Micro 4/3 Showcase Panasonic LX100 I/II picture thread

Can some of you post ISO 1600 - 3200 images from RAW and show me the noise..I don't mean OOC, but properly edited to the final image, which may include external noise reduction.
I am considering this camera for my street... and coming from a Fuji X-E2 that set on Auto ISO 200-6400.
I realize that ISO 1600 may be the top usable though.
Is the noise as good as the Oly E-M5, which I once owned?
 
Can some of you post ISO 1600 - 3200 images from RAW and show me the noise..I don't mean OOC, but properly edited to the final image, which may include external noise reduction.
I am considering this camera for my street... and coming from a Fuji X-E2 that set on Auto ISO 200-6400.
I realize that ISO 1600 may be the top usable though.
Is the noise as good as the Oly E-M5, which I once owned?
I'd have to look through the collection, so I don't promise anything, but just as a preliminary statement, I will say that I've decided to limit ISO on this camera to 800 - because it's visibly worse than my E-M10 at 1600; I don't even know if I've actually kept any of my earlier high ISO files around. The camera preserves details quite well, but noise is already quite strong in RAW at ISO 1600. But YMMV, obviously, so I hope someone will do as you requested.

M.
 
Can some of you post ISO 1600 - 3200 images from RAW and show me the noise..I don't mean OOC, but properly edited to the final image, which may include external noise reduction.
I am considering this camera for my street... and coming from a Fuji X-E2 that set on Auto ISO 200-6400.
I realize that ISO 1600 may be the top usable though.
Is the noise as good as the Oly E-M5, which I once owned?

I'd have to look through the collection, so I don't promise anything, but just as a preliminary statement, I will say that I've decided to limit ISO on this camera to 800 - because it's visibly worse than my E-M10 at 1600; I don't even know if I've actually kept any of my earlier high ISO files around. The camera preserves details quite well, but noise is already quite strong in RAW at ISO 1600. But YMMV, obviously, so I hope someone will do as you requested.

M.

I understand, I just downloaded some RAW files from DPR Reviews for LX100 and EM5... 400/800/1600/3200
LX100 is easily 2 to 2.5 stops worse than the EM5, yet it is a newer camera by 2 years(EM5/2012, LX100/2014)...
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Still produces decent results to ISO 800, but I wonder if the Leica version has better ISO with the Leica firmware? Maybe less in camera NR with the RAW files?
 
I understand, I just downloaded some RAW files from DPR Reviews for LX100 and EM5... 400/800/1600/3200
LX100 is easily 2 to 2.5 stops worse than the EM5, yet it is a newer camera by 2 years(EM5/2012, LX100/2014)...
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Still produces decent results to ISO 800, but I wonder if the Leica version has better ISO with the Leica firmware? Maybe less in camera NR with the RAW files?
I don't know about 2 to 2.5 stops - in my view, it's more like 1.5 stops, but I think that's highly subjective; I can live with a bit of noise as long as it doesn't eat up all the detail. While the images from the LX100 are indeed a bit grainy and coarse compared to 16MP :mu43:, that's only to be expected; I think that it's a bit unfair to compare the LX100 to a full :mu43: camera - the sensor might be the same, but only part of its full area and resolution is used; we still get admirable low light performance *for a compact camera*. I treat it as such and thus am very pleased with its output, and it sure feels fantastic in use (though I'd like it to be a bit faster to deploy).

That said, I'd still perfer a sort of "mini Q": fixed focal length, but full :mu43: sensor in order to get even better results. But we could achieve something very much like that with a GM5 and 15mm f/1.7 ...

M.
 
I don't know about 2 to 2.5 stops - in my view, it's more like 1.5 stops, but I think that's highly subjective; I can live with a bit of noise as long as it doesn't eat up all the detail. While the images from the LX100 are indeed a bit grainy and coarse compared to 16MP :mu43:, that's only to be expected; I think that it's a bit unfair to compare the LX100 to a full :mu43: camera - the sensor might be the same, but only part of its full area and resolution is used; we still get admirable low light performance *for a compact camera*. I treat it as such and thus am very pleased with its output, and it sure feels fantastic in use (though I'd like it to be a bit faster to deploy).

That said, I'd still perfer a sort of "mini Q": fixed focal length, but full :mu43: sensor in order to get even better results. But we could achieve something very much like that with a GM5 and 15mm f/1.7 ...

M.

I did a direct comparison in Lr at the center of DPR target, (the round rings target thingy) and it took LX100 ISO 400 to equal equal EM5 ISO 1600 noise.
It may be only about 13mp vs 16mp, but you'd think a 2 year newer sensor would perform better. The biggest difference was the smearing of the finer edges of the rings above ISO 800.
It is a 4/3 sensor, the loss of a few MPs is marginal for the gain of the same diagonal mm's with the different image ratios (4:3, 3:2) IMO

Even with the GX7 vs LX100 (only a 300 pixel each side difference in 4:3 ratio), the GX7 is much better, very close to the EM5.... And the GX7 came out in 2013 a year earlier than the LX100.

So, they use an old sensor maybe... the GX7 is not that much more than the LX100. Granted it has no lens.
I used RAW files unaltered from both cameras from the same review in the comparison view to download and just opened in Lr at 3x loup view.

I may yet still keep it on my short list for a compact larger sensor camera....There really isn't any other similar IQ small cam/larger sensor out their with a zoom and and 4/3 sensor.
 
Last edited:
I did a direct comparison in Lr at the center of DPR target, (the round rings target thingy) and it took LX100 ISO 400 to equal equal EM5 ISO 1600 noise.
It may be only about 13mp vs 16mp, but you'd think a 2 year newer sensor would perform better. The biggest difference was the smearing of the finer edges of the rings above ISO 800.
It is a 4/3 sensor, the loss of a few MPs is marginal for the gain of the same diagonal mm's with the different image ratios (4:3, 3:2) IMO

Even with the GX7 vs LX100 (only a 300 pixel each side difference in 4:3 ratio), the GX7 is much better, very close to the EM5.... And the GX7 came out in 2013 a year earlier than the LX100.

So, they use an old sensor maybe... the GX7 is not that much more than the LX100. Granted it has no lens.
I used RAW files unaltered from both cameras from the same review in the comparison view to download and just opened in Lr at 3x loup view.

I may yet still keep it on my short list for a compact larger sensor camera....There really isn't any other similar IQ small cam/larger sensor out their with a zoom and and 4/3 sensor.

The LX-100 is pretty nice - I have the Leica version (D-Lux-109), and while the D-Lux/LX100 does well in good outdoor light, it's not so great otherwise. Except in indoor low-light shooting where there are good contrasts - then the fast lens makes a difference.
 
As I said: Up to ISO 800, it's fine (taken on the same evening as "glorious sunset II" above):
22666841782_b6f521b8bc_c.jpg

window dusk
on Flickr

I don't use it above that. And yes, :mu43: can go higher with comparative ease (not a spectacular shot, just good low light performance):
15747191212_44fbf14b0e_c.jpg

a night's work
on Flickr

As long as you use a tool, any tool, within the limits of its purpose and capabilities, it'll not disappoint. Beyond that - well, probably it will.

I still like the LX100, very much so in fact. As a carry-around, it's hard to beat. However, as long as I can take bigger/more capable cameras with me, I will. But I wouldn't have been able to take some of the images I love the most without the LX100 ...

M.
 
I consider my LX100 as my sketchbook: may be it doesn't always deliver high art, but it is perfect for fast documentation. Earlier compact cameras had too much issues with image quality, or user interface (RX100...) that they didn't work for me. This is the first compact that doesn't make me regret not bringing my camera bag.
 
I took these this afternoon, they are out of the camera jpegs, lightly edited in Lightroom. The Raw files needed more work to look like this. I'm going to experiment more with the camera settings to see if I can get the output more or less to how I like. These was shot on standard film mode, all the settings on 0 except noise reduction which is on -5. I've now upped contrast, sharpness and saturation to +1 and I'll see how I will get on with that.

24028308035_af1ed95ee0_b.jpg
Poole Harbour, late afternoon
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

23920209622_8aff070f0e_b.jpg
Poole Harbour, late afternoon
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

24028365525_81b269e946_b.jpg
Poole Harbour, late afternoon
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr
 
I did a direct comparison in Lr at the center of DPR target, (the round rings target thingy) and it took LX100 ISO 400 to equal equal EM5 ISO 1600 noise.
It may be only about 13mp vs 16mp, but you'd think a 2 year newer sensor would perform better. The biggest difference was the smearing of the finer edges of the rings above ISO 800.
It is a 4/3 sensor, the loss of a few MPs is marginal for the gain of the same diagonal mm's with the different image ratios (4:3, 3:2) IMO

Even with the GX7 vs LX100 (only a 300 pixel each side difference in 4:3 ratio), the GX7 is much better, very close to the EM5.... And the GX7 came out in 2013 a year earlier than the LX100.

So, they use an old sensor maybe... the GX7 is not that much more than the LX100. Granted it has no lens.
I used RAW files unaltered from both cameras from the same review in the comparison view to download and just opened in Lr at 3x loup view.

I may yet still keep it on my short list for a compact larger sensor camera....There really isn't any other similar IQ small cam/larger sensor out their with a zoom and and 4/3 sensor.
For those that are interested of the performance of this camera at ISO 3200, below is one photo unedited from RAW, the 2nd has only had sharp masking and noise reduction applied, the 3rd I used a preset that someone created for the EM1 at high ISO and turned it into black and white.

23685406859_e38d0a398d_c.jpg
LX100 ISO3200 test unedited RAW (1 of 1)
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

In the photo below, the only adjustment made to the original raw file is: Sharpening Masking 64, Noise reduction Luminance 35 & Detail 78.

23426405623_be2356847b_c.jpg
LX100 ISO3200 NR applied (1 of 1)
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

I used an EM1 high ISO preset someone once posted on the M4/3 forum. I have read that the EM1 shares the same sensor as the GX7/GM's & LX100. in LR6, NR Luminance is set at 30, Detail at 78. I also turned it into B&W.

23757539110_4f2644e277_c.jpg
LX100 ISO3200 EM1 high ISO preset & BW (1 of 1)
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr
 
For those that are interested of the performance of this camera at ISO 3200, below is one photo unedited from RAW, the 2nd has only had sharp masking and noise reduction applied, the 3rd I used a preset that someone created for the EM1 at high ISO and turned it into black and white.

23685406859_e38d0a398d_c.jpg
LX100 ISO3200 test unedited RAW (1 of 1)
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

In the photo below, the only adjustment made to the original raw file is: Sharpening Masking 64, Noise reduction Luminance 35 & Detail 78.

23426405623_be2356847b_c.jpg
LX100 ISO3200 NR applied (1 of 1)
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

I used an EM1 high ISO preset someone once posted on the M4/3 forum. I have read that the EM1 shares the same sensor as the GX7/GM's & LX100. in LR6, NR Luminance is set at 30, Detail at 78. I also turned it into B&W.

23757539110_4f2644e277_c.jpg
LX100 ISO3200 EM1 high ISO preset & BW (1 of 1)
by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

Those bricks look awfully good for ISO 3200.
 
Parc Mont-Royal, Beaver Lake, Skating rink (around illuminated trees)
Beaver Lake, Mount Royal.jpg
 
Back
Top