Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 12, 2008, 10:43 PM   #1
my1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Default

I want to buy photocamera with HD video & with sensor not less then 1/1.8 (for less noise). I found several:
Kodak Z1275, Canon 960, Lumix FX100, Lumix LX2. I reject Kodak Z1275 immidiately because of non turn off NR existance & too much JPEG compression.
Canon 960 & as well has auful NR. Lumix FX100 looks nice because it has switchable NR, but it has great noise even at ISO 100.
I thought (Theoretically) that Lumix LX2 must have less noise because it has 10 MP on 1/1.65, but FX100 has 12 MP on 1/1.72.
But when I watch a sample pictures of LX2 I was in shock of extremly bad quality because on terrible NR. So I have to forget to save snaps by JPEG if I'd buy LX2!
Well LX2 has also RAW format. But I couldn't find samples in RAW for to look how much noise camera has.
Is somebody knows the link of LX2 sample in RAW (better portreit)?
And, if somebody has such camera or had an experience of comparison of these cameras, tell, please, is LX2 less noisely then FX100?
my1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 12, 2008, 11:17 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

my1 wrote:
Quote:
Is somebody knows the link of LX2 sample in RAW (better portreit)?
And, if somebody has such camera or had an experience of comparison of these cameras, tell, please, is LX2 less noisely then FX100?
Here is a folder of LX2 images that were created from RAW files..

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/galler...8_wzxnV#P-1-15

I consider the files shot at ISO 100 and 200 as excellent in quality, and ISO 400 is very good. By shooting RAW you are the one who determines how much noise reduction to apply vs. detail you may lose if too much is applied. My preference is to leave a little noise and keep as much detail as possible by the time you hit ISO 400, but ISO 100 and 200 files are very clean.

I have printed several of these on 11x14 paper. The actual print area on that size paper is around 8x14 with white strips on the long sides, and they look fantastic.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 3:36 AM   #3
my1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks. But I still not sure. As I see ISO 200 quite good even for croping, ISO 400 only for printing, ISO 100 - exellent. But why, for example,grass on thepic №126 looks smooth, not sharp, it's not able for croping. I compare it with FX100 samples at

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/l...els/fx100.html

(portreit of girl), and can say that FX100 makes more natural snaps. Well, probably it can be because of JPEG compression, sample of FX100 bigger than the one of LX2. That's why I'd like to whatch RAW.

And you wrote that snaping RAW NR is still working?

I thought that RAW do nothing with picture. Am I right?
my1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 8:34 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

my1 wrote:
Quote:

And you wrote that snaping RAW NR is still working?

No, I did not say that at all. You apply noise reduction after you download the images to your computerin the RAW converter.

I can't see which picture you are referring to as #126. I am looking at the file numbers in the EXIF dataand don't see that image number, but thefiles where I seegrass, the rendering of it for me is fine. Ifa big consideration for youis resolving fine blades of grass in landscapes, you may need to be going to a larger format.

As I mentioned, I'm perfectly happy with the results I get. Maybe you need the FX100, or evensomething else.

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 11:16 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

Every camera is a compromise and I believe the camera mfgs making these compromises for us is at best a poor choice.....as the public seems to believe that more mps are a great thing......and while with small sensor cameras thats not true.....and in the case of looking for a larger sensor the only reason the mfgs do that is to cram more mps in the sensor.......IMHO its like the FZ30 8mp on the 1/1.8 sensor was good but look what happened with the FZ50 , more mp and more NR.

I think I have given up on a camera with less NR......now to find HD video also, another problem......I do believe the new Casio may fit that bill but its not out yet......but a large sensor and 6mp with HD video......maybe.

my1 wrote: [/b]
Quote:
I want to buy photocamera with HD video & with sensor not less then 1/1.8 (for less noise). I found several:
Kodak Z1275, Canon 960, Lumix FX100, Lumix LX2. I reject Kodak Z1275 immidiately because of non turn off NR existance & too much JPEG compression.
Canon 960 & as well has auful NR. Lumix FX100 looks nice because it has switchable NR, but it has great noise even at ISO 100.
I thought (Theoretically) that Lumix LX2 must have less noise because it has 10 MP on 1/1.65, but FX100 has 12 MP on 1/1.72.
But when I watch a sample pictures of LX2 I was in shock of extremly bad quality because on terrible NR. So I have to forget to save snaps by JPEG if I'd buy LX2!
Well LX2 has also RAW format. But I couldn't find samples in RAW for to look how much noise camera has.
Is somebody knows the link of LX2 sample in RAW (better portreit)?
And, if somebody has such camera or had an experience of comparison of these cameras, tell, please, is LX2 less noisely then FX100?
genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 5:03 PM   #6
my1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks. Now I know the main things: FX100 isnoiser then LX2, and the NR (which I hate) can be turned off snaping RAW. Great! At least for this year this camera will bea good choice.

As for FZ30, I think it's good camera, but the price is the same as SLR Nikon D50, I'd better buy SLR for no noise at all.

What about Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 which has HD1080 and 6MP on 1/1.8. Unfortunately it has 12(!) lens, pictures will be very poor. Less lens - more quality, and Casio has bad reputation about optics. Receintly I had Casio V7, and sell it immidiately, I was very upset about "pictures" that it made. And the price of F1 around $1000, it's too much.

Actualy, I was waiting a SIGMA DP1 which have terrific features as no noise at all, but it still notsell.


my1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 8:49 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

I have a FZ30 and a D50 and if you think you can duplicate the performance of the FZ30 with a D50 for the same price you are sadly mistaken......you can equal or better the performance but at a considerable cost.

And it makes little difference if you do the NR or the camera does it, the results are very similar....

Good luck with your decision.
genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 9:48 PM   #8
my1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Default

You mean that D50 worse in qualitythen FZ30? Strange. But why? Nikon optics arenot bad as I know and big sensor must give excellent quality. I evenwas going receintly to buy second hand D50 for $500. The only thing that I don't like inD50 is no video.
my1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2008, 6:25 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

D50 photos are at least as good as FZ30 photos ....much less noise and I would say more Dynamic range......and most any Nikon lens will give as much or more resolution than the FZ30......what I meant was to get a stabilized lens or in fact more than one lens can not be had for less than 1500 dollars.

You could get Non stabilized lense for much less but to match the performance of a FZ30......I paid 500 for a D50 .....650 for a 18 to 200VR and 1000 for a Sigma 80 to 400 the equivilant Nikon lens was 500 dollars more.... as you can see 2100 to 2700 dollars is much more than the price of the FZ30. Then a low light lens another 100 bucks.....The FZ cameras are real bargains.

And in good light you will be hard pressed to notice much difference in IQ. There is a difference but is it worth a couple thousand dollars .....it was to me but perhaps not to most people.

There is a nice Nikon 70 to 300 VR lens for about 500 dollars that may work well for some folks when coupled with the kit lens, thats much cheaper but there goes the convinience... Everything is a trade off.

But with that one camera you mentioned you could get a D40 and a kit lens (under 500 dollars) and its my guess you would get much better photos...very little noise and no NR....but no movies...

I am quite confident in the direction I wish to move at this time but I would not attempt to convince anyone else.
genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2008, 10:10 PM   #10
my1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks. Now I see. And now I know my way: for this year I will buy Lumix LX2 for low dimentions & HD video, and for next year I'd buy second handCasio Exilim Pro EX-F1 for it's terrific specifications. At present time it's too costly.
my1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:12 AM.