Potential Image Quality for DMC-LX5

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... 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

 

Actually, you can find people who would find this result meaningful and useful. If you are fully satisfied with the quality of the pictures delivered by a DL5 and if you need it to be light and not all that costly, then the DL5 can be an excellent choice.

 

Not all people need or even see the high quality other cameras can provide.

 

Besides, I bought my M8 for 3 kUSD. I think I will buy the DL5, too, if it's only 300USD. That's about the price of one IR blocking filter and a spare battery.

[bmc]

bmc,

 

 

 

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.

 

i see your point, but as for the nay-sayers forget them. overpriced is purely subjective. my m8 is worth every penny of the $2000.00 extra dollars it cost me compared to the Lx5.

 

IMHO all digital cameras are over priced period. im just not convinced they will stand the test of time like their film counterparts. again, JMO.

 

but the m glass, with an m body, worth every penny. nobody can argue that there is something, many dont know what, but there is something magical about images created using a M system. i think that is why people love to hate and attack the m8 -m9 camera. they dont understand it, so they pick on the one most obvious weakness, its price.

 

 

again, phooey to them.

[Dan States]

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:

 

 

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.

 

I've got both and in RAW on LR3 there really isn't much difference in resolution. Certainly nothing that can be seen in actual prints. If we are going to use resolution as a measurement of quality the Canon G10 would clobber the M8.

 

Now I would never say the G10 makes better looking files than an M8, but the reasons have nothing to do with resolution. Color depth and clarity, noise performance and dynamic range are of course far superior on the M8

 

But now, 4 years after the M8 was rolled out, a DL5 or LX5 will get much closer to the capabilities of an M8...so close in fact that I doubt most viewers could look at a print and tell the difference under 400 iso even in jumbo sized prints.

 

I've made loads of big prints with both cameras and unless depth of field gives the M8 away, its usually not possible to say which camera the print came from. Once ISO goes up to 640 or above the M8 still wins...though it's hardly known as a low light champ.

 

Progress is amazing in the digital world. It's fine to love our M8's, but we can do so for the handling and artistic advantages they can provide, ignoring the technical stuff.

[jaapv]

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

Only if you regard a computer monitor as the end stage of your photographs...

[Dan States]

Only if you regard a computer monitor as the end stage of your photographs...

 

No, particularly if you intend on printing. Physical prints deemphasize all the quibbles most pixel peepers get in a knot over: Luminance noise and low megapixel count. What they don't forgive is poor color depth and lack of shadow detail.

 

I do have to chuckle when I see people who shoot jpegs (Like the buffoon Ken Rockwell) making comments about the quality one way or the other of a camera. If you know how to properly manage a RAW file you can make outstanding prints that don't look digital from a Canon S90...or you can make crummy Costco snapshots from an M9 by shooting jpeg.

 

In the end, content is what really determines the quality of an image. Using the camera that gets you the content is the answer....technical details are secondary. Today's technology allows users to get better technical quality from a $300 camera than we got in the 80's with a $3000 SLR. The pictures still suck however....

[farnz]

... If we are going to use resolution as a measurement of quality the Canon G10 would clobber the M8. ...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Dan, and I don't mean to disrespect the G10 but firstly M lenses will out-resolve the Canon G10's lens, and secondly, the M8 has no anti-aliasing filter so each pixel is separately resolved. (I'm not sure why the G10 got involvedd in the discussion though.)

 

Pete.

[Dan States]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Dan, and I don't mean to disrespect the G10 but firstly M lenses will out-resolve the Canon G10's lens, and secondly, the M8 has no anti-aliasing filter so each pixel is separately resolved. (I'm not sure why the G10 got involvedd in the discussion though.)

 

Pete.

 

Actually...they wont....In fact even the G9 could essentially match the resolution of the m8. A lot has been made about AA filters because Leica chose to hang their hat on the Kodak sensor, but in the end what matters is total system resolution....which I should say DOESNT matter...because neither camera can hold a candle to the M8 in IMAGE QUALITY.

 

That was the purpose of my comparison. Resolution is a terrible way to judge a camera because it can be achieved easily and still do nothing for the overall impression of quality.

 

Our M lenses are among the best available for an image circle the size of a 35mm frame, but if you shrink the sensor size it becomes much easier to generate ultra high resolution. If you were to tack an m lens to a micro sensor camera you would be stunned how unsharp it would look...They are just not optimized for that level of detail.

 

Here's another example: The X1 creates images that are far better overall than the highest resolution point and shoot ever, the G10. Nobody could argue that the overall system resolution of the G10 is less than an X1, but the images just look lousy in comparison.

[Digitom]

...

 

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

...

 

 

Exactly, and of course the winner is M!

 

 

bmc,

 

...which implies that the M8 is overpriced on the basis of compressed jpegs.

 

...

 

In fact (IMHO), the M IS overpriced! But as long people want to pay these extraordinary prices the camera is of course worth the price for that people.

 

And: There is also a big gap in the price portfolio between M and X1, and X1 to D-Lux 5. Leica should do something against that because at the moment it seems the company comes really out if the crises. Means: check the market for possible introduction of new products to complete the portfolio.

[MikeMyers]

So much to say, but the "reality" is more important than the "theory".

 

When I did the comparison test between my Nikon and M8, the M8 "won" because there was a lot more detail in the images. Still, the M8 can't take the kind of photos I do with my Nikon (sports), so the comparison is meaningless most of the time. (There are times when I want the "best" image of something, and I know the Leica will do that for me. There are also times when I want a smaller camera, and again the Leica wins.)

 

 

For the past five days, I've been going to a radio control car race that I wanted to cover for my online magazine. I know I need my Nikon for the "action" shots, but I planned to use my M8 for photos of the track, the racers, and many other things. I was going to bring along a small video camera to try to capture the action on the track.

 

The week before, I was reading about the DMC-LX5, and its wonderful video capabilities. On a hunch, I ordered one for several reasons, but I also planned to try out the "video" functions at the race. So, I was packing my M8 and the LX5, but figured why not see what the LX5 could do, and left the M8 at home.

 

It turns out that this is a wonderful little camera. The images may not be M8 quality, but they're still excellent. The automated features of the camera worked perfectly, and it behaved like a Nikon - the photos always turned out technically perfect. The ability to almost be able to focus on something almost touching the lens was a huge help! Unfortunately, or fortunately, on the first day I decided to see how well the video function worked.

 

I was amazed! The video this tiny camera is capable of, is outstanding! It's really hard for me to believe that this tiny thing can produce such high quality videos. The limiting factor was mostly me. As to the still images, they're not as good as the M8, and they remind me of the kind of quality I get from my Nikons. Just the same, for every day but the last day of the event, I only used one camera - the Lumix. I got my photos, and I also got some excellent r/c car racing videos. Plus, it was all great fun to do!

 

(For an example of my video capability, check out this 8-minute video:

It was shot with the Lumix, and edited in Pinnacle Studio.)

 

 

Things I would like to improve for video - I need a better "grip" so I can hold the camera steady for videos. I would like to plug in an external microphone, so if I'm interviewing someone, their voices come out clear. Most importantly, I need (and have now ordered) the electronic viewfinder, as using the screen on the back of the camera is often impossible when you're out in the sunlight.

 

 

 

So many people here are talking about image quality, but there's more to a photo than simply the performance of the pixels. Comparing the Lumix to the M8 is like comparing Orange Juice to Coffee. It all depends. A better comparison would be to compare the Lumix with other small P&S cameras - but the Lumix has most of them beat before we even start, as it has a 24mm equivalent lens, which I think is one of the most important features of a small P&S.

[MikeMyers]

After reading all the feedback, I decided I ought to do one more comparison test, trying to make it more even. All photos were shot using a tripod. Photos were taken in 'raw' and converted to 'jpg' using Photoshop. No sharpening was done. Photos were saved as jpg's, quality level "12", and uploaded to the folder below with no other changes being made.

 

 

Combinations tested were:

11 - Nikon D2x with 18-35 Sigma lens, set to 35mm

12 - Nikon D2x with 18-70 Nikon lens, set to 35mm

13 - Leica M8 with 35mm Summilux, set to f/5.6

14 - Nikon D3 with 24-85 set to 35mm

15 - Lumix DMC-LX5

 

Results can be found at Index of /2010/december/comparisons

The file names reflect the above numbers, but I suggest you open the images without paying attention to which is which, or you'll probably see what you expect to see, which may be different from what's really there...

 

I'm not sure what all of this means, as what I see on my screen doesn't match my expectations. What is most amazing to me, is how good the LX5 image is compared to the others.

[farnz]

Mike,

 

I'm surprised at how noisier (grainier) the LX5 shot is to the rest when magnified.

 

Pete.

[MikeMyers]

Mike,

 

I'm surprised at how noisier (grainier) the LX5 shot is to the rest when magnified.

 

Pete.

 

Agreed completely, but the 'jpg' from the same image looks great, hardly any noise. I assume that's the way it's supposed to be?

 

I just used Photoshop to take the 'raw' image and convert to 'jpg'. I didn't do anything to change noise, sharpness, or anything else.

 

The photo was in bright sunlight, ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/1600th as I recall. (I wanted the equivalent of f/16 and 1/(ISO speed), but couldn't do that as the camera won't do f/16. Anyway, it should be very easy for anyone else to try this, and see if their 'raw' image is equally noisy after a conversion to 'jpg' by Photoshop.

 

 

 

For in-camera 'jpg':

http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/comparisons/P1010102.JPG

 

For 'raw' converted to 'jpg' in Photoshop, no noise reduction:

http://www.sgrid.com/2010/december/comparisons/15.jpg

[MikeMyers]

I've been looking, and looking, and I'm feeling a bit confused.

 

Am I doing something wrong?

 

It's hard to believe these are really the same image. One is quite noisy, and the other has almost no noise at all (at the expense of a slight lack of detail).

 

........and last question, which is better? sharper but noisy, or less of both?

[farnz]

Mike,

 

At a guess I'd say the noise comes from ISO 200. With digital cameras I try to stick to the 'native' ISO for that camera (M8 = ISO 160, DL5 = ISO 80 I think) to minimise noise.

 

Pete.

[ho_co]

The RAW image gives you more or less what the sensor saw and allows you to adjust it to your taste in post-processing.

 

The JPG automatically includes in-camera processing for noise, contrast, saturation etc, adjustable via menu settings. Those settings can be changed, but maybe not completely switched off.

[MikeMyers]

The RAW image gives you more or less what the sensor saw and allows you to adjust it to your taste in post-processing.

 

The JPG automatically includes in-camera processing for noise, contrast, saturation etc, adjustable via menu settings. Those settings can be changed, but maybe not completely switched off.

 

 

Ho_co, that makes perfect sense. The raw image is all the data that the camera (or other software) will need to process, to create the final image.

 

So, in technical terms, is my raw image "too noisy", or is that just the result of these cameras trying to get every last bit of quality the lens is capable of, using the sensor size that was provided? In other words, is this image acceptable, or is a valid reason to not select this camera? (I assume the raw image noise will be less if I use a lower ISO, but is the image posted here "reasonable" for ISO 160?)

[ho_co]

Sorry, Mike, that's up to you.

 

I'm happy with the results of my D-Lux 4, which I use on auto ISO when I'm not using a tripod. Sometimes it's grainier than I like, but it's better than my other point-n-shoots.

 

Panasonic says that the LX5 has improved image quality over its predecessor, so it probably does.

 

For me, the image you posted is fine, but you're more inquisitive and maybe more demanding than I.

 

I don't normally set out to test cameras or lenses unless I find something that seems not to be working right.

 

You're right to double-check before buying, but I don't bother. If I were considering upgrading from my D-Lux 4, and if the features of the LX5 or D-Lux 5 appealed to me, the reviews are good enough that I'd just buy it.

[MikeMyers]

Sorry, Mike, that's up to you.

 

I don't normally set out to test cameras or lenses unless I find something that seems not to be working right.

 

Thanks!! Actually, there's "two" of me. One part is very inquisitive about how good things are, what I can expect, and so on. The other part of me just wants to take pictures.

 

 

So far, I'm thoroughly pleased with the LX5; it does everything I expected, and truth be told, it does more than I expected. I'm also very pleased with the 'jpg' images from the LX5, much more so (way more so) than the M8.2.

 

Later this week I need to find out if it has something like what I think Canon refers to as "night snapshot", where the image is exposed by ambient lighting, and the flash fills in just a bit using "second shutter", so the blur is behind things, not in front of them.

[ho_co]

With the D-Lux 4 it took me a couple months to figure out what I felt I needed to know. And it still catches me occasionally, when I can't figure out how to accomplish something.

 

I'm sure the D-Lux 5 / LX5 is an improvement in a number of ways. From what I read, there's good reason to use it for JPGs, because it does such a good job. What you posted above seems to confirm that.

 

Enjoy!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear