LX3 samples and reviews
The first reviews of the Panasonic LX3 are starting to appear, such as the one on PhotographyBlog.com.
The sample images on this site include the download of several RAW images. Unfortunately, Adobe Camera RAW (v4.5) will not open the .rw2 format so they aren’t that useful to me.
It’s a shame that the scene used in the image quality section’s ISO tests is a shelf of books. These are not blessed with much fine detail and are JPEG examples. The result is that you can’t tell much from them.
JPEG will inevitably have noise-reduction applied and the lack of fine detail in the source material means you can’t see if this noise reduction is removing it. The test shots do allow you to see noise levels though (admittedly through the rose-tinted specs of noise-reduction) and it seems acceptably clean up to 400 ISO. Beyond this it getting noticeable and even at 400 ISO you can see some break up around the letters on the left.
I found another set of ISO examples over at dcfever.com but it’s hard for me to tell what the settings are as I don’t read the language. The main issue is that the source scene for the examples is once again lacking in fine detail and so only really show noise, not the effects of noise-reduction.
The 3rd site, dcuser.net has a better source scene and multiple crops from it. The examples show both areas of smooth texture and highly detailed subjects.
These appear to show a camera capable of pretty decent image quality as the detail is not “washed out” by the noise reduction too much. At 400 ISO the noise levels are acceptable while very little detail is lost. I can only really see it going on the white paws of the cuddly bunny. Even at 800 ISO, while the noise is more obvious the detail is still by-and-large retained. It is starting to go from the paws and the face of the bunny but it’s really not bad for 800 ISO on a small sensor based camera. I’m assuming these are 100% crops without any additional post-exposure treatment but there’s not much information on the site and this could be a false assumption.
I’d like to see a more thorough test with comparisons against other cameras before I paid good money for the camera. I’d also like a lot more information about the optional, optical viewfinder and RAW mode operation. Then there’s Photokina and the possibility of other new models. The LX3 looks very interesting but I’ll hang on a little longer before I put down any hard-earned cash.
Submit to…
August 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Have you looked at the image samples of Sony DSC-W300? The sensor is 13.6 megapixels (1/1.7 inch). Compared to LX3, it doesn’t do at all badly.
Even though the W300 has some noise, it is reasonably clean even at ISO 400-800. Some reviewers - Luminous Landscape, dpexpert and Imaging Resource - even claim that ISO 1600 is usable, and it doesn’t seem to be too bad. On the other hand, there are other reviewers who are not so enthusiastic about the image quality.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
@ Juha
My main issue with the W300 would be the lack of RAW mode. It’s the same reason I didn’t upgrade to a G8 - that and a lens only going out to 35mm.
I have a long (too long) list of requirements for a pocket camera. If any model actually ticked all the boxes I’d be totally amazed. But up at the top of this list is good image quality, RAW, an optical viewfinder and a 28mm wide-angle (well, 30mm might do at a push).
The LX3, GX200 and GR-D2 make a good stab at these (okay, none have an optical viewfinder but they all have a hot-shoe allowing something to be added) but the W300 is missing both RAW and a wider-than-35mm lens. It’s a bit of a shame really, if the W300 had RAW it could just be a contender as it is tiny.
The piece on Luminous Landscapes looks interesting though if you can live without RAW. It has dated though - at the very least the Panasonic FX150 would be a rival as it’s tiny, has RAW, 14.7 megapixels and even a 28mm wide-angle asked for in the piece. No optical viewfinder though. If this is important and you need the zooming type too, you are going to really struggle to match it with RAW capability. It looks as if only Nikon’s (currently flawed) P6000 and the Canon G9 would fit the bill. Both of which are quite big.