Panasonic LX100 much better than Pentax Q

enoeske · 03-02-2016, 02:43 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by mklives

Are you serious??? Come on now, put aside your subjectivity. My photo is brilliant. The other photos posted on this thread are fine, but ordinary.

---------- Post added 03-02-16 at 02:38 PM ----------

Just asked my colleague (doesn't know who took the photos). Saw my photo, said "wow, that's magical!". Saw the other photos on this thread, said, "..ok, got any more magical ones?"

LOL, are you serious. This is hilarious.

johnmflores · 03-02-2016, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by mklives

Are you serious??? Come on now, put aside your subjectivity. My photo is brilliant. The other photos posted on this thread are fine, but ordinary.

Why are you deigning to spend your time here with the unwashed masses? To bless us with your wisdom?

mklives · 03-02-2016, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

LOL, are you serious. This is hilarious.

Just can't over how people let brand loyalty or other irrelevant details (like my personality on this thread) affect their evaluation of artistic merit. The photo has blown away everyone I've showed it to (except people on this thread).

enoeske · 03-02-2016, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by mklives

Just can't over how people let brand loyalty or other irrelevant details (like my personality on this thread) affect their evaluation of artistic merit. The photo has blown away everyone I've showed it to (except people on this thread).

I'm not letting brand loyalty effect my judgement. I don't care what camera a photo is taken with. That's cool for you that it has blown other people away. People are blown away with images from the iPhone as well.

We are taking offense to your "factual" statement that the LX100 is magically capable of taking better photos than the Q.

mklives · 03-02-2016, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

I'm not letting brand loyalty effect my judgement. I don't care what camera a photo is taken with. That's cool for you that it has blown other people away. People are blown away with images from the iPhone as well.

We are taking offense to your "factual" statement that the LX100 is magically capable of taking better photos than the Q.

Well, that's a given, due to the better sensor and higher quality lens.

But that's not why my photo is great. I could have taken this photo with another camera (not Q). The photo is good because of my being in the right place at the right time, lucky time of day, beautiful place, good framing, and really good post-processing (most important).

surfar · 03-02-2016, 03:32 PM - **1 Like**

I shoot with 5 systems plus my P&Ss.....And most brands....no bias whatsoever.... Your photo is OK but I've seen many on the Q forum that I consider "brilliant"...yours isn't amongst them!��

enoeske · 03-02-2016, 03:49 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by mklives

Well, that's a given, due to the better sensor and higher quality lens.

But that's not why my photo is great. I could have taken this photo with another camera (not Q). The photo is good because of my being in the right place at the right time, lucky time of day, beautiful place, good framing, and really good post-processing (most important).

Having a "better" sensor does not make a better camera, nor do higher quality lenses. Take the Foveon sensor in the Sigma DP series, as an example. It blows the doors off of most other sensors for detail at ISO 100. That doesn't make it a better overall camera. If detail is my need, as it often is in the studio, then the Sigma is the better camera. If you value high DR or clean high ISO, then its not your camera. Your "high quality" lens is still fringing in high contrast areas, along the mountain top and on the rocks in the stream, something my Q lens don't seem to do.

As for your take on why your image is "great": I don't think that was the optimal time of day, the sky is blown out and looks nasty. There is a whole side of a mountain missing due to the brightness of the sky (probably from the low dynamic range of the sensor in the LX100). Its certainly a beautiful place. Decent framing, though I wouldn't mind seeing less of the boring pure white sky. The post-processing is really what annoys me most about the shot. Its over the top and looks bad. Too much fake HDR toning. Greens are way off from where they should be and way too dark. You've applied too much recovery leading to blobbiness in the transitions from sky to trees on the mountain.

mklives · 03-02-2016, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by surfar

I shoot with 5 systems plus my P&Ss.....And most brands....no bias whatsoever.... Your photo is OK but I've seen many on the Q forum that I consider "brilliant"...yours isn't amongst them!��

This just means you don't have good judgement.

surfar · 03-02-2016, 03:52 PM

Figjam, I've got not very good judgement and over 50 years experience!

You are amusing.

mklives · 03-02-2016, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

Having a "better" sensor does not make a better camera, nor do higher quality lenses. Take the Foveon sensor in the Sigma DP series, as an example. It blows the doors off of most other sensors for detail at ISO 100. That doesn't make it a better overall camera. If detail is my need, as it often is in the studio, then the Sigma is the better camera. If you value high DR or clean high ISO, then its not your camera. Your "high quality" lens is still fringing in high contrast areas, along the mountain top and on the rocks in the stream, something my Q lens don't seem to do.

As for your take on why your image is "great": I don't think that was the optimal time of day, the sky is blown out and looks nasty. There is a whole side of a mountain missing due to the brightness of the sky (probably from the low dynamic range of the sensor in the LX100). Its certainly a beautiful place. Decent framing, though I wouldn't mind seeing less of the boring pure white sky. The post-processing is really what annoys me most about the shot. Its over the top and looks bad. Too much fake HDR toning. Greens are way off from where they should be and way too dark. You've applied too much recovery leading to blobbiness in the transitions from sky to trees on the mountain.

The blown out is the rays of sun coming through! This was taken just before sunrise. It looked blown-out to my eyes too. People comment that this is the part they like about the photo. Apologies for no typical blue sky! The colour of the trees looks magical because there is no sunlight on them.

You are the first to comment that the processing is bad. Others on other forums praised it. I guess you have nothing to match this photo so you just have to criticise to appear superior.

surfar · 03-02-2016, 04:10 PM - **1 Like**

Other forums is a good place for you to display your superior photos,quickly now.

mklives · 03-02-2016, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by surfar

Other forums is a good place for you to display your superior photos,quickly now.

There is no doubt I'm the greatest photographer who ever lived. I plan to nominate myself for the Nobel prize for photography. I would appreciate your support if you could write to the Nobel committee.

johnmflores · 03-02-2016, 04:26 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mklives

really good post-processing (most important).

Sigh...the irony is that the post-processing is one the weakest aspects of this shot. I would not have submitted this to my publisher with these obvious issues. This would have been a much nicer shot if taken with the 645Z on a wooden tripod.

johnmflores · 03-02-2016, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Why are you guys entertaining this??

It's like watching a train wreck...or autoerotic asphyxiation.

mklives · 03-02-2016, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Sigh...the irony is that the post-processing is one the weakest aspects of this shot. I would not have submitted this to my publisher with these obvious issues. This would have been a much nicer shot if taken with the 645Z on a wooden tripod.

Yes, viewing at 200% is a good way for a pixel peeper to enjoy a photo.

03-02-2016, 04:26 PM - 1 Like	#58
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by mklives really good post-processing (most important). Sigh...the irony is that the post-processing is one the weakest aspects of this shot. I would not have submitted this to my publisher with these obvious issues. This would have been a much nicer shot if taken with the 645Z on a wooden tripod. Attached Images

03-02-2016, 04:29 PM	#59
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by ChristianRock Why are you guys entertaining this?? It's like watching a train wreck...or autoerotic asphyxiation. Last edited by Blue; 03-02-2016 at 05:29 PM. Reason: edit out insult

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon F100 - much better than Pentax AF film cameras?	Jonathan Mac	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	8	03-23-2017 04:00 PM
Is the older Pentax FA* 80-200 f2.8 that much better than...	sholtzma	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	04-15-2015 02:25 PM
Panasonic LX100 announced	stormtech	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	108	12-26-2014 12:20 PM
It doesn't get much better than this!	Dewman	General Talk	10	12-03-2014 02:58 PM
How much better is K5iiS AF than the K5?	Fat Albert	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	10-31-2014 05:51 PM

03-02-2016, 02:43 PM - 3 Likes	#46
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by mklives Are you serious??? Come on now, put aside your subjectivity. My photo is brilliant. The other photos posted on this thread are fine, but ordinary. ---------- Post added 03-02-16 at 02:38 PM ---------- Just asked my colleague (doesn't know who took the photos). Saw my photo, said "wow, that's magical!". Saw the other photos on this thread, said, "..ok, got any more magical ones?" LOL, are you serious. This is hilarious.

03-02-2016, 02:53 PM	#47
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by mklives Are you serious??? Come on now, put aside your subjectivity. My photo is brilliant. The other photos posted on this thread are fine, but ordinary. Why are you deigning to spend your time here with the unwashed masses? To bless us with your wisdom?

03-02-2016, 03:08 PM	#48
mklives Junior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by enoeske LOL, are you serious. This is hilarious. Just can't over how people let brand loyalty or other irrelevant details (like my personality on this thread) affect their evaluation of artistic merit. The photo has blown away everyone I've showed it to (except people on this thread).

03-02-2016, 03:15 PM	#49
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by mklives Just can't over how people let brand loyalty or other irrelevant details (like my personality on this thread) affect their evaluation of artistic merit. The photo has blown away everyone I've showed it to (except people on this thread). I'm not letting brand loyalty effect my judgement. I don't care what camera a photo is taken with. That's cool for you that it has blown other people away. People are blown away with images from the iPhone as well. We are taking offense to your "factual" statement that the LX100 is magically capable of taking better photos than the Q.

03-02-2016, 03:27 PM	#50
mklives Junior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by enoeske I'm not letting brand loyalty effect my judgement. I don't care what camera a photo is taken with. That's cool for you that it has blown other people away. People are blown away with images from the iPhone as well. We are taking offense to your "factual" statement that the LX100 is magically capable of taking better photos than the Q. Well, that's a given, due to the better sensor and higher quality lens. But that's not why my photo is great. I could have taken this photo with another camera (not Q). The photo is good because of my being in the right place at the right time, lucky time of day, beautiful place, good framing, and really good post-processing (most important).

03-02-2016, 03:32 PM - 1 Like	#51
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	I shoot with 5 systems plus my P&Ss.....And most brands....no bias whatsoever.... Your photo is OK but I've seen many on the Q forum that I consider "brilliant"...yours isn't amongst them!��

03-02-2016, 03:49 PM - 2 Likes	#52
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by mklives Well, that's a given, due to the better sensor and higher quality lens. But that's not why my photo is great. I could have taken this photo with another camera (not Q). The photo is good because of my being in the right place at the right time, lucky time of day, beautiful place, good framing, and really good post-processing (most important). Having a "better" sensor does not make a better camera, nor do higher quality lenses. Take the Foveon sensor in the Sigma DP series, as an example. It blows the doors off of most other sensors for detail at ISO 100. That doesn't make it a better overall camera. If detail is my need, as it often is in the studio, then the Sigma is the better camera. If you value high DR or clean high ISO, then its not your camera. Your "high quality" lens is still fringing in high contrast areas, along the mountain top and on the rocks in the stream, something my Q lens don't seem to do. As for your take on why your image is "great": I don't think that was the optimal time of day, the sky is blown out and looks nasty. There is a whole side of a mountain missing due to the brightness of the sky (probably from the low dynamic range of the sensor in the LX100). Its certainly a beautiful place. Decent framing, though I wouldn't mind seeing less of the boring pure white sky. The post-processing is really what annoys me most about the shot. Its over the top and looks bad. Too much fake HDR toning. Greens are way off from where they should be and way too dark. You've applied too much recovery leading to blobbiness in the transitions from sky to trees on the mountain.

03-02-2016, 03:49 PM	#53
mklives Junior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by surfar I shoot with 5 systems plus my P&Ss.....And most brands....no bias whatsoever.... Your photo is OK but I've seen many on the Q forum that I consider "brilliant"...yours isn't amongst them!�� This just means you don't have good judgement.

03-02-2016, 03:52 PM	#54
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Figjam, I've got not very good judgement and over 50 years experience! You are amusing.

03-02-2016, 03:53 PM	#55
mklives Junior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by enoeske Having a "better" sensor does not make a better camera, nor do higher quality lenses. Take the Foveon sensor in the Sigma DP series, as an example. It blows the doors off of most other sensors for detail at ISO 100. That doesn't make it a better overall camera. If detail is my need, as it often is in the studio, then the Sigma is the better camera. If you value high DR or clean high ISO, then its not your camera. Your "high quality" lens is still fringing in high contrast areas, along the mountain top and on the rocks in the stream, something my Q lens don't seem to do. As for your take on why your image is "great": I don't think that was the optimal time of day, the sky is blown out and looks nasty. There is a whole side of a mountain missing due to the brightness of the sky (probably from the low dynamic range of the sensor in the LX100). Its certainly a beautiful place. Decent framing, though I wouldn't mind seeing less of the boring pure white sky. The post-processing is really what annoys me most about the shot. Its over the top and looks bad. Too much fake HDR toning. Greens are way off from where they should be and way too dark. You've applied too much recovery leading to blobbiness in the transitions from sky to trees on the mountain. The blown out is the rays of sun coming through! This was taken just before sunrise. It looked blown-out to my eyes too. People comment that this is the part they like about the photo. Apologies for no typical blue sky! The colour of the trees looks magical because there is no sunlight on them. You are the first to comment that the processing is bad. Others on other forums praised it. I guess you have nothing to match this photo so you just have to criticise to appear superior.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2016, 04:10 PM - 1 Like	#56
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Other forums is a good place for you to display your superior photos,quickly now.

03-02-2016, 04:15 PM	#57
mklives Junior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by surfar Other forums is a good place for you to display your superior photos,quickly now. There is no doubt I'm the greatest photographer who ever lived. I plan to nominate myself for the Nobel prize for photography. I would appreciate your support if you could write to the Nobel committee.

03-02-2016, 04:33 PM	#60
mklives Junior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by johnmflores Sigh...the irony is that the post-processing is one the weakest aspects of this shot. I would not have submitted this to my publisher with these obvious issues. This would have been a much nicer shot if taken with the 645Z on a wooden tripod. Yes, viewing at 200% is a good way for a pixel peeper to enjoy a photo.