New Nx500 owner.. which 2.5K hack?

Kisaha wrote:

ohcello wrote:

parakalien wrote:

The fov difference is because the lx100 has a 10.9mm lens (at the wide side) on a m43 sensor with a crop factor of 2.0, giving it a 35mm equivalent of 21.8.

The nx500 has a crop factor of 1.5. So you would need a 14mm (14.5,but that doesn't exist) to give you the same fov.

The crop factor on the LX100 is variable as it does not use the entirety of the 4/3 sensor, but is usually listed as 2.2x, not 2x. However, if you export RAW to the right RAW software it will give you very close to the full 21.8mm FOV, but very distorted. I'm estimating that I'm getting around 22mm out of the shot below, which is what I can usually get after mild distortion correction. However the sharpness differential is not quite a pronounced as I had expected. I know its only the kits lens, and if I got some primes I would probably see the differential I was looking for. Some more tests coming...

The LX100 is a 12megapixel camera out of a 16megapixel m4/3 sensor.

The camera is officially advertised and speced as 24-75mm, so I do not think Panasonic shot their own foot with their official data. NX also has auto correction for their lenses, that I am certain they must "cheat" (like most modern manufacturers, even on very expensive lenses) and loose a little bit from that correction too.

16mm in NX is 24.64mm equiv. (1.54 is the NX crop factor) and that is seems slightly less than 3mm difference. In anyway, with exotic raw applications and with some trickery you can get a slightly wider image out of the LX100, maybe that is possible with NX500 too, or maybe not, I wouldn't spend time in post to try to squeeze a couple of mm more out of a lens.

What I did was that I went ahead and bought the lenses I needed, and that is why I use the 12-24 and the fish eye for my wider compositions. I believe we all want a great 10-200mm 2f lens, but it isn't available for the NX system.

The Panasonic LX100 was more expensive than the NX500 and the PZ on their initial release, it is an amazingly capable camera so I am not surprised you are happy with its photo quality, but the PZ in reality is one of the least sharp NX lenses available (even the old 20-50, may be sharper than this!), but in the same time is one of the best PZ such lenses around, and cheap zoom lenses suffer mostly in the two ends of their range.

On the other hand, you have to create a methodology to absolutely bring the two combos in the same league. You have a 12mg camera with a smaller than m4/3 sensor, and a 28mgpx APS-C camera on the other, lenses with their numbers too, most people in the world would suggest that a bigger (physically) and larger(megapixels count) sensor can do more things.

I loaded both RAW files with Raw Therapee, which I *think* shows me the unaltered, full version of both RAW files.... So I think I got the most width from both shots.

It makes sense that the kit lens of the NX500 is not the sharpest in their arsenal, but that being said, its looks good edge to edge on the shot I took at 24mm f/5.6

But I would not call the different between my 'regular' 24mm options and that LX100 shot I posted is very small to be honest.... IMO, it's significant, especially if that's the widest lens I current own, or want to own.  But yes, if I had a 12-24, it would not be much of a factor at all.

I will post some video comp's next...