A clean 8mp 1 1/8 sensor is possible...

[avidday]

No öre - if it were Kroner it would be the equivalent of "My Two Dollars Worth" (ignoring exchange rates, of course).

 

[mrfitz]

Not sure at its widest point, that is the lens. And of course, for
it to fit in something that is really what is to be considered.

Overall tho- the LX1 is lighter in less 'chunky'.

They seem the two cameras to compare--but features and other things
come into play.

Linda

Fearures are great but I really care about image quality, and in my book for £350 I want little noise at ISO 80, and at least an ok ISO 400. I dont want to run shots through noise reduction every time. Every camera has some noise. BUt this is a joke

 

[Erik37]

Darin, thanks for your post.

But I feel you misunderstood my point a bit.

I already wrote how ugly the LX1 image looks, particularly in
the black and blue areas. So I completely agree with you
about that. Not trying to excuse that.

What I was interested to know was if the difference between
the two cameras was 100 % sensor characteristics, which everyone
including the reviewer seems to assume, or if at least a part of the
difference could be due to different approaches to noise reduction.
(If not interesting from a LX1 sales point of view, it would be interesting
from the technology/scientific point of view. Also for us wondering
how Panasonic's 4/3 sensor will perform.)

The relevance being also, that if there was a difference, we
would be allowed to apply Noise Ninja to the LX1 picture until
the coins (you looked at the low contrast parts of them, did
you?) had the same level of smudge. I would be surprised if
Noise Ninja could level the noise considering the big difference,
but it could narrow the gap, maybe more so shooting RAW.

But yes the colour noise on the black camera body is bad and
maybe beyond salvation by a noise reduction program.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden
F Z 5, now with up to 16x zoom ;-)

 

[Erik37]

I've compared the "coins" between the D2X and the S80 and
it was my imagination. The "smudged" parts are smudged on the
D2X too, so I guess it is the noise in the LX1 that gives an
impression of more detail - detail that's not really there.

Sorry.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden
F Z 5, now with up to 16x zoom ;-)

 

[GrahamD]

I havn't ordered my FZ30 yet, so no axe to grind here. Looking at some of those pictures, I have to agree that you can see signs of noise reduction. I don't think it is possible to get such low noise without it. The tarmac in the image of the bus is the type of texture that NR struggles with and in the same picture you can see the stonework also clearly shows NR. But it's subtle and the noise is very low. For in-camera NR, this is very good and I think the noise must have been lower than Panny's to start with (could be due to the 50 ISO). So I thinks it's a combination of a better sensor and more aggressive NR. I would not like this if you could not turn off the noise reduction, or at least reduce it, as you can do a much better job PP. But it looks like they might be able to squeeze a little bit more performance out of the small sensor yet. I only hope Panasonic doesn't respond to all the noise bashing with over-zealous noise reduction. That would be a waste of a good lens.

 

[Erik37]

Best would be to give the user a choice.

For those who like the look after the slow
but sofisticated noise reduction in the Fuji's,
give them that, and for those who want to
do their own noise reduction, let them turn
it off (and gain speed at the same time). RAW
is one way, but with the file sizes, it would make
sense to have JPG without NR too.

The FZ20/30 has adjustable noise reduction, but
at the highest, it doesn't work as well as the Fuji
one, and at the lowest, you can still see lost detail
in high ISO shots.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden
F Z 5, now with up to 16x zoom ;-)

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I guess it is the noise in the LX1 that gives an
impression of more detail - detail that's not really there.

The effect is well know to me from film - grainless film images rarely look as sharp as similar images with grain - even when the grain is not obvious. There's always been much confusion between the terms "sharpness" and "resolution" over the years - resolution is not the issue here, simply perceived sharpness.

We rarely see this phenomenum discussed in terms of digital noise although your observation clearly demonstrates the point.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 45:



PAW index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw
Latest walkabout: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/816091

 

[Darin Cline320028]

I feel you misunderstood my point a bit.

I already wrote how ugly the LX1 image looks, particularly in
the black and blue areas. So I completely agree with you
about that. Not trying to excuse that.

Sorry if my rant appeared directed at you... I'm just frustrated that the camera that I know COULD be made isn't available, and even more frustrated when I keep seeing so many people making up excuses for them. All of that seemed to come out in one post. There just seems to be a big belief that the additional noise is intentional - just a different philosophy of less NR in trade for more detail. I'm just trying to figure out where that's coming from, because I see plenty of evidence of heavy noise reduction, and not much evidence of extra detail. But perhaps your observation of mistaking noise for detail that isn't even there sheds some light on that. Anyway, apologies again for taking it out on your post.

Anyway, back to the topic of the sensor. The more I think about it, the more revealing that black camera body is. I believe that it DOES point to issues with the sensor. Not necessarily that it's an inherently noisy sensor - not directly. I'm beginning to think that it's not a very SENSITIVE sensor. The problem with the camera body isn't just noise, there's a complete loss of dynamic range in the low end. It's simply not capturing subtle details in the blacks. I now think that the problem is the sensor is just so insensitive, that they are gaining it up to make up for it, which is causing the noise (and the lack of detail in blacks). My previous comment about the LX1's ISO80 shot looking closer to the S80's ISO400 shot also supports that... the only difference between the various ISO settings is sensor gain, and the numbers they assign to the various levels are probably arbitrary... there's nothing to keep Panasonic from calling a certain amount of gain IS0200 while Canon calls the same amount of gain ISO100. In fact, Canon has been known for having ISO ratings that are somewhat conservative. Panasonic appears to be at the opposite and of the spectrum, especially with the LX1.

Of course, that's all just conjecture. But from where I sit, it appears to me that Panasonic's excellent camera division is being held back by their less spectacular semiconductor division. Even Canon realized years ago that they are better off buying someone else's sensors, and concentrating on what they do best (except for their CMOS sensors... they still make those, right?). If Sony makes a better sensor, and you're not able to come out with anything better, then just buy the damn thing and let your products shine like they should! I would LOVE to see what an LX1 could do with the sensor that is in the S80!!

 

[Simon Joinson]

Panasonic and Canon have two different philosophies regarding
in-camera processing. That's what explains the difference in noise
between cameras from each manufacturer, not the sensor.

Canon choose to do extensive NR, which yield clean images, but also
washes away fine detail and sometimes give the image an
"artificial" look. Look at the picture of the blue watch and you'll
see what I mean.

Panasonic do less in-camera NR, which leads to more noise but also
more fine detail and a more natural looking image. Notice that in
the image comparison between the S80 and the LX1, the latter seems
to show as much detail as the former, even though the images are
sligthly smaller.

Simon mentions that the S80 seems to retain more detail than its
predecessors, and I agree with him. However, I must respectfully
disagree when he says that the images don't look overprocessed. To
me, they still clearly show the classic "overprocessed" look of a
typical Canon image.

I'm a big fan of the LX1 - it's a lovely camera and I'd happily buy one for myself, but I can't agree that this is a matter of 'approach to noise reduction'. The chip in the LX1 has low sensitivity and high noise, something you can easily see if you process the raw files without noise reduction. The problem is not that Panasonic use low noise reduction, it's that they attempt to use high NR without loss of sharpness, and it simply isn't that effective. I have had long conversations with Panasonic engineers about their sensors and it isn't simply a matter of choosing to use low NR - it's a limitation of that sensor.
Simon

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

 

[Kirwin]

And what was their response to your concerns? Did they indicate a timetable when noticable improvements would occur in the existing sensor design? Or better yet... did they reassure you that a new sensor is about to be utilized in their digital cameras?

I have had long conversations with Panasonic engineers

about their sensors and it isn't simply a matter of choosing to use
low NR - it's a limitation of that sensor.
Simon

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com

 

[Kirwin]

You are correct also... I cannot buy wishes.

But I'm not spending my dollar today... Panasonic still has the opportunity retain me as a customer. Todays wishes can become tomorrows reality. If they dont... then yes I will make my choice elsewhere.

tko wrote:
. . .

So, yes, you are right. But at the end of the day you can't buy
wishes, you still have to make your choice and put your dollar down.

--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com

 

[Simon Joinson]

I have had long conversations with Panasonic engineers

about their sensors and it isn't simply a matter of choosing to use
low NR - it's a limitation of that sensor.
Simon

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com

Unfortunately most of what we discuss with engineers is 'not for publication' - it's all subject to NDAs, but I can tell you that Panasonic is well aware that noise levels are a bit high on the LX1 especially, and that their noise reduction isn't totally effective, so you can be sure they're working to improve things.
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

 

[Kirwin]

Thanks for being a voice and sounding board at Panasonic. Appreciate your reply.
--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com

 

[Darin Cline320028]

Suppose I post on the Canon board that "see, a 12X IS lens is
possible, the FZ30 does it so why can't we have it?" : )

Sure, it's possible, but then why doesn't everyone have a 12X IS,
razor sharp zoom? Point being, some companies are better at one
thing, others at others. Most companies aren't good at everything -
otherwise there would be no competition, it would just get blown
away.

I understand what you are saying, but the frustrating part is that Panasonic is SO close! Expecting Canon to completely re-design their cameras is admittedly a pipe dream, but Panasonic could SO easily fix the only major flaw, IMO, with their cameras (particularly the LX-1). Just do what so many other companies, including Canon, have done: outsource your sensors to a company that knows how to make good ones. I believe Canon has the biggest market share, and for good reason: they make consistently good cameras, with excellent image quality. At the end of the day, that's what's important. But if Panasonic would just fix the noise problem, even if that means buying the sensors elsewhere, their good optics, form factor, and excellent feature list would take care of the rest.

They are so close it just drives me crazy!!

 

[Simon Joinson]

Suppose I post on the Canon board that "see, a 12X IS lens is
possible, the FZ30 does it so why can't we have it?" : )

Sure, it's possible, but then why doesn't everyone have a 12X IS,
razor sharp zoom? Point being, some companies are better at one
thing, others at others. Most companies aren't good at everything -
otherwise there would be no competition, it would just get blown
away.

I understand what you are saying, but the frustrating part is that
Panasonic is SO close! Expecting Canon to completely re-design
their cameras is admittedly a pipe dream, but Panasonic could SO
easily fix the only major flaw, IMO, with their cameras
(particularly the LX-1). Just do what so many other companies,
including Canon, have done: outsource your sensors to a company
that knows how to make good ones. I believe Canon has the biggest
market share, and for good reason: they make consistently good
cameras, with excellent image quality. At the end of the day,
that's what's important. But if Panasonic would just fix the noise
problem, even if that means buying the sensors elsewhere, their
good optics, form factor, and excellent feature list would take
care of the rest.

They are so close it just drives me crazy!!

Trouble is, i can't see panasonic camera being in a position to buy sensors from anyone but panasonic semiconductor can you!?! Might be a bit of an admission that a certain arch-rival (S* Y) produces better sensors!
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

 

[Darin Cline320028]

Panasonic is well aware that noise levels are a bit high on the LX1
especially, and that their noise reduction isn't totally effective,
so you can be sure they're working to improve things.
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

That is excellent news. I hope they, and others, pull out of the megapixel race and start focusing on other image quality factors. It seems Fuji is toying with that, with good results. I hope others take the cue. I can wait!

 

[treemed]

But they don't have to buy it from "that" company. (if you meant sony.) there are other companies that produce great sensors

Just do what so many other companies,

including Canon, have done: outsource your sensors to a company
that knows how to make good ones.

Trouble is, i can't see panasonic camera being in a position to buy
sensors from anyone but panasonic semiconductor can you!?! Might be
a bit of an admission that a certain arch-rival (S* Y) produces
better sensors!
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

 

[Harlan Saperstein]

IF panasonic produced the same sensor with less Megapixels would it have less noise or would it still be "inherently" noisy?
Thanks for the reply
Harlan

Suppose I post on the Canon board that "see, a 12X IS lens is
possible, the FZ30 does it so why can't we have it?" : )

Sure, it's possible, but then why doesn't everyone have a 12X IS,
razor sharp zoom? Point being, some companies are better at one
thing, others at others. Most companies aren't good at everything -
otherwise there would be no competition, it would just get blown
away.

I understand what you are saying, but the frustrating part is that
Panasonic is SO close! Expecting Canon to completely re-design
their cameras is admittedly a pipe dream, but Panasonic could SO
easily fix the only major flaw, IMO, with their cameras
(particularly the LX-1). Just do what so many other companies,
including Canon, have done: outsource your sensors to a company
that knows how to make good ones. I believe Canon has the biggest
market share, and for good reason: they make consistently good
cameras, with excellent image quality. At the end of the day,
that's what's important. But if Panasonic would just fix the noise
problem, even if that means buying the sensors elsewhere, their
good optics, form factor, and excellent feature list would take
care of the rest.

They are so close it just drives me crazy!!

Trouble is, i can't see panasonic camera being in a position to buy
sensors from anyone but panasonic semiconductor can you!?! Might be
a bit of an admission that a certain arch-rival (S* Y) produces
better sensors!
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

--
192 positive comments on pbase galleries
http://www.pbase.com/harlanjs

 

[avidday]

That would fly in the face of Matsushita's entire corporate and engineering culture and vision, I am afraid - and that is one based on almost entirely doing everything in-house. In general their products contain considerably more of their own technology and components than most of their competitors. Most often that is not a bad thing, sometimes it is. If you look at a Panasonic camera it has:

• A Matsushita manufactured lens
• A in-house designed and manufactured body
• A Matsushita developed memory card system
• A Matsushita designed and manufactured photosensor
• A Matsushita designed and manufactured digital image processor which uses their own 32 bit micrprocessor core design and their own instruction set.
• A Matsushita manufactured battery based on their own design.

There is very little 3rd party content in their cameras. In the area of semiconductors, in particular, they are very reticent to use other manufacturers components. Like it or not, I very much doubt we will see a Pansonic camera without a Matsushita sensor.

 

[mrfitz]

Panasonic are Matsushita...the worlds largest electroinics group! There is no way on earth they would buy sensors fron another company!

Saying that if Mr J's info is correct the company has failed its customers at the quality dept without doubt. The whole package is let donw it seems, the great optics, good handling, by a slightly naff sensor.

The only thing I am interested in is IMAGE QUALITY!!!

Who would buy a hifi that looked cool and sounded average at a high cost?