Warning: Leica LX2 versus Cannon 5D comparison?

[albertwang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I saw this thread on the dpreview and I felt like as absurd as it may seem, a comparison between the LX2 and 5D was rather odd. But as I read further, I was impressed by the comparison photos. Check the thread at: LX2 versus Canon 5d samples: Panasonic Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

Okay, at least the guy did a RAW conversion which is the proper way to do things (sorry Erwin but you can learn from this guy)... Looking at the final two photographs, I saw

 

1) The Leica seems to render the colors somewhat more accurately than the Cannon does. Take a look at the brown dirt. I feel like the dirt of the middle part of the field "looks" more brownish than the greenish brown that the 5D renders it as. So at a viewing distance of probably 1-2 feet, I may be more impressed by the colors of the LX2.

 

2) The Cannon wins on resolution after post-processing hands down however. Take a look at the leaves part of the forest. The LX2 looks a little more impressionistic and details are being blurred as smoothed over. The grass suffers from an apparent lack of detail.

 

The 5D is slightly better (not much however IMHO) and you can see the delineation of the grass with some rendition of shadow detail.

 

3) However, with strictly only RAW conversion, the LX2 seems to hold the shadow detail better on the picture particularly on the grass detail. So apparently reducing the noise during post processing seems to eliminate detail...

 

4) The Cannon seems to have less contrast on the RAW file than the Leica does. Which is rather interesting because I was suspecting the other way around.

 

(Okay, slight tirade here... yes, people blame me for having a vendetta against Cannon but I have certain rational reasons for the underlying positive of the way they approach picture formation... more on this later...)

 

I think that the 5D does a splendid job resolving more details without losing too much detail when you post-process for noise levels. The LX2 is rather impressive in its own right but there is a problem: if you wish to reduce noise from the RAW, you lose fine details. If you wish to keep the RAW as is, you will have to contend with higher level of noise.

 

Of course, I would print out the final postprocessed images to make my determination. However I don't think there is a winner here. I thought it was amusing to compare a "digicam" against a semi-professional model but on second thought, it's not as silly as supposed. The LX2 proves to be a most wonderful value for what you pay for it in a smaller package and with full manual controls.

 

Too bad the guy didn't mention which lenses uses.

 

The 5D wins on resolution and noise levels due to the larger chip (no doubt a scientific fact) than that of the LX2.

 

Conclusion: I still prefer the Leica look regardless of the final results. The Cannon shot has more detail but loses on the separation of tonal detail. In fact, I was surprised that the Leica has a higher contrast too. There is a particular naturaliness that the LX2 paints the scene whereas the Cannon shot looks more sallow and flatter. Particularly in the browns where the 5D doesn't even accurately capture in the RAW shot? But the noise level, the 5D is better especially in the sky detail or regions where there is a continuously similar color across the field.

 

So basically there is no winner, just personal preference in the end. And I don't claim to be objective.

[J Mitchum]

The Canon sample looks much better to me. More detail and less noise as is to be expected. The Panasonic sample has more vivid color but it looks to have post-processing applied as opposed to the Canon sample which seems to be straight out of the camera. Just going by the EXIF data for the first two sample JPEGs though. Of course any dSLR is going to beat the LX-2 to at least some degree. I'm more concerned with how the D-Lux3 will compare to the LX-2.

[TimF]

The Panasonic sample has more vivid color

 

That's one way of putting it. I prefer to say hideously garish greens.

 

As an aside, how can you claim Albert, that the 5D doesn't accurately capture the browns in this scene without seeing it with your own eyes?

[gylee]

That's one way of putting it. I prefer to say hideously garish greens.

 

As an aside, how can you claim Albert, that the 5D doesn't accurately capture the browns in this scene without seeing it with your own eyes?

 

With his usual bias, that's how.

[BillMaisey]

Two n's in Canon Albert

 

Bill

[albertwang]

I'm sorry but the brown still looks "off" to me... again individual preference.

 

In fact the 5D shot still depicts a greenish brown which I don't think looks right for a landscape shot.

 

I really do think that the separation of colors is important. And the right colours too!

[gylee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two n's in Canon Albert

 

Bill

 

And we won't go into the fact that he seems to think the Panasonic is a Leica...

[gylee]

In fact the 5D shot still depicts a greenish brown which I don't think looks right for a landscape shot.

 

Albert, are you looking at these on Mac or PC? Truth be told, there was something a bit weird about the brown on the 5D shots on my PC at work. On my Mac the brown looks fine and in fact far more natural than the browns on the Panasonic which look almost orange (as does the fence).

[TimF]

Having had a second look at the pictures, what everyone has been calling a brown field looks more like a field of standing wheat or barley to me. In that case, if there is any "rubbish" growing in amongst it, then the Canon would most definitely be more accurate.

[albertwang]

Albert, are you looking at these on Mac or PC? Truth be told, there was something a bit weird about the brown on the 5D shots on my PC at work. On my Mac the brown looks fine and in fact far more natural than the browns on the Panasonic which look almost orange (as does the fence).

 

I use a caliberated Mac to look at the pictures. And then again using the Tablet PC... The Mac is using the color matching so that it goes with my PC. The Mac shows the 5D as being a lesser green and a little brown but I don't see any orange for the Panny on my Mac???

 

That's why I use both Mac and PC. Just in case one is off.

[albertwang]

Having had a second look at the pictures, what everyone has been calling a brown field looks more like a field of standing wheat or barley to me. In that case, if there is any "rubbish" growing in amongst it, then the Canon would most definitely be more accurate.

 

Is wheat a light green? Hmm... I need to compare this against some stock product shots of wheat. I still think that the wheat needs to be a lightish brown infiltrated by green occasionally but unless I'm there then there's no surefire way to be sure sure.

[TimF]

No, ripened wheat is a golden brown colour more or less, but if there are weeds growing in with the crop its entirely possible the camera might be picking some of it up. Indeed, if the crop is ripening, you will get a mix of green and golden brown. It doesn't go "boom!" and change overnight.

 

Look at the two full frame shots. There are several greenish patches in that field which are plainly visible in both shots (even though the Canon one is somewhat smaller for some unexplained reason).

[albertwang]

Thanks for your agricultural insights. Tells you how much a New Yorker knows about wheat growing!

[ChipNovaMac]

Sorry but this test seems like trying to put 35mm vs MF, color rendition not with standing. That is a personal choice, I preferred the colors from the Panasonic.

 

I have a couple 13x19 images from Iceland that were shot at iso 200 on the LX-2and people are amazed that it was done with a "simple" P&S camera.