Canon lens beats Leica lens?!!

[supperman]

Just had a look at the Canon SD700IS review on www.dpreview.com, and it is a little shocking to see that in the comparison with the Panasonic FX01, aka the Leica C-Lux 1, the Leica lens just seems outclassed by the Canon!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd700is/page5.asp

The only mitigating factor for the Leica lens is that it has a zoom range that starts from 28mm (equivalent), and so it might explain the sub-stellar performance.

Well... the next time I need to recommend a P&S camera to a friend, I know what it will be.

[mgcd]

...and here I thought you meant a real Leica lens...

Banter aside - I have the C-LUX 1 and the results are surprisingly good for such a small package. However, in no way does its lens compare to my R lenses.

[ptomsu]

I am not sure why this is the case, but I own myself the Clux1 and must say that it is for sure inferior to the Dlux2 in terms of sharpness, contrast etc.

[brucemcl]

Originally Posted by supperman

Well... the next time I need to recommend a P&S camera to a friend, I know what it will be.

I own the FX01, but I must say I agree with the review. I have already recommended the little Canon to two friends and they are happy with their cameras. In looking over their photos I have been impressed with the image quality. Personally I think the exposure and color rendition is better on the Canon as well, at the standard settings.

What I tell people is the only reason to get the small Pana/Leica is if they want wide angle. I really like the wide angle, and wouldn't dream of trading the FX01 for the SD700. I want to continue to make photos like these two:
http://www.leica-camera-user.com/showthread.php?t=1635

[burkey]

In the DP Review they mention that the cameras were in their default settings. The CLUX defaults to a picture adj. setting called "natural". The next setting above, "standard" produces sharper images and is where many of us leave the camera set most of the time.

[brucemcl]

Originally Posted by burkey

In the DP Review they mention that the cameras were in their default settings. The CLUX defaults to a picture adj. setting called "natural".

They were testing the FX01, which defaults to "standard," instead of "natural." I agree that the standard setting gives sharper pictures. The EXIF data on each image shows this as well.

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by burkey

In the DP Review they mention that the cameras were in their default settings. The CLUX defaults to a picture adj. setting called "natural". The next setting above, "standard" produces sharper images and is where many of us leave the camera set most of the time.

I had some similar experiences - I hope this really helps

[vicalan]

Greetings -
I have had the C-LUX for two weeks and believe it is a great camera for all that it offers - size, image quality, 28 mm lens, etc. Yes, the tests look better for the Canon, but do yourself a favor - look at the finished product. Take a look at the picture galleries for both the Canon and the Pany FX-01 - the pictures themselves tell the story. The Pany shots have a depth to their color and a crispness that is lacking in the Canon pictures. To me, it is not even close. I have owned Canon products before, and currently use a Canon 20D DSLR, but you can't beat the special quality of the Leica lens and the brilliance of its finished product. One other thing - handle both cameras at the same time - the Pany-Leica feels like a swiss watch, and not like a toy.

Vic

[burkey]

Vic - good point. I believe, as I'm sure many here do, that the unique look a Leica designed lens gives, even in a point and shoot, simply can't be matched.

[supperman]

Vic, you it's difficult to compare colour depth with the pictures in the samples gallery because they are taken at different times and with different scenes.

[brucemcl]

Originally Posted by supperman

Vic, you it's difficult to compare colour depth with the pictures in the samples gallery because they are taken at different times and with different scenes.

Here are some photos from the two cameras of the same scenes, taken within minutes of each other.

FX01
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pa.../gallery.shtml

SD700
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca.../gallery.shtml

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by supperman

The only mitigating factor for the Leica lens is that it has a zoom range that starts from 28mm (equivalent), and so it might explain the sub-stellar performance.

It's meaningless to compare two different lens designs. You've got different and more difficult criteria to meet the wider you go.

[hamey]

Canon lenses beats Leica Lenses,

I totally believe it, did'nt you know Leica has no experience in manufacturing plastic lenses.
Plastic is Canon's domain. Leica is the expert in Glass and Metal.

Ken.

[stnami]

Leica photographer achieves better results on a canon than a canon on a canon or a leica on a leica errrr what was the point again?

[martinb]

The Canon is the superior camera. Handles noise very well and doesn't have NR artefacts and terrible shadow noise like the C-Lux/FX-01.

[petermcwerner]

Originally Posted by mgcd

I have the C-LUX 1 and the results are surprisingly good for such a small package. However, in no way does its lens compare to my R lenses.

Here some comparative examples. I have expressly chosen a red colored orchid, as this is a very critical and difficult color to render correctly:

SLC Jewel Box Black River - Canon ixus 750 (Powershot SD550) - ISO = 100




Panaleica FX01 = c-lux - ISO=80



Leica R9 + DMR - 2.8/35-70 APO Macro Elmarit - 1/45 f/22.4 ISO=100 - RAW - Silkypix Developer Studio 2.0

At first sight, the ixus picture looks more vivid. Looking at the pictures near the plant, the ixus picture looks unrealistic while the FX01 rendition looks more like the subject. The petals and sepals in the ixus picture have that "plastic" look that is sometimes attributed to the rendition of the human skin in portraits made with Canon cameras.
The dark burgundy color or the flower is rendered by the ixus as pink, the FX01gives a realistic rendition of the subjects color, very similar to the DMR.

What I miss in most comparative test is color rendition, which is - in my opinion - one of the most imporltant properties of a camera

Peter

[stuny]

PETER- How did you separate the photos and place text between as well?

All - I bought the FX01 with full underwater kit (I'll post photos at the end of the week), partly for compactness of the entire kit, and partly so that Barbara might be willing to take pictures when her business travels take her to places I'm not likely to go -- such as recently to Dubai. She tried the camera last night, and brought it to work today. Quite a change for a woman who doesn't like to take photos. It's size, gem-like design, and ease of use are why.

[petermcwerner]

Originally Posted by stuny

PETER- How did you separate the photos and place text between as well?
.

Stu,

The photos were on another server, not uploaded here.
I used the following vB codes (take away the underscore)

[_CENTER]to center text and images[/_CENTER]

[_IMG]http://myWebSite.com/image0001.jpg[/_IMG] to show an external image

[_I]for Italics[_/I]

[brucemcl]

As others have mentioned, there is more to the story than Canon lens vs. Leica lens. I suspect the 6MP sensor is a factor in the FX01's performance. On the same dpreview web site there is a review of the Panasonic FZ7. This camera has the same 6 megapixel sensor as the FX01 and C-Lux 1.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz7/

Some quotes from the review:
"Noise is - if anything - worse" (Than the FZ5)
"There seems no doubt that the FZ7's 6MP chip is noisier than the FZ5's"
"noise levels at ISO 80 are higher than the FZ5"

There were very few changes between the FZ5 and the FZ7. The new sensor was perhaps the biggest change.

Others have mentioned color rendition and contrast. I think color rendition and contrast are affected by the sensor and by the firmware as well as the lens.

More contrast in a given scene is not necessarily good. A sensor with a lower dynamic range will create an image with more contrast. I'd rather have the ability to capture a greater range of light and shadow, which takes high dynamic range. It's easy to increase the contrast later on the computer, not so easy to increase detail in shadows and highlights.

To me Canon images over the years have been more bland than Panasonic images. I think of this as more of a philosophical difference that is expressed by tuning the firmware than a characteristic of the lens. Personally I think Panasonic goes a bit too far with It's bright, bluish greens and skies in which the darker areas can slide into purple. But a lot of people like that sort of thing I guess.

[albertwang]

Isn't the Leica creme and the Canon merely butter?