My LX-3 P&S Experience (So Far)

[dcsang]

Well..

I've been playing with the Panasonic Lumix LX-3 (similar to the Leica D-Lux 4)
over the past 2-3 weeks.

I've been trying to compare it to my other "luxury" P&S camera - the Ricoh GR Digital II.

What have I found so far?

Here's a short list of what I enjoy about the Panasonic OVER the Ricoh:
Focal length - the 24mm is handy
Lens speed - the f2.0 is fast for a P&S and lends itself well to "available light shooting"
High ISO - the Panasonic 800 ISO seems to be a bit cleaner than the Ricoh @ 800 but I have yet to print photos to see if this is truly the case


Here's a short list of what I DON'T like about the LX-3 over the GR Digital II:
Ergonomics - totally suck imho on the LX-3 vs the GR - I can do everything on the Ricoh while holding it in one hand - I need to be double jointed in the fingers at a minimum to do the same with the LX-3
RAW files - Ricohs are easily readable by many RAW converters (including Adobe Lightroom) while the LX-3 files require either the proprietary SilkyPix (crap) or an open source solutions (RPP)
Compactness - The LX-3 is not nearly as compact and "pocket worty" as the Ricoh is. This is due to the zoom lens on the LX-3.
Hot Shoe - Ya.. both cams have a hot shoe but the Ricoh comes with a hot shoe cover AND it can accept the venerable and versatiile Vivitar 283 or 2800. The LX-3 can accept the Canon 580EX series but not Vivitar; I just prefer using the Vivitar in general.
Internal Flash - seems to over expose with the LX-3 vs the Ricoh
Snap Mode - non existent (to the best of my knowledge) on the LX-3

I hope, maybe on a day off during my vacation, I'll have time to put together a more "complete" review but for now that's a short little snapshot between these two "high end" P&S's

Dave

 

[ncd_photo]

Regarding snap mode, on my LX2 you can select Manual Focus and get a handy hyperfocal scale on the screen, so set F5.6 adjust the focus so the top of the bar is on infinity and snap away. Does the LX3 have this?

 

[nightfly]

How would you compare the image quality? I'm particularly interested in the black and whits as the "dynamic mode" black and white's Ive seen posted here on this forum from the LX3 seem to be loads better than the stuff I've seen from the Ricoh (I've owned the original GR D and currently the GX100).

 

[dcsang]

Regarding snap mode, on my LX2 you can select Manual Focus and get a handy hyperfocal scale on the screen, so set F5.6 adjust the focus so the top of the bar is on infinity and snap away. Does the LX3 have this?

Yep - the LX3 has that but you have to reach over to the other side of the lens to flip a switch to switch to "Manual focus" - so ergonomically it's horrid if you plan on using one hand to operate the camera.

Dave

 

[dcsang]

How would you compare the image quality? I'm particularly interested in the black and whits as the "dynamic mode" black and white's Ive seen posted here on this forum from the LX3 seem to be loads better than the stuff I've seen from the Ricoh (I've owned the original GR D and currently the GX100).

There's still a lot of the image quality stuff I have to go through - I really am more interested in using the RAW mode but with the limitation of the bundled converter (Silkypix) already noted elsewhere on the web, I'm a bit perturbed - I prefer using ONE application for all my RAW conversions - it's just easier for me that way especially when I end up shooting a large amount of images for a client (i.e. weddings).

I'll have to do a bit more rigorous shooting in just jpeg and go from there.

Dave

 

[RicardoD]

I just picked up the DLUX4 (the red dot version of the Panny) and I've only used for a day now. Looked at the pictures tonight.

I've been totally blown away by the images, but I should qualify that by saying I am comparing to all the other crappy P&S I have owned, and in terms of JPEG shooting and overall color balance and sharpness its matches my old Canon 300D DSLR. Yes, the ergonomics suck, but this thing is so compact and versatile. The images please me and I've only been shooting in color with the initial default settings on the camera.

I've haven't shot raw yet but feel no need to as I didn't buy this camera to mess around in RAW, I just want a impressive JPEG shooter and I found it. Highly recommended.

 

[BillBingham2]

Dave,

How is the distortion on the lens at both ends (wide and tele)?

Thanks.

B2 (;->

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Regarding snap mode, on my LX2 you can select Manual Focus and get a handy hyperfocal scale on the screen, so set F5.6 adjust the focus so the top of the bar is on infinity and snap away. Does the LX3 have this?

Yes, and I find it more convenient than the snapmode on my GX100.
Until now I also think the IQ of the LX3 is much better then from the GX100. The pictures just look better. The LX3 also exposures better. Less blown highlights. Overall the Lx3 is only slightly bigger than the GX100 but in my opinion better built. The lens construction on the GX100 is just awful. Although this seems to be improved on the G200.
or me the LX3 is just way better then the GX100.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,
Jut back from La were I made some B&W shots in the grand market.
First halve or so is shot at 1600, second half on 800. Both in the dymanic mode. No PP done.
I find the IQ at 800 very good. 1600 is a bit over the top. But with the fast lens it has at least a 2 stop advantage over the gX100.
At the wind end there is some distortion but only noticeable in architecture shots.
The pictures are here:
http://flickr.com/photos/michiel-fokkema/sets/72157608420651773/show/with/2977762593/

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[dcsang]

Dave,

How is the distortion on the lens at both ends (wide and tele)?

Thanks.

B2 (;->

Good question Bill.

I finally had a chance to play a bit with both and finally have a, hopefully, decent RAW converter that can convert BOTH the LX-3 and GR 2 images.

The concern that I've read online is that the LX-3 has issues with distortion at the wide end but that the RAW converter provided (i.e. Silkypix) corrects for this in the software - apparently this is one of the reasons why Adobe has yet to release an ACR / LR update that can handle the LX-3 - I believe the folks at Panasonic have requested that of Adobe but Adobe is being a bit more resistant (and potentially rightly so) at doing such.
Links:
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/10/panasonic-lx3-lens-distortion.html
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/10/is-panasonic-hindering-third-party-lx3.html

I'll take a couple RAW shots today that will hopefully be able to show the distortion (if it exists).

Cheers,
Dave

 

[allen_a_george]

I didn't like the shutter lag on the LX3 when I tried it at Henrys. (M mode + MF). I was surprised that there was lag in that configuration, because I figured the camera wouldn't have to do anything at all. . .

And I didn't like the joystick. Lots of people do, but not me. Oh well, back to the CL and mounds of dollars on processing.

 

[dcsang]

Well, I had a nice comparison post all done about 2 hours ago until something went awry and RFF became unavailable to me... c'est la vie - so here it is now..

Ricoh GR Digital 2 @ ISO 800 along with the Panasonic LX-3 @ ISO 800 - B&W mode on both, JPEG only - I'll take a look at RAW files later but for now, here's what's happening straight out of the camera in JPEG on both of these cams.

For all images, Ricoh GR Digital 2 on "top" or to the left with the Panasonic LX-3 on "bottom" or to the right:

First, a web sized image from both:

100% crop from top right hand corner of both:

100% crop from centre of both:

Finally, if you want to download the 100% originals:
http://www.chang-sang.com/photo/102708/R0011684.jpg
http://www.chang-sang.com/photo/102708/P1040110.jpg

Everyone will / can have their own opinion about which is better but to me, and I'm torn because of this, the Panasonic LX-3 has a better image at ISO 800 and sharper too (at least in JPEG mode). I wonder what the RAW converted images will hold...

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Daniel Kreithen]

Good question Bill.

I finally had a chance to play a bit with both and finally have a, hopefully, decent RAW converter that can convert BOTH the LX-3 and GR 2 images.

The concern that I've read online is that the LX-3 has issues with distortion at the wide end but that the RAW converter provided (i.e. Silkypix) corrects for this in the software - apparently this is one of the reasons why Adobe has yet to release an ACR / LR update that can handle the LX-3 - I believe the folks at Panasonic have requested that of Adobe but Adobe is being a bit more resistant (and potentially rightly so) at doing such.

I've heard this too...I'd like Lightroom to be able to do LX3 RAW asap. But I think Panasonic has a legitimate beef. The LX1 had the same distortion and CA correction in the JPEG engine. Rawshooter Pro (which Lightroom was based on) corrected for these phenomena in RAW. So I'd wager that Lightroom has the "plumbing" to do this, but Adobe probably doesn't want to spend resources to make it happen. I have no basis for this theory other than to observe that the LX1 images from other RAW converters had HORRIBLE CA - but none in Rawshooter Pro. If I remember correctly, the LX2 used the same lens - hence no effort on Adobe's part to implement since it already existed. Now with the LX3, Panasonic changed the lens design, so the lens corrections need to be redone in the raw converter, of course. Interesting...

BTW, I think it is a perfectly legitimate design choice to correct for some of these issues in software. Adobe ought to be willing to accomodate this approach - if they want to be a "system" solution.

 

[__--]

...Ricoh GR Digital 2 @ ISO 800 along with the Panasonic LX-3 @ ISO 800 - B&W mode on both, JPEG only - I'll take a look at RAW files later but for now, here's what's happening straight out of the camera in JPEG on both of these cams...

Dave, I wouldn't and don't, shoot JPGs with the GRD2 in the JPG because there is too much smoothing, as evident from your test, which can't be turned off completely. I'll be interested in your RAW comporison.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[allen_a_george]

I like the out-of-camera B&W of the LX3 much more than the GR-D. The tones are nicer (IMO).

 

[dcsang]

Dave, I wouldn't and don't, shoot JPGs with the GRD2 in the JPG because there is too much smoothing, as evident from your test, which can't be turned off completely. I'll be interested in your RAW comporison.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Same here Mitch - but since Lightroom cannot handle the Panasonic I had to download RPP for the Mac in order to convert both files with the same program/parameters.

I'll hopefully get around to that tomorrow night.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thank you for going to the work of putting your thoughts (and pics below) out here for us to looks at... its VERY much appreciated! I just ordered the LX3 and its helpful to see this information.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'm surprised at how good 800 iso shots look coming from the lx3.
If Adobe can support the RAW files, I may have to have one of these to keep me happy until Oly comes out with their m4/3rds.

As for the test images...the exposure looks so different, I'm not sure I can draw any conclusions on relative performance.

 

[dcsang]

I'm surprised at how good 800 iso shots look coming from the lx3.
If Adobe can support the RAW files, I may have to have one of these to keep me happy until Oly comes out with their m4/3rds.

As for the test images...the exposure looks so different, I'm not sure I can draw any conclusions on relative performance.

Hey Steve,

Well, ya know, the exposure is "basic" for both cameras - the focus point was Josee's face - I thought that the Panasonic underexposed a wee bit but that can be adjusted in the RAW file. I was surprised that the GR overexposed and, has got that bit of flare going on.

I wish I could install the RAW converter here at work but it's a Mac application (I'm not sure if there's a windows version of it).

Cheers,
Dave

 

[jky]

Still haven't had a chance to enlarge any images with the lx3 so I'm wondering how that criss-cross like pattern looks in actual print?
Anybody enlarge anything from this camera yet?

I do like how the lx3 preserves detail though...
Thanks for the samples.