bs.pearce@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I have the LX-2, and I'm pleased. Yes, the files are noisy, but certainly no
> more so than my F30, which I found to have very objectionable noise.
Here, absent examples, I must disagree.
I do some evaluation of IQ of digicams by downloading studio images from
dpreview.com, dc-recource.com and/or imaging-resource.com and directly
comparing them. I hadn't looked at the LX2, and my F30 has very low
noise for a small digicam, so your comments interested me.
I compared the ISO 100, 400, 800 and 1600 studio shots from dpreview.
Looking at shots of the same subject, full pixel, side by side, the LX2
is clearly two stops behind the F30 in noise performance.
The F30 @ ISO 400 has the same noise level as the LX2 @ ISO 100. There
are very subtle differences in areas of different brightness, texture,
etc., but to my eye, they are quite comparable. In addition, there are
more obvious halos around dark-light edges with the LX3 than the F30.
The F30, in spite of a slightly smaller number of pixels, resolves more
detail.
The F30 @ 800 is far better than the LX1 @ 400 in all noise, artifacts
and resolution of detail.
The F30 @ 1600 is pretty comparable to the LX1 @ 800. In most light and
dark areas, noise is a tie. On the chrome of the old Leica, the F30 has
some noise/artifacts worse than the LX2, but this is 1600 vs. 400.
Artifacts and resolution in general are slightly different in character,
but comparable.
The F30 @ 1600 is quite usable, especially with something like
NeatImage. The LX2 is awful.
You almost go my hopes up, but it was not to be. Mind you, I'm not
saying one camera or the other is better overall, only addressing JPEG
IQ. Lack of IS and RAW on the F30 are significant drawbacks and the zoom
range is a little less. The F30 is a bit smaller and lighter.
> The LX3 has a shorter lens (24- 60 or so, too short on the long end for me)
> while the LX2 is 28-112, a good general use range.
>
The LX3 looks very exciting for those who think wide.
> The handling is excellent. My only complaint is that I need to use SilkyPix
> for raw conversion. SilkyPix is hard to use, as the naming of the functions
> was done by a non-native english speaker with a sense of whimsy.
So far, the RAW files from my A650 IS can only be processed in batch
under a DOS window using dcraw. Fortunately, it does an excellent job
and I've worked out ways to make it simple to use.
Moose (Mose)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|