firoze Posted August 30, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here is a link to a review in Japanese of the LX-2: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/08/22/4436.html On downloading and comparing the images from the LX-1 & Lx-2, the latter appears to be clearly superior. However the preview on Luminous Landscape indicates the opposite: "Image quality ranges from comparable to slightly lower that that of the LX-1" http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pan-quick06.shtml It would do well to keep in mind that the cameras tested by these two sites would most likely be pre-production samples. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Hi firoze, Take a look here Panasonic LX-2 review & preview. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
albertwang Posted August 30, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 30, 2006 Mikey Reichmann is a Canon fanboy... How ITF am I supposed to trust his reviews on Luminous Landscape? Of course, Erwin Puts is now with Canon and that's that. All bought out by the corporate conspiracy... On the other hand, Panasonic makes some awesome equipment. Just because they can spend all day arguing about noise and **** like that doesn't interest me. I look for color rendition, contrast, and other things in ADDITION to noise performance. Geewhiz, those guys needs to get a life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide.angle Posted August 30, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 30, 2006 I am thinking of getting this camera for my non-camera savvy wife (so that I can use it too). I had a brief foray into digital a few years ago, then drifted back to film, waiting for a digital replacement for my Minilux and Contax rangefinder...still waiting... I saw the concerns about noise, but decided that the functionality of the camera seems good. I bought a new computer recently, so I hope that will take care of the noise issue. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted August 30, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 30, 2006 Mikey Reichmann is a Canon fanboy... How ITF am I supposed to trust his reviews on Luminous Landscape? Of course, Erwin Puts is now with Canon and that's that. All bought out by the corporate conspiracy... On the other hand, Panasonic makes some awesome equipment. Just because they can spend all day arguing about noise and **** like that doesn't interest me. I look for color rendition, contrast, and other things in ADDITION to noise performance. Geewhiz, those guys needs to get a life. MR may be a Canon fanboy, but he also uses a LX1 for his personally (in addition to tons of other outrageously expensive equipment) so he does have actual personal experience with the LX1. I dun think he will be that biased against Panny stuff.... And if u actually read his article, he did say it's a quick look, and not meant to be a full review. The bottom section of the article titled "Some Thoughts on Sensor Size and Noise" is worth reading cos of his very sensible rant AGAINST putting more pixels on such small sensors in favor of improving factors like dynamic range, sensor noise etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 30, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 30, 2006 But again, there is too much emphasis on the sensor noise seriously. In fact I firmly believe that prints the way to worry about the result. Looking at the zoomed screen at 100% means nothing to me so much of what luminous landscape has for me is zilch. Honestly, I prefer Sean Reid's assessment. He is less biased and less promoscious with his technical terms. In fact, I regard his judgments to be fair and not driven by corporate sponsorship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted August 30, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 30, 2006 Honestly, I prefer Sean Reid's assessment. He is less biased and less promoscious with his technical terms. In fact, I regard his judgments to be fair and not driven by corporate sponsorship. yup Sean has very interesting articles, and i'm a subscriber to his site too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemcl Posted August 30, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm glad to see someone call out Panasonic, and the other major camera manufacturers, on the megapixel race. I think in camera firmware improvements are less expensive per camera sold than improvements in sensors and lenses. So the manufacturers try to scrimp on sensor quality and make up for it in the camera's processing. And I agree, all of this does distract from discussions about color rendition and dynamic range. I'd like to see much more discussion and comparison about both of those things in the media. But Panasonic are not saints in either one of these categories. My "old" FZ5 does blue skies right and at least warns against blown out highlights. My FX01 (C-LUX 1 clone) is a newer camera and I have more problems with highlights and sky color. The FX50 manual is available on the UK panasonic web site (but not the LX2 manual). I see no mention of the highlight function found on the FZ5, the D-LUX 2, and some other Panasonic cameras. I am not confident that the FX07 and FX50 will be better in dynamic range and color rendition than the FX01. Time will tell I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted August 30, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 30, 2006 I, too, read the LX2 first impressions review in the luminous landscape and, Canon affilliations aside, Reichmann stated that he's quite fond of this design. (Moreso than the the DMC FZ50 which he also briefly reviewed.) And I myself am looking forward to trying out the LX2 but I have my reservations (and they aren't for picking up the camera). You see, while Panasonic may have trumpeted the processing prowess of their third generation Venus III engine, they also increased the pixel count on the same 1/1.65" sensor inside the camera. That means that the newer processing engine, which may have promised a significant improvement in noise at higher ASA's on the current design (the LX1), now has to deal with an increase in aggregate noise from an additional 2 million or so SMALLER pixels on the same sensor than the noise generated by the 8 million larger pixels in the current LX1 (the improved DMC-FZ50 added 2 million even SMALLER pixels onto a an even smaller chip). And from what I understand about these things noise could increase quite a bit. So, unfortunately, the improved image processing engine which might have showed great promise in the current 8 MP LX may be just treading water (so to speak) on the new chip. Which is why Reichmann noted that the images were about the same or slightly worse on the new LX2 when compared with the current LX1. (He may have also been looking for that so we'll only know when a full review emerges which I am looking forward to.) What's more, a hint of the ability of the new Venus III engine was revealed in a review by dpreview of the Lumix TZ1 with it's 5-6 million pixels on a smallish 2.5" chip. The chief complaint in that review's conclusion was "NOISE NOISE NOISE". So I'm a little concerned because by my rough estimates the size of each pixel on this smaller 5.76mm by 4.29mm chip at 5 million are even larger than the 10.1 million pixels or so that will be crammed onto the 1/1.65" sensor (8.9mm by 5.0mm) of the LX2. All of which indicates Panasonic may not be out of the noise woods yet. (Now on the L1, the Venus III/chip combo may likely succeed since the chip with even with its additional 2 million additional pixels over the previous LC1/Digilux 2 5 million pixels on that 2/3" chip, the pixels on the 4/3 sensor will be BIGGER, so noise just on pixel size, alone, will be improved. And if the Venus III engine performs even moderately better than whatever was used on the Digilux 2 or LC1 (which I'm sure it has to be a quantum leap over), images should be quite impressive well up to ASA 800 (or even higher). But, again, only time and a full review will tell. Also, on this camera (dim, diminutive porro rube-goldbergian viewing system aside), imaging could be quite astonishing. (The Digilux 2 proved to be a fine image maker despite it's limitations at higher ASAs). RAW, from what I can tell may still be problematic (read slow writing), but again, I am looking forward to see what shows up. Speaking of RAW, Sean Reid (who's site I also am a subscriber) was quite impressed with the RAW capability of the LX1/DLux2 and that could make the higher resolution model a little salvagable. Again, I'm looking forward to seeing what this model will do. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmw Posted August 31, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 31, 2006 The reviews are interesting, but the pictures on that Japanese site from the LX2, to my eyes, look definitely better. Michael Reichmann is lamenting the new Venus III engine providing too much noise reduction, but the colors look better, fine details look sharper, and I believe you can set the noise reduction to low, OR shoot in RAW without having to have the Venus III engine come into play very much, if at all. Unfortunately I think Panasonic, along with most other major vendors, is marketing to the masses who are concerned only with the highest number of megapixels, and have no idea what "noise" is. They are not and will not market to the people on these forums, as we are all a very small minority. K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.