Two years ago I purchased a F30 for my young son, he was no longer
interested to use the C5050 as the size is too big and doesn't look smart in
his eyes. The noise level of F30 is much lower when compared with other DCs
in that size but I will only use it at ISO400 or below, after that the noise
reduction is very obvious and it is just "ok" for 4x6" prints. Since it
applied NR in-camera, further NR outside is not that effective, there is
also no sharpen control (the F30 is slightly over sharpen in my eyes).
Nevertheless, I still purchase another used F11 for my elder son as the Fuji
give good results in most conditions.
For myself, I used a LX1 for a year and switched to FZ18 last month since my
wife wants a longer reach. I prefer RAW and 28mm wide angle over the F30's
lower noise. I only use the Panasonic at ISO100, both cameras has an
excellent lens and I like the color of Panasonic better.
Sometimes comparing the image in dpreview is not that useful especially at
JPEG default settting, some camera has higher sharpen setting than the
others, the Panasonic is well over sharpened and it will cause more noise.
The LX3 is a very interesting camera, 24mm F2 is unbeatable, the one stop
faster speed compensated for the higher noise, it is certainly in my
purchase list.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
==============================================
|