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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 26, 2002, 2:01 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1
Default LC5 vs. Powershot G2

Dear Steve,
I have some questions befor I bye my first digital-camera concerning the LC5:
1. Is there a diffrence in image-quality between the LC5 and the Leica DigiLux1?
2. Is the image-quality changed (improved) scince Steve's review (Software-update?)?
3. Whats aubout the time between pressing the shutter release and taking an exposure? Is it significant shorter with the LC5 than for example with a powershot G2?
Thank You for your answers, Yours Jan
loettgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 26, 2002, 2:19 AM   #2
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

Funny you should ask ... I just updated my conclusion of the LC5/LC40 cameras. We have done some further testing and printed out some of the LC5 pics that we had commented on after seeing "weird" color patterns. Seems as if maybe they know something that we don't but the images when viewed at 100% or 200% do exhibit strange color patterns on the screen but they do make perfectly good prints. Large prints too, I did some 13x19" prints of our LC5 school house sample pic (red brick building) on my new Canon S9000 printer and it's very detailed and natural looking.

We did experience color problems with people's faces though, this can be seen on the samples page - there are three pics there, two of little girl and a third of the girl and her mother, the color is definitely off on these but correctable in Photoshop or another image editor.

The LC5 and Leica are the same camera, just different body colors and price.


-Steve
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2002, 1:55 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4
Default Picture quality of Panasonic DMC-LC5

Because of the Panasonic's sensitive CCD (the size of its pixels are larger than on most other CCD's), it uses 36-bits color depth. But that means that your PC also must: 1) have a video card that supports 36-bits color depth. 2) attune your color settings to 36-bits.
The fact that the prints are ok but the video display don't means that the video settings or the video card are not capable to match the required 36-bits color depth.
Nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2002, 6:01 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Default Lumix digital camera.....

I have been looking at the Lumix digital camera range myself and am contemplating purchasing the LC40.

Their site has a guy running around Rome taking pics and they seem fine to me?

The address is www.lumix.co.uk
NetWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2002, 3:48 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nobody
Because of the Panasonic's sensitive CCD (the size of its pixels are larger than on most other CCD's), it uses 36-bits color depth. But that means that your PC also must: 1) have a video card that supports 36-bits color depth. 2) attune your color settings to 36-bits.
The fact that the prints are ok but the video display don't means that the video settings or the video card are not capable to match the required 36-bits color depth.

will Steve ps comment?
and possibly do a re-review on this camera??

I don't suppose Panasonic would be that careless in letting sub standard quality cameras into the market.

I was thinking of getting one until I read your review and the one by Jeff Keller.

Will more LC5 and Digilux 1 users ps speak up and verify the reviews?
benson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2002, 1:17 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 28
Default I ordered mine-

I went ahead and took the plunge, ordered a LC5 from Outpost.com for $640 shipped- not a bad price! Plus they have a 30-day return policy, just in case I don't like it.

I just printed out an 8 x 10 of the m&m sample picture. It looks excellent to me, although I don't have a comparison pic yet (downloading the G2 pic now.) My printer is low on yellow so I can only judge resolution and clarity, not color. One thing I wish I had was an G2 ISO 100 pic to compare.

If you go to the dpreview.com forum for 'Other Cameras', there are some interesting threads on this camera. One person received a looooong response from Panasonic Canada. In a nutshell, they mentioned that the picture processing is designed to give a print just like film, while other digicams are optimized for screen and not print. I don't know if I buy it, but the thing is I don't have to- I can just print some pics and judge with my own eyes.

The camera has some definite things going for it. It's the first camera that has all of the following in something over 2 MP that is not a digital SLR-

-fast startup time
-fast lens
-fast focusing
-fast cycle time

ALL of these are important to me, and the G2 is lacking in 2 of them. If I was photographing still subjects I would probably get the G2 with its ISO 50 and RAW mode. But I primarily shoot my 1 year old daughter, and don't expect making too many prints bigger than 8 x 10.

I can post my impressions after I get the camera if you're interested-
madmaxmedia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2002, 4:25 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3
Default yo madmaxmedia

ps post ur findings..greatly appreciate it..
sort of given up on the LC 5 ..
but this is welcome info.

benson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2002, 5:00 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 28
Default update for now-

I still don't have the new camera yet (hopefully today), but I've been playing around with full sized test images. These are my impressions only, other eyes may notice more or less differences than me...

8 x 10's look great to me, basically equivalent to G2. Close enough that I can't really test the difference without using EXACT same comparison shots. Otherwise you have slight lighting and other differences that show up.

I then cropped the images to quarter size and printed another set of 8 x 10's, to simulate a 16 x 20. The noise starts showing up on the Panasonic, but it still holds up well. The G2 is definitely cleaner though. Both aren't perfect of course since this is a pretty big blowup for a 4 MP camera.

I then ran some Pannie shots through Neat Image, which is used to clean up high ISO noise. The ISO 200 shots come out very well, and the ISO 400 shots are still usable. I also did a ISO 400 G2 image from imaging-resource.com. Interestingly, it didn't clean up as well. I think it's because the G2 has more color ISO noise where the Pannie noise is more monochromatic.

Finally, I ran Neat Image on the Pannie ISO 100 shot. With a little optimization I think I can get a shot that is equivalent to the G2 ISO 50 shot. That's nice to know, as it's only required in the bigger prints. I'm guessing that image detail is probably good in the Pannie shots, with some unique looking noise than can be cleared up post-camera. I can't really assess this for sure, all I know is that the images can be improved if needed to my satisfaction.

More to come...

EDIT- I am printing on an HP Deskjet 920 I believe (not at home right now.) It's a relatively current model, but not top of the line.


[Edited on 7-31-2002 by madmaxmedia]
madmaxmedia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2002, 1:15 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 28
Default First Lumix test photos-

(this is a copy of my post at dpreview, it seems there are different people at the 2 boards)

Just got the camera last nite, so only played around with it for a little bit.


I will hold off on in-depth comments on the camera itself until later, as first impressions often change. Here are the pics (ain't pbase great! I really need to suscribe soon)

http://www.pbase.com/madmaxmedia/


One gallery is from my camera, and the other contains a few from this site and imaging-resource where I used NeatImage to clean up (before and after are included.) Clean-up of both Lumix and G2 photos can be further optimized, but I did about the same amount of tweaking for both. I'm also interested in trying Fred's Canon 1D here as Benny has.

What I am finding from my own pics is that in-focus objects have very good detail and clarity to me. Out-of-focus or blurry objects tend to display the noise. Long exposure time at ISO 100 was very clean, I'm normally accustomed to seeing more noise from lesser cameras.

More details and images to come, let me know what you think about these-

EDIT- Yet another tip I have heard from another user. Set the sharpness and contrast on 'low', which will reduce the posterization effect.

[Edited on 8-2-2002 by madmaxmedia]
madmaxmedia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2002, 6:42 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1
Default

Steve posted on 6-26-2002:
"Seems as if maybe they know something that we don't but the images when viewed at 100% or 200% do exhibit strange color patterns on the screen but they do make perfectly good prints."

There is an explanation for this Jekyll/Hyde behavior - as one guy already said it is in 36-bit color depth.

Easy to illustrate: change your monitor setting from True Color to 256 color and you will get "posterisation" on every single picture you would be viewing...

George

[Edited on 8-31-2002 by GeorgeH]
GeorgeH 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 9:44 AM.