LX-users: upgrade to GF2?

[DirkL]

The new GF2 will, with a pancake lens, be almost the same size as the LX5 (lens will be
more protuding).

http://www.43rumors.com/

I own the LX3 and a G2, it seems very tempting to replace the former.
I will lose the zoom (the GF2 will make no sense with a m4/3 zoom lens),
macro, and the high flash sync.

I will get better image quality, especially in low light (the pancakes are quite fast,
f1.7 and f2.5, and the GF2 will work fine with 400 - 800 ISO). And I will be
able to use the pancake(s) on my G2.

Anyone else in a similar situation? How are you reasoning?

 

[Ray Sachs]

If I was looking to just own one camera, I'd consider upgrading from an LX to the new GF2 (or any of the other m43 cameras, Panasonic or Olympus). But if you already have a G2, I think the LX5 makes a pretty awesome second (or first) camera. The m43 stuff is better in low light and is more versatile in the sense that you can extend the focal range both wider and longer with the right lenses. But for having one small camera you can take out in most situations and come back with shots every bit as nice as the G2, the LX5 is hard to beat. If you got rid of the LX5 for the GF2, your only option for a pocketable camera would be with a fixed focal length pancake lens.

The other thing that may or may not matter to you is the LX5's incredible setup for hyperfocal shooting. None of the m43 cameras give you a distance scale when shooting in MF, primarily because of the many lenses that can be used on the camera, some of them legacy lenses. So they're more difficult to use for hyperfocal shooting. The LX5 actually gives you a focal scale on the screen when in MF mode that makes it insanely easy to set up for hyperfocal shooting. If you do any street shooting at all, my experience is that the LX5 is better than any of these cameras for this use.

The gf2 looks really intriguing for a new m43 camera. But I find one m43 and one LX5 to be a better combination than two m43 cams. And I used to have two m43 cams in my bag.

-Ray

 

[mja_dpr]

The LX5 actually gives you a focal scale on the screen when in MF mode that makes it insanely easy to set up for hyperfocal shooting. If you do any street shooting at all, my experience is that the LX5 is better than any of these cameras for this use.

Ray, would you mind explaining the steps and what you see on the screen when setting up for this? I think I understand, having gone though it using the advanced manual, but you've obviously set up and used it for real.

--
Michael.

 

[Roger Nordin]

The new GF2 will, with a pancake lens, be almost the same size as the LX5 (lens will be
more protuding).

http://www.43rumors.com/

Restricted to only one focal length, I'd take the Fuji X100 any day.

--
Regards,
Roger

 

[Ray Sachs]

Sure - when you're in manual focus and you adjust the focus with the left and right buttons on either side of the 4-way controller, you'll see a focal range displayed/illustrated along the bottom of the screen. It's essentially a bar that shows the short end of the focal range on the left and the long end on the right. As you change the aperture and focal length of the lens, this range will change as well. So all you have to do is set the camera to MF, set the aperture you want (generally something around f4-f5 gives you really good DOF with this camera and you don't start getting into diffraction issues until you go smaller than that), and the focal length. I keep the zoom set up for step zoom, so its sort of like having five different prime lenses easily available, but I usually start with 35mm for street shooting. Then I just adjust the focus until the right edge of the focal range 'bar' just barely hits the infinity mark on the right. Then you have the widest possible DOF for that combination of aperture and focal length.

You're essentially focussed at the hyperfocal distance, but because of the scale on the screen, you don't even have to know what the hyperfocal distance is - the camera is basically doing the calculations for you. If I set it up at a 35mm focal length, I know I can always zoom out to 28 or 24 for a shot and the DOF will only get larger (even though I may not be precisely at the hyperfocal point for those focal lengths, the range is still bigger than it was at 35mm) and then I can zoom back to 35mm and still be perfectly set at the hyperfocal distance.

I love this setup and I think this is one of the great unsung features of this camera. As quick as this camera is to autofocus, its even faster shooting in MF and you don't have to worry about not having your subject centered and having the camera focus on something in the distance and lose focus on the close-up intended subject. My understanding is that the LX3 had this feature also - I never owned one but if I'd been aware of this, I might have!

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions - I might be able to answer them.

-Ray

 

[Stephen 06]

DirkL wrote:
I will get better image quality, especially in low light.

Not quite. The new pancake is only f2.5 at 28mm. And there is no stabilization. I shot this (below) handheld at 1/3s at f2 at ISO80. Realistically, with the 28mm on the GF2, I would need a shutter speed of at least about 1/6s which could still be a little precarious. So now i'm using about ISO200 with the GF2 to double my shutter speed.

But the LX5's lens is f2 and the pancake is f2.5 and nearly a stop of a difference there too....so that nearly bumps up my ISO to 400 on the GF2. Believe me.....the GF1/2 at ISO400 is not better than the LX5 at ISO80 or ISO100.





Ok....you can get the Panny 20mm f1.7. But that's nearly the cost of a LX5 alone. And you have no wide angle for building shots like mine below. So do you carry the 28mm along too? If so, you are now talking camera bag, while I can slip my LX5 in my shirt pocket. And it still covers anything I throw at it in lowlight with good quality......

indoor church shots....





night shots....





lowlit restaurant shots........





lowlit pub shots....





lowlight concert shots......





indoors shopping shots......





.....and if the light gets too bad....the flash isn't to bad either....





So I can't see why I ever will need a GF2. Already moved on a GF1 and the LX5 more than meet all my lowlight needs. And we haven't even gone into the lack of zoom, no macro, for fill flash in bright sunny days ect......

So not a chance will I upgrade ever again.....

--
Stephen

 

[Kirwin]

--



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

 

[DirkL]

Very impressive low-light shots. You must have a steady hand!

 

[Ocean View]

Great examples of what the LX5 can do.
I am disappointed with the GF2 announcement as I was expecting something better.

For people that like to use 2 cameras, I think the LX5 and the GF1 are a great combo.

 

[Detail Man]

Ray Sachs wrote:

... My understanding is that the LX3 had this feature also - I never owned one but if I'd been aware of this, I might have!

Some things to consider that are definitely true concerning the LX3 Manual Focus mode "Focus Range" indicator display - and that I strongly suspect are not substantively different with the LX5:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=36820361

Note: The F-Number used when evaluating the LX3 "Focus Range" indicator was F=2.0. Nothing special or different about that F-Number where it comes to the results found, however. I just failed to note that in the linked post - so I am mentioning it here.

Regards, DM

 

[mja_dpr]

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions - I might be able to answer them.

It's a massive help, appreciate it, look forward to giving it a go this weekend.

--
Michael.

 

[trevmar]

Even though the GF2 has 1080p 30fps video (vs 720p on the LX5) it remains to be seen if its larger MOS sensor, coupled with its darker zoom lens, can match the binned ISO 1600 video capability of the LX5 (a characteristic of the CCD sensor type) and it guzzles twice the power from its battery. Additionally, the GF2 AVCHD data speed is the same 17MBps as LX5, so some higher resolution will be lost with compression artifacts.

Since I am currently comfortable using the 140 minutes continuous AVCHD recording time of the LX5, 160 minutes with the LVF1, the GF2 having only 110/120 minutes is actually a big deal for me...

I suspect the camera will get quite hot as it tries to dissipate all this extra power, the LX5 gets 'comfortably warm'.

On the other hand, the Live-MOS GF2 sensor will not smear with bright lights in the image, and so I suspect I will need to start carrying around both GF2 and LX5, rather than the LX5/ZS3 combination I am using at the moment for primary and spare...
.

 

[mja_dpr]

I don't know enough about optical engineering to be sure, but isn't the size of the image circle required by the 4/3 sensor dictating the minimum physical size a lens can be for a given focal length and aperture size? I mean, we would all love the GF2 sensor size in combination with the LX5 lens, but isn't there an inconvenient law of physics in the way?

Taking the mirrors out has helped bug time, but it would appear that no matter how small the body gets with a mFT or aps-c sized sensor (e.g. the GF2 and NEX are now as small as a compact body) other than the sub 20mm prime pancake lenses, a typical kit zoom is going to be much larger and have much higher aperture values than the lenses we see on cameras such as the LX5?

I can't get my head round how this could be overcome, but I'm just a normal person

--
Michael.

 

[Stephen 06]

Very impressive low-light shots. You must have a steady hand!

Thanks, Dirk. Yes, I have a steady hand. But that would be irrelevant and actually I probably have been doing the GF2 a favor in my examples. That's because the figures I gave of 1/6s at 28mm would be precarious for even a steady shooter. So an average person who hasn't such a steady hand would even need more shutter speed and higher ISOs again on the GF2 without stabilization, whereas the powerful OIS would still compensate a fair deal on the LX5. If the GF2 had inbody stabilization I would have a serious re-think. And the Olys cams doesn't interest me at all.

Looking at the preview of the camera, it's looks really nice. If you are satisfied with carrying one or two pancake primes, then it would be a nice buy. But having used such cams they hold more drawbacks than advantages for me. I lose pocketability and it opens up a world of extra expense for me. Sooner or later I would add a macro lens and a tele lens just because I can. With the LX5 you have to make do with what you have. Even after slimming down the GF2....you have lost shirt/pants pocketability which I can get (just about) with the LX5 and which is important to me in enticing me to take it everywhere.

As you have seen by my photos, the GF2 will not enhance my IQ too much from a shooting point of view. With my steady hands and the powerfull OIS, I can shoot between ISO80 and ISO200 for night shots and maintain excellent IQ. And as I said, outside of giving up pocketability, I would also be giving up a nice zoom range, macro, and high speed fill flash outdoors and the easy changeable aspect ratios which I have come to use quite frequently because it is on a switch on the lens. I also have my LX5 fitted with an auto cap, so no more taking off and putting back on lens caps which you will have to do with the GF2.

Another imporatant aspect that I like on the LX5 and which people forget about is sound. You will hear the mirror slap on a GF1/2 a mile off especially in close quarters. The LX5 can be made silent and I like this. This allows me to be caught a lot less red handed for street photography shots and for close candid party shots which I like. I like this feature also for when I shoot in churches when others are trying to pray so I don't disturb them. Even during a wedding/baptism ceremony when you would hear a pin drop during the cermony.....your shutter sound on a GF1/2 would turn many a head and draw embarrassing attention.

Here's a few features that I like, done off the cuff. It's a shot with high speed fill flash, the 1:1 aspect selected on the lens, and the zoom was out to 90mm which is a nice focal length for portraits. And I am not too disheartened by the quality of the result either!





--
Stephen

 

[pc168]

I have Nikon D700 and FZ35. If I want to get a m4/3 for light weight travel or backup of my DSLR, I may consider GF2. Now there is the GF2, should GH2 still be a better and higher end camera?

 

[trevmar]

If the GF2 had in-body stabilization I would have a serious re-think.

Stephen,
I was examining the specs at this page:

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gf2/specifications.html

The lens specs say that the 14-42 mm zoom lens has optical image stabilization. The pancake lens does not.
.

 

[Just Shoot Me]

It is official. the GF2 is on it's way.

I own the LX5 and like it very much. I also own a Leica M8 with a host of great Leica glass. I will look very hard at the GF2 and consider dumping the M8 and using the Leica glass on the Pany. But then I might just dump the glass and say good by to Leica altogether.

 

[Ray Sachs]

I have Nikon D700 and FZ35. If I want to get a m4/3 for light weight travel or backup of my DSLR, I may consider GF2. Now there is the GF2, should GH2 still be a better and higher end camera?

Yeah, the GH2 has a newer sensor that's getting very good reviews and it sounds like its revolutionized AF capability in the mirrorless world. Most of the previews I've read indicate the AF speed and accuracy on the GH2 is right up there with all but the fastest DSLRs. No other m43 camera comes close to that kind of performance, although they're more than adequate for most types of shooting. The GH2 will be the highest end m43 camera on the market - the GF2 is a slightly smaller and more consumer-oriented version of the GF1, with a few new features, but mostly a different form. Same sensor though, from what I understand.

-Ray

 

[Detail Man]

Detail Man wrote:

Some things to consider that are definitely true concerning the LX3 Manual Focus mode "Focus Range" indicator display - and that I strongly suspect are not substantively different with the LX5:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=36820361

Note: The F-Number used when evaluating the LX3 "Focus Range" indicator was F=2.0. Nothing special or different about that F-Number where it comes to the results ...

(except for) at particular combinations of higher F-Numbers (such as 5.0), Focal Length, Sensor-Subject distance, and Pixel-Height of the the viewing display-screen, the numerical value of the "Focal Range" will be accurate as a DOF-meter.

These cameras (LX3 and LX5) cannot determine the Sensor-Subject distance - but they may try to approximate it from knowledge of the adjustment position of the telephoto zoom lens-system ...

But , the camera cannot know the pixel-height of the display/monitor screen (or, alternatively, the number of horizontal line-pairs of a printed image) ... This scales the Depth of Field in an inverse proportion to the increase in size (in pixels, or in distance).

One thing that is clear (whether or not the "Focal Range" display is accurate at the particular Zoom Factor and vertical height of the displayed/printed image) is that the value of the HyperFocal-Distance is straightforward for a 1080 pixel-height display/monitor screen (or a 540 horizontal line-pair print), and with a F-Number = 5.040:

HFD [in units of Meters] = (1.006) x (Z)^2

HFD [in units of Feet] = (3.301) x (Z)^2

More generally:

HFD = (P) / (F) / (4695) x (Z)^2

where HFD is the HyperFocal-Distance [in Meters]; and
P is the vertical height of the image (in Pixels, or in Line-Pairs); and
F is the F-Number; and
Z is the Zoom Factor.

One practical problem is that Panasonic (unlike Sony) insists on rounding the displayed Zoom Factor to integer values (instead of further displaying one digit to the right of the decimal-point). This makes for (all too much) "guessing" as to the numerical value of the Zoom Factor ... It's always something ...

Although these cameras may combine (knowable) information about the (approximate) Sensor-Subject distance of the plane of focus and (knowable) information about the F-Number, the equally important matter of the scale-factor of the displayed image's vertical pixel-size (or line-pairs when printing) when calculating Depth of Field remains ( unknowable ) to the camera ...

I've been playing around with my LX3, and I am unclear on how the "Focal Range" ("DOF") data is generated. The cameras could calculate when the (approximate) Sensor-Subject distance of the plane of focus approaches the known Hyper-Focal distance - and have a reasonable idea when the DOF approaches "Infinity".

But whether that information is calculated and known, and causes the upper-edge of the Yellow colored "Focal Range" indicator to (just barely, as you said) reach the "Infinity" mark on the scale in that situation I do not know.

My own previous testing of the changes in the indicator value as a function of the selected Zoom Factor did not indicate any (other than a 10% movement in the wrong direction) change in it's value as a result of changing the Zoom Factor. So I wonder about all this stuff, and am myself inclined to rely on mental calculations of the fairly simple algebraic formulas for the LX3/LX5 HyperFocal-Distance appearing above in this post.

I hope that some of this information may possibly be useful to you.

Regards, DM ...

 

[Ray Sachs]

That's interesting and discouraging. But I have to say, operating on the illusion that the focus range (at least in MF mode) provided accurate hyperfocal setup, I did a LOT of street shooting the weekend before last in New York City using this mode and had a VERY high rate of in-focus shots. And those that weren't seemed to be in somewhat lower light situations when the shutter speed fell to speeds where motion and shake induced blur came into play.

There is a focus range noted in AF mode that shows up at the bottom of the screen when you're zooming in or out, but this seems to be totally useless, because as you zoom, the numbers show up but don't seem to change at all with focal length, so I'm not sure what that's even for. But the focal range "bar" that shows up at the bottom of the screen in MF mode when you're adjusting focus does move and adjust as you would expect it to as you change the focal length and the aperture. Maybe its not quite as accurate as it could be, but it seems to reflect an appropriate relationship between aperture, focal length, and the range of distances that would be in-focus. I haven't compared the numbers it provides with an actual hyperfocal calculator or table to know how accurate it is (assuming, perhaps wrongly, that I didn't need to!), but it seemed to work very well in the field. So I'm probably gonna keep using it unless this post has created a psychosomatic feedback loop that will keep me from getting good results now that I've read it!

-Ray