# Canon powershot S95 or Panasonic LX5?



## DAN87676 (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi there I wonder if anybody can help me. I'm after my first serious compact camera and have narrowed the choice down to the S95 or the LX5.

I'm really keen on the LX5 but am slightly put off reviews mentioning poor jpeg performance, is this something I should be worried about?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Dan


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2011)

LX5 for me, all the way and here's why: http://www.wirefresh.com/canon-powershot-s95-vs-lumix-lx5-which-is-the-compact-top-dog/

The S95 has now been superceded by the S100 which comes with what appears to be a worse sensor: http://www.wirefresh.com/canon-s100-replaces-the-s95-offers-wider-zoom-gps-full-hd-movie/


----------



## DAN87676 (Sep 27, 2011)

Thanks for the quick reply,

Good article just what I needed. You find the LX5 jpeg quality perfectly fine then yeah? I do think the LX is the one for me just want to get it right as it is rather expensive for me.

Regards

Dan


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Good article just what I needed. You find the LX5 jpeg quality perfectly fine then yeah? I do think the LX is the one for me just want to get it right as it is rather expensive for me.


In my opinion, the LX5 is the best compact around at the moment.

Here's some straight out of the camera JPG shots:
http://www.urban75.org/blog/a-strol...ns-sheffield-park-and-garden-east-sussex/#top


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 27, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Hi there I wonder if anybody can help me. I'm after my first serious compact camera and have narrowed the choice down to the S95 or the LX5.
> 
> I'm really keen on the LX5 but am slightly put off reviews mentioning poor jpeg performance, is this something I should be worried about?
> 
> ...



I don't own a Panasonic, but I do own the last iteration of the S95, ie the S90. It's a very good camera, imo.

I recently had it in to one of those people who eats sleeps and breathes cameras, to have it cleaned and some minor repairs made. He loves them, thinks they're an excellent camera.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't own a Panasonic, but I do own the last iteration of the S95, ie the S90. It's a very good camera, imo.
> 
> I recently had it in to one of those people who eats sleeps and breathes cameras, to have it cleaned and some minor repairs made. He loves them, thinks they're an excellent camera.


They are very good cameras indeed. But in almost all of the comparison reviews, the LX5 has emerged on top.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 27, 2011)

editor said:


> They are very good cameras indeed. But in almost all of the comparison reviews, the LX5 has emerged on top.



I suspect that they are both very good cameras, and a potential buyer won't go wrong with either one.

Whichever comes out on top in reviews, I think it's like a comparison between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Reviewers might prefer one over the other, but if you happen to have either, you have a hell of a car.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 27, 2011)

The deciding factor for me would be the 24mm wide angle lens on the LX5. I have the LX3 and have taken to that lens angle so much that I use it more than any of the zoom settings. As for jpeg quality I find my LX3 so good that I have almost ceased to use my 4/3 dSLR which is only marginally better. I have not seen any bad reviews of the LX5 jpeg image quality and if anything it should be better than the excellent LX3 because If I remember rightly they have tweaked the processing engine.


----------



## DAN87676 (Sep 27, 2011)

Thanks for the responses.

Well there certainly doesn't seem like theres anything to worry about from them pictures, very nice 
I do like the looks of the Canon but the LX5 just seems an all round more superior camera. I am a total novice at the moment but am hoping to get into playing about with all the manual settings and bettering my photography skills.  I understand the LX5 has more manual options such as background defocus?

Great site by the way !

Dan


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 29, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Thanks for the responses.
> 
> Well there certainly doesn't seem like theres anything to worry about from them pictures, very nice
> I do like the looks of the Canon but the LX5 just seems an all round more superior camera. I am a total novice at the moment but am hoping to get into playing about with all the manual settings and bettering my photography skills. I understand the LX5 has more manual options such as background defocus?
> ...



The only strong advantage the Canon has in my view is that the lens on the Panasonic (ditto the new Olympus) sticks out in a way that makes it inconvenient for tight pockets. Whereas the Canon (or at least it's cheaper brother, which has the same form factor) will fit easily in a suit inside pocket or similar. This is a key difference for me because it's my requirement for a 'take everywhere' camera, but it might not be for others.


----------



## DAN87676 (Sep 29, 2011)

Yeah that's exactly what I've been thinking. I really like the looks and features of the LX5 but I want something that I can easily slip into a trouser pocket and take with me everywhere and I suspect this could be a problem, however I'm quite put off by the relatively poor battery life on the S95 arghhh dont know what to do!


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2011)

Before you decide you should try out the interfaces of both cameras. I find the LX5's to be far superior.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 29, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Yeah that's exactly what I've been thinking. I really like the looks and features of the LX5 but I want something that I can easily slip into a trouser pocket and take with me everywhere and I suspect this could be a problem, however I'm quite put off by the relatively poor battery life on the S95 arghhh dont know what to do!


Get a spare battery. I always carry one anyway, even with my LX3, in other pocket of course. In your case go for the S95.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 29, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Yeah that's exactly what I've been thinking. I really like the looks and features of the LX5 but I want something that I can easily slip into a trouser pocket and take with me everywhere and I suspect this could be a problem, however I'm quite put off by the relatively poor battery life on the S95 arghhh dont know what to do!



I have two batteries, with one always cooking in the charger.


----------



## DAN87676 (Sep 30, 2011)

Yeah no harm in carrying a spare battery although its better to have double the battery power without the need of carrying a spare. I agree I think I'm gonna have to actually test them both. I went to town yesterday with this in mind but couldn't find anyone that stocked them in-store.

So basically the two cameras are pretty much equal image quality wise and have the same manual options or is the LX5 more capable in this field?

I've always been keen on photography but have never dabbled with the manual settings. I'm looking to get into this but without the bulk and weight of a DSLR. Would you guys say the Canon is better for beginners or the LX5 just an all round good long term invesment?


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Yeah no harm in carrying a spare battery although its better to have double the battery power without the need of carrying a spare. I agree I think I'm gonna have to actually test them both. I went to town yesterday with this in mind but couldn't find anyone that stocked them in-store.
> 
> So basically the two cameras are pretty much equal image quality wise and have the same manual options or is the LX5 more capable in this field?


I find the LX5 far more flexible. The big thing for me is the 24mm lens (which is faster than the Canon).


----------



## DAN87676 (Sep 30, 2011)

Thanks for all the great advice guys much appreciated!

I think the deciding factor for me now is simply going to be the size. If I can get the LX5 in a loose trouser pocket then she's mine, if not its gonna have to be the cannon


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

I'd never shift to a S95 from my LX5. I just use it with a shoulder strap.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 2, 2011)

Well mate if I can get pictures anywhere near as good as yours with the LX5 i'll be one happy man! Still havent managed to get a physical look at the cameras but another has caught my eye - Panasonic Lumix TZ20... does this have anything over the s95 or lx5 or are these two cameras the real top dogs for the price?

Regards

Dan


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2011)

Panasonic's TZ range are what they call 'travel zooms'. Compacts with a long zoom range and other 'versatility' features primarily designed for holiday use, where the LX5 and S95 are designed as 'enthusiast' cameras.

Typicaly they trade off lens quality in order to get better zoom range than the LX5/S95 type of camera.

They're also likely to focus on convenience over control in terms of features, because they're catering to an audience who are less likely to know or care about technical stuff.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 4, 2011)

Oh right I see. Do you think this would be a better option for me just getting into photography? I would like a bigger zoom but I guess you can't have everything, or maybe I'm just trying to talk myself out of paying so much money for a camera hehe


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Oh right I see. Do you think this would be a better option for me just getting into photography? I would like a bigger zoom but I guess you can't have everything, or maybe I'm just trying to talk myself out of paying so much money for a camera hehe


I'm thinking that maybe you don't need to spend so much on an enthusiast camera.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 4, 2011)

Oh why do you think that?


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Oh why do you think that?


You pay the extra for the high end features that give generally subtle increases in performance and handling, but if you're not looking for those features it seems mad to pay the extra premium.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 4, 2011)

I am looking for high end features I'm just slightly worried that the camera might be _too_ advanced for somebody like me just starting out

confused :-S


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> I am looking for high end features I'm just slightly worried that the camera might be _too_ advanced for somebody like me just starting out
> 
> confused :-S



You don't have to use all the features from day one, but if you expect to be interested in them in the future it will pay to have a camera that has the features.

I made it a rule with my camera to gradually go through the manual with the camera until I knew what every feature / button / gizmo was. Then I decided which were useful to me and which not. It certainly helped me - to know what my camera was capable of.

Eventually I got to a set of settings that I like and am familiar with. Others frequently persuaded me to try others. It is a learning process.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 4, 2011)

Yeah I guess its better to have a camera with all of the features than have a camera that will turn out to be too basic for your needs, which I think would probably be the case with the 'travel zoom' lumix.

Models's like the TZ10/20 do get really good reviews and are a lot cheaper but something like the LX5 or S95 are probably a better long term investment for somebody interested in getting into photgraphy. what do you think?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> ... Models's like the TZ10/20 do get really good reviews and are a lot cheaper but something like the LX5 or S95 are probably a better long term investment for somebody interested in getting into photgraphy. what do you think?



I am afraid that I have no idea how much these cameras you are considering cost.

About 8 years ago I blocked my ears and held my nose and spent about £1,200 on a highly recommended DSLR from Fuji. It was the most I had spent on anything except my house, I even spent less on cars  .. but I did not regret the money I spent on that camera, I still use it 8 years later and the image quality is still as stunning as it ever was. I could buy a used one now for £250 ... such is the depreciation.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 4, 2011)

Well I want the control of a DSLR but with something I can carry around with me everywhere and it seems like these two camera's are the top dogs in the compact world. I was just getting a bit swayed by these do it all cheaper camera's with manual controls but I'm thinking it would prob be a false economy to go with one as it will no doubt end up being replaced by something more advanced. I didnt know choosing a camera would be so confusing hehe


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Well I want the control of a DSLR but with something I can carry around with me everywhere and it seems like these two camera's are the top dogs in the compact world. I was just getting a bit swayed by these do it all cheaper camera's with manual controls but I'm thinking it would prob be a false economy to go with one as it will no doubt end up being replaced by something more advanced. I didnt know choosing a camera would be so confusing hehe



Well it is no surprise to me that you might find it confusing. It is a competitive market and there is a wide variety of offerrings from loads of makers. When I was making my decision I had also extra for lenses to consider. In the end I made a spreadsheet for the four or so key options I thought I had and that helped me in the end to make the decision.

I was helped by the side by side specification comparison I could get on www.dpreview.com that was pretty cool I have to say.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2011)

I assume you have seen this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q42010highendcompactgroup/


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 5, 2011)

Thanks for that link will have a good read through it. It is a really tough to choose between these two cameras..I like the pocketability of the Canon but like the idea of a 24mm lens on the Panasonic...the Canon has better JPEG quality but has poor battery life..and it goes on arghh  maybe I should just flip a coin lol Anyway cheers mate 

Dan


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Thanks for that link will have a good read through it. It is a really tough to choose between these two cameras..I like the pocketability of the Canon but like the idea of a 24mm lens on the Panasonic...the Canon has better JPEG quality but has poor battery life..and it goes on arghh maybe I should just flip a coin lol Anyway cheers mate
> 
> Dan



Wrt battery life, an ordinary day's shooting won't deplete the battery in my experience. I might deplete it on a vacation day, when I'll be making constant exposures; but as said before, on those days, I carry a spare. I've yet to make it through two batteries in a single day.


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2011)

Once you get used to a 24mm lens, anything else will soon feel rather limiting.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 5, 2011)

Hmm thats what I'm worried about...I really think I should go for the LX5 especially from what you have said, although I will look at the camera first to check out the menu's and make sure it is not _too_ bulky. My only real worry is the JPEG performance won't be as good. I'm a total photography noob as you can tell, but I read that it is better to shoot in RAW, although I plan on doing this at some stage I would like the JPEGS to be of a high standard, do you think there is much difference from the canon quality wise?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2011)

As I understand it, editor likes to shoot in jpeg, using RAW only on very special pictures, is that right editor?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Hmm thats what I'm worried about...I really think I should go for the LX5 especially from what you have said, although I will look at the camera first to check out the menu's and make sure it is not _too_ bulky. My only real worry is the JPEG performance won't be as good. I'm a total photography noob as you can tell, but I read that it is better to shoot in RAW, although I plan on doing this at some stage I would like the JPEGS to be of a high standard, do you think there is much difference from the canon quality wise?



The dpreview.com checks on jpeg resolution on this page below seems to suggest that the LX5 has better jpeg resolution than the Canon.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q42010highendcompactgroup/page16.asp


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> As I understand it, editor likes to shoot in jpeg, using RAW only on very special pictures, is that right editor?


Yep. Can't be arsed with the faff of RAW for everyday snaps.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 5, 2011)

DAN, i think that the crucial choice is between the 24mm lens of the LX5  and the slip-in-the pocket feature of the S95. Although I love my LX3 largely because of the wide angle lens as I mentioned above, I think I would recommend the S95 because its pocketability. If you go out without a jacket the Panasonic will need a pouch and so be rather visible. I abandoned the neck strap - although it is a rather smart leather one, in favour of a Jessops wrist strap so the other option is to carry it in one hand with the wrist strap for security.

Take a look at some of Johnny Cannuck's shooting-from-the-hip photographs to see what you can get away with with the S95.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 5, 2011)

Cheers for the replies lad's you have been a great help!

I'm going to wait until I can get a hold of both cameras. If the LX5 isnt too big that's the one I'm going to buy, simple as that. I'm sure it's the better camera but even if I end up with the S95 I'll still have a great camera


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 7, 2011)

Just seen the LX5 for *£289.95* with free delivery! Surely this is too good to be true??
http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=11394


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Just seen the LX5 for *£289.95* with free delivery! Surely this is too good to be true??
> http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=11394


I recommend perusing this site:



> Simply Electronics - A Warning !!!
> I recently ordered a digital camera from the above company, as having done quite a bit of searching, they came out the cheapest. Well after waiting 3 weeks for a 2-8 day despatch, I cancelled it and was assured of a refund within 7 days, 6 weeks later I'm still fighting for it, and am sending all the details to my solicitor. Be warned, never ever use this cowboy outfit, they make all the right noises but do not deliver - literally !!
> p.s. Ordered same camera on Amazon and got it next day !!!!
> 
> http://www.hotukdeals.com/misc/simply-electronics-a-warning-391698?page=5


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 7, 2011)

Cheers man, I should have known really... Think I will be sticking to a big retailer like Amazon don't think I'll get it for less than 350 anywhere do you?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2011)

It's worth £350, to be honest.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 7, 2011)

Oh I'm sure it is, I'm just a cheapskate hehe. £350 seems reasonable though for a camera like that. Hopefully I can snap one up soon unless the Canon's size can sway me but I really don't think it will.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Oh I'm sure it is, I'm just a cheapskate hehe. £350 seems reasonable though for a camera like that. Hopefully I can snap one up soon unless the Canon's size can sway me but I really don't think it will.


Whatever you do, make sure you get this: http://www.wirefresh.com/lumix-lx5-and-the-fantastic-jjc-lens-cap-get-one-now/


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 7, 2011)

Ah yes I saw your blog post about these. Yes I will definitely be buying this.

Is this the same as the one you bought?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/JJC-Automat...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1318000879&sr=1-1


----------



## crustychick (Oct 7, 2011)

I love my LX5 - best camera I have owned by far. I don't have the exploding lens cap yet though... one for the xmas list


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2011)

crustychick said:


> I love my LX5 - best camera I have owned by far. I don't have the exploding lens cap yet though... one for the xmas list


It doesn't half make a difference...


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 8, 2011)

> I love my LX5 - best camera I have owned by far. I don't have the exploding lens cap yet though... one for the xmas list


It does look pretty special  I don't know why they didn't just make one built into the camera but oh well I hope it will be on my xmas list too!


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

Just a quick update...

Today I received a shiney brand new LX5 and I have to say I love it! Easily the best camera I have ever used, nevermind owned. Thanks a lot for all the advice 

Cheers

Dan


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2011)

Huzzah! Don't forget to get the lens cap!


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

Haha It's already been ordered, I could't resist! Been having a little play around taking some shots in ai mode. I don't know if its just me but if im honest the noise levels are a little disappointing. Is this anything to be worried about? do I need to get an exhange or is it normal and there will always be noise to some extent in digital photographs? There is also some purple fringing when looking on the lcd screen but it doesn't seem to show up in the photographs. Apart from that though the images are superb and am very pleased with my purchase.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 26, 2011)

I have had the same problem, would be interested to see what people thought


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2011)

anortherner said:


> I have had the same problem, would be interested to see what people thought


Hi. Do you know Dan?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> Haha It's already been ordered, I could't resist! Been having a little play around taking some shots in ai mode. I don't know if its just me but if im honest the noise levels are a little disappointing. Is this anything to be worried about? do I need to get an exhange or is it normal and there will always be noise to some extent in digital photographs? There is also some purple fringing when looking on the lcd screen but it doesn't seem to show up in the photographs. Apart from that though the images are superb and am very pleased with my purchase.


Can you post up some examples please?


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)




----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

I think that last one shows it best, what do you think?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2011)

They don't look too bad to me. Dan you are testing in low light all cameras perform less well in low light. Also what settings are you using, what ISO for example, and are you using a long exposure and a tripod etc etc .. ?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2011)

What ISO are those photos shot at?


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

I'm just using the ai mode I haven't played around with any settings at all yet. I heard it was supposed to be very good even just on ai or is that the reason I'm not getting the best quality?


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

1600, 500, 1000, 1600


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2011)

You will always get the best quality in the best light. With your subject lit by studio lights for example you can shoot ISO100 F8 1/125 and you will get excellent quality photos.

But the photos you have taken are in a much lower lighting environment than that... Consequently, you can expect better quality the better light you get ..


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

Sorry I am new to all of this I'm planning on using this camera to get into the manual side of photography as it's always been basic point and shoots for me.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2011)

Go to program mode, select a much lower ISO and either put the camera on a solid surface and use the self timer or use a tripod.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

Ah right so there is nothing worng with the camera itself? I just wanted to make sure in case I needed to get an exchange. Ok then what would you suggest around 80-100?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2011)

ISO is about the sensitivity of the chip

ISO100 is for good light and will give you a smooth result.
ISO200
ISO400 are more and more sensitive
ISO800
ISO1600 (very sensitive) you will get more noise and grain with higher sensitivities


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2011)

Generally in lower light you would use higher sensitivities for a faster shutter speed.

If you have a tripod or can steady the camera you may get away with a lower ISO setting.


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

I have tried lowering the iso setting it does seem to have improved things slightly.

ps editor yes I created this account for my friend


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

So could I just get this straight in my small brain. The noise is normal when using a higher iso in low light conditions. There is no fault with my camera I just need to get used to the settings?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2011)

Once you have selected ISO, in manual mode you will be seeking a balance between: fstop and shutter speed.

fstop is the size of the aperture in the lens (the hole) through which light can enter the camera. Oddly f2 is a bigger aperture than f8 or f11. So f2 lets in much more light than f11 does. A key side effect of fstop is that the smaller the aperture (i.e. bigger numbers f11 f16 etc) the greater the depth of field (the depth of the image that appears in focus) evident in the resulting image.

Then there is shutter speed, which is how long the shutter is open for and how long the chip can be gathering light from the lens. The longer the shutter speed the more light will come in. The shorter the shutter speed the less will come in.

I don't know how the meter in your camera works but once you have selected ISO, the two remaining aspects you will be juggling will be these two: fstop and shutter speed.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2011)

DAN87676 said:


> So could I just get this straight in my small brain. The noise is normal when using a higher iso in low light conditions. There is no problem for my camera I just need to get used to the settings?



Higher ISO does normally mean more noise.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 26, 2011)

yes this is me how do you delete an account :S


----------



## DAN87676 (Oct 26, 2011)

So it is a user fault not a camera fault yes? cheers for the explanations mate I plan to really get into this camera and improve my photography skills.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 27, 2011)

these were taken in a lower iso -  100 and 200, does it look normal ?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2011)

They look alright, they are "mixed" and low lighting environments. Pic 2 has quite a lot of detail.

The camera does not see what you with your eyes see. Your eyes are much much more sensitive than a camera's chip. I have been out photographing deer in low light, still with my eyes I can see the deer clearly and through binoculars I can also see them clearly but the camera had long since given up its usefulness.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 27, 2011)

It's just a random couple of shots I took at my desk with the camera completely still. Are the noise levels generally as good as other LX5's ? Sorry I know I'm probably being paranoid lol but it was a lot of money just want to make sure its right


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2011)

The shots look ok to me. Well the first is not well exposed, too little light but the second is quite nice. Low light does challenge sensors the most, you will get used to the effects of your camera in low light and should come to love them. Photography is all about the light.

Here is one of my alltime favourite photographs, taken by the light of the moon, ISO1600 and about a second probably of shutter time. It is noisy and blurred .. but I like it!!


----------



## anortherner (Oct 27, 2011)

hey that is a pretty cool pic 

So when I start to learn all the settings n stuff I will be able to take pictures with less noise or can you not really have a completely noise free photo unless say you buy an expensive dlsr?


----------



## anortherner (Oct 27, 2011)

what do you think editor? how does the noise compare to your lx5?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2011)

anortherner said:


> ... So when I start to learn all the settings n stuff I will be able to take pictures with less noise or can you not really have a completely noise free photo unless say you buy an expensive dlsr?



If lack of noise is your thing then yes learning more about your settings you will be able to set things up to minimise noise in your images. Probably you will stick to ISO100 and when shutter speeds have to drop too low for handholding you will probably have to use a tripod, monopod or other method of steadying the camera.

But you will also learn that this route will make some photographs impossible. For example if you wanted to photograph a guitarist playing under stage lighting and permit some blur of his / her arm but not of his / her whole body, you would probably want a relatively fast shutter speed which will mean that you will have to either up the ISO to more sensitive levels or open the aperture (fstop) as much as possible or most probably a bit of both. You will get more noise than at ISO100 but that - for most people - simply does not matter.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

I dunno, I guess I just thought it would be better... I don't have experience with any higher end camera's its all been cheap point n clicks until now so not surprising really. Don't get me wrong though I'm still lovin this camera.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

anortherner said:


> I dunno, I guess I just thought it would be better... I don't have experience with any higher end camera's its all been cheap point n clicks until now so not surprising really. Don't get me wrong though I'm still lovin this camera.



Thing is Dan, how often are you going to want to take photos of your computer equipment back at home? I would bet pretty much never, I would give the camera a workout outdoors in daylight and see what you think then. I have a dslr and it can create noise like you would not believe in fact one of my favourite settings is iso1600 and black and white mode.. the images are sort of gritty. I like them a lot.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

Yeah your right, I'm probably not giving it a chance. Well I plan to take it out tomorrow and maybe do some night photography as well, well I look forward to tesing it out


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

Just in detail Dan, those two photos you showed above.

The first at ISO100 the shutter was not open long enough to expose the scene which is why it is mainly dark, you needed either to open the shutter longer or to open the aperture a click. ISO100 would give you less noise than ISO200.

The second picture at ISO200 it looks as if you left most other variables the same and just changed to ISO200 now about the right amount of light is reaching the sensor and the image is good, definition is good, detail is good, edges are sharp etc. This second picture is a better guage of what the camera can do in low light than the first which was underexposed.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

ok I don't even know how to do those things at the mo... I've pretty much stayed in ai mode lol but I definitely will be playing about with the manual settings sometime soon, when I'm feeling brave hehe


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

anortherner said:


> ok I don't even know how to do those things at the mo... I've pretty much stayed in ai mode lol but I definitely will be playing about with the manual settings sometime soon, when I'm feeling brave hehe



I would advise then that you start in a mode in which the camera takes the decisions, on my camera this would be "P" mode, all I have to do is point compose and shoot. Often the camera will make as good or better decisions as you would have even if you had full manual control.

Then I would think about trying aperture priority (probably called something else) or shutter priority, basically you should do some reading up in your manual and online as to what these things allow you to control and why you might want to adjust them. Then once you have mastered aperture control and shutter control - then and only then you can play in full manual if you want to.

However I know a very experienced photographer that normally uses P mode.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

Oh I see I thought P mode was a manual mode, well it let's you change things rather than ai mode where its all done for you. Right well I think a good read of the manual is in order


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

Took some pictures outside today and was very impressed. I guess its just like you say all about the light. I 'm just a little disappointed with the ai as I thought it would produce better images than that indoors.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

anortherner said:


> Took some pictures outside today and was very impressed. I guess its just like you say all about the light. I 'm just a little disappointed with the ai as I thought it would produce better images than that indoors.



I don't know what AI means, does the manual say what it does? Some camera makers use different terms.

My camera has P (automatic) which you can adjust, A Aperture priority, S Shutter priority and M for Manual.

But I know some Canons have a mode called TV.. I have no clue what that means


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

It's basically the fully automatic mode


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

Dan, you will find that there are many ways you can use your camera and still get the same results.

I know an experienced photographer who uses P mode but he very skillfully compensates for light levels using Exposure Compensation.

I tend to use full Manual in which I have two wheels on the camera controlling aperture and the other shutterspeed, I use the in camera spot meter to decide how much of aperture and shutter speed I want for each shot.

Then in various situations you could use S Shutter priority or A Aperture priority, but you should make an effort to understand exposure compensation if you are going to use these or P modes.

In any mode, the only actual things that can be adjusted are 1) ISO 2) Aperture & 3) Shutterspeed.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 28, 2011)

Oh really? I thought there was more to it than that. Can you please summarise those 3 quickly then I will stop posting I'm probabaly doing your head in by now lol thanks for your help and advice though


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

weltweit said:


> In any mode, the only actual things that can be adjusted are 1) ISO 2) Aperture & 3) Shutterspeed.





anortherner said:


> Oh really? I thought there was more to it than that. Can you please summarise those 3 quickly then I will stop posting I'm probabaly doing your head in by now lol thanks for your help and advice though



ISO = the sensitivity of the chip

Aperture = the size of the hole in the lens through which light comes

Shutter speed = the amount of time the shutter stays open to let the light in.

Those are the three basics of every exposure and whatever shooting mode you choose it is basically these three features that you are setting / choosing for each photograph.

Beware though because you need to understand why you might want to use f11 aperture rather than f2 or why you might want to use 1 second exposure rather than 1/100 of a second.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2011)

Understanding Exposure

In P mode or A or S mode your camera has no idea what scene you have pointed it at so has no idea exactly how to expose the image. What the camera meter does is it assumes the scene is on average 18% grey and sets the camera up to expose the subjects in the scene as if they were 18% grey. Green grass in sunlight is about 18% grey.

So on a normal day, some sunlight or perhaps slightly overcast you can just point and shoot in P, A or S modes because the scene will probably average out to 18% grey and the camera will render it pretty much as you see it. Some photographers will stick to the camera's default setting all the time, seemingly to no loss.

However, there are scenes which will trick the camera's on board automatic metering and this is when you may want to consider Exposure Compensation.

Exposure Compensation

You could use exposure compensation when the scene in front of you does not resemble 18% gray, perhaps it is a lot lighter or perhaps a lot darker than 18% gray.

Consider the scene of a white swan floating on dark waters. Remember the camera will want to render the scene overall as 18% gray, but the water, which covers a lot of the image, is much darker than that. If you shoot at the meter recommended settings, the dark water will come out over exposed and gray rather than dark black and the swan will be a blob of over exposed white. So what you might want to do, to expose the dark water and the white swan how you see them, is to compensate your exposure. In practice you would want to let in LESS light than the camera meter suggests so that the dark water remains dark. Less light is negative compensation, so you could dial in a click or a couple of negative compensation and get darker waters and a less over exposed swan.

Consider the opposite, a scene that is much brighter than 18% gray, perhaps a white snow scene or a sandy beach on a sunny day. In this case the camera's meter which intends to expose the scene at 18% grey would result in grey snow or an overcast beach. Taking the snow scene, you want the snow to come out white because that is what you see, here you would need to let in MORE light than the camera's onboard meter proposes. To do this you could dial in some positive compensation, dial in a couple of clicks and hey presto you will have white rather than grey snow in your image.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

Thanks for the explanations mate very helpful!

I know I sound like a miserbale sod but I really do love the camera.  The JJC automatic lens cap arrived yesterday, its great it really finishes it off. I can't stop looking at the camera and holding it, it really is a thing of style and beauty, much nicer than the S95 although obviously I am very biased.

Was thinking of getting this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographe...Z3ZM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319890494&sr=8-3 that is specfic to the LX5 but not sure if I would be better with a more general book.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

anortherner said:


> ... Was thinking of getting this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographe...Z3ZM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319890494&sr=8-3 that is specfic to the LX5 but not sure if I would be better with a more general book.



Probably not a bad idea to get the camera specific book, will tell you a lot about your camera...
You can learn about general aspects of photography online... for free .. (or get a book indeed)


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

anortherner said:


> Thanks for the explanations mate very helpful!



Couple more for you. Aperture and shutter speed in a little more detail.

Aperture – (aka fstops)

Aperture is one of the aspects of your camera settings which you can adjust, photograph to photograph.

At its most basic, the aperture is the hole in the lens through which light can enter the camera and find its way to the chip. You can adjust the size of this aperture to let in more or less light, as you wish. A big aperture is denoted by a small fstop number, so f1.8 or f2.8 is a big aperture (A big hole which will let in a lot of light) while f16 or f22 is a small aperture which will let in a much smaller amount of light.

Aperture and shutter speed. Assuming you are looking at a constant scene, a larger aperture will let in more light and will require a faster shutter speed for the same exposure. If you open the aperture, perhaps from f2.8 to f2 you will be letting in more light - so to avoid over exposure you will want to reduce the amount of time the shutter is open to return to a balanced exposure.

Equally, if you wanted to change from a small aperture f16 to f22 (an even smaller one) you would be letting in less light and consequently would have to leave the shutter open for longer in order to get the same exposure. Exposure in this case meaning the total amount of light you let into the chip.

Aperture and depth of field.

Depth of field is the amount of the photograph front to back that is in focus and sharp. A photo of a person (perhaps taken at f2) with the background all blurred would be said to have a narrow depth of field because only the bit in which the person is - is sharp and in focus. Correspondingly a photograph of a landscape (perhaps taken at f22) where the foreground and background details are all sharp would be described as having a large depth of field.

Your selection of Aperture affects how much depth of field you will have in the resulting photograph. A large aperture (f1.8, f2 etc) will give a shallow depth of field while a small aperture (f16, f22) will give a large depth of field.

Your selection of aperture will affect shutter speed, so if you want to select f22 for a landscape you will find that you need a slow shutter speed to properly expose the scene. If you are selecting f2 for a portrait, and want the background out of focus, you will have to select a relatively fast shutter speed.

Shutter Speed

Apart from aperture, the other critical setting you can adjust between shots is shutter speed.

The shutter is a curtain that covers the chip. It can be opened to let light in for varying amounts of time, described as shutter speeds. A shutter speed of 1/100 means that the shutter is open (letting light in) for one hundredth of a second. 1/1000 means it is open for one thousandth of a second.

Shutter speed and aperture are related, for the same scene if you open up the aperture (let in more light) you will require the shutter to be open for a shorter time for the same exposure. If you close down the aperture (let in less light) you will require the shutter to be open longer for the same exposure.

Hand holding

A rule of thumb is that you can hand hold the camera down until the shutter speed is slower than the lens length, so if you have a 50mm lens you can probably hand hold the camera down to 1/50, if you have a 20mm lens you may be able to hand hold the camera down until 1/20 of a second. If shutter speeds fall below this rule of thumb you are recommended to use something to steady the camera, perhaps a monopod or a tripod.

Blur

You may want to introduce blur into your photographs to indicate movement. A mountain stream shot at 1/1000 will be frozen at that shutter speed and will not indicate movement. You could also shoot it at a full seconds worth of shutter speed which would have the water blurring and showing motion. Equally a panning shot of a racing car taken at 1/1000 will freeze the car and background as if the car was stationary, whereas a shot at 1/125 might permit the wheels and background to blur slightly, indicating motion.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

Yeah it probably would be best to get both. So which control mainly affects the noise level then? just the iso or a mixture of all 3 settings? Can I get noise levels down in artifical light or am I just asking for too much in this area?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

anortherner said:


> Yeah it probably would be best to get both. So which control mainly affects the noise level then? just the iso or a mixture of all 3 settings? Can I get noise levels down in artifical light or am I just asking for too much in this area?



Looks like we posted at the same time above.

I would think that noise is mainly about ISO.. ISO100 being the cleanest. I don't think fstop and shutter speed really affect noise levels. Yes you can get very clean images under artificial lights but I am thinking of studio lights rather than domestic ones. HoweverI have photographed objects (products) in a light tent lit only by a couple of daylight energy saving bulbs, the shutter was open for a while but the results were quite good enough for what we wanted at the time.

If noise is an important aspect for you, there are software products available that attack noise in images, I think one is called "noise ninja" it might be interesting to you to have a look at them.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

I think the truth about noise is - the more light on the subject - the less noise...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

So, about blur as mentioned in recent post #98 above:

I wanted to show the breeze in the leaves so I selected a slow shutter speed & used a tripod:


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm really starting to think there is a problem with my camera grr I dunno what to do.. I took some pics tonight - parts of the image seem blurred and the noise is really apparent am I being too picky here or what?


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

Then there are pictures like this where the problems don't seem to really occur. I'm confused, maybe I'm just getting obsessed about the whole noise thing... I just want to make sure there is nothing wrong with the camera because on the reviews I read they gave the impression that there would be next to no noise.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

anortherner said:


> I'm really starting to think there is a problem with my camera grr I dunno what to do.. I took some pics tonight - parts of the image seem blurred and the noise is really apparent am I being too picky here or what?



The first picture you posted there is a lot of noise in the sky. Can you tell us what the ISO setting was in that picture ?

I would not worry, you are still early enough to return it if there is a problem.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

The second pictures look a lot better but the final one there is not a lot of light to see anything.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

What shooting mode did you use for the first picture? I wonder if the camera thought to itself it is dark and you need shutter speed for handholding so I will select ISO1600 or ISO3200 .. perhaps the camera can select its own ISO in that shooting mode. I would check the manual for that shooting mode to see if it can self select ISO level.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

Just another observation about the first of the last three pictures you posted, it looks a lot as if it was raining and on the right of the image it looks as if there is water on the lens. That won't help.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

That was 1250 iso in automatic mode. Maybe I would just be better off to get a replacement or maybe there is nothing wrong with it and it's just me :S


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

anortherner said:


> That was 1250 iso in automatic mode. Maybe I would just be better off to get a replacement or maybe there is nothing wrong with it and it's just me :S



Well hold your horses a minute Dan, ISO1250 is pretty sensitive and will likely be pretty noisy, certainly way more than ISO100.

Can you select a shooting mode in which you set the ISO rather than the camera. Set the ISO to ISO100, rest the camera against something stable and take the shot (or a similar one) again?


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

Here are 4 images I have just taken - ISO 100, 200, 400 and 800


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2011)

Dan, they should not really get lighter the higher the iso that you use because you should adjust other things like aperture or shutter speed to match. But the ISO800 one is very clean, hardly any noise at all, as are the images at lower ISOs. Based on those four images I don't there is anything wrong with your camera.

But, if you are out in the dark, there is moisture in the air and your camera sets the ISO to 1250 it seems you will end up with a noisy image. It is a charachteristic of the camera I would say, not necessarily a defect. You now know this is a possibility so at night you may have to select a shooting mode which does not permit the camera to self select ISO levels.

BTW I have sent a message to editor, hopefully he will pop by and give us the benefit of his views.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 29, 2011)

OK cheers mate thanks a lot for your help 

I just want to be sure it's me, not the camera as its a lot of money to spend on a defective item.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2011)

anortherner said:


> I'm really starting to think there is a problem with my camera grr I dunno what to do.. I took some pics tonight - parts of the image seem blurred and the noise is really apparent am I being too picky here or what?


You're shooting in the dead of night, so for that kind of shot you'd need a tripod, a cable release and a much lower ISO.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2011)

anortherner said:


> That was 1250 iso in automatic mode. Maybe I would just be better off to get a replacement or maybe there is nothing wrong with it and it's just me :S


That's actually _good_ for a compact! I'd never use such a high ISO unless I was really desperate.

Tip: set the ISO manually to 200 or something, put the camera on a flat surface and use the self timer.


----------



## anortherner (Oct 31, 2011)

editor said:


> That's actually _good_ for a compact! I'd never use such a high ISO unless I was really desperate.
> 
> Tip: set the ISO manually to 200 or something, put the camera on a flat surface and use the self timer.



I see! I guess my expectations were unrealistically high. Please forgive me I am new to the world of photography 

The images are fantastic in daylight and I am very pleased with this camera, although a bit disappointed with night time results, I now know the limitations of a compact camera and the benefits of setting a lower iso, using a tripod etc. After doing some more playing around with lower iso settings there does seem to be improved quality and lower noise 

I now look forward to 'playing about' some more and really getting into the manual controls of this delightful camera. Thanks for all the help and advice this really is a great forum community.

Cheers

Dan


----------



## anortherner (Nov 17, 2011)

Well I'm slowly starting to get a hang of the camera, liking it more and more each day. Here's a few shots I took tonight could you guys please tell me what you think? the noise levels seem ok to you?

ps the people are really blurry is that normal?

Regards

Dan


----------



## anortherner (Nov 17, 2011)

Sorry if I am spamming the board with pics I'll take them down afterwards if it's a problem


----------



## weltweit (Nov 18, 2011)

Hi Dan, these look a lot better than your earlier attempts at night photography, presumably you are getting the hang of the controls better now. The pictures look ok to me, the bits that should be black are, and the bits that are lit are relatively noise free. They look fine to me.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 18, 2011)

Did you get your book yet?


----------



## craigxcraig (Nov 18, 2011)

Theres some great advice here.

Thanks weltweit for postings above - I'm using the manual setting on my lx3 though not really understanding why if that makes sense so your comments above are a great help.

Also, @ anortherner - I've been using you tube as a resource, theres some great 'talk-through' videos, showing you how to set up your camera, shooting at night, using manual etc - well worth a look.

Also, heres a picture I took at night whilst in Greece. I had an iso of 80 on a 10 second shutter speed (probably much too long) and f2.8. The camera was sat on our balcony and I used the timer to fire the shutter. I was quite impressed, in fact very impressed and chuffed!


----------



## craigxcraig (Nov 18, 2011)

weltweit said:


> The shots look ok to me. Well the first is not well exposed, too little light but the second is quite nice. Low light does challenge sensors the most, you will get used to the effects of your camera in low light and should come to love them. Photography is all about the light.
> 
> Here is one of my alltime favourite photographs, taken by the light of the moon, ISO1600 and about a second probably of shutter time. It is noisy and blurred .. but I like it!!
> 
> View attachment 14298



great picture.


----------



## anortherner (Nov 19, 2011)

Nice picture  When I take pictures in that environment with an ISO that low it would be too dark, are you using exposure compensation there? Yes I've got the book it's called :

*Photographer's Guide to the Panasonic Lumix LX5: Getting the Most from Panasonic's Advanced Digital Camera *



for anyone who has an LX5 and is just starting out I would fully recommend it! I'm definitely happier with the noise levels now, there's obviously nothing wrong with the camera, just the user!

The other thing I cant seem to get right is blurriness of subjects in my pictures, mainly moving objects, is it possible to correct this?

Regards

Dan


----------



## weltweit (Nov 19, 2011)

anortherner said:


> ... The other thing I cant seem to get right is blurriness of subjects in my pictures, mainly moving objects, is it possible to correct this?
> Regards
> Dan



Hi Dan, glad your book came through. If you want objects which are moving to appear stationary in your photo, you need higher shutterspeeds to freeze the motion.


----------



## MBV (May 12, 2012)

Is it worth moving from an LX3 to the LX5? Going on a big holiday and I'm wondering weather to upgrade?


----------



## editor (May 13, 2012)

dfm said:


> Is it worth moving from an LX3 to the LX5? Going on a big holiday and I'm wondering weather to upgrade?


I really appreciated the extra zoom and higher quality images, especially in low light.

Comparison here: http://asia.cnet.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx5-vs-dmc-lx3-hands-on-62201687.htm


----------



## MBV (May 15, 2012)

Good link - cheers Ed.


----------

