Panasonic LX5 no better than a joe average P&S camera?

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Wait. You liked it so much that you got rid of it?
Yeah, kind of like you and your TX5 - didn't appreciate what I had until I tried a few others and realized how good THAT one was. I may not. I have an X10 that I'll probably hang onto and see how well Fuji can fix the orb thing. But there's a side of me that's tempted to sell the X10, but another LX5 for $250 or thereabouts, and put the savings toward the OMD I'm waiting on. For that price, it wouldn't bug me to only use it every now and then. I had a chance to play around with another one recently and I remembered how much I liked it, from the 24mm wide end to the way it dealt with aspect ratios (quick switch on the top of the lens, and a multi-aspect sensor so you could shoot at any ratio with full resolution). And the camera and the controls all just felt really right to me. Some tangibles, some intangibles...

-Ray
 

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
It's hard for a RAW shooter to display an optimal SOOC image because they will rarely, or most likely never set the camera to the appropriate jpeg settings for any given image. All of tho processing choices are made at the back end, not at the time of capture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

tanngrisnir3

Regular
Nov 11, 2010
To Both Ray and tanngrisnir3

Are these pictures edited in any way? And I don't mean "from RAW to JPEG. Any adjustments? Or are these straight out of the LX5??????

Thank you to both of you.

Great shots BTW.
Yup. Every photo I post has been modded in some manner, in LR. If one were to post straight RAW images, it's almost always just greyish 'meh'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

tanngrisnir3

Regular
Nov 11, 2010
I do appreciate your reply Ray.

I realize I will make very few friends when I express my dislike for "supporting shots" (NOT YOURS in this thread, just in general) for any camera when the shot is not SOOC. To me that shows the person's PP skills, not what the camera can actually do.

So I apologize for that.

On the other hand, in all other cases I have ZERO issues with what people do with their own pictures as long as it is stated that the photos are not SOOC when they put their pictures in threads. Otherwise, I feel that it is a disservice to all who are new to the camera or photography. Because if one takes a picture and the quality looks nothing like what one has seen from other users, he/she will be very discouraged. m2c

Wouldn't it be awesome if both types of pictures were shown by members? So that newbies like myself with very limited photo skills could learn from?

OK - Rant over.
You surely realize, however, that any/all ,jpeg shots are showing off the camera's PP skills are showing off what computers can do? Unless you're using film, there is no such thing as avoiding someone's PP skills, be it human or a silicon-based entity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
You surely realize, however, that any/all ,jpeg shots are showing off the camera's PP skills are showing off what computers can do?
That's the whole basis of tdekany's lack of understanding, presuming that a good camera produces amazing photographs straight out of the camera without any post-processing required. As I explained in my post above, post-processing part and parcel of the whole process which non-photographers and n00b photographers aren't aware of.


Unless you're using film, there is no such thing as avoiding someone's PP skills, be it human or a silicon-based entity.
Post-processing is important in film too, in the dark room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Post-processing is important in film too, in the dark room.
Right. I think slide film may have been the closest thing to PURE non-processed photographs ever. And even there, the folks who made the film made a bunch of decisions that amounted to PRE-processing and the different decisions that makers of different slide films made all created the basic look or style of that film. We do the same things today to some extent, its just that we make the vast majority of those decisions AFTER the photograph is taken. Some purists, for whatever combination of reasons, see this as a bad thing. I see it as all good.

-Ray
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Some purists, for whatever combination of reasons, see this as a bad thing. I see it as all good.
Purists who say that, they don't understand the breadth of photography as it stands today and also historically. They only understand their way of doing it. There's always been processing at some stage of the photographic process, whether it's before or after.

So I don't just see it as all good, I see it as all the same thing.
 

lenshoarder

Veteran
Mar 7, 2012
Yeah, kind of like you and your TX5 - didn't appreciate what I had until I tried a few others and realized how good THAT one was. I may not. I have an X10 that I'll probably hang onto and see how well Fuji can fix the orb thing. But there's a side of me that's tempted to sell the X10, but another LX5 for $250 or thereabouts, and put the savings toward the OMD I'm waiting on. For that price, it wouldn't bug me to only use it every now and then. I had a chance to play around with another one recently and I remembered how much I liked it, from the 24mm wide end to the way it dealt with aspect ratios (quick switch on the top of the lens, and a multi-aspect sensor so you could shoot at any ratio with full resolution). And the camera and the controls all just felt really right to me. Some tangibles, some intangibles...

-Ray
Actually, I knew the TX5 knocked it out of the park for low light 2 shots in. The Sony low light modes are the big reasons I bought it. I have many DSLRs, MILFs, P&S et al. My favorite camera has been the TX5 since the night I got it. I can take it anywhere. There's a lot to be said for that.

Dude, I agree with your about the controls for the LX5. I wouldn't pay $250 for it. Amazon has it available for $205 a few times a week. No reason to pay more than that.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
Actually, I knew the TX5 knocked it out of the park for low light 2 shots in. The Sony low light modes are the big reasons I bought it. I have many DSLRs, MILFs, P&S et al. My favorite camera has been the TX5 since the night I got it. I can take it anywhere. There's a lot to be said for that.
you're really gonna have to explain to me what the photographic context of a MILF is, lenshoarder!:biggrin: and I'm curious to learn exactly how many you have, too... :p

In all seriousness, if I ever get a CSC / ILC, I might get a Sony TX10 as an always-with-me camera because it's so small and sturdy, and has a reasonable wide angle too. But as an only camera, it's hard to beat the versatility, quality and compactness of a camera like my EX1 or an LX5 or their competitors
 

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Actually, I knew the TX5 knocked it out of the park for low light 2 shots in. The Sony low light modes are the big reasons I bought it.
What is it about the TX5 that knocks the LX5 out of the park? I looked up the specs and it says the max aperture is f/3.5 which under normal circumstances isn't that great for low light photography. Is it the ISO you're talking about?
 

lenshoarder

Veteran
Mar 7, 2012
What is it about the TX5 that knocks the LX5 out of the park? I looked up the specs and it says the max aperture is f/3.5 which under normal circumstances isn't that great for low light photography. Is it the ISO you're talking about?
Check the shots I posted from the LX5 and the TX5 I posted that started this thread. While just looking at the specs, you'd think the LX5 would have it all over the TX5, the reality is the opposite. In low light, the TX5 and the other Sony EXMOR cameras are amazing. My NEX can do the same and obviously due to the APS-C sensor have much better IQ.
 

lenshoarder

Veteran
Mar 7, 2012
In all seriousness, if I ever get a CSC / ILC, I might get a Sony TX10 as an always-with-me camera because it's so small and sturdy, and has a reasonable wide angle too. But as an only camera, it's hard to beat the versatility, quality and compactness of a camera like my EX1 or an LX5 or their competitors
I thought about upgrading to the TX10. I could have done it for free. When all is said and done though, most people don't consider it that much better to necessitate an upgrade. Also, it's surface is slicker than the TX5. The LX5 isn't really that small. It's GF2 size. I couldn't imagine carrying it around in my pocket all day. The TX5 just slips in and I don't notice it. It's also a go anywhere camera. I think it would be tough to use the LX5 in a jungle or underwater.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
I'd be curious to see how the Canon S95/100 performs, it's small enough to fit in your pocket too.
The S95 is pretty identical to the S90 for stills. I had an S90. Its IQ was very similar to the LX5, except I find the LX5 very useable at ISO 400 and had some problems with the S90 even at 400. But about the same in decent light. The performance of the camera is very different though. The LX5 is QUICK and intuitive in pretty much everything it does. The S90 is a pokey little beast - shutter lag even in manual focus so not good for zone focus shooting. The lens gets pretty slow pretty quickly too as you move up the zoom range - the price you pay for the small size I think. And it will slide into your pocket, but its still pretty bulky in a pocket. I never ended up carrying it in a pocket - I carry an iphone in my pocket but not the S90. But it is a good deal smaller than the LX5 so if your tolerance for stuff in your pockets is different than mine, you might be OK with it. The S100 uses a new sensor and seems to do better at high ISO and is both wider and longer to the earlier models. There have been some reports of lens de-centering though, but probably nothing that would be readily visible. Its probably worth a look if operating speed isn't important to you.

-Ray
 

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
Portland OR
I see where you're coming from. That's how I used to see it too.

Sometimes what you can do with a file from a camera is a good indication of how well the camera produces its images.

A great camera that I would be looking for, for example, may produce a SOOC photo that looks flat and bland which is actually a good thing, because it means the highlights are preserved, the colours are not overblown so as to preserve colour information, and the detail in the blacks are also preserved. This allows the magic to happen in post.

So, to judge a camera by its SOOC shots may not always be the best way to go about it if it is the only thing you're looking at. I suppose it is a legitimate way of looking at one aspect of a camera but you should also look at how its photos stand up to rigorous post-processing too.

Photos that can't stand up to post-processing without developing artifacts in the image means the camera isn't producing strong files or highly compressing its files to begin with.



There is a lot of work that goes into amazing photos, that's what non-photographers or starting photographers often don't understand, it's not just a matter of buying the most expensive camera and pressing the button. If the newbie is feeling discouraged at this point, it's really from this misunderstanding, rather than a miscommunication from the photographer. That is what the non-photographer should understand first.
Thanks very much TraamisVOS for jumping in and expressing your opinion. While I am new to quality gear, I have taken at least 10000 photographs (Canon PS70 and Canon S3) and have a pretty good understanding of "taking a picture"/composition and I realize that the camera itself does its own processing. I am not that new. :)

Post processing, no clue. I wouldn't even know how to turn raw to JPEG in Sylkypix. Tried but couldn't figure it out. So yes, I have a long way to go. However I have never said or feel that a better camera will make one a better photographer. Does anyone?

If you take 2 identical cameras with the same settings, and take pictures with them of the same thing, the end result is the same. Now take the camera home, and process it to your liking and give the other camera to Ray. Let him do the same. Post both pictures. Am I seeing what the camera captured or an interpretation of it? That is all I am saying.

I really like nature photography. If I happen to see a scene that I want to capture it, it is because I like what I am looking at. That is what I want to see when I look at my photos in the future. I have no desire or reason to make them look any different. What is the point?

To say that because the camera is already doing some processing, it is ok then to add to it and post it as an example of what a particular camera is capable of is not fare in my eyes. Not in cases where the OP may never want to do any PP. I hope that you can understand why and what I am trying to say.

Here is an example: may not be a great analogy, but here it is.

Person interested in a BMW M3, asks on the forum about performance and others start posting their times (0-60, 1/4 mile, track time etc...) to show the person how fast their cars are.... except they are not including the modifications they have done to their cars. OP goes to the track and at the end of the day his tail is between his legs because he can't figure out why he was so much slower. Is the person then right for not mentioning that his M3 is supercharged and chipped because the car is already tuned by the manufacturer? Just saying. It should be noted as such.

Thank you for reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

madmaxmedia

Veteran
Nov 10, 2010
Los Angeles
I think there are a few different things going on.

In particular, the AF distance seems different in the 2 photos. The LX5 AF distance is much closer, and due to the larger aperture (almost 2 stops?) much of the frame is out of focus. The TX5 is more appropriately focused for the scene, so most of the text in the scene is in focus. Note that having a smaller sensor, the TX would have a greater DOF at even the same aperture, much less a smaller one.

The LX5 sensor should be better than the TX5, all else being equal. The TX5 is BSI, but I'm guess at most that only compensates for the smaller sensor size than the LX5.

Regarding image quality:noise, it's hard to say from the resized images. But the 2 cameras will have different JPEG postprocessing. The LX5 has been criticized by some for having too much NR in JPEG's, I tend to agree based on the samples I've seen. That being said, I don't know if the Sony's is significantly different. Even the NEX cameras with their wonderful APS-C sensor have too much luminance NR in JPEG's to my liking.

My guess is that if you repeated the trial with RAW and made sure the focus point was the same, the LX5 would somewhat outperform the TX5 (although the TX5 may still have more of the image in focus due to greater DOF.) That's doesn't mean your test isn't equally valid though- at the end of the day you should test the cameras based on how you shoot them (I don't know if this is the best comparison set for your style of shooting.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Post processing, no clue. I wouldn't even know how to turn raw to JPEG in Sylkypix. Tried but couldn't figure it out. So yes, I have a long way to go. However I have never said or feel that a better camera will make one a better photographer. Does anyone?
My personal opinion is that a better camera gives the photographer more options to express his or her creativity. That's how I'd put it. A lesser camera, say a cheap camera phone, restricts a photographer's artistic/creative latitude a lot more than a high end DSLR would. Sure the iPhone can take great photos but can you take it with you to photograph a wedding? Well yes you can but it'd better not be for a paid job. Why? Because it only takes photos in one specific way with a much lower resolution, and that is it.


I really like nature photography. If I happen to see a scene that I want to capture it, it is because I like what I am looking at. That is what I want to see when I look at my photos in the future. I have no desire or reason to make them look any different. What is the point?
It sounds like you don't need an expensive, high end camera. What you're really saying you need there is a simple point-n-shoot.

But that's like saying you're happy with baked beans SOOC (straight out of the can).

If you had le baked beans from a renown chef like Heston Blumenthal, you know you're going to get the mother of all baked bean meals with the subtle flavours from the herbs and spices he'll add to it, the way he pan fries the beans first to add a little bit of crispness to the beans before baking them to perfection in the oven, and adding the finely balanced sauce which he whipped up fresh. Then he presents the meal on the plate with garnishes and an accompanying glass of fine wine.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with baked beans straight out of the can but damn, it's really, really nice to have Heston Blumenthal's baked beans, I could have that for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You haven't had baked beans until you've had Heston Blumenthal's baked beans.

BUT maybe you've tried Heston Blumenthal's baked beans and you still prefer regular baked beans SOOCan. Who are we to tell you that you should develop your gastronomical palette to the point where you can appreciate the difference between canned food and fine dining. You're asking us about fine restaurants and renown chefs, when in reality all you want to know is which can of baked beans tastes the best.

So here, you're asking us about fine cameras and what they can do but if it's just point-n-shoots you're after, well that's a different question.


So:

To say that because the camera is already doing some processing, it is ok then to add to it and post it as an example of what a particular camera is capable of is not fare in my eyes. Not in cases where the OP may never want to do any PP.
I think you're missing the point that a few of us are saying, that great cameras produce photos that generally look flat and bland via digital raw files, that's the raison d'etre of high end cameras. The Leica camera for example, brand new it will cost you anywhere between $6000 to $9000 which is far more than Canon's high end 5DMkII DSLR camera which is about $3000-ish. But the Leica's JPG files are crap. Let me say it again - it's a $9000 camera and its SOOC JPG files are crap (as criticised by some). People don't buy it for its JPGs though, they buy the Leica for the way it renders is raw files.

If you were to judge the Leica just on its SOOC, you'd be totally and completely missing the point.
 

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
Portland OR
My personal opinion is that a better camera gives the photographer more options to express his or her creativity. That's how I'd put it. A lesser camera, say a cheap camera phone, restricts a photographer's artistic/creative latitude a lot more than a high end DSLR would. Sure the iPhone can take great photos but can you take it with you to photograph a wedding? Well yes you can but it'd better not be for a paid job. Why? Because it only takes photos in one specific way with a much lower resolution, and that is it.




It sounds like you don't need an expensive, high end camera. What you're really saying you need there is a simple point-n-shoot.

But that's like saying you're happy with baked beans SOOC (straight out of the can).

If you had le baked beans from a renown chef like Heston Blumenthal, you know you're going to get the mother of all baked bean meals with the subtle flavours from the herbs and spices he'll add to it, the way he pan fries the beans first to add a little bit of crispness to the beans before baking them to perfection in the oven, and adding the finely balanced sauce which he whipped up fresh. Then he presents the meal on the plate with garnishes and an accompanying glass of fine wine.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with baked beans straight out of the can but damn, it's really, really nice to have Heston Blumenthal's baked beans, I could have that for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You haven't had baked beans until you've had Heston Blumenthal's baked beans.

BUT maybe you've tried Heston Blumenthal's baked beans and you still prefer regular baked beans SOOCan. Who are we to tell you that you should develop your gastronomical palette to the point where you can appreciate the difference between canned food and fine dining. You're asking us about fine restaurants and renown chefs, when in reality all you want to know is which can of baked beans tastes the best.

So here, you're asking us about fine cameras and what they can do but if it's just point-n-shoots you're after, well that's a different question.


So:



I think you're missing the point that a few of us are saying, that great cameras produce photos that generally look flat and bland via digital raw files, that's the raison d'etre of high end cameras. The Leica camera for example, brand new it will cost you anywhere between $6000 to $9000 which is far more than Canon's high end 5DMkII DSLR camera which is about $3000-ish. But the Leica's JPG files are crap. Let me say it again - it's a $9000 camera and its SOOC JPG files are crap (as criticised by some). People don't buy it for its JPGs though, they buy the Leica for the way it renders is raw files.

If you were to judge the Leica just on its SOOC, you'd be totally and completely missing the point.
For some reason, it seems that you are not remembering your previous post's content.

Your initial statement

what non-photographers or starting photographers often don't understand, it's not just a matter of buying the most expensive camera and pressing the button.

My reply to that was

However I have never said or feel that a better camera will make one a better photographer. Does anyone?


You then turn around and say

My personal opinion is that a better camera gives the photographer more options to express his or her creativity


Of course! But that is very different than what you accuse non/starting photographers.

We are on the same page. If your composition sucks with a P&S camera, not even the most expensive camera can fix that.

It sounds like you don't need an expensive, high end camera. What you're really saying you need there is a simple point-n-shoot.


Since last december, I have been using a Lumix G3 so it is too late now to go back to a P&S. Although I don't see how wanting to see what I saw on my screen qualifies me for using a lesser quality product. Why is it necessary to manipulate a picture? I don't get that. Because of it, I now should just use a so so camera? I am not taking a picture for any other reason, but to appreciate nature as I saw it in that moment. True, that a P&S will look worse than DSLR, but if it is good enough for me, is there anything wrong with that?

I know these shots are nothing special but why would I post process them? Are these not good enough for my purposes? I am not in business to sell my pictures, I take them for my own enjoyment. What am I missing with this JPEG? Each picture comes with it's emotions that were felt that day. I love it. What "I" don't want to feel is a reminder that this picture was PPed and looks different than what I remember.

Canon S3 (P&S)


IMG_5548 by thomasdekany, on Flickr


IMG_0755 by thomasdekany, on Flickr



Again, if I don't install a supercharger on my naturally aspirated M3, do you suggest to me that I should really just get a VW?


you can appreciate the difference between canned food and fine dining


This is where we have the issue.

Your chef DOESN'T claim that his beans are just canned beans. But YOU claim it would be ok for your chef to say the beans are canned when in fact a lot more went into creating the end product. Can you not see what I am trying to point out? How can you post a picture that you spent extra time on and say that is what the LX5 created?

Here is a link that is extremely helpful to someone who is interested in trying to find out what a camera (in this case the ZS3) is capable of producing in the right hands. (naturally, the downside to that is the realization that one has a loooooong long way to go before you get to THAT point - bringing the best out of the camera)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepap...7624418465274/

You're asking us about fine restaurants and renown chefs, when in reality all you want to know is which can of baked beans tastes the best.


How you came to that conclusion....
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I am asking (I am not really) to show what the camera can do in house. That is how this (LX5) particular camera will be used most of the time.

You haven't had baked beans until you've had Heston Blumenthal's baked beans.


Baked beans? If you like good food, I mean really good food, visit Portland Oregon. I lived in Australia, so I really feel for you, if you are into food.
:biggrin:

I think you're missing the point that a few of us are saying, that great cameras produce photos that generally look flat and bland via digital raw files, that's the raison d'etre of high end cameras. The Leica camera for example, brand new it will cost you anywhere between $6000 to $9000 which is far more than Canon's high end 5DMkII DSLR camera which is about $3000-ish. But the Leica's JPG files are crap. Let me say it again - it's a $9000 camera and its SOOC JPG files are crap (as criticised by some). People don't buy it for its JPGs though, they buy the Leica for the way it renders is raw files. If you were to judge the Leica just on its SOOC, you'd be totally and completely missing the point.


Reading the above, I think you are missing the point. A helpful reply to the OP would be a link like the one I posted about the zs3. That way we know what is possible from the camera itself. That is helpful. Shouldn't we try to get as much as possible out of the camera, before we add our own interpretation to it?

PS: the Leica VS the LX5 comparo is way off.

Please enjoy the weekend.

I enjoyed our conversation




 

Latest threads

Top Bottom