Is the FX9's picture quality better than the FX01?

[PreludeTypeSH]

Well I've been waiting for the FXO1 to come out now and when it finally did and I've been reading really bad reviews about it. They said that the pictures are really noise under low light conditions. While the FX9 didn't have much of a noise problems as the FX01. So right now I'm not sure which one to get. I was going to get the FX9 and then I read that the FX01 was going to come out so I decided to wait, but not I have second thoughts on waiting. So what do you guys suggest? Reviews stated that the FX9 had noise problems, but it wasn't as empasized as the FX01. Thanks.

[PreludeTypeSH]

Can anybody give me inputs? Anything will be greatly appreciated.

[PreludeTypeSH]

Or actually how does the FX01's picture quality compare to the Canon SD600 or SD700 IS?

[jcameron]

I have had an fx01 for about three weeks. It is small, well built, and is very fast. It has as good an LCD as I have seen on a camera. Battery life is also very good. The camera doesn't have a lot of manual controls but it does provide exposure and white balance control. The menus are well laid out and easy to use. The lense is as good as you are going to get on a point and shoot camera. Colors look great to me (although like many males I have a bit of blue green color blindness). The flash seems to work fine as well.

The camera got a nice review on Digital Photography Review which along with dcresources are the only photography sites I ever look at. Most importantly it is one of only two cameras that I know about which have OIS and a wide angle lense. These are the features that are the most important to me.

As far as noise goes I am not an expert. If I take a really good picture I might order an 8x10 copy. Otherwise I look at the pcitures on my 19inch lcd monitor or I do 4x6 prints. Like I said I am not the kind of person who gets out a loupe to look for artifacts in an image but the pictures I have taken so far look great. You ought to go to a camera shop and try it out.

[PreludeTypeSH]

Today when I went to my local Best Buy, the guys there totally dissed the FX01 and said it was a horrible camera compared to the SD600, but I don't believe that. The only place that has the FX01 is the local Best Buy and they weren't cooperative to let me try out the camera. Then I went to the local camera shop Ritz, but they didn't have the camera. One of the workers said that the FX01 was an awesome camera and noise shouldn't be a problem if you use the flash and he highly recommends the camera over the SD600. He also said that the employees at Best Buy gets 10 dollars commission for yelling a Canon Camera so maybe that's why they recommended the SD600 so much over the FX01. But overall from what I saw of the SD600, the picture quality was pretty decent. I still haven't had a chance to use the FX01 to see how that camera is. But yeah JCAMERON, do you notice any noise in your pictures under low lit conditions with flash?

[jcameron]

If you want to look at some pictures look at the review at Digital Photography Review. I don't know when it will be reviewed on this site. While I don't know how you intend to use the camera, I really don't think that image quality is going to be an issue with either camera unless you are going to create really big prints. I have seen no noise in my pictures but I haven't printed anything bigger than 4x6. Canon and Panasonic both make excellent digital camera's. They are reilable and they perform well. Even their most inexpensive camera's are very good. When I was a bit younger I had a an inexpensive Canon film camera with a fixed focus lense. It took beautiful pictures.

I think that ergonomics and features should drive your decision. Go into Best Buy or wherever and try out both cameras. If one is easier to use than the other I think that is very important. In my case I really wanted a camera with a wide angle lense because I take lots of pictures of groups of kids. With my old camera I could never get everyone in the shot. I also need the OIS because my hands are a little bit shaky. That made my decision fairly simple. If I didn't care about those features I would have most likely went with one of the Canon camera's because of the 4x zoom.

If you are really concerned about image noise you ought to look at the Fuji F10. It is the uncontested low noise champion of point and shoot cameras. It looks very nice and has a good feel to it. I played around with it in WalMart one day. I didn't like the menus but I think I could live with them.

I think you would be very happy with either camera.

[my88wa]

Most importantly it is one of only two cameras that I know about which have OIS and a wide angle lense.

What's the other camera that has OIS and a wide angle lense?

[jcameron]

Konica/Minolta A200

[mynicksnix]

That is a higher segment camera (8.4 MP, can make full res. 16:9 wideview photo's).

[coldrain]

Canons make a lot less noisy photos in general than Panasonics. Panasonic tends to use quite aggressive in camera sharpening which results in emphasized noise and sharpening artifacts.
So, if you compare compact canons with compact panas, the Canons will most of the time do better.

The best FX is the FX8. It is the same as the FX9, but has a 5mp sensor instead of a 6mp sensor and performs quite a bit better in my opinion.

But there is another camera you could consider.... the Leica C-Lux 1. Like the Leica D-Lux 2 vs the Pana LX1, the C-Lux 1 is Leica's version of the FX01. And Leica, unlike Panasonic, does not sharpen so much in camera, resulting in a lot less noise and a lot less sharpening artifacts.

So, it will get you the same form factor, the same sensor, same OIS, same lens, but better image quality. For a little bit more, which also will get you a bigger memory card and a better software package.

[PreludeTypeSH]

But there is another camera you could consider.... the Leica C-Lux 1. Like the Leica D-Lux 2 vs the Pana LX1, the C-Lux 1 is Leica's version of the FX01. And Leica, unlike Panasonic, does not sharpen so much in camera, resulting in a lot less noise and a lot less sharpening artifacts.

From what I read the C-Lux 1 is basically the same camera as the FX01 with no picture quality differences. I think I read it from dpreview. As of right now I'm either choosing to buy the FX01 or the LZ7 which is a hard decision for me because I want both. I want the FX01 so I can carry it around with me all the time while I want the FZ7 so I can take some nice photos with a lot of manual features. People say that the picture quality between those two cameras are really similar and it depends on my preference, but I can't make up my mind.

[coldrain]

Well, dpreview has not tested the Leica. The difference between the LX1 and D-Lux 2 is real and significant, and I am quite sure the same difference can be observed with the C-Lux1 and FX01.

According to ColorFoto the Leica D-Lux2 has better contrast, better shadow detail and less noise than the Panasonic LX1.
Noise at ISO100:
Leica: 26.7 S/N
Pana: 18.7 S/N

Noise at ISO400:
Leica: 14.6 S/N
Pana: 11.3 S/N

A very big difference! All in all I think the Leica C-Lux1 is worth investigation, because there too Leica will use their own firmware and settings.

[brudy]

Well, dpreview has not tested the Leica. The difference between the LX1 and D-Lux 2 is real and significant, and I am quite sure the same difference can be observed with the C-Lux1 and FX01.

According to ColorFoto the Leica D-Lux2 has better contrast, better shadow detail and less noise than the Panasonic LX1.
Noise at ISO100:
Leica: 26.7 S/N
Pana: 18.7 S/N

Noise at ISO400:
Leica: 14.6 S/N
Pana: 11.3 S/N

A very big difference! All in all I think the Leica C-Lux1 is worth investigation, because there too Leica will use their own firmware and settings.

I've been toying with the same question and it's great to hear this. It's hard to dig up any info on the Leica versions of the camera. I'm torn with the FX01 vs LX1 vs d-lux vs c-lux. The c-lux is apparently due sometime in May. But I'm ready to buy now. So the question of the day is - is the $200 premium for the d-lux2 worth it? I love what i've read about the camera, lens, features, usability. But the noise of the LX1 scares me a bit. I am a graphic designer, so I'm very fluent in photoshop/image processing, I'd rather not have to do much. But a quick run through neat image isn't the worst thing in the world. But $750 buys a lot of camera, so is the D-Lux 2 worth it? Tough question...

[coldrain]

I've been toying with the same question and it's great to hear this. It's hard to dig up any info on the Leica versions of the camera. I'm torn with the FX01 vs LX1 vs d-lux vs c-lux. The c-lux is apparently due sometime in May. But I'm ready to buy now. So the question of the day is - is the $200 premium for the d-lux2 worth it? I love what i've read about the camera, lens, features, usability. But the noise of the LX1 scares me a bit. I am a graphic designer, so I'm very fluent in photoshop/image processing, I'd rather not have to do much. But a quick run through neat image isn't the worst thing in the world. But $750 buys a lot of camera, so is the D-Lux 2 worth it? Tough question...
The list price is not that much higher... maybe you can find it cheaper if you shop around. For the extra 100$ or so it does offer a bigger memory card (only 64mb still) and photoshop elements.

The LX1 just is very noisy, so I find it is worth it. But you can also look into the Canon S80.

[brudy]

The list price is not that much higher... maybe you can find it cheaper if you shop around. For the extra 100$ or so it does offer a bigger memory card (only 64mb still) and photoshop elements.

The LX1 just is very noisy, so I find it is worth it. But you can also look into the Canon S80.

Has anyone seen side by side pics of the leica vs pana?

Well, I picked up an FX01 today. If it doesn't work out for me, it will go back. So far, excellent pics in natural light, noisy pics (almost too noisy) when used in darker situations. But the basic quality is there, nice colors and detail. The camera itself I love. It's dead easy to use, feels solid in the hand, and it's small and pocketable. So much to love, but the noise could be an issue. Neat Image works pretty well, although on a few images it softened it too much and lost detail. I haven't put a huge amount of time into using it yet though. This all preliminary observations.

I've kind of resolved myself to a two camera situation. Something small like this and a lower end dslr (canon 20d or digital rebel xt). I want something truly manual with exterior manual controls (i'm not a huge fan of deep menus) to help me learn. But I also need a P&S too.

[roavatodd]

Brudy, can you post some of your indoor pics from the FX01? Thanks!

[brudy]

Brudy, can you post some of your indoor pics from the FX01? Thanks!

Sure can. I'll put them up later tonight. There's not too many yet, but I'll see what I have to pick from.

[brudy]

I've added a few to my flickr page. There really aren't many indoor shots and I don't remember the settings per pic. But here you go, hope they help.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64772753@N00/

[Patula]

Well, dpreview has not tested the Leica. The difference between the LX1 and D-Lux 2 is real and significant, and I am quite sure the same difference can be observed with the C-Lux1 and FX01.

According to ColorFoto the Leica D-Lux2 has better contrast, better shadow detail and less noise than the Panasonic LX1.
Noise at ISO100:
Leica: 26.7 S/N
Pana: 18.7 S/N

Noise at ISO400:
Leica: 14.6 S/N
Pana: 11.3 S/N

A very big difference! All in all I think the Leica C-Lux1 is worth investigation, because there too Leica will use their own firmware and settings.


This is a valuable information. May you send me the link where to read more about. It is the German's ColorFoto Magazine?
Any info will be appreciatte,

Thanks,
Patula

[Donato777]

My new FX-01 arrived today. It is an impressive and solidly built little camera that exudes quality and commands respect. The controls are all conveniently placed and quite intuitive. The LCD is bright and clear. So far my photos look as sharp as photos taken with my Canon SD550. The primary reason why I bought the FX-01, though, was for its 28mm wide angle. There are only two ultracompacts that have it: Ricoh R4 and FX-01. If Canon built a wide angle on to their SD models, I'd buy it in a flash. The FX-01 is smaller and more lightweight than the SD550 and battery life is much better.

[ryanbrancel]

Any one want to try these out? I think the cases have been rated well...
BoxWave's FlexiSkin cases for FX8, FX9, FX01 (http://www.boxwave.com/products/flexiskin/flexiskin-panasonic-digital-cameras-case.htm)

I'll probably be getting the FX01 for my sister and possibly one of those cases.

[linux-works]

Panasonic tends to use quite aggressive in camera sharpening which results in emphasized noise and sharpening artifacts.


totally untrue. please support that assertion of yours.



So, if you compare compact canons with compact panas, the Canons will most of the time do better.


the canon sd-series really bites. and I don't mean that in a good way ;)




But there is another camera you could consider.... the Leica C-Lux 1. Like the Leica D-Lux 2 vs the Pana LX1, the C-Lux 1 is Leica's version of the FX01. And Leica, unlike Panasonic, does not sharpen so much in camera, resulting in a lot less noise and a lot less sharpening artifacts.


pure unsubstantiated rumor. there is little technical reason why leica vs pany (PARTNERS!) would do this to each other. no reason at all.

if I could see data via multiple sources over multiple production runs, THEN I'll agree.

a random sample by some folks here and there is not enough to prove that the leica != pany.