lx1/lx2 comparison shots

[smokysun]

this might give some clues to the difference between the d-lux 2 and d-lux 3, though leica promises the software tweaked differently.

LX x 2 Photo Gallery by Björn Utpott at pbase.com

and more including the sony dslr: LX + alpha Photo Gallery by Björn Utpott at pbase.com

his is not scientific, but looks like the noise reduction definitely more aggressive in the lx2.

any observations?

here are some shots by someone else.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 Sample Shots Photo Gallery by koo22 at pbase.com

and you probably all know this petition: Online Petition*-*Panasonic FZ50/LX2 Firmware Problem

leica would be wise to heed it.

[odklizec]

Originally Posted by smokysun

and you probably all know this petition: Online Petition - Panasonic FZ50/LX2 Firmware Problem

leica would be wise to heed it.

We will see if Leica version of LX2/FZ50 will work differently, in terms of noise reduction, or if there will be a NR OFF option (which I don't think so). So I'm ready to extend the petition also to D-LUX3 and V-LUX1

[ChipNovaMac]

Originally Posted by smokysun

this might give some clues to the difference between the d-lux 2 and d-lux 3, though leica promises the software tweaked differently.

LX x 2 Photo Gallery by Björn Utpott at pbase.com

Looking at the full size images for the first set of tests, I seem to like the "feel"of the LX1 IMO. Too late and lazy to print them out at 13x19 to see which I prefer. Looking at the 6th series of images (RAW conversion), the LX2 seems to posters compared to the LX1.However the JPEGs in the 5th row seem to show that the LX2 is much better. Now row 11, the ISO 400 brick facade, seems to be more of a toss up.

and more including the sony dslr: LX + alpha Photo Gallery by Björn Utpott at pbase.com

his is not scientific, but looks like the noise reduction definitely more aggressive in the lx2.

any observations?

The first row seems to give the edge towards the LX2, while the second row towards the LX1. Again in the 4th row I give it to the LX1 IMO, by just using the screen as a guide. Now for row 10, the ISO 400 night shot, I give it to the LX1 again. In row 13, the ACR 400 of brick buildings, there might be a slight edge towards the LX2 - but in the end for me too close to call.

here are some shots by someone else.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 Sample Shots Photo Gallery by koo22 at pbase.com

Great images IMO, and if I never had the LX1- I might just buy the LX2. .But I am seeing that there is little reason for me to go with the LX2 (unless the D-Lux 3 is so much better).

and you probably all know this petition: Online Petition*-*Panasonic FZ50/LX2 Firmware Problem

leica would be wise to heed it.

As I have mentioned, I wonder why we are so hooked on silky smooth images at any ISO IMO. Sure my comments on the above links were based on looking the images on screen; but that is with a small bit of experience in how the images will end up printing out at 13x19 in size.

Would I like to have MF quality out of my LX1 shot at ISO 400 - heck yes. Based on the prints at 13x19 at ISO 200 to 400 (both straight and with the use of noise reduction);am I happy - heck yes here too. People that have seen these prints can't believe that a digital P&S made these prints.

Is there an issue to be addressed, perhaps, based on some of the links you provided - the results seemed to be all over the place.

Unless the D-Lux 3 test images show much better performance over the LX1, I am happy that I have not placed an order for either the LX2 or D-Lux 3. My LX1 will chug along providing prints that meet my expectations and the expectations of others for the time being.

Regards,

Chip

[smokysun]

hi chip,

thanks for really taking the time to look at the pictures. your observations much closer in detail, but i had the same impression of the results being all over the place. i wish the sigma dp1 were out so we had an interesting option. this said, i may get the d-lux 3 after the observations i posted here:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...d-lux-2-a.html

i really like having a backup.

thanks again,

wayne

[J Mitchum]

Take a look at the ISO tests for the LX-2 and you will see just how bad it will be for low light photography.

LX-2 Review

Grainy at ISO 100 but passable. At ISO 200 it starts to look very blotchy. At ISO 400 it becomes a paint by numbers set. Completely unusable. It's not the noise though. It's the noise reduction that has wiped out not just the detail but color as well. It needs an NR off swtich.

[J Mitchum]

See the link above for the full versions:

ISO 200 and 400 (100% Crops)

[albertwang]

Okay but pixel peeping doesn't matter here. What are the final prints like then?

[J Mitchum]

Print the images and find out!