Panasonic Lx 2

the immediate upgrades from LX1 i see are pixel resoultion and higher ISO sensitivity. i wonder if ISO 800/1600 are any good as I never use my LX1 at higher ISO than 100 due to the HORRENDOUS noise. looks nice with the black lens barrel, though.
 
yeah, i noticed the black barrel too.
but same questions about the iso capability.
meanwhile, it'd be great if they could build the manual features of the LX1/2 into the smaller version FX01 !!!
 
I wonder why this type of camera's is so limited on the small end of the aperture range (f/8 in this case). One would think that it's no huge cost to make a smaller aperture?

Or is there no DOF-improvement beyond f/8?

Groeten,

Vic
 
in those small formats, f/8 is already so small --- diffraction starts to have a severe impact on picture quality.

also the benefit of smaller aperture (talking of depth of field) is not that big.

so, for the sake of picture quality, better limit the minimum aperture.

btw, i have no probs with noise in the results of my LX1 in the prints, even when shooting at ISO400. only 1:1 display on the monitor looks less pleasant.

regards,
sebastian
 
As an ex-user of a Lumix product (FZ20) I would have to agree about the unusability of the higher ISO's (anything over ISO 200 was just not on in this case). Pity, because the lens wasn't bad.

It appears to me that the only company that targets with its products the available light digishootetr is Fuji. Or else you do have to turn to DSLRs for higher ISO's.
 
I wonder if there will be an update to the Leica D-LUX 2? Or are Leica now concentrating exclusively on the M8?
 
If it has the same sensor as the LX1 then the 'software' only update won't be much more than what you could do yourself based on the RAW file, I guess.

I have the FX-01 and made some ISO tests. There is very little noise going up 100 -> 200 -> 400, _but_: The picture becomes more and more 'smeared'. I could post some examples if somebody's interested. Summarizing up it seems easy to avoid noise at the cost of detail
 
ffttklackdedeng said:
If it has the same sensor as the LX1 then the 'software' only update won't be much more than what you could do yourself based on the RAW file, I guess.

I have the FX-01 and made some ISO tests. There is very little noise going up 100 -> 200 -> 400, _but_: The picture becomes more and more 'smeared'. I could post some examples if somebody's interested. Summarizing up it seems easy to avoid noise at the cost of detail
Click to expand...

The LX-2 should have a new 10Mpixel sensor, however the noise reduction of the Venus Engine III seems to come at the cost of detail, as you have already noticed with your FX-01

With my LX-1 I shoot raw and take care of the noise off-line with NeatImage, and the results are quite acceptable even at is 800 (ISO 400 underexposed 1 stop) and I manage to get something remotely usable even at ISO 1600 (ISO 400 underexposed 2 stops)
 
I still wish these small Lumix cameras had some sort of external flash capability. Without this feature they are useless cameras for me.
 
How is the shutter lag on these?

I have an older digital, Canon A-80, and I basically use it for taking pictures of my other cameras to put on eBay. In real world shooting, it's not so much fun. I would at some point like a small digital point and shoot to carry around for fun shots when the Leica is at home. Something with a wide lens. I was thinking about that Kodak with the dual lens thing but this looks interesting too.
 
fgianni said:
With my LX-1 I shoot raw and take care of the noise off-line with NeatImage, and the results are quite acceptable even at is 800 (ISO 400 underexposed 1 stop) and I manage to get something remotely usable even at ISO 1600 (ISO 400 underexposed 2 stops)
Click to expand...

I have the LX-1 also and am amazed at the quality at 100 ISO. However, that is pretty limiting for indoor work. If I could get a decent ISO 400 out if it, that would be great. As Photoshops in house noise reduction doesn't quite cut it, I am curious about Neat Image. I am thinking about either Noise Ninja or Neat Image. Does anyone have any experience with Noise Ninja and the LX-1?

Rex
 
Rex, I use the LX1 and am a firm beliver in Noise Ninja when needed. It provides fantastic results with many different cameras as well. From the Picture Code website you can download, for free, camera profiles for different ISOs, or create your own.

Nightfly - there is virtually no shutterlag with the LX1. I use it for street shooting. Use the sports custom setting.
 
The shutter lag is bad only with OS (Optical Stabilization) mode 2, but you need that only if you end up using very low shutter speeds (1/4 s or so at the wide end), with 1/8 s or faster OS mode 1 works well for me.
Of course no OS is needed at the wide end at 1/30 or faster.

Things start to get a bit more complex at the tele end, 1st because the lens gets almost 2 stops slower, and 2nd because higher shutter speeds are reqired, so at the tele end I'd say OS2 for speeds slower than 1/30, OS1 between 1/30 and 1/125, no OS for faster speeds.

OS1 introduces almost no shutter lag, so you might as well have it on all the time.
 
rvaubel said:
Does anyone have any experience with Noise Ninja and the LX-1?
Click to expand...

I think your best bet is to download a trial copy of both and see what you prefer, they are both very capable packages, so it is down to personal preference for the user interface IMHO.
 
same here

same here

FZ3 has very bad noise over 200. My thinking is they are doing no correction while other cameras do, My ist has less (or more pleasing noise) at 3200 than the FZ3 at 400 (with NR on).


telenous said:
As an ex-user of a Lumix product (FZ20) I would have to agree about the unusability of the higher ISO's (anything over ISO 200 was just not on in this case). Pity, because the lens wasn't bad.

It appears to me that the only company that targets with its products the available light digishootetr is Fuji. Or else you do have to turn to DSLRs for higher ISO's.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom