New LX3 Panasonic tests

[dalethorn]

Here's my real-world tests of the "highly anticipated" LX3 -vs- the TZ5.  The reason for the TZ5 is Panasonic's comparison of the 1/1.63 sensor to the 1/2.33 sensor used in the TZ5, and my feeling that it's a more logical comparison than the LX3 to a large-sensor camera.

The 'Test01' images were shot in a direction generally toward the sun, and show the TZ5's main weakness (noise) under less than ideal lighting (for small sensors, that is).

With the 'Test02' images OTOH, shot with sun behind the cameras, the LX3's pixel smearing is about the same as the TZ5's, and no doubt a *lot* worse than any large-sensor camera.

All images were at ISO 100, approx. 28 mm equivalent zoom, auto (Program mode) settings.  Apertures were 4+ and shutter speeds were approx. 1/500 to 1/600, IS set to Mode 1 (always on).  The LX3's pics were sharpened slightly to look about the same as the TZ5's .

[popnfresh]

If you're trying to compare the two cameras, why would you alter the output from one to make it look more like the other? I would find it more useful to see the LX-3's shots unsharpened.

[dalethorn]

If you're trying to compare the two cameras, why would you alter the output from one to make it look more like the other? I would find it more useful to see the LX-3's shots unsharpened.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, from an academic standpoint, or a perspective of some manufacturer looking at raw output for some particular pixel quality, you may be right.  But that's not what this is about.  This is about getting from the raw image to the finished product with as little editing as possible, and comparing then and *only* then, to see what each camera can do, from the perspective of the end results.  I'm certain that most people want to see what the comparable final results look like, assuming very minimal editing, otherwise, they should be looking at test charts on DPReview.  And BTW, the LX3 pics were shot as RAW.

[popnfresh]

OK, on the basis of these samples I'd say the LX3 unquestionably blows away the TZ5. The tonality on the TZ5 is rather harsh by comparison, indicative of a more constricted dynamic range. The LX3 has a richer and smoother tonality that extends more deeply into the high and low values creating a better impression of dimensionality. The pictures simply look more natural.

[dalethorn]

OK, on the basis of these samples I'd say the LX3 unquestionably blows away the TZ5. The tonality on the TZ5 is rather harsh by comparison, indicative of a more constricted dynamic range. The LX3 has a richer and smoother tonality that extends more deeply into the high and low values creating a better impression of dimensionality. The pictures simply look more natural.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"Blows away" the TZ5?  Wow.  Not an impression I share.  Certainly each camera has its own "personality" (as does every camera I've owned), but on the basis of these images alone, and ignoring everything since then, I see very little difference.  The LX3 is about average compared to the last 17 digicams I've owned, and not even as good as the FZ50, which has an older Venus engine and a much smaller sensor.