LX1 or LX2 ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

PeA_NuTz

New Member
Aug 2, 2006
272
0
0
#1
Few threads talking about LX1 rocks, LX2 going to rock, LX2 rocks.
I know LX2 has higher MP, 16:9 and ISO till 1600.
While LX1 doesn't.
The main concern is price.
Pls enlighted me :)
 

trucatus

Senior Member
Jan 3, 2005
1,992
1
38
Singapore
www.camwerkz.com
#2
The new LX-2 cost less than the LX-1 when it was lauched. It is a no brainer, go for thr LX-2.
You can still shoot 8mp jpeg using the LX-2 if you want less Mp.
 

PeA_NuTz

New Member
Aug 2, 2006
272
0
0
#3
The new LX-2 cost less than the LX-1 when it was lauched. It is a no brainer, go for thr LX-2.
You can still shoot 8mp jpeg using the LX-2 if you want less Mp.
How much LX2 retails now ?
$700 ?+
 

PeA_NuTz

New Member
Aug 2, 2006
272
0
0
#7
Thinking of getting this cause i like the looks and also most features it has.
If my current camera really takes sucky pics, i think i will get that.
 

takethree

New Member
Sep 23, 2006
369
0
0
#8
don't have liao....

it's the promotion package... til 31st last month.
I'm thinking of buying but still undecided because of the noise.

Is the ISO 200 and 400 of the LX2 that bad?
I have the LX1. One thing I notice is that if you shoot RAW the noise (even when shot at ISO400) cleans up very nicely. Retain the details very well. This is a very sharp lens. The Fuji F30 on the otherhand when given the noise reduction treatment looks watercolory.
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
0
I'm a Llama!
#10
I have the LX1. One thing I notice is that if you shoot RAW the noise (even when shot at ISO400) cleans up very nicely. Retain the details very well. This is a very sharp lens. The Fuji F30 on the otherhand when given the noise reduction treatment looks watercolory.
I beg to differ. I had the LX1 and junked it because I found its performance beyond iso 200 unusable. I never applied NR because the results often looks too silky smooth and unnatural. I now have the Fuji F30 and can't be happier with it. Even up to iso 800, shots can be used without any need for NR. I think it's got about the best high iso performance in any compact digicam. Cheaper than the LX1 or LX2, which I heard has not improved any in the noise department.
 

takethree

New Member
Sep 23, 2006
369
0
0
#12
I beg to differ. I had the LX1 and junked it because I found its performance beyond iso 200 unusable. I never applied NR because the results often looks too silky smooth and unnatural. I now have the Fuji F30 and can't be happier with it. Even up to iso 800, shots can be used without any need for NR. I think it's got about the best high iso performance in any compact digicam. Cheaper than the LX1 or LX2, which I heard has not improved any in the noise department.
Good for you.

I'm your total opposite. I don't shoot at high ISO very often (or if I can help it) but even at lower ISO I find the F30 images to be water colory. In fact anything above ISO400 I find the image very watercolory. Acceptable to you but not to me. Above ISO200 I find the image losing detail so most of the time I end up shooting at ISO100 anyway. I treasure the OIS, RAW and full manual controls more than the high ISO capability.

In fact I'm junking the F30 and keeping the LX1! When I bought them, the LX1 was much cheaper than the F30.
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
0
I'm a Llama!
#13
Good for you.

I'm your total opposite. I don't shoot at high ISO very often (or if I can help it) but even at lower ISO I find the F30 images to be water colory. In fact anything above ISO400 I find the image very watercolory. Acceptable to you but not to me. Above ISO200 I find the image losing detail so most of the time I end up shooting at ISO100 anyway. I treasure the OIS, RAW and full manual controls more than the high ISO capability.

In fact I'm junking the F30 and keeping the LX1! When I bought them, the LX1 was much cheaper than the F30.
Your point of view goes contrary to the popular opinion that the Fuji sensors offers better high iso performance but like you said, good for you.

The RAW mode in the LX1 is nice and I have to admit I do miss that, in addition to the 16:9 format.

Maybe we should have just exchanged cameras and that would have saved us both some money.
 

takethree

New Member
Sep 23, 2006
369
0
0
#14
Your point of view goes contrary to the popular opinion that the Fuji sensors offers better high iso performance but like you said, good for you.

The RAW mode in the LX1 is nice and I have to admit I do miss that, in addition to the 16:9 format.

Maybe we should have just exchanged cameras and that would have saved us both some money.

I never deny that the Fuji was better at higher ISO. I do agree that the LX1 sucks at anything above ISO80. It's just that I can get over that watercolor effect.

Yep! We should have exchanged cameras.

I love RAW. I cannot believe the amount of information that was lost when converted to the in-camera JPEG.
 

weekh

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2004
4,101
0
0
#16
LX2 if u want to shoot ISO 200 or higher.
LX1 if u keep ISO at 100 and below.

My favourite film was Sensia 100 and Veliva 50. Hardly do I use higher ISO cos of the grain.
So shooting the LX1 at ISO 80 and 100 is fine with me most of the time.
 

Zack46

New Member
Oct 17, 2006
1
0
0
#17
LX2 if u want to shoot ISO 200 or higher.
LX1 if u keep ISO at 100 and below.

My favourite film was Sensia 100 and Veliva 50. Hardly do I use higher ISO cos of the grain.
So shooting the LX1 at ISO 80 and 100 is fine with me most of the time.
Hello Weekh -

Just to clarify, are you saying that at low ISO's you actually prefer the LX1 to the LX2, or are you saying that at low ISO's the image quality is similar and therefore it may make sense to save money and get an LX1?

I shoot primarily daytime landscapes, and am looking for the best possible image quality at low ISO (I'm primarily concerned with RAW quality, but jpeg quality is also of interest for more casual shooting). I don't currently have a digital camera. I'm not concerned about paying a bit more for the LX2, and if the LX2's low ISO image quality is equivalent to the LX1 I would prefer to get the LX2 for its superior LCD screen (in terms of color accuracy, aspect ratio, and 'high angle' viewing feature).

I've followed your comments about the LX1 for the past year, and would value your opinion, since you've clearly had an opportunity to work extensively with both cameras!

Thanks,
Zack
 

weekh

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2004
4,101
0
0
#18
Then get yourself a LX2 for the nicer LCD and higher ISO.

In fact, dpreview had done a more scientifc test and the LX2 produces better image.

Don't get too concerned over LX1 or 2. Both are just great!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom