Numerous full-resolution Panasonic LX3 sample images have been posted in the Korean forum Popco.net. In addition, there are crop comparisons between the LX3, LX2, and FX38 across a range of ISO values, samples from the LX3 18mm wide adapter, and more.

[Via Junho Shin, DPReview Panasonic Talk]

• Full resolution Panasonic LX3 sample images
• LX3/LX2/FX38 crop comparison from ISO 100-3200
• ISO 80 LX3 sample crops at 24mm equivalent and 18mm equivalent (wide angle converter)
• ISO 1600 LX3 in-camera JPEG vs RAW (multiple different Silkypix conversions)
• Demonstration of LX3 in-camera noise reduction settings (5 levels)
• Additional comparison with LX2

Read More......

Sensor sizes seem to fall into two distinct size categories: large DSLR sensors and a second class of much smaller sensors found in compact cameras. Most serious compacts, those with full manual control, seem to have sensor sizes at the upper end of the group of small sensors.

The diagram below illustrates the relative sizes of the two sensor groups. The cropped DSLR sensor group is shown in orange tones, the compact sensor group in blue tones.

As evident in the diagram, there is a big gap in sizes between the largest compact sensor, the now rarely used 2/3” (8.8 x 6.6mm) sensor, and the smallest DSLR sensor, the 4/3 (18.0 x 13.5mm) sensor. This gap is much larger than the size difference between individual sensors in each of the two groups.



Sigma’s DP1 has used a sensor in the first group of large DSLR sensors. The price of having a very large sensor in a compact body is a not very bright, nor versatile, fixed 28mm lens. All other serious compacts to date (late May 2008) use the much smaller sensors typical in compact cameras. Except for Ricoh’s GRD I/II, all these cameras feature versatile zoom lenses that are at least fairly bright at the beginning of their respective zoom ranges. Because their sensors are small, noise and noise reduction remain an issue in all but the best lighting conditions.

The question is why there isn’t an intermediate size of sensor for serious compacts: a size that fits between the DSLR and compact sensor sizes. These sensors could offer better image quality than those sensors in the compact group while they wouldn’t be so large as to preclude zoom lenses. An intermediate size would be 12.0mm x 9.0mm, which I’ll call the “S/C” sensor. This hypothetical sensor has approximately half the area of the 4/3 sensor and about twice the area of the 2/3” sensor. This sensor should allow for reasonably compact lenses and camera bodies.

Making a sensor for just one class of camera or model seems feasible if we take Panasonic’s LX2/D-LUX 3 as an example. Its unique 16:9, 8.8mm x 4.8mm, was only ever used in that particular camera model. As of May 2008, Fuji’s 2/3” Super CCD HR sensor is also only used in one model: the FinePix S100fs.

So perhaps a new intermediate sensor size could provide a better balance between image quality and a compact form factor.

Read More......

If one is in the market for a current model compact camera with RAW capability and an optical zoom lens covering wide to telephoto, there are basically two choices, the Panasonic DMC-LX2 (including the Leica version, D-LUX 3) and the Ricoh Caplio GX100. Both of these are highly capable compact cameras. Recently, we have been providing quite a bit of GX100 coverage. To see some excellent work with the D-LUX 3, check out Jim Radcliffe's D-LUX 3 page here.

When faced with the prospect of buying one versus the other, I personally went for the GX100 due to its wider wide and, arguably, rawer RAW. I also liked having a hot shoe, mainly for the prospect of attaching an external viewfinder. However, the LX/D-LUX series has several notable strengths including a native 16:9 sensor, a format which I greatly enjoyed with the LX1. Since the "28mm equivalent" is based on the diagonal angle of view (AOV), a 16:9 format also means that the horizontal AOV at 28mm equivalent is significantly wider (and the vertical AOV significantly shorter) than it would be for a camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio. For a side-by-side view of the features offered by these two cameras, look to DPReview's feature comparison here.

The GX100 and LX2 offer widely distinct feature sets yet stand together and alone in their class. With these two cameras, Ricoh and Panasonic are leading the way with regards to what can be done with an excellent wide zoom lens and user access to RAW in a compact camera. The reason for this post is that we are hearing rumors (and in some cases more than just rumors) that both the GX100 and LX2 replacements will be introduced for Photokina in September. Panasonic made a point of holding back the LX2 replacement while introducing eight new models for PMA, and the Lets Go interview (via 1001 Noisy Cameras) suggests that Panasonic knows the importance of the LX2 in their lineup. Ichiro Kitao, Product Planning Manager Panasonic Optical Group, had the following to say when asked about the advanced compact camera market, particularly in relation to the Canon G9:

I think it is a very important segment. We have a camera in the pipeline for that segment; the Panasonic LX2. It is the year of the Photokina show so you can expect a lot from us. I suppose you can compare the Lumix LX2 to Canon's G9 camera. Not only the enhanced amateur is using this camera; we know that there are professionals too that use the Panasonic LX2 as an extra camera and for personal use. The concept of the Lumix LX2 is different than that of the PowerShot G9. We try to aim more at the emotional aspect of a compact camera. However; the possibilities of both cameras are quite alike.

Some have speculated that all we'll see is a couple of 12MP sensors thrown into the same old bodies, but I am more optimistic than that. Ricoh and Panasonic each have strong recent records of innovation. Invigorated by the introduction of the Sigma DP1 in the high end compact space, I believe both companies will come ready to battle for the advanced compact segment at Photokina this year. If Sigma brings out a DP series camera featuring a zoom lens, things will be even more interesting. What do you want to see in these upcoming serious compacts? Let us know in the thread over in the SeriousCompacts.com discussion forum on Flickr.

Read More......

In continued coverage of Ricoh GX100 image quality, I am providing a link here to some excellent work by Björn Utpott (viztyger) comparing images from the GX100 and the Panasonic DMC-LX2, another excellent choice for a wide angle-capable compact camera with access to RAW files. Click here to see Björn's comparison photos, and click here to see a DPReview thread with discussion regarding these photos.

Based on previous trends, it is likely that Panasonic will introduce a replacement for the LX2 soon. Hopefully Panasonic will continue to provide some much needed innovation in this market segment.

Addendum:
Björn has very kindly offered for me to include his comments and embed his images on this blog. For his most recent full series, a terrific resource, be sure to click here. For now, I will embed just one of his comparison photos showing side-by-side crops from the LX2 and GX100.

Here first is his commentary, quoted from a post in a DPR thread:

"There seems to be a difference in how "raw" the RAW files are. In the following high contrast scene, the converted LX2 file has all the brick detail smeared away in the shadows - have a look at the bottom of the converted image.

The converted Ricoh GX100 DNG file retains brick detail in the same shadow areas at the bottom of the crop.

In both conversions, I was able to restore highlight detail in the white siding, that was absent in the out-of-camera JPEGs."

Now for the images to which the above quote refers (Click for full size):



Thanks again to Björn for the great information!

Read More......

My brother Bijan recently asked me why I shoot RAW whenever possible. Sometime in the near future, I plan to explain that here in detail with accompanying example photos. For now, I'd like to explain two concerns about the availability of the RAW format in current digital cameras.

First of all, what is RAW? Most digital photographers shoot in JPEG, a lossy compression format. When we shoot JPEG, we choose aperture, ISO, shutter speed, focal length, composition, and perspective (ie, where we stand) prior to taking the shot. The camera takes the information recorded by the sensor (ie, the light gathered by the sensor) and, based on our pre-selected settings, applies adjustments including white balance, sharpening, noise reduction, contrast curves, and saturation; it then turns the image into a smaller file by eliminating much of the "extra" information that is less necessary for the photo to have the intended final look. This resulting compressed file format is JPEG. JPEG is a great format for people who don't want to do this processing by hand or don't know how to process, though I should note that many desktop applications can process for you as well as or better than your camera can. Being smaller, JPEG files keep storage costs and camera buffer needs lower. When we shoot RAW, we make the same decisions about aperture, ISO, shutter speed, focal length, composition, and perspective prior to taking the shot. After the shot, all information gathered from light striking the sensor while the shutter is open is stored for us to process later. In other words, we save the "raw" data. The advantage of this is that we get to make a lot of decisions after the shot. For an extreme and obvious example, let's say we shoot in JPEG mode and take a black and white photo with in camera settings for contrast and noise reduction set to "high." We get home and decide we wish the image were in color. Too bad. Wish the image had more detail? No problem, just decrease the noise reduction. Oops the camera's processing engine permanently through away that detail while it was trying to keep noise down. Blow some highlights? If only the contrast setting hadn't been quite so high... If only I had shot RAW. All of those decisions could have been made later, and I'd have my color, noisy but detailed, well-exposed shot. Many advantages of RAW are far more subtle. There are some other advantages of JPEG as well. Both of those issues will have to wait for another installment. Now back to my concerns about RAW.

RAW is being dropped from advanced compact cameras at an alarming rate. Canon and Nikon have abandoned it. Many of us think that this has been done in order to steer enthusiasts to DSLRs where we will spend thousands on lenses. Others feel that RAW files are being kept from us so we won't see how noisy these tiny, pixel-stuffed sensors are before in-camera noise reduction is applied. I also wonder whether companies are leaving out RAW in order to save money on hardware costs. RAW file capture and storage typically necessitates a larger memory buffer for reasonable continuous shooting rates. Whatever the reason, it is important to understand that RAW is not being kept from us because the cameras don't "make" a RAW file. When light hits the sensor, RAW data is recorded. They just need to fork it over. This point is illustrated by a Russian hack which makes RAW files available on Canon digital cameras with DIGIC II processors from which Canon had disabled end user access to RAW data. Many held out hope that Canon would keep RAW in their flagship prosumer G-series. No such luck. Canon's Chuck Westfall explained that this omission was a consequence of the pixel pitch being so small on the G7. By shoving 10 million pixels onto a 1/1.8" sensor, Canon made the G7 pixels so small and noisy that no RAW processor can eek more out of them than Canon's on-board DIGIC III processor can. I won't argue against the implication that little pixels are no good. Two of my cameras (Leica D2 and Canon 5D) have a large pixel pitch, and I think that when one compares them to cameras of the same technology generation, one can really tell the difference. Larger pixels tend to capture a greater dynamic range as well as to limit the amount of noise. I'm getting off topic though. Users of the tiny-pixelled G7 would still benefit from access to their RAW files. First of all, there is nothing magic about the DIGIC III processor. It is not more powerful than my Mac Pro, and it's processing algorithms will be dated as fast as Canon can produce the DIGIC IV. Therefore, to imply that the G7 can get as much or more out of the RAW files than we can is downright silly. Second, RAW is not only about how much detail or how little noise we can extract. It is about flexibility. When I shoot ISO 400 with the G7, the camera applies a certain amount of noise reduction (NR) to create a balance between detail preserved (NR destroys detail) and noise eliminated. Each camera's JPEG engine does this differently. For example, Panasonic's Venus III engine has been widely criticized for striking a balance that favors excessive noise reduction with resulting smearing of details. NR also creates the Fuji compact camera "watercolor effect" at very high ISO. Getting back to the G7, what if I want to preserve more detail at the expense of greater than usual noise for ISO 400? Often with black and white conversion, I choose such a compromise since color noise is not a factor in B&W. RAW would give me that option. Mr. Westfall's explanation is not good enough for me.

Now for the main reason I am posting this. It has recently come to my attention that, even in the cameras which still offer RAW, our RAW may not be as RAW as we think it is. I was reading about image quality comparisons between the Panasonic DMC-LX1 (branded by Leica as the D-LUX 2) and the DMC-LX2 (branded by Leica as the D-LUX 3). These two cameras are interesting to me because they are compact, offer RAW, offer a choice of 16:9, 3:2, and 4:3 aspect ratios, and have a wide angle lens (starting at 28mm when shooting in wide aspect format). The LX2 has more pixels, which as noted above is not always a good thing when sensor size limited. However, I was intrigued by the fact that LX2 RAW files, at typically between 19-20MB each, are considerably larger than my 5D RAW files. This prompted me to do a little digging. One reason for the LX2 RAW files to be so large is that they contain 16-bit color as opposed to 12-bit as in most RAW files. The other thing I found out about LX2 RAW files is more ominous. Panasonic appears to have applied a considerable amount of NR to the RAW files themselves! This reduces the amount of shadow noise considerably but also reduces the low contrast detail available in those shadows. Björn (viztyger) on DPReview was kind enough to make available his LX2 RAW analyses in those forums. Here is his post showing identically processed RAW files from the LX1 and LX2. I think the results speak for themselves. It is clear that the LX1 crop contains noise that the LX2 crop does not. Many would find this noise objectionable, and yet they could largely remedy the situation by applying NR software during or after RAW conversion on their computer. On the other hand, the shadow detail which is present in the LX1 crop is irrecoverable in the LX2 photo. No software could restore it.

This raises the question as to whether Panasonic is an evil company that is alone in violating the sanctity of RAW, whether everyone is doing it, or whether I have just been thinking about RAW the wrong way. One thing to consider is that the processing of recorded light data is not limited to a single processing engine such as DIGIC III or Venus III. There is so-called "on-chip" processing on the sensor itself. It has never been clear to me whether to think of this processing as distinct from what the main processing engine does or not. In other words, I wonder whether "on-chip" NR permanently eliminates detail the way other NR does, or alternatively whether it could somehow be improving signal to noise capture at the source. If anyone knows, please tell me. As to whether "everyone is doing it," it is becoming clear to be that the answer is probably "yes" to one extent or another. In a 2006 thread in the Rob Galbraith forums, Canon's Chuck Westfall had the following to say: "...This dates back to previous discussions on this board (circa 11/2003) where I stated that .CRW files from early EOS Digital SLRs (D30, D60, 10D, Digital Rebel/300D) were minimally sharpened in camera. Canon Inc. engineers confirmed this to be true. Conversely, no sharpening of any kind is applied to raw images captured as .TIF (as in EOS-1D, EOS-1Ds) or .CR2 (EOS 5D, 20D, Digital Rebel XT, 1D Mark II, 1D Mark II N, and 1Ds Mark II)." He went on to add, "To the best of my knowledge, there is no softening or smoothing per se on Canon RAW images. However, it's clear that on-chip noise reduction is performed prior to exporting the image data to the camera's image processing system." Although they are rascals for tampering with my RAW, I do respect Canon for having a prominent representative answer the tough questions posed in a public, third party forum. What about the number 2 producer of digital cameras? Jim Cockfield, who informed me of the aforementioned comments from Mr. Westfall, also gave me this link, which suggests that as of 2005 there was evidence that Nikon was modifying RAW files.

While every camera manufacturer's offered RAW is clearly more raw than their in-camera JPEGs, I now understand that not all RAW is equally raw. From now on when I shop for a new camera, I will not only have to ask "Does this camera have RAW?" but also "How RAW is it?"

Read More......