Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:07 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:04 am 
The photos won't show up for me (tried two browsers) but the benefits of a larger sensor are unlikely to show up at 100 ISO and will only manifest themselves under high ISO settings. The same shots at 800 or 1600 ISO will be of much more interest.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: pixels
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:27 am 
There's an article on the Web that describes some of this, the conclusion being that, in spite of more noise with smaller sensors, generally the more pixels the better. However, if you look at my castle photo in the same forum titled Small Camera Pixels, you'll see an image shot in ideal conditions, with so much smear it's scary.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:04 pm 
Cam-I-Am wrote:
The photos won't show up for me (tried two browsers) but the benefits of a larger sensor are unlikely to show up at 100 ISO and will only manifest themselves under high ISO settings. The same shots at 800 or 1600 ISO will be of much more interest.


Not only will the benefit of the larger sensor be visible there, but also (and more prominently I believe) the huge advantage of having such bright optics as the LX-3 has... an f2.0, as has been discussed before, will be capable of shooting at ISO 400 what most other camera with their f3.5's will shoot at ISO 800 (or more).


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: pixels
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
dalethorn wrote:
There's an article on the Web that describes some of this, the conclusion being that, in spite of more noise with smaller sensors, generally the more pixels the better. However, if you look at my castle photo in the same forum titled Small Camera Pixels, you'll see an image shot in ideal conditions, with so much smear it's scary.

I'd like to learn more about this. Would you mind posting a link to the article? A link to your castle photo would be handy too. Thanks! -Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: pixels
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:22 am 
fwchapman wrote:
I'd like to learn more about this. Would you mind posting a link to the article? A link to your castle photo would be handy too. Thanks! -Fred

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/07/ ... etter.html
Above is the pixels article. Sure to cause consternation here. The castle pic and LX3 pics are at luminous-landscape.com -- just click on forum and then user critiques. You'll see them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:50 am 
No consternation here:

Quote:
* In good light at low ISO, apparent detail/noise is better with smaller pixels.
* In low light at high ISO, apparent detail/noise is better with large pixels, though less so at the image level than at the pixel level.
* Dynamic range and quality of color/tones is generally better with large pixels, especially at higher ISO values. Again, this is less the case at the image level than at the pixel level, but it is a noticeable difference even in the former case.

The right distinction between high and low ISO situations is made.


About the part concerning the 400D vs. FZ50 thread. Anybody who wants to be able to interpret the statements made in that thread should first make sure they fully understand the implications of that rather important bit of information here:

Quote:
He shot an ISO 100 image with an actual (not effective) focal length of 22mm on each camera.

and understand what the complete photos looked like! And separate from that focal length, the fact that it involves photos shot at 100 ISO is also limiting the relevance of any observation there considering the correct statements about high/low ISO in the first quote.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: pixels noise
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:21 am 
Well, Ben, it's not about the techie issues. It's about whether I can pull the little camera out of my pocket on an average day in average daylight and get a decent photo without getting a migrane over "noise" or some other technical matter. And the answer is yes, I can, 100 percent of the time. The other so-called "low light" issues aren't a slam dunk for big heavy cameras, which is why so many of them use flash. I will challenge anyone on this forum to follow me around on the weekends, including photo-club walks, and see for themselves if anyone is getting better photos than me. The answer to that will be no, guaranteed. Why? Because those other people 1) Are too involved with techie issues to get many good photos, 2) Are too limited in their movements to get many good photos, and 3) Don't ever share while out and about, for good reason I suspect.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:33 am 
Well Dale. For a large part I agree with you that it is, or should be, largely about the fun part of being able to take good photos. And in a very large part of the situations modern compacts can do that for us. But how wonderful and powerful these little contraptions may be, like everything they have their limits, as DSLRs have their limits too.

I am a 'compact' user myself and as I have said I really like my Fuji Superzoom with a 'compact' sensor which in a lot of situations can give me the photos I want/am satisfied with.... but not in all situations. As long as you use a camera within the limits it is designed for you won't notice the limitations it has. But I tend to push my camera to the limits and when I do so I regularly run into these limits and go beyond them. And that's when I get blurry photos. I then have to increase the ISO setting to allow for a shorter shutter time but then my images get noisy and lose detail and I know that a camera with bigger pixels would have allowed me to up the ISO and still have usable noise levels and much better looking images. It happens when I want to shoot at maximum zoom AND in low light AND want to crop to part of the image. That's just too much to ask from a camera like this. It's outside its design parameters and I know it, so I accept it.... to an extent. Because I also know that there is a sweet spot where the number of pixels is balanced just right with pixel size and with zoom range so it will give me the maximum amount of situations in which I will be able to shoot photos that will be to MY satisfaction.

With the current level of sensor noise many people start to feel that the emphasis on number of pixels has gone too far. It is a trade-off after all. What you gain in sunny weather resolution you lose in low light resolution and many people feel they would rather have more low light resolution and would happily sacrifice some sunny weather resolution for that, as is their good right if that is what they prefer.

But do I run out and get myself a DSLR when I run into the limitations of my Superzoom? Not yet, because I like the compact versatile all-in-one aspects of my camera. But if I were to design my 'ideal' camera its specifications would be slightly different. It would probably be an updated version of the Fuji S9600 (with IS and a slightly bigger LCD and newer processor). That camera has a pixel density of 20 Mp/cm^2 where mine has 33 Mp/cm^2 and it has noticeably better low light performance. It doesn't have fewer pixels but slightly more (9 Mp vs. 8 Mp) but it sacrifices zoom range as a trade-off. And I expect that combination to be nearer to what I(!!!) consider to be that sweet spot of specifications combination, and quite possibly many people would agree with me. But unfortunately that camera currently doesn't exist yet (bring on a S9700 Fuji :) ). And that is my (little) frustration and the frustration of many others. But I won't lose any sleep over it.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: pixels
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:38 pm 
[quote="Cam-I-Am"]Well Dale. For a large part I agree with you that it is, or should be, largely about the fun part of being able to take good photos. And in a very large part of the situations modern compacts can do that for us. But how wonderful and powerful these little contraptions may be, like everything they have their limits, as DSLRs have their limits too.

I am a 'compact' user myself and as I have said I really like my Fuji Superzoom with a 'compact' sensor which in a lot of situations can give me the photos I want/am satisfied with.... but not in all situations. As long as you use a camera within the limits it is designed for you won't notice the limitations it has. But I tend to push my camera to the limits and when I do so I regularly run into these limits and go beyond them. And that's when I get blurry photos. I then have to increase the ISO setting to allow for a shorter .......

.....Several years ago I printed 11x14 inch photos from 8x11 mm Minox negatives. Grain free and sharp. Compact camera limitations are nowhere near that big of a challenge.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Dennis Hissink posted a brief review of the LX3 today on Photokina-Show.com:

http://www.photokina-show.com/0591/pana ... 3-reviews/

After offering some interesting commentary which puts the LX3 into a larger context, he links to a full review on LetsGoDigital.org:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/panason ... eview.html

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:02 pm 
fwchapman wrote:
Dennis Hissink posted a brief review of the LX3 today.......
After offering some interesting commentary which puts the LX3 into a larger context.......
Fred

All of this is two months old - nothing new. First, a pocket camera for landscape and architecture? Who's making this stuff up? Maybe someday if a pocket camera has enough pixels for the details, but not today. You can check my photos at Luminous Landscape, and see pixel *smear* all over the images, which were shot under *ideal* conditions. Nobody could use this for landscape and architecture unless the clients have very poor vision, or no taste for quality.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
dalethorn wrote:
fwchapman wrote:
Dennis Hissink posted a brief review of the LX3 today.......
After offering some interesting commentary which puts the LX3 into a larger context.......
Fred

All of this is two months old - nothing new. First, a pocket camera for landscape and architecture? Who's making this stuff up? Maybe someday if a pocket camera has enough pixels for the details, but not today. You can check my photos at Luminous Landscape, and see pixel *smear* all over the images, which were shot under *ideal* conditions. Nobody could use this for landscape and architecture unless the clients have very poor vision, or no taste for quality.

Dale, how do you know this is two months old? The first review has today's date on it and the second review has no date.

By the way, just because I post 'em doesn't mean I agree with 'em. Please don't shoot the messenger. :)

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:11 pm 
fwchapman wrote:
Dale, how do you know this is two months old? The first review has today's date on it and the second review has no date.
By the way, just because I post 'em doesn't mean I agree with 'em. Please don't shoot the messenger.
Fred

No shooting here, but this idea of wide angle being essential on a pocket P&S is so bad, I have to tell the world, otherwise people will start believing this stuff. Regardless of the date of the post, the actual info content is just a regurgitation of the Dpreview and other sites' postings from two months ago. I will continue posting new (real!) images from time to time, with comments, which will hopefully show what the camera can and cannot do. Until then, all we're hearing from the reviewers is Panasonic's propaganda, reworded to look original.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
dalethorn wrote:
No shooting here, but this idea of wide angle being essential on a pocket P&S is so bad, I have to tell the world, otherwise people will start believing this stuff. Regardless of the date of the post, the actual info content is just a regurgitation of the Dpreview and other sites' postings from two months ago. I will continue posting new (real!) images from time to time, with comments, which will hopefully show what the camera can and cannot do. Until then, all we're hearing from the reviewers is Panasonic's propaganda, reworded to look original.

Dale, thanks for clarifying your points. Maybe 24mm isn't necessary on a P&S, but I do like the idea of having a 27mm or 28mm wide angle at my disposal. It does have some practical benefits, no? Maybe they're overselling it, but it's still handy to have a wide angle option, isn't it?

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Wide angle
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:14 am 
How handy is a wide angle lens? Depends on what you shoot. I have no problem with wide angle on an appropriate camera, but on the LX3 it's like lipstick on a pig, to borrow a phrase. I carry the LX3 and TZ5, and most shots are with the TZ5 since the 60mm LX3 can't reach far. Sadly, when shooting in a familiar area (90 pct. of the time), it's the TZ5 all the time, since the new opportunities that arise are non-landscape and require zoom, i.e. the landscapes, bad as they are, are done to death in the first month, and what's left are the spontaneous, which nearly always require a zoom. Look at my images on the LL forum, shot at about 40-60mm zoom, and imagine them with 24mm, i.e. smaller details and much more pixel smear per object in the image. Not pretty.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group