Reading mode: Light Dark

LX 1 Noise Issue Vote

Go to last post
--
Artist Eye's

Well one thing for sure, it's a good camera and those who have one know it. Those who don't may have heard about noise and may never take a closer look at it. So perhaps this noise issue vote is a good idea. Uh, in this thread I don't remember any of the owners saying the noise is a problem. So perchance if someone who is interested in the camera were to read our comments it may result in another satisfied user owner. Like Me.

Remember all small sensor cameras have more noise than larger sensor cameras like DSLR's. Also remember this camera fits in a shirt pocket and is so light you will not even feel it on your person. So chances are if you like photoghraphy and you own this camera you will always have it with you at the ready. Unlike the better performing DSLR's which are to veavy and to large to carry conviently and so probably will wind up left at home. So now you can't take any pictures with it so it doesn't matter that it performs better-your not using it. A waste of money in that respect. But mostly you're not out with your camera every day. So if you like taking pictures I recommend the LX-1 or the Leica D-Lux 2.
 
I don't quite understand your question. The Olympus C-8080 is a fine camera I have owned for over a year and I am certainly convinced with its potential. After over sixty years in photography I am yet again in the market for a change - this time for something smaller. Also over the years I have owned several film Leicas and the LX1 appealed to me on price.
Pete
http://www.pbase.com/oneolden
 
I do not own the LX 1, but my son is considering it. Since my input to this thread would in no way be helpful, I am sitting back, reading and learning from those who own one. That was the original purpose of the thread. It has been very helpful. Thank you all! I have not lost interest in these posts. Quite the opposite. I just will not express an opinion on a camera's ability if I have never used that camera. I often see people posting ratings when they have never used a particular camera. They make assumptions and I feel that that is not fair and often misleading. So keep educating me with your postings. Thank you owners/users of the LX1 !
 
Well, I just placed an order for a LX1 via Amazon. I had initially placed an order via Amazon back in July when it was announced because I had a very scenic vacation coming up in October. It was scheduled to be shipped in on Sept. 26. On Sept. 27, I cancelled the order because it looked like the camera would not come out until mid to late November.

While in the NE states in October, my Casio finally bit the dust. So, I've been without a pocket camera for 2 1/2 months now. A couple weeks ago, I noticed the Amazon price has dropped from $599 to $489. So, I decided it was finally time to order the LX1.

I'm still impressed with its feature set for such a small camera. I'm looking forward to having a ocketable camera again. The noise does give me a slight concern since I mainly view images on the PC and don't print much.

Enjoy life!
Steven
--
Just having fun with my cams:
http://www.pbase.com/swhatleys/

 
jimr said:
Thank you all! I
have not lost interest in these posts. Quite the opposite. I just
will not express an opinion on a camera's ability if I have never
used that camera.
Click to expand...
An excellent approach that is unfortunately not adopted by all. The odd reply (like this one) is useful to reassure anybody offering an opinion is not wasting their time :-)

You'll have noticed by now that the camera is received very well indeed by almost everybody who has actually used one.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 52:



PAW index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw
Latest walkabout: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/816091
 
--
Artist Eye's

Oh and on screen doen't really look that bad either. So I have a good time every night reviewing the almost 600 images I've taken with my Leica D-Lux 2 since I got it 3 weeks ago.
 
I don't own the camera (at least not yet), but I have been doing some printing from point-and-shoot digicams as tests, recently. Compared with all the DSLRs I have owned over the years, I found the results pretty horrible. I think one of the problems was all the wierd stuff that results from the digicam noise reduction features. In print, noise isn't anywhere near as much an issue than it is on screen. From what I can tell, in print, sharpness and detail matter much more, as do lens defects and Jpeg artifacts (particularly the kind that come from bad in-camera sharpening algorithms and high compression ratios). If noise mattered so much in print, then prints from film negative film would look absolutely awful.

I am intrigued by the idea of a camera with good color and less aggressive noise reduction. I have been running LX-1 samples through noise ninja, and the results I get look kind of similar to regular Jpeg samples from some of the canon digicams. It's nice to have the choice of doing NR later, if the results would be the same.

One of the huge problems in the digicam market is that it is driven by online samples and megapixel counts rather than print results. If cameras were instead bought purely based on how good cameras print 8"x10" or 11"x17" photos, most consumers would be better off. Nobody views online photos larger than about 1500 x 1000 pixels (1.5megapixels), except for camera analysis purposes. I have seen stunning prints from a 4MP EOS-1D printed at 12"x18" (though not prints of high-detail subjects).

If the LX-1 got it right by preserving more than average detail at the cost of more than average noise, then I hope they sell billions of them so we can break out of the current cycle of focusing on the wrong things.
jimr said:
Users...Owners...Actual First Hand Print Experience Please Vote!

Please don't vote if you have ONLY read and seen online images.

ISO 80-100 with 8 X 10 prints. Is noise a:
1. Non-Issue?
2. Minor Issue?
3. Noticeable, but tolerable issue?
4. Noticeable up close, but o.k. to view from 'normal' 3 to 4 ft.
viewing distance?
5. A bothersome issue?
6. A Deal Breaker?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/spencer_walker
 
Spencer Walker said:
I am intrigued by the idea of a camera with good color and less
aggressive noise reduction. I have been running LX-1 samples
through noise ninja, and the results I get look kind of similar to
regular Jpeg samples from some of the canon digicams. It's nice to
have the choice of doing NR later, if the results would be the same.

One of the huge problems in the digicam market is that it is driven
by online samples and megapixel counts rather than print results.
If cameras were instead bought purely based on how good cameras
print 8"x10" or 11"x17" photos, most consumers would be better off.
Nobody views online photos larger than about 1500 x 1000 pixels
(1.5megapixels), except for camera analysis purposes. I have seen
stunning prints from a 4MP EOS-1D printed at 12"x18" (though not
prints of high-detail subjects).

If the LX-1 got it right by preserving more than average detail at
the cost of more than average noise, then I hope they sell billions
of them so we can break out of the current cycle of focusing on the
wrong things.
jimr said:
Users...Owners...Actual First Hand Print Experience Please Vote!

Please don't vote if you have ONLY read and seen online images.

ISO 80-100 with 8 X 10 prints. Is noise a:
1. Non-Issue?
2. Minor Issue?
3. Noticeable, but tolerable issue?
4. Noticeable up close, but o.k. to view from 'normal' 3 to 4 ft.
viewing distance?
5. A bothersome issue?
6. A Deal Breaker?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/spencer_walker
Click to expand...
 
--
Artist Eye's

A firmware update to reduce noise is not wanted by me. Absolutly not needed.

This is a good camera. I have the sister the Leica D-Lux 2 and I'm crazy about it. I carry it with me every day in my shirt pocket.
 
Skip,

I wish there were more photographers like you out there, people who care passionately about what they are expressing with their photographs, first and foremost. I can almost feel the image you describe. It brings back memories of my own beginnings in photography. I too was a tri-x user, never used a flash, and loved the textures its grains produced in my images. Textures are part of photography's vocabulary, and when used for a purpose, they can be very effective in expressing ideas.

Phil Douglis
Director, The Douglis Visual Workshops
Phoenix, Arizona
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/pnd1
http://www.worldisround.com/home/pnd1/index.html
http://www.funkytraveller.com/Pages/travelogues/travelphotophild.htm
 
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