No too happy with the camera

Discussion in 'Panasonic LX100 / D-LUX (109) Forum' started by RaybanBcn, Apr 14, 2017.

  1. RaybanBcn

    RaybanBcn SC Rookie

    10
    Apr 14, 2017
    Hi all,
    It's my first time with this camera and after one month I'm not so happy with it.
    • I feel the picture with noise (the dark zones, and the face of the people)
    • It isn`t well defined (the shape of the person, the outline is very blurry)
    • He white balance it's always wrong (I need to adjust in each picture)
    • It burns the white zones
    • In general the definition isn't so good.
    These are the issues I found (at least in my case), I feel like a phone camera not like a professional camera.

    I was wondering that maybe it was a problem with my settings.
    Does anyone have the same problem with the camera?

    Thanks
    Jaume
     
  2. Les Klein

    Les Klein SC Regular

    154
    Dec 10, 2015
    Hi RaybanBcn. This is an unusual set of problems for the LX100. Please post some pictures and exposure information so that you can be helped.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds SC Veteran

    454
    Jan 1, 2017
    Troy
    Sounds like it's broken, better send it on to me for correct disposal/recycling... :2thumbs:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. RaybanBcn

    RaybanBcn SC Rookie

    10
    Apr 14, 2017
    Thanks for your answers,
    Here there is an example using a tripod 1.7 60 1000 ISO (it was taken in auto mode).
    In this case the white balance looks ok, but if you see the flower it isn't well defined. (I have more examples with 2.8 aperture having the same result),
    It's the same for a portrait, the skin has a complete lack of definition.
    What do you think about the picture?

    In the second case
    2,5 40 1600 ISO, using a tripod


    What do you think about the pictures ?

    Thanks
    Jaume
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I think those photos look fine. Perhaps pixel-peeping too deeply
     
  6. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 SC Top Veteran

    609
    Feb 6, 2015
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Give us more info, like what are you shooting with before the LX100? Are there more examples you can provide?

    Each camera has a specific way it needs to be treated, and you might be treating it like a different camera. The image response and post processing flow may not be the same to get optimal performance.

    While the sensor may be small, at close focusing distances, f/1.7 and f/2.5 are relatively small. Some of the "lack of definition" might be from a shallow DOF.

    Beyond that, I think the images look respectable.
     
  7. Les Klein

    Les Klein SC Regular

    154
    Dec 10, 2015
    I agree with the comments above. The DOF seems shallow, perhaps try again with f5.6 or smaller aperture. You wrote “auto mode." Did you use autofocus or manual focus? Did you use A, P, or S Mode, or iA? Either way, try confirming focus using Focus Peaking. I enjoy using the camera in full manual mode. It brings me to concentrate on all the elements that combine to capturing a picture. Also, 270 KB is a small file resulting in lost detail. The pictures look dark — perhaps the exposure adjustment was not at 0 (the dial turns easily). I made this mistake often when I started using this camera.

    I had to change my picture taking approach using the LX100. There are many options and it takes a while to learn what is best for you. One of the great advantages of digital cameras is that you can take many pictures at a variety of settings as you learn how to control the settings that work best for you. Fire away ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. SnapDawg

    SnapDawg Rorschach Test Pilot

    888
    Apr 18, 2014
    Canary Islands
    Ken
    Your images look OK to me. I don't own an LX100 but one thing I'd look for would be your noise reduction settings (stronger NR kills details) and like Andrew already suggested you might want to experiment with your aperture (and exposure compensation) and where exactly you set your focus point(s). Just take your time.
     
  9. RaybanBcn

    RaybanBcn SC Rookie

    10
    Apr 14, 2017
    Thanks for your answer,
    I know what you mean, I played with the aperture but I don't get more definition on the focused area, it looks blurry to me.
    If I compare with a picture I took with my old camera (Nikon d3100 with 1.8 lens) you can see how the focused area is more sharper.
    _DSC0012.
    This isn't the best example because my dog didn't stop to move all the time but I think could be an example to try to understand what kind of definition I was looking for.

    I have been looking on internet and I found there are some people how complains about the same problem and I could be a problem with some cameras. After they changed the problem was solved.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Les Klein

    Les Klein SC Regular

    154
    Dec 10, 2015
    Have you reviewed all the settings on the camera?
    Are you taking full size (Fine) images?
    What is the file size of images on your computer?
    Have you taken the same picture with a variety of apertures, keeping shutter speed and ISO constant? Do you see a difference in sharpness across the image?
    Do you see the same fuzziness with distance shots?
     
  11. mattia

    mattia SC Regular

    99
    Dec 20, 2013
    I think you need to compare the shots with the LX100 to similar shots - like for like. You're now comparing a number of shots with (mostly) shallow depth of field in good light, to an indoor shot of a flower in poor light. Apples to oranges. I can very easily make dull, uninteresting shots with my A7r in all of its megapickle glory.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. RaybanBcn

    RaybanBcn SC Rookie

    10
    Apr 14, 2017
    Thanks for your answer,
    I checked all the settings and turning off and on all the setting with relation with contrasts, auto Iso ... etc etc. ( I have read the manual trying to find the options with relation to my problem).
    Yes, The size is the maximum the camera lets (I chose the option with finest resolution).
    The size is 3395 × 2550 ( I cut the image a bit).
    I tried with different apertures, using a tripod and shooting manually. I can see more areas focused but with the same lack of sharp.
     
  13. RaybanBcn

    RaybanBcn SC Rookie

    10
    Apr 14, 2017
    Yes, you are right, but I don't have my old camera, but I tried to use the camera on similar situations (flower pictures in a sunny day for example). and the problem is just with the lack of sharpness.
    The depth of field is correct, even the bokeh is nice. It just is the area focused, if you zoom you can see it or if you see the skin of a person, it's completely flat, In my old camera I even could see skin's pore.
     
  14. kyteflyer

    kyteflyer ~@¿@~

    Jan 31, 2011
    Newcastle, Australia
    Sue
    Perhaps your particular copy is a dud. I have absolutely no problems getting sharp pix from mine, in good or mediocre light. Its never going to be a star in bad light (IMO).
    Panasonic LX100
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Les Klein

    Les Klein SC Regular

    154
    Dec 10, 2015
    Looking at the picture of the dog again, it seems to me that the area around his eye is sharp and clear. You didn’t provide exposure details but it looks like it was shot with full aperture and sufficiently high shutter speed. The lack of detail on his snout and beyond the eye is a result of shallow depth of field.

    However, if you're not satisfied with the best part of the image, then perhaps you should consider returning the camera.
     
  16. bilzmale

    bilzmale Super Moderator Emeritus Subscribing Member

    Jul 17, 2010
    Perth, Western Australia
    Bill Shinnick
    Just a thought out of left field - have you turned off Image Stabilization when using a tripod? Leaving IS on using a tripod can reduce sharpness.
     
  17. nippa

    nippa SC Top Veteran

    563
    Aug 7, 2010
    Cheshire UK
    Dennis
    The camera uses a micro 4/3 sensor IIRC.

    I have 3 m4/3 cameras and 6 lenses but I stopped using the system for most things other than airshows because I dislike the 16mps sensor.
    In the OP's shots I see the excessive noise and poor colours that made me give up. (I regard ISOs at 400 plus as very challenging when compared to my other cameras.)

    When I bought a Sony RX100 with a 1" sensor it blew me away and convinced me that it was time to shelve m4/3. It showed just how far things had come.

    I haven't had a chance to evaluate the latest Lumix/Olympus sensors but I hope to return to the format one day as things improve.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  18. Les Klein

    Les Klein SC Regular

    154
    Dec 10, 2015
    It's not just the physical size of the sensor that's important. M4/3 (1.33") is larger than a 1" sensor. Pixel density (the inverse of pixel size for a given area) is another factor, along with several others. The LX100 only uses about 12 mp of the 16 mp 4/3 sensor. The Sony has a higher pixel density than the larger m4/3 sensor.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RaybanBcn

    RaybanBcn SC Rookie

    10
    Apr 14, 2017
    Finally I asked to Amazon to change my camera and today I have received my new one.
    I went to a park to take some pictures and I felt it fine.
    Here there is an example, Now the focused area it's more defined.
    or at least I see more defined (maybe it's because I'm desiring to solve the problem :p ) .
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  20. Les Klein

    Les Klein SC Regular

    154
    Dec 10, 2015
    Looks good to me too, but I would like to know the specs for the shot. How about shooting the same scene with a range of 3 or 4 f stops to differences in the depth of field?