaningless. You’ve chosen, it seems, to use “normal” (today) to apply to what the general population will accept from what you have also defined as a “consumer camera.” But, here’s a converse perspective. Cameras at this “level” (Canon G2, Nikon 5000/5700, Sony 707/717, Olympus C-5050, et al), are also commonly referred to as Pro-Sumer cameras. This, to me, indicates a higher level of functionality and capability (and expectations). So, then, in this league, “normal” results would seem to mean results that fit within the bell curve of image quality characteristics as produced by these cameras. I doubt you’d find any credible source that compares favorably the LC5/digilux 1 images to any of these cameras. Although all of them have lenses of comparable sharpness, none of them produce the posterization effect that you now recognize in the LC5/Digilux1. So, to me, that’s an indication that the LC5/Digilux1 do not produce “normal” results.

Do I have abnormal expectations? I would say that they are high and exacting. But, put into perspective, I don’t believe I’m unrealistically demanding. Based on these two points:

1. I would accept the image quality of any of the other cameras I’ve just named above as being in the same “class” as the LC5/Digilux1.

2. I expect to be able to get PUBLISHABLE images with ANY camera I purchase. It’s a commonly held belief among photographers that wonderful images can be produced from a $150 film camera - the point-and-shoot Yashica T3/T4. Professional grade images can result from a$15 plastic Holga. Since digital is a different beast, relying on different criteria, it can be said that with manipulation, publishable images can be attained from any of the cameras listed above, and one would be hard-pressed to discern digital images from their film counterparts. But, the LC5/digilux1, with its posterization and dithering of shadow areas is a tell-tale digital problem. Of course, if you don’t ever shoot for any purpose other than private prints/viewing, perhas this needn’t concern you. And, indeed, the vast majority of camera users do not shoot with this purpose in mind. But, relative to your use of “terminology,” the LC5 and Digilux1 are the only cameras in this class that impose these limitations. Not “normal.”

No, I don’t have just two classifications for people who take photographs (“snapshooters” and “professionals”). I believe my comments reflect that I believe in a complete RANGE of different people with different needs and expectations. I don’t oversimplify things by putting people into two boxes, as I perceive you do - the Normal 95% and the Abnormal (picky/insane/unreasonable) 5%. And, speaking of statistics: they always seem to be self-created in your posts. “95% of people would be happy with it...” “that minority 10% is overly vociferous....” A lot of made-up numbers to represent only what YOU personally feel. This is also evident in your perception that that minority is Overly Vociferous. It seems you’d like to define for everyone how much we should speak, how much we should expect, what we should do with our cameras....”

I have to ask you this: Do you really believe that your relaxed, pedestrian standards make you a better photographer? I would have thought that one of the reasons we’re all here is to improve - either our technique, our thinking, equipment or our results. But, everything you argue is counter to that. It seems to always be, “that’s okay,” “that’s fine,” “that’s acceptable,” “it doesn’t matter.” Leads me to wonder why you would choose a Digilux. I wouldn’t like to think that reasonable people would buy a brand because of some desire to feel included in an elitist group. The truth is that “Real Leica Photographers,” as they call themselves, look down with contempt for the most part at this camera.Why, they don’t even consider an M7 to be a real Leica. I guess, though, that the red circle would prove impressive to “90% of folks.” That must be enough, then, right?

You say “either my opinion is a sound one worthy of consideration or it isn’t.” Gee, this has been the foundation of all of my comments. Certainly any opinion is worthy of consideration, but I believe an opinion is more valid when it’s expressed as That Person’s Belief. When you begin to tell me that Your Opinion is applicable to “90% of folks,” well that just seems pompous, not to mention inherently inaccurate. You then say “let’s have none of this we all have oppinions [sic] cr-p...” Reads as a contradiction. We don’t? I’m sorry. According to your post, indeed we don’t. We should all accept your Oppinion as fact. Well, I’m going to disagree, and write again that we all have opinions, just as we have different personalities, needs, and expectations. You may dispute that, and that will be your (incorrect, he he) “oppinion.” I guess that adequately represents my last word on how we perceive things differently.

Please, sir, continue to express your Oppinions. But, do not presume to represent the “right-thinking” population. It is, by the way, the 10% of folks with more exacting standards who eventually result in better products for the rest of you.

Respectfully,
Ze

Ze,

Your response is very appropriate.
The key word here is 'expecations'.

i expected my Digilux to take better pictures (technicaly speaking, not artistically speaking) than it does.
Technically, I get better pictures from 15 dollar disposable using 110 film.
Really.

I've been a lurker on this forum for a while but decided I should throw in my support for the Digilux. If for no other reason than just because I like the camera alot and want to balance out the negatives with some positives. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and I realized by not at least chiming in and registering my approval I am doing a disservice to this whole debate. I am a satisfied owner and I have used it for professional shoots where I was selling the images to a client. For photography in the digital realm it has suited my needs well. I've shot with a Canon G2 as well and haven't seen any appreciable difference between the images I get out of the two when used similarly.

tim power said:

Ze,

Your response is very appropriate.
The key word here is 'expecations'.
i expected my Digilux to take better pictures (technicaly
speaking, not artistically speaking) than it does.
Technically, I get better pictures from 15 dollar disposable using
110 film.
Really.

Click to expand...

Dilcut,

Thanks for your message. This is a very curious thing, and one I'd like to get to the bottom of. I've also received personal email from a photographer I respect very much who says she uses one of these cameras for professional assignments, alongside her Leica M cameras. What kind of work do you do? Are the images printed "full-page," in magazines or books?

I would actually love to believe that there are both "good" and "bad" versions of the same product being released, but that seems far-fetched, no? If so, I would certainly go back and buy a few different LC5s just to get one that works "properly," as I define it.

Would you be willing to send me a few of the images you have made for professional use? Via my personal email? I would do whatever you'd like, as far as copyright protection, but I would really love to have it demonstrated that the issues in question can be overcome.

Well, thank you for your consideration,

Ze

dilcut said:

tim power said:

Ze,

Your response is very appropriate.
The key word here is 'expecations'.
i expected my Digilux to take better pictures (technicaly
speaking, not artistically speaking) than it does.
Technically, I get better pictures from 15 dollar disposable using
110 film.
Really.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ze,

So far I've only used it in the digital realm, i.e. lifestyle photography for editorial use on web sites and in advertising stuff. My guess is that those images will be unhelpful to you, as the final product of these shoots have been photos to be viewed at screen resolution as part of text/photo pairings and not as single huge images at print resolutions.

I may have something coming up that will probably end up as prints in a brochure, which it sounds like is more what you're looking for, if I'm understanding your perspective properly. Happy to send something along from that if it pans out.

I agree with you that it's not likely the same product has good/bad versions. My reason for posting my opinion was more that the camera has suited my needs and I'm happy with it, not that it does or does not have some characteristics that some people have a problem with. I appreciate your keeping the tenor of the debate civil, and hope that future posters will keep it that way as well.

Best,
Dilcut

Ze Pequeno said:

Thanks for your message. This is a very curious thing, and one I'd
like to get to the bottom of. I've also received personal email
from a photographer I respect very much who says she uses one of
these cameras for professional assignments, alongside her Leica M
cameras. What kind of work do you do? Are the images printed
"full-page," in magazines or books?

I would actually love to believe that there are both "good" and
"bad" versions of the same product being released, but that seems
far-fetched, no? If so, I would certainly go back and buy a few
different LC5s just to get one that works "properly," as I define
it.

Would you be willing to send me a few of the images you have made
for professional use? Via my personal email? I would do whatever
you'd like, as far as copyright protection, but I would really love
to have it demonstrated that the issues in question can be overcome.

Well, thank you for your consideration,

Ze

dilcut said:

tim power said:

Ze,

Your response is very appropriate.
The key word here is 'expecations'.
i expected my Digilux to take better pictures (technicaly
speaking, not artistically speaking) than it does.
Technically, I get better pictures from 15 dollar disposable using
110 film.
Really.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi dilcut,

One thing we've never really seen is some actual side-by-side comparison shots between the LC5/ Digilux and others.

Do you own a G2 or have access to one? If so, it would be very interesting if you could take identical photos (1 or 2 different subjects, whatever) with both cameras and post them on pbase.com or some site. Maybe 1 macro and 1 landscape.

For this test to be of any value, you literally want to have both cameras at the same time to take the shots, otherwise lighting differences can really invalidate such a comparison. So I don't know if this is possible or convenient for you to do.

Thanks,
Steve

dilcut said:

tim power said:

Ze,

Your response is very appropriate.
The key word here is 'expecations'.
i expected my Digilux to take better pictures (technicaly
speaking, not artistically speaking) than it does.
Technically, I get better pictures from 15 dollar disposable using
110 film.
Really.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

dude.. i dont claim to represent the "right thinking population" i simply claim that my standards of acceptability are closer to the vast majority of LC5 users expectations than yours are.. forget the name lieca that does complicate things.. lets talks about the expectations of most LC5 users who most certainly arnt trying to join any "elitist" group.. its a shame we never seem to hear from any of them..

as for the term pro-sumer and whether or not the LC5 fits in this category is open to debate.. at best the term means a more expensive consumer camera it dosnt mean its intended for proffessional use.. mind u if image quality was my sole concern i would not have bought either the leica or the panasonic i would have gone for the more run of the mill G2.. the fast action point and shoot reportage factor was behind my purchase and yes righly or wrongly i was prepared to pay a little more for the leica name and retro styling.. and being as i know its image quality isnt the "best" what other term can i use but "good enough" in this respect..

also we do seem to disagree somewhat as to how the human race is made up.. u seem to think it is all different with different requirements i tend to think along the lines that the vast majority tend to fit in fairly narrow parameters and have pretty similar desires and expectations.. i also dont think that the small 10% or so with higher requirments make things get better for the vast majority.. its probably the other way around in todays world.. i will permit myself one small "he he" here.. if u dont mind..

my standards are pretty high in most things.. also i am a bit of an elitist at heart.. my idea of "good enough" usually satisfies most folks..not as they like the term much.. which being the arrogant bugger that i am leads me to believe from over fifty years of living.. if its good enough for me its (mostly) good enough for the majority.. which is also why i am pretty certain that your views dont in any way represent the majority views..

any way.. i stick my my comments.. most LC5 users are happy with the pictures that they get from their camera and only a small percentage of (possibly over-fussy) users are not.. as i said earlier its a shame these threads do seem to be dominated by the disatisfiied ones.. whether in a personal opinion kinda way.. the panasonic/leica images are "good enough" will never be answered cos in a personal opinion kinda way.. it is simply that.. a personal opinion and as such worth what its worth.. very little without some imput from the apparently silent majority..

i trust my own judgement sufficiently to believe that the LC5 images are good enough for most users.. if i didnt i would not make the claims that i do... "good enough" really is an honest and accurate term by the way it does not imply low standards.. or do u expect "more than good enough"..

and yes i am aiming my commenst at the majority of readers.. i am not trying to convince u of anything..

sorry.. had to chop your comments of the end.. the word count was to high.. .. he he

trog100

1. ##

Should we hug now?

I agree (finally) with almost all of your most recent comments, save for these:

1. I know for certain that my standards are NOT representative of the majority of the general population. However, I feel they are VERY representative of the smaller subset which frequents this particular website. Just in our being regular and frequent "contributors" to a forum for the purpose of discussing and researching digital imaging devices makes us unique. I believe that the amount of time we spend here is indicative of a higher level of caring/interest in subject matter relative to the digital end of photography. That alone means to me that we are more needful/desirous of higher quality product, information, feedback, results, et al.

In fact, if you disagree with this statement to any degree, perhaps you should venture out of the Other Digicams section, and read what the Most Demanding users are writing in the Canon SLR, Nikon SLR, Fuji SLR, Pro Digital sections. People with More demanding requirements from their cameras, but since a lot of us cross/migrate between Forums, the standards are the same, but we try to temper our expectations based on the particular gear being discussed. So, with regard to that, No, i believe my standards ARE representative of the dpreview.com population. More so, when the current crop of competing Digicams is considered and compared. I don't ask anything more from the Digilux1/LC5 than has already been delivered from already existing products, so I don't consider myself to be unreasonable.

Which leads me to:

2. "Over-fussy," as you label me. I object, first, to your need to apply derogatory, oversimplistic labels. I then suggest that item no. 1 addresses and refutes your argument. I believe in progress, not regression. You admit that image quality is not at the forefront of your camera-buying interests. That confession is quite baffling to me. Your further (non-) comments about the Leica logomark are revealing. You are certainly entitled to enjoy any criteria you choose. But, I'm disturbed that you chastise those who do value image quality above all.

Well, alright then.
Ze Pequeno

In the end, it's not a matter of 'good enough' or 'not good enough' in my opinion.

If ANYONE asks me about the LC5, I try to give them as much objective information as I can, and tell them to look at my sample gallery and other photos. Print some photos out at the size you expect to be printing.

Then they can decide for themselves. Because to be honest, unless they really want the great operational features the LC5 provides, I'll tell them to buy a Canon G2 instead. It doesn't make the LC5 'not good', I just think the G2 happens to have better picture quality. But for me, the operational advantages of the LC5 were enough to for me to pick it over the G2. And out of all these cameras, the G3 seems to be the best of all worlds (which doesn't bother me though, since I know my LC5 will be great for me for the next 2-3 years.)

I agree a lot of people can be satisfied with the LC5 picture quality, but that doesn't make those that aren't fussy. At all. It's just not necessary to go that way, even if others do or imply that sort of judgement.

-Steve

Ze Pequeno said:

Should we hug now?

I agree (finally) with almost all of your most recent comments,
save for these:

1. I know for certain that my standards are NOT representative of
the majority of the general population. However, I feel they are
VERY representative of the smaller subset which frequents this
particular website. Just in our being regular and frequent
"contributors" to a forum for the purpose of discussing and
researching digital imaging devices makes us unique. I believe that
the amount of time we spend here is indicative of a higher level of
caring/interest in subject matter relative to the digital end of
photography. That alone means to me that we are more
needful/desirous of higher quality product, information, feedback,
results, et al.

In fact, if you disagree with this statement to any degree, perhaps
you should venture out of the Other Digicams section, and read what
the Most Demanding users are writing in the Canon SLR, Nikon SLR,
Fuji SLR, Pro Digital sections. People with More demanding
requirements from their cameras, but since a lot of us
cross/migrate between Forums, the standards are the same, but we
try to temper our expectations based on the particular gear being
discussed. So, with regard to that, No, i believe my standards ARE
representative of the dpreview.com population. More so, when the
current crop of competing Digicams is considered and compared. I
don't ask anything more from the Digilux1/LC5 than has already been
delivered from already existing products, so I don't consider
myself to be unreasonable.

Which leads me to:
2. "Over-fussy," as you label me. I object, first, to your need to
apply derogatory, oversimplistic labels. I then suggest that item
no. 1 addresses and refutes your argument. I believe in progress,
not regression. You admit that image quality is not at the
forefront of your camera-buying interests. That confession is quite
baffling to me. Your further (non-) comments about the Leica
logomark are revealing. You are certainly entitled to enjoy any
criteria you choose. But, I'm disturbed that you chastise those who
do value image quality above all.

Well, alright then.
Ze Pequeno

Click to expand...

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

Objectivity. Honesty. You're cool.

Sorry continue a minor digression - about the G3: are you of the understanding that it will be as responsive as the LC5? Have you seen a comprehensive test yet?

Thanks,
Ze

Steve Lang said:

If ANYONE asks me about the LC5, I try to give them as much
objective information as I can, and tell them to look at my sample
gallery and other photos. Print some photos out at the size you
expect to be printing.

Then they can decide for themselves. Because to be honest, unless
they really want the great operational features the LC5 provides,
I'll tell them to buy a Canon G2 instead. It doesn't make the LC5
'not good', I just think the G2 happens to have better picture
quality. But for me, the operational advantages of the LC5 were
enough to for me to pick it over the G2. And out of all these
cameras, the G3 seems to be the best of all worlds (which doesn't
bother me though, since I know my LC5 will be great for me for the
next 2-3 years.)

I agree a lot of people can be satisfied with the LC5 picture
quality, but that doesn't make those that aren't fussy. At all.
It's just not necessary to go that way, even if others do or imply
that sort of judgement.

-Steve

Ze Pequeno said:

Should we hug now?

I agree (finally) with almost all of your most recent comments,
save for these:

1. I know for certain that my standards are NOT representative of
the majority of the general population. However, I feel they are
VERY representative of the smaller subset which frequents this
particular website. Just in our being regular and frequent
"contributors" to a forum for the purpose of discussing and
researching digital imaging devices makes us unique. I believe that
the amount of time we spend here is indicative of a higher level of
caring/interest in subject matter relative to the digital end of
photography. That alone means to me that we are more
needful/desirous of higher quality product, information, feedback,
results, et al.

In fact, if you disagree with this statement to any degree, perhaps
you should venture out of the Other Digicams section, and read what
the Most Demanding users are writing in the Canon SLR, Nikon SLR,
Fuji SLR, Pro Digital sections. People with More demanding
requirements from their cameras, but since a lot of us
cross/migrate between Forums, the standards are the same, but we
try to temper our expectations based on the particular gear being
discussed. So, with regard to that, No, i believe my standards ARE
representative of the dpreview.com population. More so, when the
current crop of competing Digicams is considered and compared. I
don't ask anything more from the Digilux1/LC5 than has already been
delivered from already existing products, so I don't consider
myself to be unreasonable.

Which leads me to:
2. "Over-fussy," as you label me. I object, first, to your need to
apply derogatory, oversimplistic labels. I then suggest that item
no. 1 addresses and refutes your argument. I believe in progress,
not regression. You admit that image quality is not at the
forefront of your camera-buying interests. That confession is quite
baffling to me. Your further (non-) comments about the Leica
logomark are revealing. You are certainly entitled to enjoy any
criteria you choose. But, I'm disturbed that you chastise those who
do value image quality above all.

Well, alright then.
Ze Pequeno

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Hi Ze,

Thanks

I don't know too much yet, but here is what I have read-

1. Startup time is MUCH reduced. I believe the LC5 should still be faster, but the G3 is much closer than the G1 and G2. Important for me for those unexpected moments.

2. Good cycle time in continuous mode. The G3 buffer is as large as I'll ever need, so the cycle time is good for me. The LC5 has a very good cycle time which I don't believe even involves a buffer (in single shot mode), I can pretty much shoot indefinitely at 1 shot every 2 seconds or so. And I notice that card speed impacts this, so I'm very hopeful that the newer Panasonic 256 and 512 MB cards will give even better performance (they are significantly faster). I can't afford one yet though!

3. Autofocus. A lot of people complain about the slow or inaccurate autofocus of the G1/G2, don't know if the G3 is the same or not. I didn't think the G1 was too bad in my brief usage, about average. But I do think the LC5 autofocus system is very good.

4. Fast lens. Both the Canon G series and the LC5 have f2-f2.5 lens, that's important for me since I don't like using flash.

Those are the most important characteristics to me, so I think the G3 has made a lot of progress. I really, really like my LC5 though, so I don't feel any "buyer's remorse" or anything like that. If anything, I might still have bought the LC5 now based on price.

One thing I'm really hoping for is a firmware update for the LC5 that reduces the sharpening slightly to eliminate the 'posterization' I see in some photos.

Take care,
Steve

Ze Pequeno said:

Sorry continue a minor digression - about the G3: are you of the
understanding that it will be as responsive as the LC5? Have you
seen a comprehensive test yet?

Thanks,
Ze

Steve Lang said:

If ANYONE asks me about the LC5, I try to give them as much
objective information as I can, and tell them to look at my sample
gallery and other photos. Print some photos out at the size you
expect to be printing.

Then they can decide for themselves. Because to be honest, unless
they really want the great operational features the LC5 provides,
I'll tell them to buy a Canon G2 instead. It doesn't make the LC5
'not good', I just think the G2 happens to have better picture
quality. But for me, the operational advantages of the LC5 were
enough to for me to pick it over the G2. And out of all these
cameras, the G3 seems to be the best of all worlds (which doesn't
bother me though, since I know my LC5 will be great for me for the
next 2-3 years.)

I agree a lot of people can be satisfied with the LC5 picture
quality, but that doesn't make those that aren't fussy. At all.
It's just not necessary to go that way, even if others do or imply
that sort of judgement.

-Steve

Ze Pequeno said:

Should we hug now?

I agree (finally) with almost all of your most recent comments,
save for these:

1. I know for certain that my standards are NOT representative of
the majority of the general population. However, I feel they are
VERY representative of the smaller subset which frequents this
particular website. Just in our being regular and frequent
"contributors" to a forum for the purpose of discussing and
researching digital imaging devices makes us unique. I believe that
the amount of time we spend here is indicative of a higher level of
caring/interest in subject matter relative to the digital end of
photography. That alone means to me that we are more
needful/desirous of higher quality product, information, feedback,
results, et al.

In fact, if you disagree with this statement to any degree, perhaps
you should venture out of the Other Digicams section, and read what
the Most Demanding users are writing in the Canon SLR, Nikon SLR,
Fuji SLR, Pro Digital sections. People with More demanding
requirements from their cameras, but since a lot of us
cross/migrate between Forums, the standards are the same, but we
try to temper our expectations based on the particular gear being
discussed. So, with regard to that, No, i believe my standards ARE
representative of the dpreview.com population. More so, when the
current crop of competing Digicams is considered and compared. I
don't ask anything more from the Digilux1/LC5 than has already been
delivered from already existing products, so I don't consider
myself to be unreasonable.

Which leads me to:
2. "Over-fussy," as you label me. I object, first, to your need to
apply derogatory, oversimplistic labels. I then suggest that item
no. 1 addresses and refutes your argument. I believe in progress,
not regression. You admit that image quality is not at the
forefront of your camera-buying interests. That confession is quite
baffling to me. Your further (non-) comments about the Leica
logomark are revealing. You are certainly entitled to enjoy any
criteria you choose. But, I'm disturbed that you chastise those who
do value image quality above all.

Well, alright then.
Ze Pequeno

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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