Panasonic is My Hero
Monday, July 21, 2008 at 11:55PM 
Many years ago at one of the first RESfests in San Francisco, some Panasonic engineers approached me and the guys who would eventually become my Orphanage business partners. They had some prototype cameras that they wanted to show us, behind closed doors. We were presented with two plastic shells, one of which bore a strong resemblance to what we now know as the venerable DVX100, complete with the built-in faux matte box. They asked our opinions about many features, including the form factors, and of course we picked the one that eventually became the DVX100. As the session ended, the Japanese gentlemen asked us for one must-have feature that we hadn't discussed. We simultaniously said "24p." They smiled, and nodded, and thanked us.
It's easy to take for granted the enourmous leap that Panasonic made by introducing a consumer camera that shot 24p. I still admire them for that bold move. Sure, someone would have done it eventually, but it's because of their courage that we now have so many excellent 24p choices, from the mature to the impulse-buy.
The only camera I own that I love more than my DVX100 is my Canon 5D. Although I frequently lug it around with me, there is only one camera that I am literaly never without: my Panasonic Lumix LX2. The LX2 is a terrific little 16:9, 10 megapixel, raw-shooting camera marred by only one fatal flaw: piss-poor low-light performance. In fact, when I replaced my LX1 with the LX2, I lamented that Panasonic had increased the megapixel count, following what seemed like a relentless trend in consumer digicams; the more-is-more megapixel marketing barrage that packs so many pixels into tiny CCDs that each must fight for a tiny shred of light, resulting in noisy images with unnecessarily huge file sizes.
Lately I've been entertaining the idea of ditching the aging LX2. The Canon G9 and the new Ricoh GX200 were possibilities. I played with a GX200 last weekend, and it was sweet. Shoots raw as fast as my LX2 shoots JPEG, has a lens that is wide as hell, fast, and doesn't stick out too far beyond the camera body when retracted.
Despite the somewhat noisy 12 megapixel images, my finger was poised over the click-to-buy button.
Then Panasonic announced the LX3. From the press release:
At the heart of the LX3 is a key component that distinguishes it from all other compact cameras: a 1/1.63-inch 10.1-megapixel CCD. Boldly defying the trend to cram in the most pixels possible, Panasonic limited the LX3's large 1/1.63-inch CCD to 10.1 megapixels. This made it possible to make each pixel around 45% larger than those in ordinary 10-megapixel cameras. As a result, both sensitivity and saturation is around 40% higher than in ordinary models, giving the LX3 exquisite image quality with both excellent sensitivity and a wide dynamic range.
In other words, they kept the same resolution as the LX2, but made the chip bigger.
They made the chip bigger! (actually they totally did not, see update below)
Bigger chips mean so many good things. Big chips mean shallower depth-of-field at equivalent settings. Big chips mean big pixels, which means more light hits each photosite. More light means less gain, less noise per pixel. Less noise means more dynamic range. Bigger chips mean better pictures.
Bless you Panasonic. I hope you start a trend. Eventually people will realize that these crazy-high megapixel cameras are making their images look worse instead of better. I sincerely hope that low-light sensitivity and film-like dynamic range can somehow become as consumer lust-inducing as the megapixel number wrongly has.
For those of you looking for a true "digital ranegfinder," or, like me, the digital replacement for your trusty old Yashica T4, you won't find it until the megapixel race reverses and becomes a race to the bottom of the Pixel Density charts. Pixel Density is a term coined by the lovely folks at dpreview.com, and it is such a better indicator of a camera's image creation pros and cons than pixel count that they have placed it right below megapixels in all their camera listings. The pixel density of the LX2 is 25 MP/cm² (megapixels per square centimeter). The pixel density of the 5D is 1.5 MP/cm². Less is so very much more.
The LX3 also sports a fast (f/2.0 at the wide end), wide zoom similar to the Ricoh's, and some other nifty things like an optional wide-angle adapter and hot shoe.
And then, as if that wasn't enough (which it is), I continued to read the specs and see that while the SD video mode on the LX3 shoots useful 848x480 video at 30 fps just like the LX2, its HD video mode (1280x720) has been bumped up from 15 to 24 fps.
24p.
24p HD video in your pocket.
Now don't get me wrong—I'm not suggesting that you're going to shoot the sequel to White Red Panic with the LX3. Video from P&S cameras is always ass. But it can be useful ass (if you saw my presentation at SF FCPUG you know this), and it always killed me that amidst the 30p shooting modes there was never a 25p mode for our PAL pals, or even, hey, I can dream can't I?, a 24p mode.
I'm sure some poor engineer at Panasonic Japan views the 24p HD mode as a huge failure. If only I'd tried a little harder, he's thinking, mabe it could have been 30p. I hope I still have a job in the morning.
Well you are my hero, guy-who-fell-just-short-of-30p. And in turn, Panasonic is once again my hero. While you may not be at the tippy top of the 24p prosumer video game that you created, you have once again ensured that I will never go anywhere without a Lumix at my side.
UPDATE: There's been a flurry of discussion about this camera and its sensor, and some helpful folks on Twitter pointed out this article that clarifies the "increase" in sensor size. Turns out the chip is barely bigger at all, and in fact the LX3 will actually use a smaller imaging area than the LX2 did when shooting in 16:9 mode. I'm still getting one of these things, but I sure won't be hyping its "enlarged" sensor anymore. Grumble.
Reader Comments (27)
I really hope the megapixel race is ending. Most "digital civilians" I know still have one and only question: "How many megapixels?". Hopefully the camera companies can shift the discussion to low light and sensitivity as the most important aspect of getting a new camera. I think it's very possible because everyone hates the look of grainy/noisy pictures.
Nice! I picked up a Cannon TX1 for pennies on the dollar because of it's 720 30p functionality but have been woefully unimpressed with it's low light imaging. I do love it's super compact form tho, I forget it's in my pocket!
24mm is still not quite as wide as I'd prefer (I still love dad's 21mm for his Leica M3; went way down to f1.4 iirc) but this is another step in the right direction!
Traveling with a mini video camera is just so awesome.
I wonder, has anyone ever compared video quality of the LZ2 (or TZ5) with the Flip Mino?
http://tinyurl.com/5mk2fa
Cheers.
yeah i got the Ricoh R4 and its super fast but the overall image quality and layout left alot to be desired and i found myself reaching for my canon SD850 more and more. plus and i know this is nuts, the canon can take more abuser like being dropped and banged around than the ricoh.
however you made my day with the details of the LX3, i read about it the other day but hadn't had the chance to dig in. as always you layout a nice argument why you like something or dislike it.
the pixel count war is definitely getting old and makes it easier for people who know to snatch up deals on cams people may pass up because they dont know what they're missing.
thanks for the heads up.
Stu,
This is one of your best blogs for me as I have really labored over when to actually buy the LX2 or not. Then, came the Sigma DP1 which I thought might the answer to what I really want. But, the price and some of the reviews have proven that the DP1 though a great camera in concept still needs work. It's slow and doesn't perform well in low-light among other things. Plus, it's more expensive.
So, I was just about to purchase the LX 2 but have been delaying purely out of being distracted. Now, here you come with news that there's going to be a LX3? Amazing my friend. I so appreciate your feedback on Panasonic's continuing development with this camera. I will definitely be like you with this little pocket sized camera. Adding it to my DVX100A, and, down the road, Red's Scarlet we're all waiting for.
Thanks again, Stu. This read has really helped me.
Keith
720p? That sure sounds like something worth experimenting with. It probably throws it into a hugely compressed format though. It would be sweet if it could 720p raw :) buy 4 or 5 of these cams and treat them like film loads :)
I actually had my finger hovering over the buy now of another "compact" camera with a big chip, the Sigma DP1
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-DP1-14MP-Digital-Camera/dp/B0013DCOZC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1216749367&sr=8-1
In fact, I had it in my cart, but somehow got distracted and then came across the LX3 announcement in my rss feed! What luck! Still _sort_of_ considering the DP1. All of the complaints about it, slow write speed, slow auto focus, etc. I can live with. My only hold-up is the slow lens. It is a prime lens though. You can get them open box from Amazon for about 5 hundo and some change, making the prices very similar. I think the LX3's video is the deal breaker for me though.
While I definitely dig the chip and techy upgrades, I'm of the opinion that this camera rules because of Panasonic's relationship with Leica. Not to be all M8-y about it, but Leica really nailed that lens.
I haven't looked super close, but I'm not sure if the lens is changed on the LX3 or not. Perhaps an excuse to buy yet another piece of gear?
Apparently I'm the anti-Ayz; loaded for bear and forever writing...
Very cool, Stu. And it's nice to see someone preaching the more isnt more sermon.
I just checked out the review at dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp
and from the review it sounds like the camera has full manual controls. While it may not be an SLR, full manual certainly puts it above a mere PnS.
Can you confirm the depth of the controls?
Thx.
Brian, that's not a review, it's a press release (linked above). The manual control sounds very much like what the LX2 has, and while it does elevate it above most P&S cameras, the G9 and the GX200 have similar controls. The G9 adds a dedicated ISO wheel, which is something I hope to see on more cameras.
Thanks, I meant "preview", but looking at it again, I see where it says "press release".
As for the ISO wheel, I am a HUGE fan of getting as many controls out of the menus as possible.
I hadnt really been in the market for a pocket cam, but considering it is such a pain to pull out the big guns for simple snaps, I usually just use my cell phone which is poo-pooey.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I've been waiting for this too. The lower noise, wide lens, 16x9, manual controls and shooting RAW is the combination.
I have the Canon G9 and I like it. I also have a Panasonic Lumix FX-07 which doesn't shoot raw but has a 28mm lens and shoots great video at 848x480. Sure the G9 creates better still images but it's "full manual" controls end when you go to shoot video. My main gripe with the G9 is that the lens does not get wide enough. Sure you can add an adapter and then a wide angle but if you've seen that rig is no longer compact.
Looks like the LX3 will be replacing both of them.
The ISO wheel on the G9 is something I am going to miss though.
I'm a bit bummed about the shorter zoom - a little over 2x on the LX-3, vs 4x on the LX-2. Wider is nice, but 28mm is already pretty good.
The only thing that could get me to upgrade from my '2 is if the noise really is significantly better. Probably the achilles' heel of this thing...
Hmm... just re-read the press release, and saw the lens is an f/2-2.8 (LX-2 is f/2.8-4.9)... another plus.
This looks like a fantastic camera, and strong competition for my Ricoh GX100. Especially that new, and fast lens, and the extendability is great (that leather case is sweet).
Although more pixels is not the best thing to do in my opinion (many serious compact camera photographers don't ask for it), it does not necesarely decrease the image quality either.
A fantastic blog by the way.
Cheers,
Wouter Brandsma
http://wouter28mm.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wouter28mm/
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/
Great article.
I've had a GX100 for a year now and like it more each time I use it.
Brilliant cam, and I devoured the spec's for the GX200 when they were released but was really disappointed that the pixel count had been increased.
The GX100 was already a bit noisy and this is going to get worse in the new cam.
Other then the chip specs, everything else has been improved, including the addition of a tele adapter.
The Panasonic looks really interesting, but I've turned into a RED fan boy and I'm waiting for the Scarlet which is slated to have a 'stills' mode.
Interesting list of comments here. I also have a TX1, and really like it's packaging.
That said, it's deficiencies are another reason why I'm waiting for the Scarlet ;-)
the TX1 uses Mjpeg and it does obscene things to the capture. There seems to be something in the audio codex that chews memory when trying to edit the files in After Effects.
I was hoping that someone would use one of the Canon hacks that are floating around to allow uses to save video to a better format.
I'm hoping that the image sensor delivers, as 24p in your pocket would kick so much ass. Still, I'm wondering how I feel now I've seen some image examples:
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/9604.html" REL="nofollow">Link
In the first image example there's really noticeable noise & low light resolution dropout.
What does everyone else think?
Hmmm.
Not so impressed by the overall image quality. I have owned noisier cameras and I dont know about a loss of low light resolution, but overall the image quality does not impress me.
Nice, I learned something about the importance of pixelsize.
One question then: Does this mean that the digibeta 2/3" has 5 times larger pixels than most HD-variants, especially the pro-sumers, and are therefore much more sensitive, with more lattitude etc.?
Oh, man. I should've known - I still have my treasured Yashica T4 Super-D. The killerest little camera. Though I'm mostly pointing and shooting with a Nikon P5000 (NOT the 5100, because of the pixel size issue) and thinking about what would be an improvement, i.e. not a G9. I'll be checking this puppy out.
PS why is P&S video AUDIO always crap? Besides the obvious. And better codecs are needed than generally supplied, maybe because of the power budget.
I only wish this camera has a time lapse option !!!!
I look forward to seeing exa,mps of the 24fps video. Does anyone know if the manual focus will work with video? DOF video would be awsome!!!!!
Low light sensitivity is not all about low pixel density - in fact, this is hardly relevant at all (contrary to popular belief).
Per-pixel noise MAY increase as pixel density increases, but for same-size and same-generation imagers, higher pixel count will yield equal or lower noise when intelligently down-filtered to the same resolution as the low-density imager.
Compare, for instance, the 1DsMkIII and D3 - at 12MP, the MKIII has equal or lower noise, despite having twice the pixel density. Try it yourself...
OK Charles, for the sake of argument let's say you're right (ignoring that more photosites on the same sized chip means less light per photosite and therefore more gain, noise). A bigger, noisier image can look very clean when subsampled, that is true. But in order to achieve that you must endure crazy file sizes that don't reflect the real image quality of your photos.
I have Ricoh GX200 DNGs on my Drobo that are 17-18MB each. They are not worth half that disk space hit. My 5D's CR2 files are 10-11MB each and worth every byte.
Those Ricoh shots are noisy as heck. Sure, they look clean when scaled down to web res, but I'd rather spend my money on a camera with file sizes that better reflect the actual image quality. The LX3 samples I've seen seem to do so.
Although the sensor size of the LX3 isn't physically larger than the LX2, the http://panasonic.net/pavc/lumix/lx3/high_image.html#no01" REL="nofollow">total area available for light capture is actually larger. So you can still spruik a larger light capture area :)
I should have looked a little closer at link I sent previously! Classic case of a misleading diagram, while the LX3 photodiode looks a lot bigger than the LX2's it only makes up for the small decrease in sensor size. Anyway I've got an LX3 on order, should be a great carry everywhere camera!
Hey Stu...Have you ever tried doing Remote Capture ? This feature is there in lot of the Canon models, but I'm not sure if Panasonic has it...can you trigger your Lumix LX2 shutter from your laptop via USB ?