Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 announced - looks good!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Jul 21, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.


    From DPReview:

    "Panasonic has officially unveiled the DMC-LX5, successor to the
    popular LX3. The latest model features a revised sensor, longer zoom
    range and improved control layout without fundamentally changing the
    existing model's formula. It offers a more flexible 24-90mm equivalent
    lens with a bright F2.0-3.3 maximum aperture range and a comparatively
    large 10MP sensor in a small body. The body itself is barely changed
    compared to the LX3 - gaining an improved hand grip, clickable control
    dial, direct movie record button and a 1:1 position on the aspect
    ratio slider. Most significantly it gains a connector to add the
    DMW-LVF1 electronic viewfinder originally launched with the GF1. Other
    than this, the LX5 gains the AVCHD Lite format for its 720p video, and
    its image stabilization is branded with the company's latest 'Power
    O.I.S' designation. It will be available from the end of August for a
    suggested retail price of $499.95. We've had a chance to use an LX5
    for a bit, so have prepared some notes on our first impressions."

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072110panasonicdmclx5.asp
    Bruce, Jul 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    > better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.

    []

    Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the ill-fated
    Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly. Why spoil an otherwise interesting 2/3-inch
    camera?

    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 22, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:36:33 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    >> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.

    >[]
    >
    >Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the ill-fated
    >Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly.



    Why ill-fated? A successor is under development.

    The DSC-R1 wasn't particularly large for a camera with an APS-C
    sensor. It had an outstanding Carl Zeiss lens giving excellent image
    quality.

    As for ugly, I think most cameras (apart from Leicas) are ugly, and
    "handsome is as handsome does". On that basis, the DSC-R1 was a
    handsome camera.

    I was so impressed with mine that I bought a second. The first got a
    lot of hard use on construction sites and never let me down, so I
    never actually needed the back-up. Despite all the dust and grit they
    were exposed to, their sensors never needed cleaning.

    The DSC-R1 was the best non-SLR camera I have ever owned, and it was a
    steady earner for me over a three year period. Who cares if it was
    large and ugly? It was a fine camera.
    Bruce, Jul 22, 2010
    #3
  4. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:36:33 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    > <> wrote:
    >>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    >>> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.

    >>[]
    >>
    >>Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the
    >>ill-fated
    >>Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly.

    >
    >
    > Why ill-fated? A successor is under development.


    Nearly five years since the camera first came out, and no updates,
    certainly helps give the impression of a failed line.

    > The DSC-R1 wasn't particularly large for a camera with an APS-C
    > sensor. It had an outstanding Carl Zeiss lens giving excellent image
    > quality.
    >
    > As for ugly, I think most cameras (apart from Leicas) are ugly, and
    > "handsome is as handsome does". On that basis, the DSC-R1 was a
    > handsome camera.
    >
    > I was so impressed with mine that I bought a second. The first got a
    > lot of hard use on construction sites and never let me down, so I
    > never actually needed the back-up. Despite all the dust and grit they
    > were exposed to, their sensors never needed cleaning.
    >
    > The DSC-R1 was the best non-SLR camera I have ever owned, and it was a
    > steady earner for me over a three year period. Who cares if it was
    > large and ugly? It was a fine camera.



    The add-on lenses made it a very large and ugly brute, and that wasn't
    just my view. I nearly bought one myself, as I agree the lens was
    excellent, but for what I needed the zoom range with the fixed lens alone
    was inadequate. I appreciate your needs are different. In the end, I'm
    glad I waited, and got a DSLR which could be used with similar zoom range
    lenses, but where you could easily add an extended zoom lens for
    walk-round use (e.g. 18-200+mm) or wider aperture lenses for low-light or
    subject isolation.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 22, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:35:03 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> wrote:
    >
    >The add-on lenses made it a very large and ugly brute, and that wasn't
    >just my view.



    I agree, I would never have considered the add-on lenses either.
    Thankfully, I had no need of them.

    The contract that was the R1's main use was renewed earlier this year
    for another three years. Bizarrely, the client specified that "more
    advanced" equipment must be used. That's a pity, because the R1 would
    have been more than adequate. But the person signing the contract
    wanted to show his fellow directors that only the best equipment was
    being used, so he specified a minimum of 24 MP.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-)
    Bruce, Jul 22, 2010
    #5
  6. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > I agree, I would never have considered the add-on lenses either.
    > Thankfully, I had no need of them.
    >
    > The contract that was the R1's main use was renewed earlier this year
    > for another three years. Bizarrely, the client specified that "more
    > advanced" equipment must be used. That's a pity, because the R1 would
    > have been more than adequate. But the person signing the contract
    > wanted to show his fellow directors that only the best equipment was
    > being used, so he specified a minimum of 24 MP.
    >
    > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-)


    Oh, dear! Good news about the renewal, though.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 22, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:35:03 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >>The add-on lenses made it a very large and ugly brute, and that wasn't
    >>just my view.

    >
    >
    > I agree, I would never have considered the add-on lenses either.
    > Thankfully, I had no need of them.
    >


    I strongly suspect hat you have little need of any lens.

    > The contract that was the R1's main use was renewed earlier this year
    > for another three years. Bizarrely, the client specified that "more
    > advanced" equipment must be used. That's a pity, because the R1 would
    > have been more than adequate. But the person signing the contract
    > wanted to show his fellow directors that only the best equipment was
    > being used, so he specified a minimum of 24 MP.
    >
    > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-)
    >



    Sure is.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 22, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 21/07/10 2:46 PM, Bruce wrote:
    > The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    > better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.
    >
    >
    > From DPReview:
    >
    > "Panasonic has officially unveiled the DMC-LX5, successor to the
    > popular LX3. The latest model features a revised sensor, longer zoom
    > range and improved control layout without fundamentally changing the
    > existing model's formula. It offers a more flexible 24-90mm equivalent
    > lens with a bright F2.0-3.3 maximum aperture range and a comparatively
    > large 10MP sensor in a small body. The body itself is barely changed
    > compared to the LX3 - gaining an improved hand grip, clickable control
    > dial, direct movie record button and a 1:1 position on the aspect
    > ratio slider. Most significantly it gains a connector to add the
    > DMW-LVF1 electronic viewfinder originally launched with the GF1. Other
    > than this, the LX5 gains the AVCHD Lite format for its 720p video, and
    > its image stabilization is branded with the company's latest 'Power
    > O.I.S' designation. It will be available from the end of August for a
    > suggested retail price of $499.95. We've had a chance to use an LX5
    > for a bit, so have prepared some notes on our first impressions."
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072110panasonicdmclx5.asp


    Looks like Panasonic finally got the message about their reputation for
    noise boxes and is addressing the problem.

    Still, the upcoming Canon G12 is probably a better choice with no need
    for a funky extra-cost add-on viewfinder. Just when CHDK is finally
    available for the G11, Canon is coming out with the G12!

    The G12 is said to have 1080 HD video and a CMOS sensor, but remain at
    10 megapixeels.
    SMS, Jul 22, 2010
    #8
  9. "David J Taylor" <>
    wrote in message news:i28otj$5uu$-september.org...
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message news:...


    >> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    >> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.

    > []


    > Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the ill-fated Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly. Why spoil an otherwise
    > interesting 2/3-inch camera?
    >
    > David


    If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
    (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
    are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such
    a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)
    --DR
    David Ruether, Jul 22, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:i29n22$b8j$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <>
    > wrote in message news:i28otj$5uu$-september.org...
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...

    >
    >>> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
    >>> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.

    >> []

    >
    >> Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the ill-fated
    >> Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly. Why spoil an otherwise interesting
    >> 2/3-inch camera?
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
    > (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
    > are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such
    > a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)



    For some here, it's about equipment, not images.
    If that's their interest, so be it. I have rarely seen images made by the
    equipment carpers. They love of BS about equipment; quote reviews of things
    they probably never used; and give meaningless opinions about what is coming
    next.
    Just my observation.
    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 22, 2010
    #10
  11. "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:i29n22$b8j$...
    []
    > If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
    > (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
    > are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such
    > a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)
    > --DR


    David,

    I find that my pictures cover the equivalent range 24mm - 450mm, and I
    would often like a little more at the wide end. My feeling is that the
    fixed lens camera works well if you can live with the built-in zoom range.
    If not, then you might as well get an interchangeable lens camera. If you
    are a wide-angle enthusiast, you might get a more compact solution with
    one of the micro-4/3 cameras.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 22, 2010
    #11
  12. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 7/22/2010 12:36 PM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    > news:i29n22$b8j$...
    > []
    >> If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
    >> (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
    >> are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such
    >> a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)
    >> --DR

    >
    > David,
    >
    > I find that my pictures cover the equivalent range 24mm - 450mm, and I
    > would often like a little more at the wide end. My feeling is that the
    > fixed lens camera works well if you can live with the built-in zoom
    > range. If not, then you might as well get an interchangeable lens
    > camera. If you are a wide-angle enthusiast, you might get a more compact
    > solution with one of the micro-4/3 cameras.


    Not really. Remember the crop factor.
    J. Clarke, Jul 22, 2010
    #12
  13. "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    >> David,
    >>
    >> I find that my pictures cover the equivalent range 24mm - 450mm, and I
    >> would often like a little more at the wide end. My feeling is that the
    >> fixed lens camera works well if you can live with the built-in zoom
    >> range. If not, then you might as well get an interchangeable lens
    >> camera. If you are a wide-angle enthusiast, you might get a more
    >> compact
    >> solution with one of the micro-4/3 cameras.

    >
    > Not really. Remember the crop factor.


    That should reduce the size of wide-angle lenses as well. Talking of
    compact lenses, though, I don't see /any/ fixed-focal-length lenses which
    I would call wide-angle on this page:

    http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/lense.html

    25mm (50mm eq.) appears to be the widest. To get 7mm (14mm eq.) you need
    a zoom.

    Nothing from Olympus, either:

    http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/c/374/Olympus-Micro-Four-Thirds-Lenses.html

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 22, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:22:28 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> wrote:

    >Talking of
    >compact lenses, though, I don't see /any/ fixed-focal-length lenses which
    >I would call wide-angle on this page:
    >
    > http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/lense.html
    >
    >25mm (50mm eq.) appears to be the widest. To get 7mm (14mm eq.) you need
    >a zoom.
    >
    >Nothing from Olympus, either:
    >
    > http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/c/374/Olympus-Micro-Four-Thirds-Lenses.html



    Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
    remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
    with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.
    Bruce, Jul 22, 2010
    #14
  15. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
    > remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
    > with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.


    True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 23, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 7/23/2010 6:45 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
    >> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
    >> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.

    >
    > True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens.


    It gives the same image circle as any other 8mm fisheye, which means
    that it doesn't give full 180 degree coverage of the entire image, it
    just gives 180 diagonally on 4/3.

    There is a 7-14mm rectilinear which gives the same coverage as a 14mm on
    full frame or a 10mm on APS-C. For APS-C Sigma has an 8-16mm
    rectilinear that gives the same field of view that a 5.6mm would give on
    4/3. Further, the 8-16 is smaller than the 7-14 and you can get the
    lens and a decent camera body for less than the price of the Sigma lens
    alone. And if you look at the uncorrected test results rather than the
    ones with autocorrection, you'll find that the Sigma is across the board
    a better performer as well.
    J. Clarke, Jul 23, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:i2brsa$kjt$-september.org...
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
    >> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
    >> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.

    >
    > True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens.
    >



    did you look at the Sigma 8-16. It is not compact, but is rectilinear. I
    played with one last week and published my short review in one of the
    groups.
    Summary: I am seriously considering getting that lens




    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 23, 2010
    #17
  18. "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On 7/22/2010 12:36 PM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >> news:i29n22$b8j$...


    >>> []
    >>> If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
    >>> (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
    >>> are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such
    >>> a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)
    >>> --DR


    >> I find that my pictures cover the equivalent range 24mm - 450mm, and I
    >> would often like a little more at the wide end. My feeling is that the
    >> fixed lens camera works well if you can live with the built-in zoom
    >> range. If not, then you might as well get an interchangeable lens
    >> camera. If you are a wide-angle enthusiast, you might get a more compact
    >> solution with one of the micro-4/3 cameras.


    > Not really. Remember the crop factor.


    While most add-on WA converters reduce lens performance (especially
    if zoomed much away from the widest zoom setting), a few do not on
    some camera lenses (a .8X Olympus is sharp on my Sony 707 to the
    corners at f2 through maybe a quarter of the zooming range away from
    WA, and the .66X Raynox is sharp on my Canon HV20 HD camcorder at
    f1.8 through about half the zoom range). These converters can be relatively
    compact and light, since much of the optics already are attached to the
    camera. Often, these attachments at least partly use light-weight plastic
    optics (as with a Sony ".6X" [actually about .5X]), and they can be quite
    thin. For these reasons, it is worth checking into the performance of specific
    converters with specific lenses since there can be advantages to using them...
    --DR
    David Ruether, Jul 23, 2010
    #18
  19. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 7/23/2010 9:48 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > message news:i2brsa$kjt$-september.org...
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
    >>> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
    >>> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.

    >>
    >> True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens.
    >>

    >
    >
    > did you look at the Sigma 8-16. It is not compact, but is rectilinear. I
    > played with one last week and published my short review in one of the
    > groups.
    > Summary: I am seriously considering getting that lens


    However it gives a wider field on an APS-C than on 4/3.
    J. Clarke, Jul 23, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:45:29 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> wrote:

    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
    >> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
    >> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.

    >
    >True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens.



    Not what you were thinking, perhaps. But Nikon actively markets the
    AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX as a lens for rectilinear results by
    including software to correct the fisheye "distortion".

    I say "distortion" because the results from a fisheye lens are
    actually *less distorted* than those from a rectilinear lens of the
    same focal length. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ;-)
    Bruce, Jul 23, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nick Withers

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC43 digital camera

    Nick Withers, May 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    782
    Boomer
    May 11, 2004
  2. XL 02

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC40 - Redeeming Qualities ?

    XL 02, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    XL 02
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Hans-Georg Michna
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    785
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Aug 3, 2003
  4. Andy K

    Panasonic Lumix DMC - FZ1camera

    Andy K, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    632
    Tesselator
    Aug 25, 2003
  5. sobriquet

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38 vs DMC-FZ35

    sobriquet, Oct 4, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,383
    sobriquet
    Oct 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page