Potential Image Quality for DMC-LX5

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did some comparison testing when I first got my M8.2, using an ancient 35mm Leica lens. I tried the M8 with 35mm shooting 'jpg', then 'raw' (converted to jpg). I then did the same thing with my Nikon, using a zoom lens set to 35mm. For my own purposes, I was amazed at the quality I could get from the M8 and this old lens - I was very pleased. Results can be found at mikemyers' Photos but do view them at 100%.

 

I was curious as to what the results are likely to be like with my new Lumix DMC-LX5, so I set the camera to 35mm, and (hand-held) shot the same scene I had earlier used for the other tests. As far as I know, all the camera settings are still "standard". The results can be found at Index of /2010/december/dmc-lx5-test

 

Here's an explanation of what is what:

 

1) http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/lumix%20-%2035mm%20-%20original-jpg.jpg

This is the original jpg image directly from the camera.

 

2) http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/lumix%20-%2035mm-%20original.RW2[url=http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/lumix%20-%2035mm%20-%20processed%20from%20raw.jpg][/url]

This is the original raw file from the camera.

 

3) http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/lumix%20-%2035mm%20-%20processed%20from%20raw.jpg

This is a jpg created by the Panasonic software, converting the raw file to 'jpg'.

 

4) http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/800pix%20-%2035mm-raw,%20converted%20in%20photoshop.jpg

This is the result of opening the original raw file in Photoshop, re-sizing it to 800 pixels wide, and saving it as a 'jpg'.

 

5) http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/crop%20-%2035mm-raw,%20converted%20in%20photoshop.jpg

This is a small section of the above image, viewed at 100%

 

6) http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/35mm-raw,%20converted%20in%20photoshop.jpg

This is the full-size image, converted from raw into jpg using Photoshop CS5.

 

 

No other adjustments were made; no sharpening, or anything else.

 

I'm not sure what all this means or "proves", except that while I like the image quality I can get from this camera, it's no match for using the M8.2 with a non-zoom "real" Leica lens from 50 or so years ago.

[Shootist]

For me there is no need to look at your images. I have done the same tests and come to the same conclusion, the LX5 is no Leica M8 with any lens attached. And why would it be or even close.

 

I like the LX (DL) 5 for what it is and I have produced some very good images with it. But if I'm really going out to do some Photography, not just taking some pictures, I always take the M8 with me, along with the LX5.

 

Lets face it, it is a small sensor P&S camera. And has all those draw backs that are inherent with small sensor cameras.

[Dan States]

The LX5 image looks pretty soft compared to what I'm getting from mine. What is the working aperture? Seems like either the aperture is stopped down a bunch or there is a lot of noise reduction going on. In general you will not see much of a resolution difference between the two cameras unless other factors have interceded.

[MikeMyers]

The camera was set on "P" mode, with ISO set to "auto". No tripod was used. The exposure was 1/1000 at f/4. Focal length was 5.10 mm. I didn't apply any sharpening. I just used Photoshop to convert from 'raw' to 'jpg'.

 

As soon as I get a chance, I will take the same photo again, using a tripod, and stopping the lens down to f/8 or so. I'll also make sure the camera says it's focused on infinity.

 

I didn't want this to be a "laboratory test"; I just wanted to know what kind of quality to expect. I wish it was daytime right now, so I could re-do this, doing it properly this time, with a tripod and making sure everything was set at what I expect would be the proper settings.

[MikeMyers]

I do have one more image that's "typical" of what I might do. I took the bus from JFK to Grand Central, and while waiting for the next bus, snapped this shot. I was freezing, but hoped I held the camera reasonably steady.

 

Focal length 5.10 mm, 1/160th shutter, f/2.8 aperture.

 

First test, 'raw' converted to 'jpg':

http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/NYC-test/test-1.jpg

 

Second test, same image reduced to 1000 pixels wide

http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/NYC-test/test-2%20raw%20converted%20to%20jpg,%20and%20resized.jpg

 

Third test, same image, 100% crop

http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/NYC-test/test-3%20100%25.jpg

 

Fourth test, slightly sharpened:

http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/dmc-lx5-test/NYC-test/test-4,%20sharpened.jpg

 

 

I'm not sure what these mean to me yet - as images coming from a (large) pocket-size P&S, I'm pleased with them. Had I taken them with my M8, I'd be wondering why they're not sharper.

[Dan States]

Mike, keep you lens opened up as much as possible. The LX5 suffers from severe diffraction when stopped down smaller than about F5. While I wouldn't call your street shots soft, they do seem less crisp than what I'm getting. For RAW I use LR3, so that could be the variable. I noticed a lot of blue fringing on the shots of NYC. That also should not be. You may just have a duff version of the lens.

 

Here is a link to some images I have at flickr

 

All sizes | Lansing Michigan | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

All sizes | Chicago | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

I'm certainly not arguing that the LX5 is in general BETTER than an M8, but I don't think perceived sharpness would be where I would see the difference. My m8 files don't really look much different sharpness wise than my LX5...and compared to my NEX with a M adapter they are not as crisp...

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The D-Lux 5 favors larger apertures with P (after all there's plenty of DOF with the small sensor, and you will get sharper pictures with a higher shutter speed); not sure about the LX-5.

I can't see any difference with RAW in this instance; I'd say the little camera is plenty sharp and a very capable performer. There's a lot of prejudice against small sensor cameras but in fact I think IQ has improved markedly in the last few years.

[bmc]

so funny, i was about to start a thread lx5 vs. m8.

this is the 4th week ive had the lx5 in the field and i could not be happier, but it is no m8. there is just something special about the m system and glass. plus, i love shooting the m8, the lx5 is a tool for me. the lx5 works so much better for some of the stuff i do, one handed shooting, fast moving action shots of dogs and children.

 

here are some lx5 and m8 shots. can you tell which is which?

 

 

 

 

[NZDavid]

M8, LX5, LX5, M8. Just a guess. Focusing is bang on in the first and last shots, and more differentiation of focus. Oh, and nice Landie, curious kids and happy dog.

[Digitom]

so funny, i was about to start a thread lx5 vs. m8.

...

here are some lx5 and m8 shots. can you tell which is which?

 

Very nice Idea! Let me frankly say that you've scratched a sanctuaryery

But that is also what I like: compare different types of cameras and then one can see that the pics of a D-Lux 5 / LX-5 are not 10 times worse then the pics of a M8/9 which is more then 10 times expensive. Lets do it! Compare the "uncomparable"! Just for comparing them! Why not? Both of these cameras have their advantages and disadvantages. Best would be, to have both, as you have

[bmc]

m8, lx5, m8, lx5 for the photos above.

[Dan States]

And there you go...its getting pretty hard to illustrate qualitative differences there days.

 

Nice shots!

[Bill Allsopp]

All interesting information.

I only have the D-Lux 5 and have to say I am super impressed with it for a compact, just blows my old Canon G series away. So when do I dump the Canon DSLR and go for an M series (and which one) - time will tell

[farnz]

Please don't let us get drawn into a flawed comparison of images from two cameras based on compressed jpegs posted here. By all means compare the software that produced the compressed jpegs but not the cameras.

 

Pete.

[bmc]

And there you go...its getting pretty hard to illustrate qualitative differences there days.

 

Nice shots!

 

im still having a hard time, there just is not substitute for the M system and glass, but the lx5 does a great job keep up. plus the lx5 is much, much better in tight areas and with children and small moving things. i shot the m8 in the field and never captured some of the action shots iv gotten with the pani, or my dslr.

 

however, in the end i always grab the m8 and prefer to shoot with it. hands down.

 

 

 

 

 

[Digitom]

Please don't let us get drawn into a flawed comparison of images from two cameras based on compressed jpegs posted here. By all means compare the software that produced the compressed jpegs but not the cameras.

 

Pete.

 

I think nowadays a normal user/photographer see a camera as "a camera", not as a comb ination of lens, body, and software. In fomrer days the postprocessing was done by the photolab. Today it is possible to get a fully exposed pic out from the cam. Every cam who ofefers that, has to be compared with other cameras doing the same.

So to compare this is legal.

 

But sure the target of this thread was not to find a successor of a marvellous M, just to shoe how good the quality of a D-Lux 5 is.

 

That is really ok.

[pop]

So to compare this is legal.

 

IANAL

 

Of course it's legal. It's just not frightfully useful. Those comparisons tell that many decent cameras make decent pictures fit to show in the internet in VGA or XGA resolution.

 

That's not exactly news.

 

If you want or need an extra measure of quality, you have to start with the best raw data you can afford or manage. The PP needed to produce the final result also relies on the skills of the person or lab doing the PP.

 

That's not news, either.

[farnz]

I think nowadays a normal user/photographer see a camera as "a camera", not as a comb ination of lens, body, and software. ...

But that's precisely what the problem would be. The D-Lux 5 is an excellent camera but it only has one lens whereas the M8 can have any of 50 or 60 different lenses. So, for example, do you compare the DL5 to a M8 with a 24/2.8 Elmarit, or a 24/3.8 Elmar, or a 50/3.5 Nickel Elmar, or a 35/2 Summicron v4, or a 35/2 Summicron asph, or a 50/2 Summicron, or a 90/2 APO Summicron asph etc. Each of these lenses has a particularly different 'signature' which will affect the picture but which is likely to be impaired or completely lost during the process of compressing the photos.

 

It's a bit like trying to understand the different textures of silk and velvet while wearing latex gloves: they will both feel like latex so it's a pointless exercise and will encourage invalid conclusions.

 

Pete.

[bmc]

i think too often we get wrapped up in what is better, this or that is the best.

 

the idea of the comparison was not to find a winner. it was not to say this is good, but that is better.

 

more simply my intentions were to compare and contrast. to examine and learn in an effort to continually push oneself further.

 

i know plenty of people that can use a camera phone and produce incredible shots. is it the indian or the bow? we all know that PP can also make an image.

 

again, we all like (some love) their RF M system, myself included. i just happened to flip through some of my photos and noticed a few that i had a hard time telling if i took them with the M8 or LX5, and was pleasantly suprised.

 

there is no way one could argue the LX5 is better than a M system, just as no one could argue that a LX5 cant take award winning photos. they are two completely different cameras and systems. both have their place and purpose.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[farnz]

bmc,

 

I have no problem with looking at the pictures from both cameras and saying "These are both very good photos." but there is already a different agenda:

 

... compare different types of cameras and then one can see that the pics of a D-Lux 5 / LX-5 are not 10 times worse then the pics of a M8/9 which is more then 10 times expensive. ...

which implies that the M8 is overpriced on the basis of compressed jpegs. Comparing photos from the DL5 and the M8 should be done using the highest resolution files to produce the largest prints available so that resolution can be compared.

 

I understand very well that to compare DL5 and M8 pictures in this thread would be an innocent "let's see" activity but not everybody would use it that way and it would be adding unnecessary fuel to those people in this and other forums with a particular agenda to take it out of context to pronounce that the M8 is overpriced "and even the LCUF thinks so".

 

Pete.