Testing: LX100 possible lens issue?

Hi all!

Just purchased an LX100 and testing it with casual shots.

I did notice that the LX100 lens have some difficulties matching the LX3 lens quality, which i tought is bizarre at least. In most shots, shoothing both cameras at the same focal length and aperture, LX3 looks crisper.

I'm posting a couple LX100 shots which are of concern to me. Both taken at 60mm eq and 70mm eq respectively, both f2.8 aperture. Both shot with camera on tripod and RAW.

In the "garden" picture, please look at the white flower near the botton-center of the picture. It looks smeared, mostly in the vertical direction.

In the keyboard picture, please look at the out of focus keys row (the "backspace" key, for example). It doesn't look uniformly blurred, it looks more like a double vision.

Is it an expected behavior at f2.8? LX3 doesn't show this.

May be the stabilizer? Didn't try deactivating it.

Thank you! Umberto

The LX100 will have much shallower DoF than the LX3 when both are shot at the same aperture. I don't think your images show any kind of problem. If you want more of the image in focus then you just need to stop down the aperture.

When comparing the 2 cameras you should shoot the LX3 at f/2.8 and the LX100 at f/6.4.

Thank you Randy.

I'm ok with the DOF but i'm worried about how it renders.

I mean... i expected to see the "backspace" write on the key uniformly slightly blurred, instead i see a "splitted" blurred write, like a double exposure. I tought the stabilizer caused this "shift" but the focused part of the shot (the "M" key) is ok.

I feared it was due to misaligned lenses...

Sorry for my ignorance, maybe it's all ok and it's only me expecting something different... but with other lenses i used (Nikon 28-105 on DX sensor for example) this doesn'happen and the blur is uniform.

Thank you! Umberto

It's not an issue. All lenses have different characteristics, including the out of focus areas and the lens on the LX100 is on the bleeding edge of optics, being both compact and fast, and that comes at a price, that is, the bokeh is rather busy and the out of focus areas of the image are not very smooth. Be happy about the sharp bits instead.

UbiWan said:

In the keyboard picture, please look at the out of focus keys row (the "backspace" key, for example). It doesn't look uniformly blurred, it looks more like a double vision.

Click to expand...

That looks like spherical aberration (combined with a bit of chromatic aberration) to me. An inevitable consequence of the LX100's ambitious optical design no doubt.

If you find it bothersome to a degree that is greater than your desire for maximum background blur you can stop down further to minimize it.

It would have been interesting to see the LX3 shots of the same scene?

Also, don't forget that the LX100 has 9 aperture blades which makes out of focus areas render rather differently than a lens with only 6 blades. Try both cameras with an out of focus light source in the background - you will see the difference. Or rather, you would if the LX3 could produce as much bokeh, which it can't.

ChrisLumix said:

It would have been interesting to see the LX3 shots of the same scene?

Also, don't forget that the LX100 has 9 aperture blades which makes out of focus areas render rather differently than a lens with only 6 blades. Try both cameras with an out of focus light source in the background - you will see the difference. Or rather, you would if the LX3 could produce as much bokeh, which it can't.

--
Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ38, LX100

Click to expand...

Sure!

Here the LX3 shot at f2.8 and the LX100 shot at f8.

As Randy stated previously, LX100 at f8 is more comparable to LX3 at f2.8. I guess this strange equivalence is mainly due to the LX100 enlarged sensor size, but i'm not too keen to optics mathematics so it's only a guess.

Both shots are very similar, LX100 shows more detail due to the slight higher resolution but nothing stellar respect to the LX3. Anyway, the LX3 lens looks a bit more crisp on the corners, sure it's due to the simpler optical schema.

I added also a couple shots i did this evening, and now i think things are going better. At 1600 ISO the LX100 beats hands down LX3. So, this is mainly a night beast, which is good to me...

Too bad light sources show the dreaded flare effect, and this will require more effort to avoid them on this lens. And sometimes it's simply impossible to avoid. Well... i should choose wisely what to shot

LX100 is very strange machine. It's good for sure, but after just a day of tests i still don't feel me good leaving LX3. Hope better tomorrow.

Umberto




LX3 at f2.8




LX100 at f8




BW at 1600 ISO, developed in Lightroom




The infamous lens flare (under the shadow on the bottom)

I looked at the pictures at 100% and felt that the LX-100 was much sharper at ISO 200 than the LX-3 at ISO 80.

HI, That all looks quite normal. I don't see a problem there.

Just two observations:

The lens is slightly soft at the periphery of the frame at the widest aperture, no big deal,

My tests show that my pictures on tripod are slightly sharper with OIS switched OFF as per Panasonic (and every other camera maker's) recommendation.

Andrew

axlotl said:

HI, That all looks quite normal. I don't see a problem there.

Just two observations:

The lens is slightly soft at the periphery of the frame at the widest aperture, no big deal,

My tests show that my pictures on tripod are slightly sharper with OIS switched OFF as per Panasonic (and every other camera maker's) recommendation.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Thank you Andrew.

Guess it's mostly me being picky, or expecting something different.

As i really wish to ensure i didn't get a lemon, please allow me to add a couple 100% crops of the area of interest of my issue.

First of all, these are all out of focus areas (if i move the focus picker exactly over the area of interest without moving the frame, it appears as expected: in focus). The (neighbour beloved white flower) shot was done with IOS off.

What puzzles me is that the defocused area looks like if the camera were dragged during the exposure. It's not a uniform blurring. I must say also that i shot a couple portraits with a nice background defocus. So i don't really know when this "drag effect" happens.

Thank you! Umberto




Defocused flowers like as the camera shaked during the exposure, not uniformly blurred. The camera were on tripod with IOS off.




Here again the writes look like the camera shaked during the exposure. I'd expect a uniform blur for defocus areas.

Don't ignore the fact that the LX3 has an extremely capable lens. You may be expecting too much. Here, on the other hand, are a pair of 100% comparison shots between the FZ38 (very highly regarded in its day) and the LX100. I hope you can see the difference quite clearly.


FZ38 100% crop


LX100 100% crop

--
Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ38, LX100

UbiWan said:

axlotl said:

HI, That all looks quite normal. I don't see a problem there.

Just two observations:

The lens is slightly soft at the periphery of the frame at the widest aperture, no big deal,

My tests show that my pictures on tripod are slightly sharper with OIS switched OFF as per Panasonic (and every other camera maker's) recommendation.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Thank you Andrew.

Guess it's mostly me being picky, or expecting something different.

As i really wish to ensure i didn't get a lemon, please allow me to add a couple 100% crops of the area of interest of my issue.

First of all, these are all out of focus areas (if i move the focus picker exactly over the area of interest without moving the frame, it appears as expected: in focus). The (neighbour beloved white flower) shot was done with IOS off.

What puzzles me is that the defocused area looks like if the camera were dragged during the exposure. It's not a uniform blurring. I must say also that i shot a couple portraits with a nice background defocus. So i don't really know when this "drag effect" happens.

Thank you! Umberto


Defocused flowers like as the camera shaked during the exposure, not uniformly blurred. The camera were on tripod with IOS off.


Here again the writes look like the camera shaked during the exposure. I'd expect a uniform blur for defocus areas.

Click to expand...

Spherical aberration (and other types of aberration that can manifest as a consequence of trying to correct for it) doesn't seem plausible to you?

In the absence of any other factor that can cause the ghosting you see (such as camera shake which would manifest everywhere and not just in the OOF areas) it's the only explanation that really fits in my opinion.

cainn24 said:

cainn24 wrote:Spherical aberration (and other types of aberration that can manifest as a consequence of trying to correct for it) doesn't seem plausible to you?

Click to expand...

cainn24 said:

In the absence of any other factor that can cause the ghosting you see (such as camera shake which would manifest everywhere and not just in the OOF areas) it's the only explanation that really fits in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, i guess it has to be expected, especially on this kind of lenses.

Perhaps i was expecting something that this compact camera cannot deliver.

I premise that i'm happily using an LX3 strapped to my backpack shoulder, LX3 was "the" sweet point between performance and portability. But now i wanted being able to shot also 4K and maybe a better low light performer so i landed to the LX100 which seemed to be the only camera that could deliver all those features.

Being this camera in the midland between compact cameras (which i can strap to the backpack shoulder) and mirrorless cameras (which i cannot and i must keep into the backpack) makes me wondering if i needed to leave the backpack shoulder and to directly switch to the mirrorless zone. On a mirrorless i can swap lenses and decide to put on a prime to get the quality i'm looking for.

So, this is mainly a my evaluation mistake.

I'm not saying it not a good cam, just saying that maybe i was looking something different.

Anyway now i cannot return it to the seller (i should return as used camera). So, better if i start really using it. Maybe i can accomodate it in my photographic life, and maybe it's better that i'm thinking on the base of my "tests".

Thank you guys and sorry for all my puzzling...

Umberto

UbiWan said:

UbiWan said:

cainn24 wrote:Spherical aberration (and other types of aberration that can manifest as a consequence of trying to correct for it) doesn't seem plausible to you?

In the absence of any other factor that can cause the ghosting you see (such as camera shake which would manifest everywhere and not just in the OOF areas) it's the only explanation that really fits in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, i guess it has to be expected, especially on this kind of lenses.

Perhaps i was expecting something that this compact camera cannot deliver.

I premise that i'm happily using an LX3 strapped to my backpack shoulder, LX3 was "the" sweet point between performance and portability. But now i wanted being able to shot also 4K and maybe a better low light performer so i landed to the LX100 which seemed to be the only camera that could deliver all those features.

Being this camera in the midland between compact cameras (which i can strap to the backpack shoulder) and mirrorless cameras (which i cannot and i must keep into the backpack) makes me wondering if i needed to leave the backpack shoulder and to directly switch to the mirrorless zone. On a mirrorless i can swap lenses and decide to put on a prime to get the quality i'm looking for.

So, this is mainly a my evaluation mistake.

I'm not saying it not a good cam, just saying that maybe i was looking something different.

Anyway now i cannot return it to the seller (i should return as used camera). So, better if i start really using it. Maybe i can accomodate it in my photographic life, and maybe it's better that i'm thinking on the base of my "tests".

Thank you guys and sorry for all my puzzling...

Click to expand...

Try stopping your LX100 down a little further. Previous tests have indicated that it's sharper all across the frame at f/4 at the wide end and sharpest at the edges/corners at ~f/5.6 at the long end (at the expense of some centre sharpness). You don't have to do this all the time, just in situations where it might produce an overall better image with fewer apparent "problems". The additional DOF will be more in line with what you're used to from your LX3 as well.

And no need to apologize. Discussions like this are a part of what this forum is all about

Umberto, if your garden picture was taken when there was even a slight breeze, the very light petals of the white flower may have been moving, which might explain the blurring.