Reading mode: Light Dark

LX100 - first "controlled" image/lens tests

Go to last post
Looking at the LX100 samples-all 84 of them-I noticed just with the eyeball test that the pictures seemed to vary in quality. From about image 48 to about the end-it looked to me that pictures must have been by a different photogapher,

Pictures ~48 to 84 were much sharper focus- so I think/thought. This may justnbe a personal preference. I am not talking about exposure or composition. My eyes may be tired but I though there to be a discernible difference in the quality of the pictures.
 
Does a straight line mean better or does it mean consistent across the board i.e. consistently mediocre or bad or good etc. A straight line could also mean consistent increase or decrease in performance.

An explanation of the chart would be more helpful than a conclusion somebody is drawing from the chart.
 
dog46 said:
Looking at the LX100 samples-all 84 of them-I noticed just with the eyeball test that the pictures seemed to vary in quality. From about image 48 to about the end-it looked to me that pictures must have been by a different photogapher,

Pictures ~48 to 84 were much sharper focus- so I think/thought. This may justnbe a personal preference. I am not talking about exposure or composition. My eyes may be tired but I though there to be a discernible difference in the quality of the pictures.
Click to expand...
From that point on there are a lot of photos that have either been processed to taste from RAW in ACR, or are examples of different sorts of in-camera processing (scene modes, for example, some of which activate features like "Intelligent Resolution"). You can determine these sorts of things by using a Firefox browser plugin like "Exif Viewer" or opening up the files in some sort of image view that reports on the full EXIF data.

All the shots that don't fall into such categories seem reasonably consistent with all the other samples I've seen, but that's something of a objective subjective statement I guess.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a straight line is not always better.
Also matters if the results are comparable between the different sensors. This is not always the case, but I suppose they are because there is a black line drawn across both graphs at the top. I figure this is theoretic maximum..? so the results have been normalized..

ShutterNot said:
Does a straight line mean better or does it mean consistent across the board i.e. consistently mediocre or bad or good etc. A straight line could also mean consistent increase or decrease in performance.

An explanation of the chart would be more helpful than a conclusion somebody is drawing from the chart.

--
ShutterNot :)
Click to expand...
 
Tan68 said:
Yes, a straight line is not always better.
Also matters if the results are comparable between the different sensors. This is not always the case, but I suppose they are because there is a black line drawn across both graphs at the top. I figure this is theoretic maximum..? so the results have been normalized..
ShutterNot said:
Does a straight line mean better or does it mean consistent across the board i.e. consistently mediocre or bad or good etc. A straight line could also mean consistent increase or decrease in performance.

An explanation of the chart would be more helpful than a conclusion somebody is drawing from the chart.

--
ShutterNot :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are using Imatest which gives resolution based on the lens and sensor pixels. Since both cameras are 16mp the results should be close although of course there can be variances due to AA filter and bayer vs xtran.

--
My Flickr Birds
 
Last edited:
It is not surprising that there is softness of the image in the corners and borders. The designers of the zoom lens had to make compromises to keep the lens at a manageable size while using a relatively large sensor. The optical limitations are very successfully corrected by software in camera or in the image processing software in computer if you are using raw files. This can easily be demonstrated by opening a raw file in software such as RawTherapee that does not apply automatic correction. There is a remarkable amount of barrel distortion at the shortest focal lengths. This distortion disappears when proper correction is applied but there is inevitable loss of IQ at the periphery of the image.

I think these compromises are inevitable if you want the camera to be fairly small but with a useful range of focal length and a wide aperture. A more optically perfect lens would be much bigger, heavier and very much more expensive.
 
Greynerd said:
... I must say the control layout of aperture and shutter on auto until you turn the dial really is an improvement on the PASM dial.
Click to expand...
Well, there are still times when having the PASM dial and two modal control wheels is nice. The dedicated dials are nice but there are ways to have more control... with no dedicated dials, which look prosumer, but non-dedicated, yet customizable, modal wheels.

Removing the PASM did not make room for a dedicated exposure compensation dial. With many SLR having PASM and two control wheels, it is possible to choose what the wheels do depending on the mode you are in. One choice can be EC. For cameras with two control wheels and not the type with only one.

You may choose to have control of aperture on one wheel and EC on another or you may like to have direct access to ISO, instead. You can direct aperture control to front if you like to use your index finger. Whichever suits. Being customizable in this way, there are more options than dedicated dials.

Using the dedicated dials, rather than PASM, to select modes is no faster than using PASM dial. The same movements in most instances, more movement in one, and less movement in another. A wash :^)

The LX100 dedicated shutter speed dial allows adjustment only in full stops. If I want to adjust shutter in finer increments (I typically do), I need to use the wheel around the 4-way controller. This wheel is +/- 2/3 EV only. So, two places to use for setting precise shutter. I think a shift of grip will be required to reach the dedicated shutter dial. Less shift of grip to reach ring around 4-way controller. If a person often uses Av Priority mode or Program, this is no inconvenience, of course.

The rings around the lens are a good idea. I do prefer to set aperture on a modal control wheel by using finger tips. It is just simpler. I know I prefer this having used small lenses with aperture control rings. I don't dislike these lenses, but I have to shift my hand to use the aperture ring. I change shutter more than aperture, but I would use the ring on LX100 lens for a less adjusted setting like ISO. With small lenses, I don't cup the camera as I would with a large lens; I hold the whole left side. If someone holds the camera in the traditional (when no AF and aperture ring required) way, this is no inconvenience, of course.

To use the traditional controls on many SLR, they would have needed the PASM dial on top and tried to fit another control wheel up by the dedicated EC dial. Perhaps raise the deck a bit there but no increase in overall height..?

The benefit would be one place for all shutter adjustment, direct ISO access added (if desired) as well as EC, adjustments made with fingers and no shift of grip. For the program modes direct access to the priority setting, EC, ISO, zoom movement. For manual, aperture and shutter at fingertips and ISO on the lens ring. That would be nice :^)

No, I am not trying to compare the LX100 to an SLR and say it lacks. I use my camera in M mostly because it suits the stuff I do. It is simpler to adjust shutter on the SLR. Still, I am interested in this camera. I think the dedicated dials look fun.

The best thing included is the AF button. That looks to be in a good location, too. There are times when removing AF actuation from shutter press is nice. As far as I can tell, the Canon & Sony competitors do not have this feature. If they do, it must not be as convenient.

+ Greynerd, I think I appear negative on your interest...
I am not trying to be negative and hope the post isn't taken that way.
Just discussing what I see as practical versus.. fun.
I do think the dedicated wheels look fun. I like that.

My first camera had the same type of shutter wheel.
Full stop adjustments and all.
The Nikon Df or whatever has some similar arrangements, I believe.
I think the dedicated dials can make the camera fun to use, if not always as practical, and fun is important :^) Hate to say it..., but I would like the camera in a color. I always had black or silver... My Canon SX230 is blue. I like it.
 
Last edited:
ayewing said:
It is not surprising that there is softness of the image in the corners and borders. ...
Click to expand...
I agree and understand.

I look at the (linked somewhere) sample of the Canon LS7 or whichever and that steps outside the bounds of what I thought they were doing with small cameras...

I understand barrel distortion and vignetting, but the Canon ends up with parts of the image black and unrecoverable... ?

This leaves me wondering if their lens is a 24mm after the cropping.. or, if the focal length is determined before cropping so the field of view is less after correction ?

I think a comment about the Sony is that it needs correction but not cropping.
I presume the Panasonic will need correction but not cropping. Will be interested to see.
 
They keep messing with that gallery. While there are a couple that were shot with a particular scene mode, the majority of the most recent additions aren't ACR conversions anymore. The EXIF data indicates standard camera produced JPEGs using default processing options. But that certainly doesn't preclude the possibility of some sort of post-processing.
 
Last edited:
Well, complete EXIF will show software used after capture.

If the image came from camera, it came from camera. If image went through LR or whichever for changes and then was exported with these changes, LR will appear in EXIF.

If changes were made but no intermediate software is recorded, then someone went through the EXIF manually and removed reference to this. While this can be done, I think effort of this type is unlikely...
 
Thanks for the comprehensive analysis. I must admit with the cameras I have with lens dials, namely the XZ-10 and TZ60 I do forget to use them being so used now to cursor dials or body dials.

I will wait and see how things pan out with the camera Probably rushed in to the TZ60 too fast as the manual focus just does not work at long focal lengths. Hopefully firmware will fix this but there is no guarantee it will. Not a show stopper as I rarely use it though the peaking does make things easier when the camera does respond to the focus ring at short focal lengths.
Tan68 said:
Greynerd said:
... I must say the control layout of aperture and shutter on auto until you turn the dial really is an improvement on the PASM dial.
Click to expand...
Well, there are still times when having the PASM dial and two modal control wheels is nice. The dedicated dials are nice but there are ways to have more control... with no dedicated dials, which look prosumer, but non-dedicated, yet customizable, modal wheels.

Removing the PASM did not make room for a dedicated exposure compensation dial. With many SLR having PASM and two control wheels, it is possible to choose what the wheels do depending on the mode you are in. One choice can be EC. For cameras with two control wheels and not the type with only one.

You may choose to have control of aperture on one wheel and EC on another or you may like to have direct access to ISO, instead. You can direct aperture control to front if you like to use your index finger. Whichever suits. Being customizable in this way, there are more options than dedicated dials.

Using the dedicated dials, rather than PASM, to select modes is no faster than using PASM dial. The same movements in most instances, more movement in one, and less movement in another. A wash :^)

The LX100 dedicated shutter speed dial allows adjustment only in full stops. If I want to adjust shutter in finer increments (I typically do), I need to use the wheel around the 4-way controller. This wheel is +/- 2/3 EV only. So, two places to use for setting precise shutter. I think a shift of grip will be required to reach the dedicated shutter dial. Less shift of grip to reach ring around 4-way controller. If a person often uses Av Priority mode or Program, this is no inconvenience, of course.

The rings around the lens are a good idea. I do prefer to set aperture on a modal control wheel by using finger tips. It is just simpler. I know I prefer this having used small lenses with aperture control rings. I don't dislike these lenses, but I have to shift my hand to use the aperture ring. I change shutter more than aperture, but I would use the ring on LX100 lens for a less adjusted setting like ISO. With small lenses, I don't cup the camera as I would with a large lens; I hold the whole left side. If someone holds the camera in the traditional (when no AF and aperture ring required) way, this is no inconvenience, of course.

To use the traditional controls on many SLR, they would have needed the PASM dial on top and tried to fit another control wheel up by the dedicated EC dial. Perhaps raise the deck a bit there but no increase in overall height..?

The benefit would be one place for all shutter adjustment, direct ISO access added (if desired) as well as EC, adjustments made with fingers and no shift of grip. For the program modes direct access to the priority setting, EC, ISO, zoom movement. For manual, aperture and shutter at fingertips and ISO on the lens ring. That would be nice :^)

No, I am not trying to compare the LX100 to an SLR and say it lacks. I use my camera in M mostly because it suits the stuff I do. It is simpler to adjust shutter on the SLR. Still, I am interested in this camera. I think the dedicated dials look fun.

The best thing included is the AF button. That looks to be in a good location, too. There are times when removing AF actuation from shutter press is nice. As far as I can tell, the Canon & Sony competitors do not have this feature. If they do, it must not be as convenient.

+ Greynerd, I think I appear negative on your interest...
I am not trying to be negative and hope the post isn't taken that way.
Just discussing what I see as practical versus.. fun.
I do think the dedicated wheels look fun. I like that.

My first camera had the same type of shutter wheel.
Full stop adjustments and all.
The Nikon Df or whatever has some similar arrangements, I believe.
I think the dedicated dials can make the camera fun to use, if not always as practical, and fun is important :^) Hate to say it..., but I would like the camera in a color. I always had black or silver... My Canon SX230 is blue. I like it.
Click to expand...
 
Greynerd said:
Thanks for the comprehensive analysis. ...
Click to expand...
Bless you.
I think I committed a rant...

I didn't intend to, though !

The LX100 is perfectly suited to its market and the way cameras are styled now. That is a fact :^)
 
Tan68 said:
Well, complete EXIF will show software used after capture.

If the image came from camera, it came from camera. If image went through LR or whichever for changes and then was exported with these changes, LR will appear in EXIF.

If changes were made but no intermediate software is recorded, then someone went through the EXIF manually and removed reference to this. While this can be done, I think effort of this type is unlikely...
Click to expand...
It's actually very easy to batch process a bunch of files to remove and/or replace EXIF data fields, but I'm not suggesting that anyone has done that.

Some people essentially are, however: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/58...rld-samples-gallery-posted?comment=1102023400
 
ayewing said:
It is not surprising that there is softness of the image in the corners and borders. The designers of the zoom lens had to make compromises to keep the lens at a manageable size while using a relatively large sensor. The optical limitations are very successfully corrected by software in camera or in the image processing software in computer if you are using raw files. This can easily be demonstrated by opening a raw file in software such as RawTherapee that does not apply automatic correction. There is a remarkable amount of barrel distortion at the shortest focal lengths. This distortion disappears when proper correction is applied but there is inevitable loss of IQ at the periphery of the image.

I think these compromises are inevitable if you want the camera to be fairly small but with a useful range of focal length and a wide aperture. A more optically perfect lens would be much bigger, heavier and very much more expensive.

-- Archie
Click to expand...
I agree with every word you said, all of it makes perfect sense. What I do not agree with is that a company like Panasonic (or any other) would consciously make a decision to make a lens that has so many compromises. I think many people would have paid more for a lens that was much sharper throughout the focal range, even if it was larger and heavier. I know if the lens on the LX100 was much sharper, I would have been seriously interested in purchasing it. At this point, I will be looking for either Nikon or Olympus to introduce a 1" camera with a much higher quality lens with a slightly longer reach. I currently own the Olympus XZ-2, it has a great sharp lens from corner to corner throughout its entire focal range. I am in the market to upgrade my XZ-2 to a camera that will give me a bit more resolution (16-20 MP's) and a slightly longer reach, 24-120/160mm, f2-4.0. Yes, even if it would cost more money and is slightly larger and heavier by about 10-30%. What I am not willing to do is buy a camera with a lens that has so many compromises and only sharp at certain focal ranges and f stops. To me, the lens is the weakest link on the LX100, it would be like paying $900 for a camera with known issues and limitations :-(
 
Last edited:
It does depend on the market.
I know this is said so often....

But I can see the meaning of the old comment.
I would not want the LX100 any larger. As it is, I am wondering about size compared to the Canon or Sony options. This is just for my use, as always. I really like it to slide in side pocket of my pack :^)

If it can't do that, then I have to 'get it out' of some other hiding spot..
May as well get out any other camera like the tiny ILC....

So, they may have been able to mount a better lens but I imagine they are trying to remain just a little smaller than the smaller ILC. Yes, I understand the LX100 lens is faster than the little ILC lenses, but, if size is primary, there is a threshold where that speed doesn't matter; it can be fast as Secretariat but if I can stable/store it, what does it matter . Small enough (as who knows? defines it) I will just grab my SLR :^)

It could be just as valid to argue for a lens less ambitious and so better overall quality but with no larger camera.. but the market don't want 'average' lenses; it wants a 'got it all' lens or the camera will be perceived as lacking compared to Sony/Canon options. Market whipped. :^|

Personally, I think any softness for this camera at the wide or tele end at wide open is immaterial. If the center is reasonable, it is likely the sides will be OOF anyway... fine with me for that trade off. I do need the lens to settle down at mid apertures. Wide angle when you want greater DOF and even across the frame. I would trade sharper tele sides (likely to have center subjects..) to have sharper sides at wider FL....

If it is good across the frame at 28mm at f/5.6 to 8
Good in center at 50-60+ at f/2.8 or f/3.2 for short DOF
Then, mission accomplished..?
The rest is useable and that is great
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments. Using software correction of optical defects is very widely used, even Leica applies correction to their very expensive wide lenses to avoid colour shift at the edges. The manufacturers must make a commercial decision based on design and manufacturing cost in relation to likely sales. There certainly has been a great deal of interest in the LX100 and its Leica clone which suggests that it may fill a gap in a very competitive market.

I am attracted to the LX100/ D-Lux typ 109 because I have for many years used Leica rangefinders which are capable very high quality images. However there are many occasions when it is more convenient to to use a lighter smaller camera with a zoom lens and AF and it is convenient to have a camera like this to complement my Leica gear. As the LX100 is quite expensive for a compact camera for many users it will be their main or only camera and they will have to consider whether the image quality is high enough to justify the cost. This sort of decision is difficult to make until we can actually get our hands on the camera and try it for ourselves.
 
Does it make sense to put an almost perfect high end lens on a camera body that you may upgrade in a few years ? Seems to me such a lens would be mountable so the body can be updated - yes ?
 
Tan68 said:
ayewing said:
It is not surprising that there is softness of the image in the corners and borders. ...
Click to expand...
I agree and understand.

I look at the (linked somewhere) sample of the Canon LS7 or whichever and that steps outside the bounds of what I thought they were doing with small cameras...
Click to expand...
it isn't outside the bounds, in fact it is pretty similar to e.g. what is happening with e.g. FZ1000 or compacts like Canon S100 series. They basically use the same tricks that almost EVERY current 'compact' with a bright/wide zoom uses, only a bit stronger than average.
Tan68 said:
I understand barrel distortion and vignetting, but the Canon ends up with parts of the image black and unrecoverable... ?
Click to expand...
the 'black corners' on the G7X uncorrected RAW files are totally irrelevant, as they fall outside the picture when the native lens distortion is corrected. Even if the corners were not blacked out, you would never see those areas in the real pictures. In fact this is a good thing, because it might prevent flare/reflections when a bright light spot is located near the corner.
Tan68 said:
This leaves me wondering if their lens is a 24mm after the cropping.. or, if the focal length is determined before cropping so the field of view is less after correction ?
Click to expand...
it is 24mm equiv. after cropping. Before cropping it is probably 20-21mm equiv., the most outer areas are not used at all.
Tan68 said:
I think a comment about the Sony is that it needs correction but not cropping.
I presume the Panasonic will need correction but not cropping. Will be interested to see.
Click to expand...
people again and again suggest that cameras like the G7X crop/zoom the picture ('they are cheating!') while others don't, but this isn't true. The native file gets distortion corrected which requires stretching the border areas. You then get a pincushion-shaped image (more than 20 MP) that has to be cropped to get a rectangular image. If you check the uncorrected RAW, you will see that the central area of a G7X image is just as big in the uncorrected RAW as in the corrected images. All the action is in the border areas that are strongly 'stretched' to correct the native semi-fisheye distortion.

Again, nothing unusual. Some cameras have less native distortion and require less stretching of the border areas, e.g. Sony RX100-3 and LX100. And so they should have better corner quality compared to e.g. G7X (stopped down, with the lens wide open there might be other aberrations that limit sharpness).
 
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