LX100 OIS Effectiveness

The Image Stabiliser  in the LX100 is not quite as effective as that in the FZ 1000 but it doesn’t need to be as the LX100 lens has a much shorter zoom reach.  It is still very useful however.

I ran tests using a subject with plenty of detail and a hand held camera at the wide end then the long end of the zoom range.  I photographed the subject at a range of shutter speeds with the OIS on then off.  I have steady hands.

I held the camera with my eye to the viewfinder and also while composing on the monitor.

Results

	Wide		Long
Actual Focal Length  mm	10.9		34
Full Frame Equivalent Focal Length   mm	24		75
1/EFL  Shutter Speed	1/25		1/80
	OIS  ON	OIS  OFF	OIS  ON	OIS  OFF
Monitor View Slowest sharp SS	1/8	1/30	1/30	1/125
OIS Benefit		2 EV Steps		2 EV Steps
EVF View Slowest sharp SS	1/8	1/30	1/30	1/60
OIS Benefit		2 EV Steps		1 EV Step

Notes  [1/EF/L shutter speed] refers to an old rule from the 35mm film days. This held that if the user held the camera steady the slowest shutter speed which could safely be hand held was the reciprocal of the focal length in millimetres.  

This rule worked well enough for film but the high pixel density of modern cameras might suggest that a more stringent rule be applied, perhaps the reciprocal of twice the focal length.

Comment  In my reasonably steady hands OIS on the LX100 confers a 2 EV step benefit except at the long end of the zoom with EVF view, where it is 1 EV step. I suspect that is because I  hold  the camera more steadily with EVF view than monitor view. 

When using the camera particularly at the long end of the zoom I can easily see by the steadiness of the preview image in the EVF whether OIS is on or not.  I have it on all the time for hand held photographs.

LX100 vs FZ1000 Highlight and Shadow Detail

A key attribute  of  picture quality is the ability of the lens/sensor/processor pathway to render good highlight and shadow detail with subjects having a high brightness range (SBR).  In other words the ability to faithfully render detail in bright highlights and dark shadows simultaneously.

This is often referred to as “Dynamic Range”.

I tested the highlight/shadow capability of the LX100 and compared it to the FZ1000 in identical conditions.

I chose a subject with very high brightness range and made exposures at the meter indicated level and also several levels of negative exposure compensation.

I kept reducing exposure until the zebras (set to 105%) on the brightest part of the scene almost disappeared.

I used JPG and RAW capture.

I set i-Dynamic Auto on both cameras. This serves to improve highlight/shadow detail in JPG images.

I used the following Custom JPG settings in the [Photo Style] tab of the Rec Menu.

Camera	Contrast	Sharpness	Noise Reduction	Saturation
LX100	-2	+3	-5	0
FZ1000	-5	0	-5	+2

I reached these settings after experimenting with the options over many hundreds of photos.

You can see the results in the photos.

Comment

* Both cameras handled high brightness range very well, especially with RAW capture.

* I was easily able to derive from RAW capture with editing in Adobe Camera RAW a better photo than any JPG combination or setting which I tried.

* With RAW capture I was able to recover good highlight detail with both cameras from the frames exposed according to the camera’s recommendation, using Multiple Metering.  This was true even though the Zebras at 105% were blinking on the bright tones.

* With both cameras JPGs exposed at the camera recommended settings had blown out highlights.

* This was successfully managed at the time of capture by dialling in negative exposure compensation until the Zebras just disappeared.  With the subject used for this test that was minus 1.33 EV steps.    However the resulting files had darker shadows than the edited RAWs.

Auto HDR can also be used with high SBR and JPG capture but this involves 3 exposures and the risk of mis-registration if  something or somebody moves during the exposure sequence.

* I have found from previous experiments that it is highly desirable to use i-Dynamic Auto when applying negative exposure compensation in JPG capture. This applies a curve correction to bring up the dark tones.

* With the RAW files, in each case I moved the sliders until I had achieved what I considered a best possible result. To ensure fair  comparison I made key highlight and dark tone brightness the same with each camera.

The edited RAW files from the LX100 had slightly better highlight detail and slightly less shadow luminance noise than those from the FZ1000.  I had to look closely at 100% on screen to see the difference however.

LX100 Sweep Panorama

Hand held, camera in portrait orientation. I locked in exposure and focus in the middle of the scene than repositioned the camera to start the sweep. This one turned out reasonably well but there are two vertical bands of softness above the left and right ends of the wire cage.

Like many new cameras the LX100 has a sweep Panorama function. This relies on the  high level of fast computing power built into the operating system of a modern camera.

The camera makes about 80 exposures as the user swings the camera around slowly then in less than 1 second stitches them together into a single panoramic JPG image.

The camera can make a horizontal panorama with the camera held in landscape or portrait orientation or a vertical panorama with the camera held in landscape or portrait orientation.

With practice, good technique and optimal conditions, very good results are possible.  I should also say that  disappointing results are easily achieved  with inadequate preparation, suboptimal technique or poor subject selection.  Having said that I still find it remarkable just how much the process will tolerate less than optimal technique and still deliver a worthwhile result.

This one turned out well. I stood on a table to keep the camera as level as possible.

Setting up 

* Set Quality to JPG Fine.  JPG+RAW will not work.

* In the Rec Menu, Page 4/7, set the Panorama Direction. You get 4 choices, in each of which the camera can be held in landscape or portrait orientation.

The top tab is left>right horizontal sweep, landscape orientation, or vertical sweep which can be low>high or  high>low depending on which way you hold the camera in portrait orientation.

The next tab down is right>left horizontal sweep or vertical sweep as above.

Third down is low>high sweep with the camera in landscape orientation or right>left sweep with the camera in portrait orientation, handle side up.

At the bottom is high>low sweep with the camera in landscape orientation or left>right sweep with the camera in portrait orientation, handle side up.

When in doubt play around with the options and sweep in the direction of the on screen arrows.

* Focus Mode AFS.

* Autofocus Mode 1 Area

* Drive Mode Panorama Shot.

* AF Box size 4/15.  There are 15 sizes from which to select. Any will work but 4^th up from the smallest seems to be a good working size for many subjects.

If an option is greyed out this means there is an incompatible setting somewhere in the menu system. You might have to go on a fishing expedition to find it.

When Panorama Shot is set some settings are automatically disabled. For instance, stabiliser is switched off, AFF and AFC are disabled and several screen displays such as the level gauge and grid lines are disabled.

A difficult shot. There are numerous soft jaggies on the horizontal lines, subject brightness range is beyond the JPG dynamic range and nothing is really sharp due to the wide aperture and slow shutter speed. I used a tripod for this which helped to keep verticals in line.

User adjustments enabled   With Panorama Shot you can adjust Exposure Compensation [+/-], ISO and Manual/Auto focus.

User adjustments disabled   You cannot change the lens focal length, it is set at E24mm. Aspect Ratio is fixed regardless of the position of the slider on the lens barrel.  Aperture and shutter speed are set by the camera regardless of the positions of the aperture ring and shutter speed dial.

Subject selection 

* Outdoors is easier. Indoors the camera will likely select f1.7 which restricts depth of focus, together with a slowish shutter speed which adversely affects sharpness as you are deliberately moving the camera.

* Try to avoid prominent subject elements close to the camera. Apart from depth of focus issues this can cause a problem specific to multi shot stitched panoramas.

Ideally the camera should be rotated around the “no parallax point” of the lens. This does not happen with the usual technique for making sweep panoramas. The result is that each successive shot of the sequence places near and far objects in a different lateral relationship to each other due to the parallax effect.  The camera’s computer might not be able to fully correct for this leading to stitching errors.

How close is “too close” ?  I think this depends on many factors so trials are indicated.

* Architectural subjects with straight horizontal lines are prone to stitching discontinuities as they tend to be rendered as curves in the panorama.

* Moving objects such as people and cars create amusing effects in the final result as they part company with the space/time continuum.  Generally though moving subject elements are to be avoided.

* A reasonably evenly lit subject is desirable. The camera will use the same exposure for every frame in the sequence.

I included this to illustrate how the panorama scanning process deals with moving subjects. The lady crossing the road has been rendered as a clear singularity although she would have appeared in about 10 frames. Somehow the software has figured out an optimal rendition. The green car was not so lucky.

Technique

* Decide whether you intend to hold the camera in landscape or portrait orientation.

* Focus manually if you decide on that option.

* Decide which part of the subject you think will make the best area on which to base the exposure. Point the camera in this direction, half press and hold  the shutter button to lock in the exposure (or use the AF/AEL button for this) then point the camera to where you want to start the panorama sweep.

* Hold the camera so it is vertical as you look at it, not tilted left or right. View with the monitor or the viewfinder. The camera can be pointed up or down somewhat and you can still get a good result. You will have to experiment to test just how far up or down the stitching software will tolerate.

* Fully depress the shutter button (a short press will do).

* Rotate the camera by swinging your whole body around. Try to swing smoothly without otherwise altering camera orientation.

* Experiment with the speed of rotation.

* Apply exposure compensation if  required.

* Expect to need several trials for most attempted panoramas.

LX100-vs-FZ1000-JPG-vs-RAW

FZ1000 JPG

FZ1000 From RAW

LX100 JPG

LX100 From RAW

I have had  several requests to compare JPG with RAW using both the LX100 and FZ1000.

I used one of my standard subjects. It has considerable subject brightness range and much fine detail in the marina facility and the foliage in the background.

All photos hand held with OIS on, focal length E75mm, aspect ratio 3:2, cropped top and bottom for final output, [i-Dynamic Auto].  In each case Photo Style settings are those I have arrived at after trying many alternatives.

LX100 settings:

Exposure in P Mode 1/800sec, f5.6, ISO200

Photo Style Custom: Contrast -2, Sharpness +3, Noise Reduction -5, Saturation 0.

FZ1000 Settings:

Exposure in A Mode 1/640sec, f5, ISO 125

Photo Style Custom: Contrast -5, Sharpness 0, Noise Reduction -5, Saturation 0.

The JPGsare straight out of camera.

The RAWs have been edited in Adobe Camera Raw to the best of my ability then saved as JPGs.

Comments

* There is very little difference between the RAW conversions despite the difference in pixel count, even on close examination at 100% on screen.

* In each case the edited RAW file gives a better result than the JPG but the difference between the two is greater in the LX100.

* The LX100 RAW file has a bit more luminance noise than the FZ1000. This is likely because

a) The FZ1000 used ISO 125 and the LX100 used ISO 200. 

b) To compare the two at the same size on screen I reduced the FZ1000 file to 75%, leaving the LX100 at 100%.

* Both cameras make excellent pictures.

LX100 Picture Quality, JPG/RAW, Aperture

JPG from the RAW file after conversion and editing

JPG straight from camera

I have been running some tests  of picture quality using different settings on the LX100.

Overall  The camera/lens/sensor/processor chain delivers a remarkable amount of subject detail for an 11-12Mp (depending on the chosen aspect ratio) unit with good highlight/shadow detail, definition and color.

JPG vs RAW  I have been recording all my photos as JPG+RAW to compare the two and to experiment with different JPG settings in the Photo Style Tab at the top of the Rec Menu.

I often find myself in conditions with high subject brightness range which influences my choice of JPG settings.

I set [i-Dynamic Auto] in the Rec Menu.

Settings in the Photo Style Menu are Contrast -2, Sharpness +3, Noise Reduction -5, Saturation 0.

These settings are a work in progress but I am so far reasonably happy with this combination.  They give good results in a wide variety of general photographic subjects.

I convert the RAW files in Adobe Camera Raw.

I have not encountered a single photo where the JPG turned out better than the RAW file processed to my best ability.

The JPGs are quite good but lag behind the RAWs in two main ways:

1. JPG colors are frequently off. In particular greens in foliage are excessive. Typical trees in Australia are yellow or blue green or mainly grey, but LX100 JPGs render them as though they were  lush tropical verdant green.   Colors in the brown to slightly red spectrum are sometimes wildly off  appearing as vivid red in the JPGs.  Blues and in particular purple blues are often rendered incorrectly.

2. None of the JPGs at any setting (even with Noise Reduction at -5) has quite the level of fine subject detail which is available from the RAW files.

Having said that I think the JPGs will please many users quite well so long as they are not too fussy about color fidelity.

Best lens aperture  The lens is very good,  providing clear sharp results at all apertures and focal lengths. My copy is well centered with no obvious difference in sharpness between one side of the frame and the other.

Good photos are readily available from  the widest aperture at all focal lengths. If in P Mode the camera wants to use the widest aperture I suggest letting it do so. The corners and edges are a bit soft at the widest aperture but this is rarely an issue in the kinds of photos most people will be making at those apertures.

Best sharpness across the frame is achieved at f5.6 at the wide end of the zoom range and f8 at the long end.

Sharpness starts to fall away a little at f8 (wide) and f11 (long).  By f16 test images are quite soft due to diffraction, which causes me to wonder why Panasonic included f16 on this lens. 

LX100 Advanced Compacts in the smartphone era

LX100 the street camera

Smartphones  have killed off the budget compact camera.

This has  changed the game for camera makers and for those of us who would still like to use a camera to make photos.  Many smartphones are better picture making devices than a standard compact.

The challenge now is for manufacturers to produce advanced compact cameras with  the picture quality, performance and ergonomics  of a good interchangeable lens camera (ILC), either DSLR or Mirrorless ILC.

Ideally this photographic mini wunderkamera would have an anatomical handle and thumb support, built in EVF, fully articulated monitor, large aperture zoom lens covering the wide to short tele range, built in flash and a full set of controls for expert use.  It should also be enjoyable to use.

Several of those features are at odds with each other. For instance giving the lens a longer zoom range or larger aperture will inevitably make it less compact.  Providing a larger sensor to improve picture quality will force the camera body and lens both to be larger.  A very small body has simply not the space available on which to fit every desirable feature.

So the designers have several technical challenges to overcome and they must arrive at a solution to these challenges which results in a product which consumers will want to buy, own and use. One for which no excuses need be made. One which is enjoyable to use and will deliver good pictures in almost any circumstance.

The other challenge for manufacturers is that should they succeed in producing the ideal mini wunderkamera, then demand for ILCs will presumably fall.

When out and about I see plenty of people with their entry level DSLR and kit lens. The latest advanced compacts are smaller, lighter and in some ways (for instance electronic viewfinder, focus accuracy, lens aperture and sharpness)  more capable than entry level DSLRs.

When these little wonders become popular I think they will challenge the relevance of  entry DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs  and that might present the manufacturers with the need to make a big shift in product priorities.

Here follows  my very brief and undoubtedly incomplete analysis of  current advanced compact offerings.  My apologies if I fail to mention someone’s favourite camera.

The product development people have to decide on a sensor size as that determines everything else.

Larger sensors provide better image quality but restrict the possible zoom and aperture range of the lens. 

The compact with the largest sensor is the Sony RX1. This has a so called “full frame” 24x36mm sensor with a diagonal measurement of 43mm. The lens is a 35mm f2. There is very little space on this camera for much else. There is no built in viewfinder and no zoom lens.  But the purist wanting the best possible image quality in a compact body need look no further. If he or she can afford it of course.   Many full frame DSLRs cost less.

Next down in sensor size comes  the so called “APS-C” with 28mm diagonal.  Several compact and not-so-compact cameras feature this sensor size.  None has a zoom lens.

I will give lens focal lengths for all the following cameras in full frame equivalents so you have some basis on which to compare them.

The Fuji X100 and its S and T updates are not particularly compact but come with a nice bright E35mm f2 lens and a built in viewfinder which can be either an EVF or an OVF. No built in flash though.

The Ricoh GR with E28mm lens has its little band of devotees as do some other Ricoh cameras. There is no built in viewfinder and many people find the E28mm focal length really too wide for general photography. But it does have pop up flash. The lens is an f2.8 which allows the whole lens module to be quite small and substantially retractable. Overall size is quite compact.

The Nikon Coolpix A is very similar to the Ricoh with an E28mm f2.8 lens and no built in viewfinder.

The next smallest sensor size is the so called “four thirds inch” which appears in the new Panasonic LX100. The LX100 actually uses only 19.4mm of the sensor’s total 21.5mm diagonal. This allows Panasonic to incorporate a multi aspect ratio feature which many Panasonic users have grown to appreciate from experience with the GH1 and 2, also the LX5 and 7. 

I think this sensor size is well chosen as it allows a camera body which is small but not so small it is hard to handle. A bright zoom lens with an aperture range of f1.7-2.8 is provided as is a built in EVF.  This camera comes close to having my ideal feature set for an advanced compact. The only things not provided are a built in flash which I am finding I do not miss and a fully articulated monitor which I do miss. However the monitor has a viewing angle up to about 80 degrees from the optical axis.  For composition I find anything up to about 45 degrees is usable.

Going down in sensor size we come to the Sony RX100 in original, Mk2 and Mk3 versions.  These cameras have picture quality very similar to the LX100 in a smaller package.   They use the so called “one inch” sensor with a diagonal of 15.9mm.

The Mk3 even has a built in EVF although you do have to pull it out from its hiding place for use.  There is a pop up flash too, but no hotshoe.  The RX100 cameras are a collective engineering triumph but are so small they are difficult to hold securely and have ergonomic limitations.

The Canon G7X uses the same Sony sensor as the RX100 Mk3 and a  lens with longer zoom range. No EVF unfortunately, and reviewers have criticised the G7X performance.

The so called “2/3 inch” sensor has dimensions of  6.6x8.8 mm with a diagonal of 11mm. Fuji’s X10, X20 and now X30 cameras have each used this sensor size. The feature list of the X30 looks quite appealing. There is a built in EVF, hotshoe, pop up flash, PASM Dial and control dial.  The problem for Fuji and its potential customers is that the body is larger than that of the LX100 or RX100 but the sensor is smaller.

Moving right on down the sensor sizes we come to the so called “1/1.7 inch” sensor with a range of actual sizes but most are around 9.5mm on the diagonal.  Just two years ago this was the most often used sensor size for advanced compacts.

These include the Canon G16, Panasonic LX7, Pentax MX-1, Olympus XZ-2, Olympus Stylus-1 and Nikon P7800.  

Right now this group is struggling for consumers attention with the larger sensor models available.

However I think that in due course developments in  technology will permit much improved picture quality from the 9.5mm sensor. At that time a camera similar to the Olympus Stylus 1 with its E28-300mm constant f2.8 lens could become very attractive as an all purpose model in  compact form.

And if that comes to pass consumers will likely wonder why they would bother with an interchangeable lens model.