WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I gotta say that it honestly boggles my mind to see other photographers so excited about something with more or less very little image output quality to base that excitement on. Yeah, it, the physical body of the camera looks cool, who cares. Its sad to see such hoopla over a camera that has a gimmick like an external finder without actually seeing wtf the output of the thing looks like.
The two pictures on the panasonic sight are in fact very exciting indeed.
the three images in this review however, look like dogwaste.
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/9604.html
I would love to see more user images from this camera, but would certainly hold my judgement until then. One thing is for certain, this camera is going to need to be the miracle cure to out do the canon g9 which is just about half the price.
http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Samples2/index.htm
Ultimately, I could care less about all these digital cameras, but the G9 is impossibly impressive to the point of wondering how anyone without commercial clients who needs to impress them on set could ever justify spending $5k on a digital camera in 2008. Yes, they are all absolutely better than the G9, but like, 17 times better? Geesh, I dont know about that... Is this panasonic almost twice as better as the g9? I dont know? Its twice the price though. Considering that these digital cameras, *all* of them, are disposable, I dont know how anyone can think in any other terms about these things. But hey, thats me.
The two pictures on the panasonic sight are in fact very exciting indeed.
the three images in this review however, look like dogwaste.
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/9604.html
I would love to see more user images from this camera, but would certainly hold my judgement until then. One thing is for certain, this camera is going to need to be the miracle cure to out do the canon g9 which is just about half the price.
http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/G9_Samples2/index.htm
Ultimately, I could care less about all these digital cameras, but the G9 is impossibly impressive to the point of wondering how anyone without commercial clients who needs to impress them on set could ever justify spending $5k on a digital camera in 2008. Yes, they are all absolutely better than the G9, but like, 17 times better? Geesh, I dont know about that... Is this panasonic almost twice as better as the g9? I dont know? Its twice the price though. Considering that these digital cameras, *all* of them, are disposable, I dont know how anyone can think in any other terms about these things. But hey, thats me.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
f2 is sweet as is 24mm. Good 400 would be great, good 800 would be irresistable (and more than I think we could hope for).
photogdave
Shops local
Where do you get twice the price? The current LX2 sells for almost the exact same as the G9 so there's no way the LX3 will be double!
The G9 is nice but I got frustrated trying to hold it like a "real" camera - I kept inadvertently pressing buttons on the back. And the optical finder sucks.
The G9 is nice but I got frustrated trying to hold it like a "real" camera - I kept inadvertently pressing buttons on the back. And the optical finder sucks.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
At this point, it's just the idea that's exciting. A great many of us have been waiting for a quality point and shoot. We all have different requirements for that camera, but this one seems to hit a lot of buttons...at least on paper.
I'm doubting I'll see enough out of this camera to push me over the edge, but I like the direction it's going.
In the mean time, I just dropped film in to my Hexar AF.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
It looks like Panasonic's reply to the Sigma DP-1. The packaging looks good, but Pano didn't put in a 4/3rd's sensor. With the small sensor choice - the actual focal of length of the zoom at its widest end is 5.1 millimeters.
The very short focal length at the wide end makes for some converging vertical lines. Hopefully, this improves at 12.8mm long of the zoom - where it becomes an f/8 lens..
The very short focal length at the wide end makes for some converging vertical lines. Hopefully, this improves at 12.8mm long of the zoom - where it becomes an f/8 lens..
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I think it becomes f2.8 at the long end, not f8.
Paul T.
Veteran
Yes, the accessory finder won't work well. Nor does the optical finder in the G9, which is so inaccurate as to be totally useless, especially at the tele end.
This camera is a decent leap forward for the lens speed. But it illustrates how most digital cameras seem to be the previous model with odd improvements tacked on, rather than a concept thought through and designed from the ground up.
In retrospect, this makes the Epson R-D1 look like a huge leap forward, a real coherent design that managed to be innovative, especially in terms of its user interface, by being so retro.
This camera is a decent leap forward for the lens speed. But it illustrates how most digital cameras seem to be the previous model with odd improvements tacked on, rather than a concept thought through and designed from the ground up.
In retrospect, this makes the Epson R-D1 look like a huge leap forward, a real coherent design that managed to be innovative, especially in terms of its user interface, by being so retro.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
That is what I was thinking. While 6 MP and the lack of AF may seem "obsolete" to the mass market, the performance will be better on the RD-1. The individual pixels on the Epson RD-1 occupy about about 6 microns on the sensor which should be way better at ISO 400 and 800.
Seriously, I'm considering the leap to a used RD-1, now that it is apparent that a compact 4/3rd's or APS-C sensored body with a built in lens that has a more rectilinear lens signature is too much to ask for.
The 21/4 Color Skopar mated to the RD-1 loses a couple of stops and delivers a 35mm equivalent FOV of 33mm. It is a symmetrical rather than a retrofocus prime or zoom found on a small P&S. So, barrel distortion will be less of an issue. Pointing the camera up will still yield converging verticals - but less apparent than with a 5 to 12 mm zoom.
On the longer end, there are some really nice 35/2 lenses and fast 40's that are compact.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I believe that you are correct. The lens is rated as a Vario-Summarit. Before getting excited about the 24/2 equivalency in full frame 35mm, keep in mind that the nodal point is about 5mm from the sensor on this lens at its wide end. That doesn't leave room for much rear glass.
kshapero
South Florida Man
This LX-3 seems like it is a lot cheaper than a R-d1 and I don't mean just in money.
Tony Rose
Sponsor
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are most likely looking at the NEW Leica DLux-4 camera to be officially announced at Photokina. If it is going to be as good as the Leica DLux-3 has been, we really have a WINNER!
TR
TR
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
One would have to assume that this MUST be the case. Obviously for a professional, this is a no brainer, really no camera is ever too expensive if you can rent it back to production on each job you do. For the hobbyist however, there is a whole new balance to the diminishing returns that spending buckets of cash on a camera loaded with features they might never use now that the bottom of the line disposable digital thing is certainly "good enough" for a certain percentage of the population out there.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
You see.. that's the thing. Not everyone is seeing that.
I swear, it kills me to see the whole "But the 5D produces AWESOME image quality for only $2000 - how can this be THAT good at $500-800????" and I think that people completely miss the boat.
IQ is one thing.
Yes, everyone strives for the Nikon D3 IQ @ ISO6400 or the 5D IQ @ ISO1600 - BUT BUT BUT - you have to live with the fact that you're now carrying around a pretty large camera. Add a good zoom (70-200.. say with IS) and it's a heavy large camera.
Don't get me wrong, I own TWO 5D's WITH the grips. I do like them for certain applications - but if I want to walk around the city; they are NOT the camera I'm going to choose to carry with me.
The "what??? no viewfinder !!!!!" issue is another thing that grinds my gears. Look.. some of you expect a viewfinder in a P&S cam to have the same quality that you may get in a Leica M and/or CV Bessa and/or an external C/V or Zeiss finder. There are a couple things to consider.
- Size - To achieve clarity in a viewfinder for MOST of the population you need to have it be a decent size - this adds size to a camera that's supposed to be "small" per se
- Cost - the really high quality viewfinders cost MONEY - something that, clearly, people think they shouldn't have to spend to get a quality product.
So, if you add $200-300 and about 3 inches length, 1/4-1/2 inch thickness, to a P&S camera that used to be "pocketable" - are you willing to live with that to get your viewfinder? I think most folks would say "no".
We may get that type of camera in the future.. who knows.... but right now.. it ain't happening so please keep your DSLRs and, any P&S threads that come up, you can avoid.
Dave
kevin m
Veteran
Well said, Dave.
I think we've all gotten a bit spoiled, lately, and expecting a camera the size of a deck of playing cards to have DSLR features and IQ is simply silly. If you need to shoot in available light at iso 1600, then drag your DSLR along and stop griping.
I'm amazed at the pics I've gotten with both my Lumix FX-01 and Ricoh GX100, honestly. At low iso's, they're an adequate replacement for a 35mm film camera, IMO. And at high iso's, well, if they're a bit "impressionistic," then so be it. They still take better pictures than the camera I left home because it was too damned big.
I think we've all gotten a bit spoiled, lately, and expecting a camera the size of a deck of playing cards to have DSLR features and IQ is simply silly. If you need to shoot in available light at iso 1600, then drag your DSLR along and stop griping.
I'm amazed at the pics I've gotten with both my Lumix FX-01 and Ricoh GX100, honestly. At low iso's, they're an adequate replacement for a 35mm film camera, IMO. And at high iso's, well, if they're a bit "impressionistic," then so be it. They still take better pictures than the camera I left home because it was too damned big.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I think we've all gotten a bit spoiled, lately, and expecting a camera the size of a deck of playing cards to have DSLR features and IQ is simply silly. If you need to shoot in available light at iso 1600, then drag your DSLR along and stop griping.
I'm amazed at the pics I've gotten with both my Lumix FX-01 and Ricoh GX100, honestly. At low iso's, they're an adequate replacement for a 35mm film camera, IMO. And at high iso's, well, if they're a bit "impressionistic," then so be it. They still take better pictures than the camera I left home because it was too damned big.
hehe.. no kidding Kev...
I guess the only other thing I would say that we photographers don't do is print images often as we'd like to think we do.
So, really, is all that "extra noise" at ISO800 going to make a lick of difference @ 72dpi when the image is 600x400 pixels?
Dave
Pablito
coco frío
not sure what good that pretty external viewfinder is if it does not zoom along with the lens in the camera....
Last edited:
Avotius
Some guy
well said kev and dave, people who actually print images know that 100% pixle peeping is either the domain of very large prints or the weenies at the dpreview forums. Simple fact is this: this camera is a very exciting adition to cameras like the grd and g9 not to mention the dp1 and other small format cameras designed for a different use then a dslr.
Though many people don't seem to get that, and they don't understand they are talking about a completely different type of system, but the expect everything to be the same and produce the quality of a d3 or 5d, kind of the way they think their leica kit will give them the same quality of a medium format system. Not happening people, deal with it and use your systems within their true limitations, but most importantly go take pictures and stop being bitter.
Though many people don't seem to get that, and they don't understand they are talking about a completely different type of system, but the expect everything to be the same and produce the quality of a d3 or 5d, kind of the way they think their leica kit will give them the same quality of a medium format system. Not happening people, deal with it and use your systems within their true limitations, but most importantly go take pictures and stop being bitter.
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm realistic in my expectations regarding any point and shoot small sensor digital.
It's not that I think it should beat out my dslr (although, seeing as I have an old 300D, maybe they're not all that far off), it's just that there is a minimum performance below which I am not interested in playing.
If I could make a nice 8x10 at 400 iso, I might be happy. I won't complain if the camera can't do that, I just won't buy it.
It's more important to me for digtial to be relatively noise free than it is for film to be grain free. I like grain when appropriate, I've almost never seen noise I think is appropriate.
john_nyc
Established
It looks like a great concept, but those samples exhibit the same horrible Panasonic noise reduction (watercolor converter) that I see on my LX2.
It'd be a bit premature to judge this camera by those few questionable sample shots, though. Definitely bears further investigation when it's actually in the stores, though.
I guess we'll see... It's nice to see a mainstream camera manufacturer come out with something like this, though.
John
It'd be a bit premature to judge this camera by those few questionable sample shots, though. Definitely bears further investigation when it's actually in the stores, though.
I guess we'll see... It's nice to see a mainstream camera manufacturer come out with something like this, though.
John
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I feel the same way with just about everything I shoot. If I shoot in 35mm, I wish I'd had medium format with me.
Increasingly, when I shoot medium format, I wonder what a 5x7 field camera would be like. There's a line of thought there that must stop somewhere short of a 20x24 camera.