Actual LX5 vs LX3 ISO 1600 comparison. I prefer LX3 result.

Started Jul 21, 2010 | Discussions
OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: Both pic's are from LX3............

John Tracy wrote:

.......according to my exif viewer (Opanda) but if the one on the right is indeed from the LX5 it does show less noise ( quite obvious) and yes , it's at the expense of NR and probably default settings , but if the camera has the capability to lower NR then all the better. Regardless , we do have RAW .

About this eventual RAW “salvage” solution for the LX5, as far as I know, and making it really really simple for my own personal limited understanding, it is suppose to be just a file compression method, or at least the name we use for it.

So we have TIFF which would be the whole file information, original pixel by pixel individual information, and some cameras use the LZW compression algorithm for lossless storage in TIFF convention (heavy files).

Then we have RAW which is a generic name that different photography branches uses to refer to their different compressing methods (such as ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP,DNG, etc) for obtaining more lighter file size than a "TIFF" file but losing no or almost no data from the original picture.

And then we have JPEG as we use to call it since in fact JPEG means "Joint Photographic Experts Group" and the format file that use that convention is JFIF for "JPEG File Interchange Format", which is a more lighter file size from an already RAW processed file to obtain a readable bitmap, and during this process some original information is lost and also they suffer generational degradation when repeatedly edited and saved (Wikipedia).

Ok. But would Panasonic's RAW file of the original ISO 1600 (pre-production) LX5 boat image we are analyzing in this thread make the woman's left leg appear or is that more and original and unfixable LX5 problem (read sensor, lenses, etc) problem?

Thanks in advance to anybody who could explain this to us.

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: Both pic's are from LX3............

For those who do not know what photo are we talking about:

And here are the legs details:

LX3 sample:

LX5 sample:

Jeff Charles Veteran Member • Posts: 7,514
For your reading pleasure

Both JPEGs and TIFFs are produced from the raw file. Each manufacturer has a proprietary raw format. DNG is Adobe's "universal" raw format.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/JPEG_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/TIFF_01.htm
--
Jeff

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

 Jeff Charles's gear list:Jeff Charles's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X100T Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +5 more
OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: For your reading pleasure

Jeff Charles wrote:

Both JPEGs and TIFFs are produced from the raw file. Each manufacturer has a proprietary raw format. DNG is Adobe's "universal" raw format.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/JPEG_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/TIFF_01.htm
--
Jeff

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

Thanks, good information indeed,

Could then the RAW file of the original LX5 photo fixed all the problems we see on it?

Jeff Charles Veteran Member • Posts: 7,514
Re: For your reading pleasure

Condor wrote:

...

Could then the RAW file of the original LX5 photo fixed all the problems we see on it?

We can't conclude from one photo that there actually are problems. Patience may do more to address them than raw

The chance that Panasonic is going to bring a camera like the LX5 to market with obviously poor IQ is pretty slim, I think. The first pro reviews, and even better, the first end-user feedback, will give us the true story.
--
Jeff

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

 Jeff Charles's gear list:Jeff Charles's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X100T Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +5 more
paulb1949 New Member • Posts: 6
Re: Actual LX5 vs LX3 ISO 1600 comparison. I prefer LX3 result.

Condor wrote:

Good ISO 1600 side-by-side comparison at the Spanish site "quesabesde" (Note: LX5 is supoused to be a pre-production unit):

In this case I prefer LX3 result. LX5 picture looks softer. LX3 picture looks more real, detailed and more deep. Compaire the boat's windows reflection, boat's crew, distant boats behind main boat, etc. ... every detail is in fact better in LX3 photo

Ed

Very interresting thread on IQ comparaison between LX3&5 not familiar with noise but it seems to me that the LX3 photo of the boat shows a more redish noise on the front hull than the hull on the LX5 photo.

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: For your reading pleasure

Jeff Charles wrote:

We can't conclude from one photo that there actually are problems. Patience may do more to address them than raw

What about all the other LX5 photo problems commented in "page 5" of this thread?

The chance that Panasonic is going to bring a camera like the LX5 to market with obviously poor IQ is pretty slim,

What is the chance that Panasonic brought to the 24-60mm 2.5x LX market some forced merged between that beautiful market plus a new 60-90mm 3.8x market (more optical problems in between) with poor IQ, just to gain more customers or just to fight back Canon S90 28-105mm 3.8x market? Did I say 3.8x market, curious, the same magnification than the new LX5? Could it be that they are diminishing costs by sharing the same lens and trying to convince us that LX5 photos as are beautiful as LX3 photos...? (Let me see ... LX5: 10 elements in 9 groups (3 Aspherical Lenses / 5 Aspherical surfaces)... on the other hand we have S90: 11 elements in 9 groups 7 elements in 6 groups (2 double-sided aspherical elements including 1 UA element)... nope... it does not seem so... at least by their descriptions... just kidding.

I think. The first pro reviews,…

mmmmm Pros... mmm.... equal to "experts" that lives from these reviews based on trips and expenses and advertisment paid by Photography companies..... mmmmm

and even better, the first end-user feedback, will give us the true story.

Now, I'm with you. I hope several of real dpreview members that already have their LX3 and for some reason get and LX5 could do us the favor of full-size unbiased "Ai" real life simultaneous side by side comparisons photos with the original "Firmware" (curiously today appeared a new one mmmm....take care of the firmware that provided you all those beatiful photos in te past)

JoepLX3 Regular Member • Posts: 436
Re: For your reading pleasure

What is the delta between two LX3 camera's?

Jeff Charles Veteran Member • Posts: 7,514
Re: For your reading pleasure

Condor wrote:

Jeff Charles wrote:

We can't conclude from one photo that there actually are problems. Patience may do more to address them than raw

What about all the other LX5 photo problems commented in "page 5" of this thread?

Commented, but not confirmed with a production version of the camera.

The chance that Panasonic is going to bring a camera like the LX5 to market with obviously poor IQ is pretty slim,

What is the chance that Panasonic brought to the 24-60mm 2.5x LX market some forced merged between that beautiful market plus a new 60-90mm 3.8x market (more optical problems in between) with poor IQ, just to gain more customers or just to fight back Canon S90 28-105mm 3.8x market? ...

You seem to be saying that the longer zoom range was a marketing decision and that the result will be poorer IQ. It may be true that it was a marketing decision, but that does not mean that the lens will not be as good or better than the LX3's. We've already seen that the new lens reduces ghosting from light sources.

I think. The first pro reviews,…

mmmmm Pros... mmm.... equal to "experts" that lives from these reviews based on trips and expenses and advertisment paid by Photography companies..... mmmmm

This site does honest reviews, as do many other review sites.

...

-- hide signature --

Jeff

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

 Jeff Charles's gear list:Jeff Charles's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X100T Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +5 more
OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: For your reading pleasure

Jeff Charles wrote:

Condor wrote:

Jeff Charles wrote:

We can't conclude from one photo that there actually are problems. Patience may do more to address them than raw

What about all the other LX5 photo problems commented in "page 5" of this thread?

Commented, but not confirmed with a production version of the camera.

That Page-5 several side-by-side LX5 vs LX3 photo comparison is, as far as I know, between 2 "production" cameras. Several LX5 production cameras were given to different reviewers almost 2 days ago in Japan and that review seems to be a consequence of that meeting.

The chance that Panasonic is going to bring a camera like the LX5 to market with obviously poor IQ is pretty slim,

What is the chance that Panasonic brought to the 24-60mm 2.5x LX market some forced merged between that beautiful market plus a new 60-90mm 3.8x market (more optical problems in between) with poor IQ, just to gain more customers or just to fight back Canon S90 28-105mm 3.8x market? ...

You seem to be saying that the longer zoom range was a marketing decision and that the result will be poorer IQ. It may be true that it was a marketing decision, but that does not mean that the lens will not be as good or better than the LX3's. We've already seen that the new lens reduces ghosting from light sources.

Reducing ghosting from light sources???? Emperor's New Clothes Argument? Those sunlight-beams coming down (in the following "production" cameras comparisons) are the kind of beautifulness that I loved in LX3 for my eventual touristic photos, as several people does, included probably the majority who bought that camera.

LX3 "production" camera sample:

LX5 "production" camera sample:

I also followed my own advice and yesterday I showed my wife the "quesabesde" boat scenery comparison without any previous comment or recommendation, and she answered almost instantly,... the left one of course... (LX3 sample). Well, for me that's a kind of definitive conclusion.

I think. The first pro reviews,…

mmmmm Pros... mmm.... equal to "experts" that lives from these reviews based on trips and expenses and advertisment paid by Photography companies..... mmmmm

This site does honest reviews, as do many other review sites.

I do not say that this site or "quesabesde" or other sites are dishonest, but they are run by humans, as we are, and "we all strongly wanted that LX5 were better than LX3". That can end up in contradictions like the following: This is the “quesabesde" reviewer conclusion about the above "boat scenery":

Quote: "...el ruido cromático está mejor controlado...(en la LX5)"
Meaning: "... chromatic noise is better controlled...(in LX5)"

Chromatic... they are talking about colors. And then some dpreview member put our attention in the woman's legs:

LX3 sample cropped:

LX5 sample cropped:

Do you honestly think that colors are better controlled in LX5 sample woman's legs? What does the rest of the members of dpreview forums think?

Do you want another expert review? This time about two production models, as far as we know. The ASIA Net reviewer said the following about the following "river scenery" comparisons. Quote "The higher contrast settings mean the background of the mountain as well as the foreground of the water are far more detailed and defined in the LX5's photo."

But......and as I pointed before

Please look up at the detail of the people walking around the river at the left side of the photos (Again, I recommend increasing the zoom level of your monitor to 200% for this purpose).

In LX3 sample I can observe some sort of father and son looking to the river and also a couple of adults walking ("away" even). But in LX5 sample case, I could only "deduct" (and just because LX3 sample gave me already that more details), that maybe there is also that father and son there... but no other specific detail.

LX3 Sample:

LX5 sample:

So, this reviewer makes a statement like this "...are far more detailed and defined in the LX5's photo"... And then we found, at least in the LX3 sample, people walking by the river, who can hardly be detected in LX5 sample... Was that in fact a "far more detailed and defined" LX5 photo?

What do you think? What does other think? And I repeat this pair of questions because I'm meaning... What do you objectively really think by your own despite even that so strong "wish" we all had that LX5 was better?

Finally, and even though you cut the last part of my answer from yesterday, which was this:

and even better, the first end-user feedback, will give us the true story.

Now, I'm with you. I hope several of real dpreview members that already have their LX3 and for some reason get and LX5 could do us the favor of full-size unbiased "Ai" real life simultaneous side by side comparisons photos with the original "Firmware" (curiously today appeared a new one mmmm....take care of the firmware that provided you all those beatiful photos in the past)

Today, in this same dpreview main page appears...Quote:

"Panasonic updates firmware for DMC-LX3, DMC-TZ7 and DMC-TZ6

Panasonic has released firmware updates for its DMC-LX3 premium compact, and the DMC-TZ7/ZS3 and DMC-TZ6/ZS1 compact superzooms. The company..." has not provided any information about the updates' actions"... beyond the..." slightly obscure"...'Optimization of software processing. ... (09:33 GMT)

IchiroCameraGuy Contributing Member • Posts: 888
Re: For your reading pleasure

Condor wrote:

Today, in this same dpreview main page appears...Quote:

"Panasonic updates firmware for DMC-LX3, DMC-TZ7 and DMC-TZ6

Panasonic has released firmware updates for its DMC-LX3 premium compact, and the DMC-TZ7/ZS3 and DMC-TZ6/ZS1 compact superzooms. The company..." has not provided any information about the updates' actions"... beyond the..." slightly obscure"...'Optimization of software processing. ... (09:33 GMT)

Plant bugs to make owners have to upgrade cameras after mysterious problems appear within a month or two

 IchiroCameraGuy's gear list:IchiroCameraGuy's gear list
Canon EOS 500D Canon EOS M Samsung NX500 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II +2 more
JoepLX3 Regular Member • Posts: 436
Re: For your reading pleasure

What is the reproducibility of LX3 to LX3 on these shots?

  • (and where the same settings used)

Joep

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: For your reading pleasure

Trying to be fear, I found this comments from a real old user and owner of an LX3. Quote:

"Panasonic has released a new version of the firmware for for the Panasonic LX3. The description for version 2.20 is short and cryptic: "Optimization of software processing. Change in software version has no effect on camera performance."

Well, I upgraded from 2.10 to 2.20 with no noticeable differences in camera operation or image quality.

One hiccup: In my custom mode C1 I have turned off the automatic preview of images. After the upgrade to 2.20 the camera was set to 2 second preview. I changed the C1 setting back to no preview, and the camera works as I want again. This same hiccup has happened previously with another firmware version.

There are some conspiracy theories about the firmware upgrade, for example that it will "downgrade" image quality to make LX5 look good, and that it will enforce using Panasonic (chipped) batteries instead of third party parts.

Well, image quality seems to have survived intact. And my 3rd party battery works as usual, no need to worry on this front.

One further point about the Panasonic LX5. It appears that the price for the camera will be 500 euro here in Finland (well, the cheapest offer is 499). This is yet to be confirmed, as the camera is not yet available for delivery. But you can get the LX3 for 370 euro, which is quite a good price. If my LX3 would break at some point soon, I would be very much tempted to get the LX3 instead of the LX5."

mmmm... "If my LX3 would break at some point soon, I would be very much tempted to get the LX3 instead of the LX5."

Thanks for your honest opinion.

This is the link to his site:

http://lightscrape.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-firmware-220-for-panasonic-lx3.html

Jeff Charles Veteran Member • Posts: 7,514
Re: For your reading pleasure

Condor wrote:

...

Reducing ghosting from light sources???? Emperor's New Clothes Argument? Those sunlight-beams coming down (in the following "production" cameras comparisons) are the kind of beautifulness that I loved in LX3 for my eventual touristic photos, as several people does, included probably the majority who bought that camera.

You of course have a right to your preferences, but ghosting is a defect.

...

I also followed my own advice and yesterday I showed my wife the "quesabesde" boat scenery comparison without any previous comment or recommendation, and she answered almost instantly,... the left one of course... (LX3 sample). Well, for me that's a kind of definitive conclusion.

My wife is also my ultimate reviewer

...

I do not say that this site or "quesabesde" or other sites are dishonest, but they are run by humans, as we are, and "we all strongly wanted that LX5 were better than LX3"...

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote. You make a good point here. However, dpreview does not hesitate to say so if an upgrade disappoints.

...

Chromatic... they are talking about colors. And then some dpreview member put our attention in the woman's legs:
...

It is hard to explain the difference in how the legs look between the LX3 and the LX5 photos.

...
But......and as I pointed before

Please look up at the detail of the people walking around the river at the left side of the photos (Again, I recommend increasing the zoom level of your monitor to 200% for this purpose).

In LX3 sample I can observe some sort of father and son looking to the river and also a couple of adults walking ("away" even). But in LX5 sample case, I could only "deduct" (and just because LX3 sample gave me already that more details), that maybe there is also that father and son there... but no other specific detail.

I don't want to oversimplify this, but is it possible that the father and son had walked out of the frame by the time the LX5 photo was taken?

...What do you objectively really think by your own despite even that so strong "wish" we all had that LX5 was better?

I think that some possible problems are showing up in some of the LX5 samples, but that we do not have enough evidence to reach any conclusions.

Finally, and even though you cut the last part of my answer from yesterday, which was this:

I cut it, because I thought that we were pretty much in agreement that end-user reviews are useful, and I had nothing more to say about it.

...

You may be right that there are problems with the LX5's IQ. We will find out soon enough, once the camera has had more tests and more use in the field. However, as I wrote above, I will be surprised if Panasonic releases the LX5 with obvious IQ defects. In any case, it does not really matter: There are other brands and the LX3 is still fine.
--
Jeff

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

 Jeff Charles's gear list:Jeff Charles's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X100T Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +5 more
OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: For your reading pleasure

You may be right that there are problems with the LX5's IQ. We will find out soon enough, once the camera has had more tests and more use in the field. However, as I wrote above, I will be surprised if Panasonic releases the LX5 with obvious IQ defects. In any case, it does not really matter: There are other brands and the LX3 is still fine.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, your conclusion seems very honest after reviewing the comparative cases I exposed when you state..."You may be right that there are problems with the LX5's IQ".

Fortunately, and as you said..."LX3 is still fine".

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Snapsort recommends LX3, vs LX5

Talking about comparisons not based in what, at least, I'm interested on, which is photo beautifulness, the following site recommends the LX3 instead of the LX5 because some sort of physical technical comparisons (size, weight, etc), Which for me is as wrong as to compare them just buy scientific technical reasons like better sensivity (by 31%) and saturation (38%) and greater dynamic range and bla, bla, bla.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-LX3-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-LX5

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Ghosting is really a defect in LX3?

Would you prefer no ghosting in this LX3 photos?

Curiously, all these are part of dpreview LX3 samples that made a lot of us to felt in love with the LX3.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx3-review-samples/slideshow

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: Ghosting is really a defect in LX3?

Would you prefer no ghosting in these LX3 photos?

Curiously, all these are part of dpreview LX3 samples that made a lot of us to felt in love with the LX3.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx3-review-samples/slideshow

OP Condor Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: Actual LX5 vs LX3 ISO 1600 comparison. I prefer LX3 result.

Condor wrote:

Good ISO 1600 side-by-side comparison at the Spanish site "quesabesde" (Note: LX5 is supposed to be a pre-production unit):

In this case I prefer LX3 result. LX5 picture looks softer. LX3 picture looks more real, detailed and more deep. Compare the boat's windows reflection, boat's crew, distant boats behind main boat, etc. ... Every detail is in fact better in LX3 photo

Ed

The following (pre-production) LX5 photo demonstrates that "reddish" colors are more probably associated with the sky-color when that LX3 was taken, than to a "reddish" tendency of LX3 vs. LX5.

But, again, if you look at the details, this LX5 shows to be very soft or unsharped. Check the building's windows especially on both sides of the sample.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/realityscans/4814935252/sizes/o/in/photostream/

win39 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,560
Re: EXTRA :New LX5 vs LX3 real life comparisons

Unfortunately many of the differences like the close up of the cup are simply a result of small exposure differences. On the cup the LX3 example has more light and some of the shadings are washed out while they show well on the darker LX5 image.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads