LX5 vs S95 - low light, size comparisons and other questions

[MMH]

Awesome!, man. You're so special, so diverse, so ubiquitous, all encompassing, unbiased, penetrating incisive. We'll never catch-up up to you. You're out there, far out. Inspiring to all fora.

Sun_Zeneise, I hope you don't have something worthwhile to say in the future, because I won't see it. Now, where is the "Ignore User" button...

I already hit the ignore user button on him or her the other day. Been nice.

 

[_Bowhunter]

This review just done....here is a direct comparison using resolution charts for the lx3 vs lx5. At least in this test, and to my eye, I think the lx5 is a little over cooked.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/...roduct-guide/view/70209/review/73245/page:4

The link renders an error page.

Not sure why or how the link got broken. But here is a new one.

Page 4 is where the resolution samples are.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/product-guide/view/70209/review/73245

AND BETTER YET....Here is a thread from the Panasonic Forum with the Pictures.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&thread=36172304 [/U]

 

[snapshot09]

x2

Awesome!, man. You're so special, so diverse, so ubiquitous, all encompassing, unbiased, penetrating incisive. We'll never catch-up up to you. You're out there, far out. Inspiring to all fora.

Sun_Zeneise, I hope you don't have something worthwhile to say in the future, because I won't see it. Now, where is the "Ignore User" button...

I already hit the ignore user button on him or her the other day. Been nice.

 

[snapshot09]

That is one of the main reasons I would not consider the S95. I was hoping Canon would had fixed this on the S95 and given it a faster/wide angle lens; guess there is always the S100.

I'm kinda jealous of the wide angle of the LX3.

 

[GeraldW]

Just to throw a little cold water on this "review".

Why does everyone seem to think 24 mm is better?

The fact is that 38 mm is the focal length closest to the way we see in the sharpest area of our vision. I realize that our peripheral vision extends much wider; but the view we see in our mind's eye with the eyes looking straight out and not converged is only 38 mm. This is not just my opinion, you can find it in several of the better photography books including the old Kodak Encyclopedia.

To be sure, there has been some very good images taken with wider lenses; but for most people, it's the "cram it in" lens that lets you fit in scenes that are too big to fit in longer focal length lenses. The result is usually perspective distortion, and often keystoning.

Ansel Adams was asked his opinion on the 28 mm lens in 35 mm photography, and he commented "Oh yes, that's the lens that emphasizes the foreground".

Have I owned and used lenses wider than 28 mm? Yes, I have, so I feel entitled to comment.

For me, a lens that is wider than 28 mm is actually a negative property. So a review that downrates a camera for not being wider than 28 mm becomes someones personal opinion as to how the camera suits the way he works.
--
Jerry

 

[PaulRivers]

Just to throw a little cold water on this "review".

Why does everyone seem to think 24 mm is better?

The fact is that 38 mm is the focal length closest to the way we see in the sharpest area of our vision. I realize that our peripheral vision extends much wider; but the view we see in our mind's eye with the eyes looking straight out and not converged is only 38 mm. This is not just my opinion, you can find it in several of the better photography books including the old Kodak Encyclopedia.

To be sure, there has been some very good images taken with wider lenses; but for most people, it's the "cram it in" lens that lets you fit in scenes that are too big to fit in longer focal length lenses. The result is usually perspective distortion, and often keystoning.

Ansel Adams was asked his opinion on the 28 mm lens in 35 mm photography, and he commented "Oh yes, that's the lens that emphasizes the foreground".

Have I owned and used lenses wider than 28 mm? Yes, I have, so I feel entitled to comment.

For me, a lens that is wider than 28 mm is actually a negative property. So a review that downrates a camera for not being wider than 28 mm becomes someones personal opinion as to how the camera suits the way he works.
--
Jerry

I cannot personally comment on whether 24mm's make a better or worse lens - though certainly the LX3 seemed to do it just fine, as even dpreview said it had a slight (very slight) edge in resolution vs the g11.

But I can say that just last night I was at a dinner party and trying to get a picture of people at the table with my s95. I wasn't surprised I had to get up to get the shot, after all I couldn't see everyone at once while sitting down. But I was surprised at how far I had to bad up to get everyone in the frame. I mean, I had to back up so far you could have fit an extra table full of people of the same size in my peripheral vision, plus some, before I could get everyone in the shot.

I'd prefer wider angle myself. Maybe it would require compromises I'm not willing to make - I'm not sure. Just sayin' - would have be useful.

 

[Rockchan]

It is simply because we may not be able to take some photos if we don't have 24mm.

We don't use a camera to replace our eyes so not much people really care about "our mind's eye". When we show it on our computers' LCD screen or print it out, what is the effect to "our mind's eye" when it is either 28mm or 24mm? Many normal people will never know this picture was taken at 24mm if we don't tell them.

Just to throw a little cold water on this "review".

Why does everyone seem to think 24 mm is better?

The fact is that 38 mm is the focal length closest to the way we see in the sharpest area of our vision. I realize that our peripheral vision extends much wider; but the view we see in our mind's eye with the eyes looking straight out and not converged is only 38 mm. This is not just my opinion, you can find it in several of the better photography books including the old Kodak Encyclopedia.

To be sure, there has been some very good images taken with wider lenses; but for most people, it's the "cram it in" lens that lets you fit in scenes that are too big to fit in longer focal length lenses. The result is usually perspective distortion, and often keystoning.

Ansel Adams was asked his opinion on the 28 mm lens in 35 mm photography, and he commented "Oh yes, that's the lens that emphasizes the foreground".

Have I owned and used lenses wider than 28 mm? Yes, I have, so I feel entitled to comment.

For me, a lens that is wider than 28 mm is actually a negative property. So a review that downrates a camera for not being wider than 28 mm becomes someones personal opinion as to how the camera suits the way he works.
--
Jerry

 

[snapshot09]

Not sure if 24mm is "better" overall, but I do find for my purposes/usage, 24mm is definitely better. I have noticed the wide angle is more useful for the type of pictures I enjoy taking.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer something like the LX5 over the S95.

Would I consider the S95? No

But if Canon came out with a S100 with a faster lens than the S95 and having a wide angle lens, I would definitely consider it.

Just to throw a little cold water on this "review".

Why does everyone seem to think 24 mm is better?

The fact is that 38 mm is the focal length closest to the way we see in the sharpest area of our vision. I realize that our peripheral vision extends much wider; but the view we see in our mind's eye with the eyes looking straight out and not converged is only 38 mm. This is not just my opinion, you can find it in several of the better photography books including the old Kodak Encyclopedia.

To be sure, there has been some very good images taken with wider lenses; but for most people, it's the "cram it in" lens that lets you fit in scenes that are too big to fit in longer focal length lenses. The result is usually perspective distortion, and often keystoning.

Ansel Adams was asked his opinion on the 28 mm lens in 35 mm photography, and he commented "Oh yes, that's the lens that emphasizes the foreground".

Have I owned and used lenses wider than 28 mm? Yes, I have, so I feel entitled to comment.

For me, a lens that is wider than 28 mm is actually a negative property. So a review that downrates a camera for not being wider than 28 mm becomes someones personal opinion as to how the camera suits the way he works.
--
Jerry

 

[Photo-Wiz]

I use to think 24mm was the way to go also. On a recent trip to Yellowstone, I had to pick between bringing my LX3 or the S90 (24mm or 28mm). (also brought my DSLR). Which one to take? I decided on the LX3 because I thought the 24mm would come in handy on those beautiful landscapes.

Wrong - there wasn't a single 24mm picture that I was satisfied with. The beautiful target of the landscape was reduced to unimpressive smallness. At 24mm I saw too much sky and too much foreground. Made me decide to sell the LX3 and take the S90 along next time.

Good thing I brought the T2i to take the landscapes I wanted:

Not sure if 24mm is "better" overall, but I do find for my purposes/usage, 24mm is definitely better. I have noticed the wide angle is more useful for the type of pictures I enjoy taking.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer something like the LX5 over the S95.

Would I consider the S95? No

But if Canon came out with a S100 with a faster lens than the S95 and having a wide angle lens, I would definitely consider it.

Just to throw a little cold water on this "review".

Why does everyone seem to think 24 mm is better?

The fact is that 38 mm is the focal length closest to the way we see in the sharpest area of our vision. I realize that our peripheral vision extends much wider; but the view we see in our mind's eye with the eyes looking straight out and not converged is only 38 mm. This is not just my opinion, you can find it in several of the better photography books including the old Kodak Encyclopedia.

To be sure, there has been some very good images taken with wider lenses; but for most people, it's the "cram it in" lens that lets you fit in scenes that are too big to fit in longer focal length lenses. The result is usually perspective distortion, and often keystoning.

Ansel Adams was asked his opinion on the 28 mm lens in 35 mm photography, and he commented "Oh yes, that's the lens that emphasizes the foreground".

Have I owned and used lenses wider than 28 mm? Yes, I have, so I feel entitled to comment.

For me, a lens that is wider than 28 mm is actually a negative property. So a review that downrates a camera for not being wider than 28 mm becomes someones personal opinion as to how the camera suits the way he works.
--
Jerry

 

[PaulRivers]

Wow, that is a gorgeous picture.

You know...you can zoom in with the LX3, especially in good light like in that scene, right? lol...

I'm kidding, I'm kidding - I like the size of an s90 as a dslr compliment a lot more than the lx3 to.

 

[Photo-Wiz]

Don't get me wrong. The LX3 is a great camera. I even got the adapter that lets me mount a polarizer filter. But once I carry the LX3, adaptor and filter, I might as well bring a EPL1 or GF1.

When I did side by side comparisons of S90 and LX3 shots, the S90 shots looked a bit cleaner (less noise). So while they are both great cameras, I think I'll probably sell my LX3.

Wow, that is a gorgeous picture.

You know...you can zoom in with the LX3, especially in good light like in that scene, right? lol...

I'm kidding, I'm kidding - I like the size of an s90 as a dslr compliment a lot more than the lx3 to.

 

[GeraldW]

Thanks for your comments. Gorgeous landscape shot!!!
--
Jerry

 

[GeraldW]

If you did have a camera with a lens wide enough to get everyone in; you'd certainly find that the ones nearest the camera looked disproportionately large compared to ones more distant, and the table cloth would look like it covered an acre or so. This is the "cram it in" syndrome I mentioned in my post. OK for snapshots; but can be jarring in more serious shots. I do have to mention that some photographers deliberately use a wide angle to get that jarring appearance.

Thanks for commenting. The exchange of viewpoints is why I frequent this forum. I try to be a gentleman about it - I'm very put off by rancorous posts. I also try to keep the record straight whenever I can.
--
Jerry

 

[GeraldW]

I have to admit I use a 28 mm on travel simply because in some situations I can't back up and and a longer focal length won't get it all in. My alternatives are to use a wider angle lens or to take two overlapping shots and stitch them. It's a bit of a Hobson's choice though as stitching can be tricky on the one hand and I don't care for the perspective of wider angle lenses on the other.

My main concentration in photography is to capture the scene as I saw it in my mind's eye when doing landscapes, and for that I find the 35-40 mm focal length is ideal.
--
Jerry

 

[snapshot09]

Well, in this situation, it is not just the 24mm lens on the LX5, but also the faster lens compared to the S95.

If Canon could come out with a comparable model, I would definitely consider it.

I use to think 24mm was the way to go also. On a recent trip to Yellowstone, I had to pick between bringing my LX3 or the S90 (24mm or 28mm). (also brought my DSLR). Which one to take? I decided on the LX3 because I thought the 24mm would come in handy on those beautiful landscapes.

Wrong - there wasn't a single 24mm picture that I was satisfied with. The beautiful target of the landscape was reduced to unimpressive smallness. At 24mm I saw too much sky and too much foreground. Made me decide to sell the LX3 and take the S90 along next time.

Good thing I brought the T2i to take the landscapes I wanted:

Not sure if 24mm is "better" overall, but I do find for my purposes/usage, 24mm is definitely better. I have noticed the wide angle is more useful for the type of pictures I enjoy taking.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer something like the LX5 over the S95.

Would I consider the S95? No

But if Canon came out with a S100 with a faster lens than the S95 and having a wide angle lens, I would definitely consider it.

Just to throw a little cold water on this "review".

Why does everyone seem to think 24 mm is better?

The fact is that 38 mm is the focal length closest to the way we see in the sharpest area of our vision. I realize that our peripheral vision extends much wider; but the view we see in our mind's eye with the eyes looking straight out and not converged is only 38 mm. This is not just my opinion, you can find it in several of the better photography books including the old Kodak Encyclopedia.

To be sure, there has been some very good images taken with wider lenses; but for most people, it's the "cram it in" lens that lets you fit in scenes that are too big to fit in longer focal length lenses. The result is usually perspective distortion, and often keystoning.

Ansel Adams was asked his opinion on the 28 mm lens in 35 mm photography, and he commented "Oh yes, that's the lens that emphasizes the foreground".

Have I owned and used lenses wider than 28 mm? Yes, I have, so I feel entitled to comment.

For me, a lens that is wider than 28 mm is actually a negative property. So a review that downrates a camera for not being wider than 28 mm becomes someones personal opinion as to how the camera suits the way he works.
--
Jerry

 

[GeraldW]

Since the S95 is f/2-f/4.8 you must be talking about the long end. I'd like that, too; but since it's a smaller camera, that would mean a bigger body or restricted focal length range and it would lose some of it's benefits of pocketability or range.

At least for me, the projecting lens housing and cap, and the focal length maximum of 60 mm was a deal breaker for the LX3.

As I posted before, the LX5, when you include the lens projection and cap is about the same overall size as a Canon G7 or G9 - the S90/95 is in a different class and quite a bit smaller.

So why do you insist on comparing the S95 to the LX5? Also, do you own either camera?
--
Jerry

 

[snapshot09]

S95: F2.0 - F4.9

LX5: F2.0 - F3.3

Owned the S90, but found the ergonomics to be poor and the overall size of the camera too small for me to handle.

LX5 on order.

Since the S95 is f/2-f/4.8 you must be talking about the long end. I'd like that, too; but since it's a smaller camera, that would mean a bigger body or restricted focal length range and it would lose some of it's benefits of pocketability or range.

At least for me, the projecting lens housing and cap, and the focal length maximum of 60 mm was a deal breaker for the LX3.

As I posted before, the LX5, when you include the lens projection and cap is about the same overall size as a Canon G7 or G9 - the S90/95 is in a different class and quite a bit smaller.

So why do you insist on comparing the S95 to the LX5? Also, do you own either camera?
--
Jerry

 

[Photo-Wiz]

It is true that the LX3 has better ergonomics than the S90. When I first bought the S90 I was thinking of returning it for that reason. But I got use to it, and now prefer it to the LX3. (But again, they are both excellent cameras.) The LX3 does have a bit more heft too.

LX5: F2.0 - F3.3

Owned the S90, but found the ergonomics to be poor and the overall size of the camera too small for me to handle.

LX5 on order.

Since the S95 is f/2-f/4.8 you must be talking about the long end. I'd like that, too; but since it's a smaller camera, that would mean a bigger body or restricted focal length range and it would lose some of it's benefits of pocketability or range.

At least for me, the projecting lens housing and cap, and the focal length maximum of 60 mm was a deal breaker for the LX3.

As I posted before, the LX5, when you include the lens projection and cap is about the same overall size as a Canon G7 or G9 - the S90/95 is in a different class and quite a bit smaller.

So why do you insist on comparing the S95 to the LX5? Also, do you own either camera?
--
Jerry

 

[PaulRivers]

Since the S95 is f/2-f/4.8 you must be talking about the long end. I'd like that, too; but since it's a smaller camera, that would mean a bigger body or restricted focal length range and it would lose some of it's benefits of pocketability or range.

At least for me, the projecting lens housing and cap, and the focal length maximum of 60 mm was a deal breaker for the LX3.

As I posted before, the LX5, when you include the lens projection and cap is about the same overall size as a Canon G7 or G9 - the S90/95 is in a different class and quite a bit smaller.

So why do you insist on comparing the S95 to the LX5? Also, do you own either camera?
--
Jerry

That's what snapshot09 does . He can't seem to find enough excitement in the Panasonic over the LX5, so he's taken to browsing the Canon forum and continually and repetitively expressing his LX5 fanboyism. Seriously - he's made a ton of threads over here. Sometimes you won't notice that a significant portion of the posts are just from him (always talking about how great the LX5 is or how it's "beats" the s90).

Just look at his last response. You wrote a bit about how the LX5 didn't work for you and the wide angle lens wasn't helpful - outdoors in bright light.

He said? "Well, in this situation, it is not just the 24mm lens on the LX5, but also the faster lens compared to the S95. If Canon could come out with a comparable model, I would definitely consider it."

"in this situation" - the one outdoors with bright light?...can you think of a way in which this makes sense? Any ways? Is there any chance you'd need to zoom? Or that you'd be worried about enough light getting to the camera? Am I missing something? Excitement about the new toy is apparently so overwhelming there's no time to stop and think about whether the response makes sense.

I'm pretty sure I read from someone who said that he was just as excited about the s90 months ago. I expect in another 6 months it will be another new camera to be really super excited about...

He writes "LX5 on order"...I really, honestly thought he must have ordered it at least 2-8 weeks ago with all his posts on it. Seriously. I'm not even dissing him, I'm just saying.

He's a giant LX5 fanboy. I'm just stating a fact - he's practically the definition of a fanboy. Go read through his post history if you want, you'll see what I mean.

It's just annoying that he keeps insisting the lx5 "beats" the s90. he's been through enough threads to that's not true - the LX5 has a number of advantages over the s90 like it's wider angle lens, hotshoe, better aperture values through it's zoom range, manual video controls, 30fps video vs 24fps, etc. But the s90 has one huge advantage for a very large number of people in it's size. One doesn't "beat" the other, they're fairly evenly matched cameras with tradeoffs between them.

 

[GeraldW]

I have to agree on the ergonomics of the S90. I eventually bought the Franiec front grip and the Lensmate rear wheel protector ring. That and a small patch of heavy duty Velcro pile on the rear thumb rest area and the camera is transformed into a very good handling one. I'm now very pleased with it, and it performs well for me as a pocketable low light camera. (good in better light too, of course)

However, I don't see why Canon couldn't spot these handling issues. Don't the designers take pictures?

I do know a little something about ergonomics in product design as I managed a product development department for a number of years before I retired and we had a number of hand tools in our line. The errors Canon and others (the loose wheel on the Panasonic ZS3, for example) have made are inexcusable and reflect badly on their management. However, it does take a little time to sort these things out; and I get the impression that the development is on a very tight schedule. Coming out with a new and improved model every year is a brutal schedule.
--
Jerry