Arne Hvaring posted the following commentary and photos in a discussion which took place today in the GetDPI forums. We were discussing Michael Reichmann's G10-P6000 comparison on The Luminous Landscape (mentioned earlier today on the blog):
Here are a few things MR didn't tell you :)
The DPP RAW conversion of G10 files introduces significant and sometimes rather bizarre artefacts. In default mode it also seems to sharpen the image to such an extent that any further sharpening looks overdone. MR uses "another RAW converter" which might be better, but officially DPP is the only game in town at the moment. The files of P6000 converted in ACR looks rather soft in comparison, but have much less demosaicing artefacts. The Nikon files can be PP significantly and sharpened a lot before becoming ugly.
Below you'll see the full image, then 100% crops first from G10, then P6000. The crop is taken quite a bit from the edge of the picture and yet also the sharpness degradation (actually in the form of doubling of contours) of the Canon lens can be seen. But mainly the crops show the curious mess DPP/G10 makes of the green bush. The P6000 file is sharpened moderately and looks to me more natural and 3-dimensional.
The next two crops (Canon first) are from a more central part of the same image. While the Canon shows slightly more fine-detail resolution, it comes at a price. The diagonals (white wooden boards a.o.) have rather rough stair pixelling, and the tiles show much the same. The Nikon is more well behaved and looks smoother and more natural. The good news for G10 users is that most of these artifacts are not really visible in print, even up to A3+.
I find it curious that MR didn't notice the loss of sharpness in the outer zone of the Canon lens. Like Amin I noticed it immediately in the images posted in Photography Blog, and I have confirmed it in my own testing. In fairness it should be mentioned that the softness is significantly less at the longer focal lenghts. The Nikon lens is more conservatively specified, both in regard to zoom range (4x vs. 5x) and in speed and it shows. It draws nicely and evenly over the full imaging area.
Finally, let's not make too much of this, first of all we are comparing only two cameras, sample variation might throw this off completely. Secondly, even as it stands, both are state of the art small sensor cameras capable of excellent output.
Which one did I keep? By a small margin the P6000 (main reason: on the whole a better lens and smaller/lighter camera), but with better optical performance than my copy showed, it might just as well have been the G10.
I haven't done any rigorous testing yet with the D-LUX 4, but I thought I'd share some high ISO samples from RAW. I believe the D-LUX 4 RAW files to be identical to LX3 files, so I refer to them interchangeably.
With most compacts, I'd set the flash to auto before handing the camera to my wife Virginia to take this picture:
The most remarkable thing about that photo is that Gini focused on me and my son Oliver. She nearly always manages to focus on the background. The second most remarkable thing is that this was an ISO 800 in-camera JPEG, resized by Flickr with no other processing whatsoever. I think it looks pretty good considering the shutter speed of 1/50s and ISO 800. However, the real key here is the f-stop, f/2.6. At this angle of view (48mm equivalent), most compacts would have been ~f/3.5, requiring ISO 1600 for the same shutter speed. Although image stabilization allows for slower shutter speeds than 1/50s, those of you with small children will understand that keeper rate is often determined by subject motion rather than a handshake blur.
I've processed this image five ways for sake of comparison: 1) In-camera JPEG, no alterations; 2) Silkypix, default settings, + chroma noise reduction (NR) using Noise Ninja (NN); 3) Capture One (C1), default settings; 4) Raw Developer, NR/sharpening disabled + chroma NR using NN; 5) Raw Developer, NR/sharpening disabled + chroma and luminance NR using NN. With each RAW processor, I adjusted colors/curves to taste. Disclaimer: I'm not used to Silkypix. The in-camera JPEG white balance was left on automatic and not subsequently altered.
I find that 50% crops give a rough idea of how things will look in a large print. A comparison of the 50% crops is below. The 100% crops are at the end of this post.
I'm also finding some utility for ISO 1600. Here's a processed RAW at ISO 1600, 60mm equivalent focal length, f/2.8, and 1/60s:
That's more noise reduction than I would usually apply. It's similar to the output of the Fuji F31 at high ISO, though the Fuji would arguably give a better result at ISO 1600. However, here the Fuji would have needed ISO 3200 because of the difference in lens speed.
A wise person in the DPR forums recently said "And if all else fails, convert to black and white and tell everyone that was the 'look' you were going for." With that in mind, here is a black and white conversion of the same photo, with no noise reduction whatsoever:
Here are those 100% crops from the ISO 800 example, beginning with the in-camera JPEG:
Silkypix, default settings, + chroma NR using NN:
Capture One, default settings:
Raw Developer, NR/sharpening disabled + chroma NR using NN:
Raw Developer + chroma and luminance NR using NN:
So far, I prefer the results of Raw Developer with chroma NR only. Read More......
The Panasonic LX3 ships with Silkypix, and the Leica D-LUX 4 ships with Capture One. However, if you want to extract the maximum detail possible from your new camera's RAW files, consider using Raw Therapee (latest beta version has LX3 support) on Windows/Linux or Raw Developer on the Mac. The results may surprise you!
Raw Therapee also includes tools to correct CA and lens distortion. Henry Stahle has shared the following prescription for addressing the LX3 distortion in Raw Therapee: "The barrel distortion requires a -015 setting to correct the 24 mm lens. I just made a 24 mm profile and saved it."
Wouter Brandsma has posted his thoughts based on extended use of the Ricoh GX200. He discusses in detail issues related to camera handling, image quality, and workflow. The LX3, G10, and P6000 are getting most of the attention, at least in the United States, but the GX200 should be high on the list of anyone considering an advanced compact camera with the ability to shoot RAW.
I'd like to gauge interest in the possibility of another shootout. I was thinking that a comparison of image quality (center and corner detail, dynamic range, high ISO performance, flare resistance, color fringing, etc) from RAW using an "impartial" converter such as dcraw is currently lacking amongst the various sites which are currently testing advanced compacts. The ones which do examine RAW files all seem to use Adobe Camera Raw, which applies different amounts of sharpening and noise reduction to different cameras.
The purpose of the following poll is to help me gauge general interest in such a shootout as well as specific interest in various cameras. I have access to a number of these cameras, but time to perform testing and analyze/present results is limited so I'd like to focus on just two or three of them. Most of the testing will be at the 28mm angle of view (in 35mm photography terms).
Michael Reichmann has published his comparison of the Nikon P6000 and Canon G10 along with some references to the Panasonic LX3/D-LUX 4. No spoilers here, but I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on this one, as I'm considering another shootout.
Addendum (spoiler alert, do not read below until you have read the LL article):
Having read the article a couple times now, I'm not sure the crops shown are doing justice to the P6000 relative to the G10. Consider the following full-res JPEGs from PhotographyBLOG: Canon G10 Nikon P6000
Note how the G10 is clearly outresolving the P6000 in the center of the frame; yet when you go out to the periphery, there is significant degradation of G10 image quality while the Nikon holds out right to the corners. Not one of the crops used in the L.L. comparison were taken from the peripheral region of the selected frame.
I don't agree that the P6000 is "uncompetitive" against both the G10 and the LX3. Sure the G10 is more fully featured, resolves more detail (at least in the center), and is almost a stop faster on the tele end. However, if the G10 is too large and heavy for you and the LX3 and GX200 don't go long enough to suit you, the P6000 is the obvious choice. It's good that we once again have a number of different choices amongst compact cameras that offer RAW. Not long ago, Panasonic and Ricoh were the only ones.
Ken Rockwell just published his G10 review, and it's worth reading with a caveat: Ken shoots JPEG only, so his findings regarding image quality are of limited applicability to those of us who shoot RAW.
This morning, The New York Times published a Panasonic G1 review by David Pogue. I enjoy Pogue's reviews. He has a way of explaining technology to non-techy readers while also providing some pearls for enthusiasts, geeks and gearheads.
The next afternoon I hiked into the forest with my tripod, Hasselblad H2 and P45+ with the Hasselblad 55-110mm lens attached, and photographed a lovely deep forest fall scene. As I stood there wondering where to go next I put my hands in my vest pocket (it was a chilly fall morning), and there was the Canon G10.
Humm! I wonder how the it would compare with the H2/P45+ combo in a critically controlled side-by-side comparison. Nahh! Silly idea.
But – nothing ventured, etc, and so without a tripod mount for the G10 I simply held it firmly braced on top of the Hassy and did an exposure, framing the shot as closely as I could to what I'd done on the Hasselblad.
If that article makes you want a G10, good timing. Amazon has them in stock and just dropped the price to $482 shipped.
Featured Comment by Walter K:
Michael Reichmann generally provides valuable information on his site, particularly when it comes to real field testing of DSLRs and Medium Format equipment, a service that most other review sites don't provide. His occasional forays into the realm of better quality compact digital cameras can be useful too. But not this time.
Michael Reichmann's recent experiment with Canon's G10 got my attention: “Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?" The answer, he seems to be saying, is yes, proclaiming that the "G10 has crossed a threshold". But after evaluating the full res files from the G10 and Phase One P45+ Back it's difficult to know exactly what threshold the G10 has crossed. The subject matter and conditions in which the test was conducted could not be more ill suited to comparing these two cameras.
When I first looked at the medium format image file at 100% I was taken aback at how much of the scene was out of focus due to shallow depth of field. The 1 second exposure further contributed to an overall softness of the scene as leaves are clearly being blown around by the wind. By contrast, as Reichmann admits, the G10 file has an overall crispness due to the shorter focal length lens and shorter shutter speed of 1/8 of a second (and what looks to me like over–sharpening). The medium format is thus at a distinct disadvantage, especially if one is expected to evaluate resolution and acutance in a super A3 print. Yet, in a ploy to dramatize the G10 underdog status in the story Reichmann states: "Overall if there was any technical bias in the test it was in favor of the medium format system".
Furthermore, there are additional problems related to the character of surface textures in the test scene. Noise is prominent in the G10 file, but the texture of tree bark and ground cover (the few areas of the scene that are reliably sharp) would most certainly act to camouflage adverse effects of noise artifacts in prints, further equalizing the apparent quality of the two cameras.
It would have been far more informative to readers to approach the experiment by showing both cameras performing optimally in the field, even if limiting the test to super A3 size print. Only then do you get to draw a conclusion (and a limited one at that) about the image quality between $500 camera and $40,000 system.
You can’t excuse a poorly conducted test by calling it “informal”. It’s still a poorly conducted test and few conclusions of any value can be drawn. The whole enterprise, accompanied as it is with so many caveats, yet so positive in its “threshold” crossing proclamations, only serves to undermine the credibility of the author and call in to questions his analytical skills.
PhotographyBLOG has posted sample photos from the Nikon P6000 and Canon G10 in preparation for their upcoming reviews. There are 40 full-resolution in-camera JPEGs, 9 RAW files, and one sample video for each camera.
The subject matter is the same for many of the photos in each set, so this is a good chance to compare the relative performance of these cameras. A few of the matched samples favored the Canon, but overall I came away impressed with the corner to corner performance of the Nikon. I still think Nikon made a mistake putting such a slow (f/5.9 at the tele end) lens in their flagship compact, but the PhotographyBLOG P6000 samples are promising.
Via 1001 Noisy Cameras comes word of a series of 12 full-resolution Panasonic G1 sample images posted at Memobility.net. If you can't get enough of the G1, check out the Panasonic G1 diary at 1001 Noisy Cameras.
I received the following email from Stephen Gillette today thought it might be interesting to Serious Compacts readers:
With the flurry of reviews out there for the Panasonic LX3, the opportunity to compare "test chart" shots with various other serious compacts leads to some personal confusion.
I'm seeing test images (the new Imaging Resource "Still Life" shots at various ISO's for example) that seem to back up Panasonic's IQ claims ("the best ever in a compact"), but then I'm seeing real life samples, particularly in low light, that are not as conclusive.
This past weekend I did some shooting in a mothballed power plant in Redondo Beach, just south of Los Angeles. Lighting was mixed and tricky, with sunlight filtered through frosted glass bricks combined with three or four types of interior lights, all with widely varying color temps.
One interior shot I took with my G9 was wide open at f/2.8 (the light level did not allow me to use the "sweetest" aperture of f/4). Even at ISO 400, the shutter speed was 1/10 second, so I was also relying upon the IS for this hand-held shot.
The RAW capture was minimally processed, with no noise reduction, just some sharpening (which also sharpened the noise!). Still, with all these caveats, I like the quality of the shot quite a bit. You might find it interesting, too.
Here's a resized version of Steve's photograph:
You can download the full-res, 12MP version below.
From the same email:
As far as shooting gear, I'm content to keep shooting the G9 until Fuji releases its premium compact with the new Super CCD EXR sensor in the spring, or until a micro 4/3 offering from Panasonic or Olympus comes along with HD video as part of the deal. And true pocketibility.
Ever notice: the better things get in regards to digicams, (and things have gotten very good of late), the pickier we shooters get!
[When my dream cam is released, they better have it in my favorite color...]
Stephen Gillette is a fine art photographer in Trabuco Canyon, California. All of Steve's work has been done with small sensor compacts: Sony P-150, then Fuji F20, and now Canon G9. You can visit his website at www.stephengillette.com.
Read More......
Here's what Panasonic has to say about the LX3 lens:
Here's an uncropped, resized in-camera JPEG at 24mm equivalent, 16:9 aspect ratio with my D-LUX 4 (same lens as LX3):
Here's the same photo processed from RAW without correction of distortion:
It takes about a +15 distortion adjustment in the Photoshop lens correction tool to eliminate the barrel, and then one has to crop to ~88% in each dimension to get rid of the empty space. In 16:9 aspect, that cropping decreases the image from 8.9MP to roughly 7MP.
Panasonic has been open about the fact that they have been correcting lens distortion in camera for years now. Reviewers were impressed by the low distortion wide angle 18x zoom in the Panasonic FZ18. By leaving a bit of barrel distortion uncorrected and shipping both the LX3 and D-LUX 4 with a RAW converter that automatically applies the same correction as the in-camera processing, Panasonic has made it so that only a minority of reviewers and customers will take notice.
Consider how wide the LX3's lens is, I was surprised to see that barrel distortion is relatively modest. If you want to see what this does to your photos in real life, have a look at the building on the right side of this photo. I didn't find corner blurriness or vignetting (dark corners) to be a problem, either. All three of these things are a testament to the quality of the LX3's lens.
The Panasonic LX3's 0.6% barrel distortion at wide angle is actually quite low compared to the average digital camera, and really surprisingly low considering its 24mm equivalent focal length.
Personally, I have no objection to the fact that Panasonic corrects lens distortion in software, nor do I think that they have a responsibility to tell everyone about it. However, I do think they go a bit too far with explicit claims that the Summicron lens is responsible for the low distortion.
The Panasonic LX3 and Leica D-LUX 4 automatically correct in-camera JPEGs for barrel distortion and color fringing. The two cameras also ship with RAW converters, Silkypix and Capture One respectively, which apply the same automatic corrections. However, using a third party RAW converter, one can see marked barrel distortion and significant color fringing.
Below, you will find some files for download. I chose a high contrast scene to challenge the camera's dynamic range.
The "Converted RAW" file is a JPEG processed from RAW using Raw Developer (Mac). It shows the uncorrected barrel distortion and purple fringing at ~28mm equivalent and 3:2 aspect. Note that the barrel distortion is even more severe at 24mm equivalent and/or 16:9 aspect. The "In-camera JPEG" file demonstrates the file as corrected in camera. The third file is RAW. To convert the RAW file using Raw Developer, you must first change the extension from .RWL (D-LUX 4 extension) to .RW2 (LX3 extension). There is a fourth file to download, "SDIM0492", which is a Sigma DP1 ISO 100 image of the same scene. You can process this Sigma RAW using Lightroom/ACR or Sigma Photo Pro if you want to see how it compares to the D-LUX file.
Below, you can download the ISO 400 files for the same scene. Once again, a Sigma DP1 RAW file is included for comparison. At both base ISO and ISO 400, the converted RAWs contrast the in-camera JPEGs not only from a standpoint of color fringing and distortion, but also noise, color, and highlight retention.
If you've been waiting for the lowest price on an LX3 without going the Microsoft/Ebay cashback route, this may be the ticket. J&R has them in stock and is selling for $399.99 with free shipping.
Update: Sixth Ave has them for $398.54, but I've not dealt with them. I have bought from J&R with good results. Both Sixth Ave and J&R can be accessed via the link above.
Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape has kept up with a number of advanced compacts, offering reviews of the Ricoh GX100, Canon G9, Sigma DP-1, Samsung NV24-HD, and Sony W300 over the course of the past year. Today Michael added the Panasonic LX3 to that list. I won't give away the bottom line here.
Edward Taylor has written an excellent "first impressions article" on the Canon G10 for The Online Photographer. Like his review of the Sigma DP1 for T.O.P., the G10 review is written from a practical standpoint. He begins:
For serious photographers, whenever we turn our attention toward small cameras, we want to know if we are able to do serious work with them. We all know that even a plastic toy camera can produce stunning art, but that is not what we mean. We want a camera that is responsive, flexible and has sufficient image quality—so that small size is an advantage, not a compromise.
Microsoft's Live.com program is offering 30% cashback for Ebay "Buy It Now" purchases made using PayPal. For example, you can get a Canon G10 for $350 or a Panasonic LX3 for $330 (before shipping).
Basically, this is a Microsoft program to get people using Live.com search. If you click on a sponsored Ebay ad on a Live.com search, use the "Buy It Now" option, pay using Paypal, and register with Microsoft, they (Microsoft) will send you 30% cashback (up to $200 maximum cash back per purchase) after 60 days. It sounds like a lot, but I just used it to buy a compact, and it was relatively quick and painless. Fingers crossed I get the cash back =).
See this post for the specifics, including an example of how to use the deal to buy a Panasonic LX3.
Make sure you buy from a good seller. At a minimum, make sure there is recent positive feedback from buyers who bought valuable photography gear, and double check with the manufacturer website before believing that any Ebay seller is an authorized dealer.
Click on the eBay paid search advertisement marked with the Live Search cashback logo that looks like this:
Search Ebay for a good "Buy It Now" price on an LX3 from a reputable dealer.
On the product page, you should still see the 30% offer at the top if the deal is still on. It should look like this (see the green label at the top):
Click on the blue "Buy It Now" button.
Before clicking "Commit to Buy", be sure that it explicitly tells you that you will be getting 30% off via Microsoft cashback. For example, you would not want to commit to pay if you get the following message (ineligible due to seller's use of third-party checkout:
Confirm your purchase by clicking "Commit to Buy" and then pay entirely by PayPal (purchase must occur within 60 minutes of your clicking on the eBay paid search advertisement marked with the Live Search cashback logo).
Check your Ebay messages for further instructions on getting your 30% cashback from Microsoft. They will require you to set up a program account with Microsoft in order to get the cashback. Your Live.com account will show the cashback amount after Ebay notifies them (~2 days later). Cashback will be issued after 60 days so that Microsoft knows they're not issuing cashback on returned purchases.
Note that this deal is not limited to the Panasonic LX3. All "Buy It Now" purchases made on Ebay (but not www.express.ebay.com or www.half.ebay.com;) and paid with PayPal are eligible with the exceptions of automobiles (and other vehicles) and real estate. The maximum cashback you can get on a purchase is $200. Additional terms and conditions for the 30% cashback deal can be found here.Read More......
DC Watch (Japan) has published on the Canon G10 their standard initial battery of tests. These include a look at sharpness at different focal lengths and apertures, bokeh, distortion, high ISO performance, and more. It is interesting to compare the G10 tests to the initial DC Watch tests for the Panasonic LX3.
For example, take a look at the ISO 80, f/4 output from these two cameras compared at their wide end. Keep in mind the differences in display size, field of view, degree of sharpening, and lighting:
The G10 is the best selling "advanced compact", at least in the United States, but the LX3 is quite an interesting challenger. On the basis of features, the two cameras obviously offer distinct functionality, particularly in terms of zoom coverage but also pixel number/size, lens speed, approach to viewfinder, etc. However, as different as they are, many photographers are still giving serious consideration to both of them. Bruce Buck of 60Hz Productions recently tested both and decided to keep the LX3 (link). Scott Bourne of TWIP also recently picked up an LX3 and decided to send back the G10. I've heard from several people who tested both and decided to keep the G10 or even both cameras! The DC Watch samples provide a useful, objective comparison of the two, particularly for JPEG shooters.
The Sigma DP1 is in stock and selling for $599.94 (plus shipping) at Canoga Camera. This is the lowest price I've seen from a reputable dealer. Other dealers are still pricing at $699.
Seattle portrait and wedding photographer Laurence Kim has published his test drive of the Panasonic LX3. He specifically focuses on the use of off-camera flash at high flash sync speeds with the LX3, and the results are most impressive!
Laurence has kindly agreed to allow me to post a couple of his LX3 photos here. Be sure to visit his blog (link at end of this post) for additional examples (with details on flash settings) as well as his general impressions of the LX3.
The Panasonic LX3 is in stock for $417 with free shipping at Beach Camera via Amazon. Click the Amazon link below and select Beach Camera to get this price.
Bruce Buck of 60Hz Productions has published an informative comparison of the Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10. There are quite a few image samples comparing the performance of the two cameras under similar conditions, and Bruce offers an excellent analysis at the outset.
As some of you are aware, the Panasonic LX3 ships with Silkypix, whereas its Leica D-LUX 4 sibling ships with Capture One. (C1) As of yet, there are no third party RAW processing applications which support the RAW files from these two cameras. Interestingly, C1 does not yet appear to support the LX3 files, despite the fact that they are generally believed to be identical to the D-LUX 4 files.
An interesting user review of the LX3 has been posted by mabelsound (John) over at Rangefinderforum.com (link). The author observed that Silkypix RAW conversions offered no improvement over in-camera JPEGs, so he went a step further and processed using RawDrop and dcraw. Here's the scene he used as an example:
Here's a 100% crop from the in-camera JPEG:
This is the processed result of the dcraw conversion:
While some of the difference is attributable to sharpening, there is definitely more detail in the dcraw conversion, which was not the case with Silkypix conversions. John went on to add the following:
This experiment caused me to realize, as well, that the lens suffers from tremendous barrel distortion--you need to go to +15 in Photoshop to fix it. The JPEG engine does this automatically, and so, interestingly, does SilkyPix. What I'm waiting for, of course, is for Adobe to add the camera to ACR, and I'm hoping the profile will include a lens correction but will NOT obliterate the nice RAW detail. Time will tell.
Others have similarly processed LX3 RAW files using dcraw or Raw Photo Processor have corroborated that the true "raw" data reveals quite a bit of barrel distortion as well as a significant amount of purple fringing. This makes one wonder whether other third party RAW support is lagging because Panasonic is pressuring developers to address these lens shortcomings automatically, perhaps even in a concealed fashion. A provocative thread in the Adobe Lightroom support forum seems to suggest this. The following comments are excerpted from that thread, where Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan are both representing Adobe:
Eric Chan - 5:30am Oct 2, 08 PST (#14 of 25): There is no support currently, official or unofficial, in CR 4.6 RC or LR 2.1 RC. This is regrettable, but an unfortunate consequence of the current situation. We hope to have this fully resolved soon. (Sorry, no, I cannot specify an exact date.)
No need to tell us that other raw converters already support the LX3. Believe me, we are fully aware of it. There is a very specific reason that CR / LR doesn't yet support the LX3. If you would like an explanation, please ask Panasonic.
I. Room - 5:34pm Oct 8, 08 PST (#18 of 25): Eric, does the delay in supporting the LX3 have anything to do with Panasonic wanting Adobe to incorporate correction for barrel distortion? I have converted some RW2's with dcraw and was surprised at how much correction is happening both in the in-camera jpeg engine, and in SilkyPix as well (which, unfortunately, is hugely inferior to your products).
Thomas Knoll - 4:53am Oct 9, 08 PST (#19 of 25): No comment...
I. Room - 5:48am Oct 9, 08 PST (#20 of 25): I will take that as a yes... ;-)
Eric Chan - 6:52am Oct 9, 08 PST (#21 of 25): Very interesting observation.
I'm interested to learn how C1 handles the D-LUX 4 files. Is there a resolution gain over the in-camera JPEGs? Are distortion and color fringing automatically addressed without option? It would be unfortunate if all the popular third party RAW applications were to impose mandatory corrections for distortion and color fringing. Such corrections require a loss of data, which in my opinion ought to be left as a decision for the photographer. After all, RAW is all about flexibility.
Addendum: I've exchanged emails with Brian Griffith, lead engineer of Raw Developer (Iridient Digital), regarding the lack of Adobe support for the LX3. He wrote that "neither Leica nor Panasonic, at least that I'm aware of, has ever pressured myself or other developers regarding support (or non-support) of their cameras" and was generally of the opinion that nothing sinister is afoot. I still think it's possible that Panasonic is trying to get Adobe in particular to implement non-elective correction of barrel distortion, but that is pure speculation based on the Adobe forum comments quoted above.
Read More......
Posted by Amin
Is Panasonic Hindering Third Party LX3 RAW Support?
Two of the major review sites have added full-resolution Panasonic LX3 samples.
Digital Camera Resource has an LX3 "Maui Gallery" containing mainly low ISO images. There is a RAW conversion versus in-camera JPEG comparison at the end, which also includes the RAW file for download.
Imaging Resource has added the LX3 to their excellent Comparometer, which allows comparisons of in-camera JPEGs from different cameras under controlled lab conditions. They have also posted a full set of their usual test images.
Unfortunately the Nikon P6000, Ricoh GX200, and Canon G10 are not yet in the Comparometer.
My take on LX3 vs the competition in the Comparometer:
Compared at ISO 80, the in-camera G9 JPEGs contain significantly more detail than the in-camera LX3 JPEGs. From samples I've seen to date, I expect that the G10 will likewise be class leading in overall detail capture.
The LX3 high ISO JPEGs in the Comparometer clearly outclass the G9 high ISO images. To my eye, the LX3 also outperforms the Fuji F50fd and Sony W300 at high ISO. Panasonic seems to have arrived at a nice balance between detail preservation and noise removal with Venus IV in this camera.
Given that the LX3 also boasts a faster lens than any of its competitors, it will likely stand alone in low light, high ISO performance amongst current model small sensor compacts, at least from the standpoint of a JPEG shooter. I expect that LX3 RAW files will also exhibit greater dynamic range than most competitors, including the G10, but look forward to putting that to test.
Read More......
Posted by Amin
Panasonic LX3 Samples at DC Resource and Imaging Resource
The highly interesting quote below is from this interview with a Canon executive:
"DPR: All the buzz at this year's Photokina has been around the concept of the 'mirrorless' interchangeable lens camera following the launch of Micro Four Thirds. Is this an area Canon is interested in?
Canon: "We welcome this move to activate general market expansion, and we think it's very positive. We're not just observing what's happening in the market with the developments recently announced by Panasonic and Olympus; where we see a new market we are also looking to participate. ... we will come with new exciting developments next year, so please wait and look forward to next year."
Lots of folks realized that the Canon A650 featured the same sensor as the Powershot G9, but how many realized that the diminuitive Powershot SD950IS packed the very same 12MP 1/1.7" sensor? What would you say if Canon were to release a 160 gram ELPH with a sharp 35mm (equivalent) f/2.8 lens and the sensor from the G10? In fact, Canon has done that and more with the recently announced Powershot SD990 (IXUS 980) IS.
Take a moment to consider what the SD990 IS offers:
First SD (IXUS)/ELPH series Canon with Program/Aperture priority/Shutter priority/Manual modes
Same 14.7MP 1/1.7" sensor (presumably) as the G10
7.7-28.5mm f/2.8-5.8 (35mm film equivalent: 36-133mm) zoom lens as the SD950 IS
First SD series Canon offered in black (also red)
New rotating dial surrounding four-way controller on back
Manual focus option
Optical viewfinder, increasingly a rarity
DIGIC IV with more sophisticated noise reduction
Image stabilization
New "Quick Mode" uses the viewfinder for display, disables the LCD, and offers a reduced shutter lag
Weight: 160g without battery
First SD series camera with H.264 video (640x480, 30fps)
Some of the things missing (versus the G10):
RAW mode
Hot shoe
Wide angle
Speed at the telephoto end
More than half of the weight
It's great to see Canon getting more serious with the SD series, offering full manual exposure controls for the first time. Panasonic made a similar move with the even more compact FX500 some time ago. The fact that the SD990 IS couples the flagship (G10) sensor with the highly regarded lens from the SD950 makes for high image quality expectations. I wish they could have taken the extra step and offered RAW, though in general I find that Canon is amongst the best at finding a balance between detail and noise with in-camera JPEG processing.
The SD990 IS was announced two weeks ago and is currently in stock for $387 shipped at Amazon via the link below.
Reynandi Susanto has successfully modified a GX100 for infrared photography. The process, as he described it:
I removed the internal hot mirror filter and recalibrate the auto focus. By doing this, I don't need to have long exposure and bring a tripod for IR shoots. Then I use the hood, 43-52mm step up ring, and 52mm ir filter hoya r72 and a red colour filter. I'm going to order a Tiffen or bw hot mirror filter so I will be able to use the gx100 for taking normal pictures, but no rush at all.
Here are two of Reynandi's photographs using the IR+visible-converted GX100:
Note that this type of mod will void any warranty and carries a risk of electric shock if done improperly, even without the battery in place.
I've seen a number of IR and IR+visible modded compacts, but this is the first Ricoh. To learn more about IR photography and camera modification, see Life Pixel or LDP Net (MaxMax).
The Canon G10 is now in stock and shipping for $499 Calumet via Amazon. I expect that current stock will sell out within the day today.
Update: As expected, the stock at Calumet didn't last long. However, the same Amazon link below will now take you to Amazon where the G10 still lists as in stock, this time at J&R. Let's see how long their stock lasts.
DC Watch has posted their part one analysis of the Coolpix P6000, including the usual look at sharpness, bokeh, distortion, close focus ability, high ISO, and more.
DC Watch today published quite a few full-size Panasonic LX3 image samples. I don't speak Japanese, but according to the Google translation it seems that they set out to assess the autofocus tracking and macro capabilities of the LX3. There are some very good examples of what to expect from the LX3 with regards to bokeh and high contrast scenes.
Without doubt the Panasonic G1 was one of the most exciting announcements of the year. For those of us left with questions after the initial announcements, there have been at least two interviews worth reading.
4/3 Photo posted a "Q&A with Panasonic over the G1", addressing Leica's involvement, the progression to 12MP, target market, and more.
Today DPReview published "Photokina 2008 Interview: Panasonic", which probes the significance of the exposed sensor, expected support for autofocus with existing Four Thirds lenses, future of the FZ20/30/50 line, and more.
Serious Compacts contributor Cristian Sorega has blogged a report from Photokina 2008. Like Wouter Brandsma, Cristian's report is focused on advanced compact cameras. Lots of good information and photos in there!
