A brief review of the Panasonic LX-3

[__hh]

I had a brief "play" with one in the camera shop the other day. I stopped playing with it and lost interest when I could not turn off the LCD screen.

Can someone prove me wrong - I would really want the ability for this camera to have an optical viewfinder on it and turn the LCD screen off.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Can someone prove me wrong - I would really want the ability for this camera to have an optical viewfinder on it and turn the LCD screen off.

There's a menu option that allows you to choose to use an external VF, and when you engage it, it turns off the screen. This is pretty awkward, though--it would be great if there were a dedicated button.

 

[pggunn]

re:LX3 dedicated button

re:LX3 dedicated button

There's a menu option that allows you to choose to use an external VF, and when you engage it, it turns off the screen. This is pretty awkward, though--it would be great if there were a dedicated button.

There are two custom settings - C1 and C2 - on the mode dial that can be set up anyway you want. Actually, the C2 setting allows access to three different custom settings via the menu. You can set up all the parameters you want including ISO, AF and metering modes, turn the LCD off, etc. then save those settings to one of the custom modes.

Another good feature is the quick menu button which provides access to film mode, metering mode, AF mode, WB settings, ISO, iE parameters, picture size and LCD mode on/off via one menu screen.

Also, when the LCD screen is turned off, certain parameters are still briefly displayed there, e.g. those for changing aperture, shutter speeds, etc. when using the appropriate controls. I have a 24mm VF on mine and have enjoyed it very much. It does have some quirks and limitations like all cameras, but overall I'm very pleased with it. It's small enough to carry everywhere, and fun to use.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

You can set up all the parameters you want including ISO, AF and metering modes, turn the LCD off, etc. then save those settings to one of the custom modes.

Fantastic, I didn't realize turning the screen off was an available option.!

 

[__hh]

There are two custom settings - C1 and C2 - on the mode dial that can be set up anyway you want. Actually, the C2 setting allows access to three different custom settings via the menu. You can set up all the parameters you want including ISO, AF and metering modes, turn the LCD off, etc. then save those settings to one of the custom modes.

Another good feature is the quick menu button which provides access to film mode, metering mode, AF mode, WB settings, ISO, iE parameters, picture size and LCD mode on/off via one menu screen.

Also, when the LCD screen is turned off, certain parameters are still briefly displayed there, e.g. those for changing aperture, shutter speeds, etc. when using the appropriate controls. I have a 24mm VF on mine and have enjoyed it very much. It does have some quirks and limitations like all cameras, but overall I'm very pleased with it. It's small enough to carry everywhere, and fun to use.

Now, this really changes my impression of the camera's functionality. Thank you for the info.

 

[kipkeston]

looks awesome Aaron !

 

[jky]

endustry... nice shots!
What do you think so far (lx3)?

 

[dazedgonebye]

It's great up to iso 400 and after that I find the noise to be a bit limiting. Adobe has yet to add the camera to its RAW Processor so I am still just working with in-camera jpegs for now. I am having a strange issue with images appearing a few stops underexposed once I download them (compared with what I see on the LCD) but I haven't really played with the controls much so this could well be user error on my part. I really like the intelligent iso function (you set a range of acceptable speeds and the camera will choose the best one; I set it to iso 80 - 400) and the 24mm f/2 lens is simply unmatched by any other p&s. With the optional case it feels very much like a "mini rangefinder" in the hand.

Very encouraging.
It's a shame about adobe support. I wonder how much better you'd be able to do with proper RAW.

 

[RicardoD]

Endustry,

Great stuff. I'm interested in getting the Leica version of this camera, the D-lux 4. One of the unique's on the Leica version (besides doubling the price!) is the RAW files support with Capture One 4 which I currently own (and which ships inbox with the Leica). I wonder if that can help improve the images beyond what the LX3 can. Although with a point-n-shoot like this I am interested in just getting great JPEGs out of the camera. Although I wonder how much time it will take before the other raw processor software out there starts supporting the RAW files of the LX3. Your LX3 shots look terrific.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Endustry,

Great stuff. I'm interested in getting the Leica version of this camera, the D-lux 4. One of the unique's on the Leica version (besides doubling the price!) is the RAW files support with Capture One 4 which I currently own (and which ships inbox with the Leica). I wonder if that can help improve the images beyond what the LX3 can. Although with a point-n-shoot like this I am interested in just getting great JPEGs out of the camera. Although I wonder how much time it will take before the other raw processor software out there starts supporting the RAW files of the LX3. Your LX3 shots look terrific.

That's interesting...a different RAW format for the Leica?

 

[jky]

I am having a strange issue with images appearing a few stops underexposed once I download them (compared with what I see on the LCD)

Yeah likewise... I think the lcd just gives off a brighter representation of the scene so I've dialed my lcd brightness down a bit - it's slightly better now.

 

[RicardoD]

There was one Photokina blog post that detailed Leica's claim that their D-Lux 4 image processing was different than the Panasonic LX3. Leica stated they are getting much more involved to differentiate their products from the Panasonic one's they are based off of. They are trying to sell the fact that it is not just an external camera reskin but that are involved in image processing differences. But one has to wonder if it truly has a different RAW format or just some unique header that in cooperation with Phase One, works with Capture One.

Its smart marketing on Leica's part to do this and have no idea whether other RAW processors out there will start to support the LX3 or not. I thank Phase One will not, but why would Adobe or Apple hold back on their products to support the RAW LX3 files.

In any case, this Panasonic LX3 is a great little camera and I think its just the beginning for those of us looking for quality instead of more megapixel's and other useless gimmicks.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Yeah likewise... I think the lcd just gives off a brighter representation of the scene so I've dialed my lcd brightness down a bit - it's slightly better now.

This is common with digital cameras.
The display lcd amps up as much as necessary to give you a good view. No direct relationship to the final product.

 

[rvaubel]

Silkypix sucks

Silkypix sucks

There was one Photokina blog post that detailed Leica's claim that their D-Lux 4 image processing was different than the Panasonic LX3. Leica stated they are getting much more involved to differentiate their products from the Panasonic one's they are based off of. They are trying to sell the fact that it is not just an external camera reskin but that are involved in image processing differences. But one has to wonder if it truly has a different RAW format or just some unique header that in cooperation with Phase One, works with Capture One.

It may well be worth the extra price for the D-Lux 4 simply for the Phase one Raw processer over SilkyPix. Nobody seems to be getting any better images using Raw data and Silkypix. The latest iedition of Capture One has all the PP goodies needed to extract the best image from a Raw file. Panasonics JPEG engine does a pretty good job but a full featured RAW developer should do a lot better. Silkypix is pretty constrained as to what it can do. It's sharpening algorythm is particularly lame.

Rex

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

RicardoD, don't fall for it. Adobe will support the LX3 RAW soon, and when it does, the two cameras will be functionally identical.

endustry, those pics are excellent! BTW, my shots are also often underexposed by about 1EV. I suspect this is a conscious choice on the Panasonic's part--the camera is probably set up to avoid highlight clipping. Personally I like this--the K20D, my DSLR, is the same way, and since I shoot using AE 95% of the time, it has proved useful.

It is odd to find this on a point-and-shoot, though.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

This BTW is from Eric Chan on the adobe forums:

There is no support currently, official or unofficial, in CR 4.6 RC or LR 2.1 RC. This is regrettable, but an unfortunate consequence of the current situation. We hope to have this fully resolved soon. (Sorry, no, I cannot specify an exact date.)

No need to tell us that other raw converters already support the LX3. Believe me, we are fully aware of it. There is a very specific reason that CR / LR doesn't yet support the LX3. If you would like an explanation, please ask Panasonic.

 

[mackigator]

I second mabelsound on the myths of Leica versions of these cameras - in all prior versions, LX1, LX2, etc, they are electronically identical and identical at the RAW file level. With the D-Lux 2, D-lux 3, you pay for the Leica name. Only.

If that is different with the LX3, it will be a first. Seing as how these cameras are built by Panasonic, both versions, it's hard for me to see how their identical twin nature would change.

 

[dazedgonebye]

RicardoD, don't fall for it. Adobe will support the LX3 RAW soon, and when it does, the two cameras will be functionally identical.

endustry, those pics are excellent! BTW, my shots are also often underexposed by about 1EV. I suspect this is a conscious choice on the Panasonic's part--the camera is probably set up to avoid highlight clipping. Personally I like this--the K20D, my DSLR, is the same way, and since I shoot using AE 95% of the time, it has proved useful.

It is odd to find this on a point-and-shoot, though.

Intentionally underexposing can help avoid clipped highs, but it comes at a price.
If you underexpose by a stop, you have to adjust in PP. Adding back that stop effectively raises the iso at which the image was captured. Your 100 iso image will have 200 iso noise...give or take a bit.

 

[jbf]

Out of curosity... Aaron are you using an optional viewfinder at all? I suspect not... that your using the screen to frame, etc. I'm sure the screen definately is useful for blending in and appearing like any other tourist (which is ideally what you want anyway).

 

[sweathog]

I had a brief play with one at work today. I only had about 20 minutes, so nothing too exciting. The weather was awful too, so not many people about, and I wasn't allowed to take it outside for long. I really am in two minds about it.
On the one hand, it offers a lot that we (the collective photographer) have been clamouring for. The wide, fast lens is excellent, and in one way it is very easy to use.
That being said, it looks ridiculous when the lens is out (not really a big deal, I'll admit), and I find using the joystick to change aperture does not give me the spontaneity and ease of use I'd like.
In some cases the high ISO settings give an oppressive amount of noise, but in some shots (and I'm talking about colour) it seems interesting.
The AF I felt was slow. But the images were sharp.

I think I need to sepnd some more time with it, and may yet decide to purchase one, but I need to get much more familiarised with the controls...

It is a tricky one.

Here's a couple of shots from when I was messing around earlier: