So, Tell Me About Your LX3...

amateriat

amateriat

We're all light!
Local time
10:36 AM
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,291
As mentioned a while back, I've been having a good bit of fun with my borrowed Olympus C-8080. I've still been occasionally using my Casio EX-850, but mainly for just utilitarian stuff, since it only does JPEG. The 8080 will likely be going bye-bye in a month or two, and that got me kicking around ideas for a replacement. Much as I like it, I've decided against tracking down a used one for myself; I've decided that I'd want something smaller, but technically at least as capable.

I thought about a Canon G9 for while. A colleague got one a while back, put it through its paces, then promptly got rid of it. After a cursory toying-around with it myself, followed by more discussion, I wrote it off the list. (I've largely ignored the G10.) Being the owner of a Ricoh GR-1, I thought about a GR Digital. Let go of that idea quickly as well.

I sort of had my hopes up for the Sigma DP-1. Not going there now.

Micro 4/3rds? No: I already have one interchangeable-lens system that's primary to me (Hexar), as well as my two-lens OM-2 setup which gets occasional use. Digital isn't my primary photographic beat by a long shot, but if I'm going to bother with it at all, I want something decent, reasonably fast, and reasonably compact. And without a lot of peripheral ephemera. (And, of course, not scarifyingly pricey.)

The Lumix LX2 caught my eye, and people (here and elsewhere) seemed to like it a good deal. It remained on my mental back-burner until the LX3 came out. Still wasn't sure, but recently started idly looking up stuff on it. Meanwhile, I've been giving clients of mine tutorials on dealing with digital images in and out of their computers, which naturally led to helping them get to grips with their digital cameras. Most of them have tiny-tiny-tiny digicams from the usual suspects, and it hit me as to why I was avoiding shooting too much with the Casio: it's just a bit too small. The Olympus is relatively manageable, until I bolt that wicked-big (to me) hood on. Then it's just that extra bit too big and bulky. Maybe I have a Goldilocks complex? Is the LX3 Baby Bear?

It looks good on paper. Yes, I've looked at Bruce Dale's shots, which are awfully good. I've seen a few examples of good stuff here. I'd love to see more, and, more important, hear about how y'all are getting on with the camera in the day-to-day.

Am a a lummox for wanting a Lumix? :rolleyes:


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I'll let you know next week. It looks GREAT on paper. Looking forward to shooting with it. Finally, a fast lens on a P&S! Not since early in the Canon G series, IIRC, have we seen anything near f2. The LX3 is f2-f2.8 (24-60mm). Not sure if I'll need the external finder. I've never been keen on composing on an LCD. I'm still trying to find out if there's any real difference between the LX3 and the DLux4. It depends on the forum you read, but the images on the Lux4 Flickr groups always look so much better. Is this because the camera is better, or are better photographers buying the Leica? ;)

EDIT: BTW, Barret, your thought process and digital P&S choices and decisions matches mine pretty closely.
 
Last edited:
I like mine very much. I also have the GX100 but I gave to the kids. The LX3 is just so much better. Lens is very good, unless you want more tele reach. colors are good, awb is awesome, noise is the lowest in its class and the B&W mode just rocks.
Silkypix sucks but the raw files are now supported in Lightroom 2.2 also. BUt to be honest the jpg's are so good I don't even bother to shoot raw.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
Ray: Looking forward to your impressions of it.

As fas as differences between the Lumix and its Leica-branded doppelganger: according to this guy's review, not much, other than the supplied software (and, of course, that lil' red dot).

I'm not that fond of composing via LCD either, save for the typical static group-shot (given how ubiquitous digicams are, it's amazing how often I'm the one guy in a group asked to get a picture of everybody...). I definitely see myself getting hold of a couple of external VFs if I get this thing.


- Barrett
 
Michiel Fokkema said:
I like mine very much. I also have the GX100 but I gave to the kids. The LX3 is just so much better. Lens is very good, unless you want more tele reach. colors are good, awb is awesome, noise is the lowest in its class and the B&W mode just rocks.
Silkypix sucks but the raw files are now supported in Lightroom 2.2 also. BUt to be honest the jpg's are so good I don't even bother to shoot raw.
Click to expand...
Good to know JPEGs come out pretty good, but RAW capability is one of the things that's drawing to this camera (RAW is what I've been using most of the time with the Olympus). Which reminds me...I'm using Photoshop CS2 with ACR (which I've nicely gotten the hang of)...wondering if I'll be able to update it for the LX3 and not have to think about moving to Lightroom or CS3.


- Barrett
 
Michiel Fokkema said:
Afaik raw conversion is only supported in CS4!
Click to expand...
I presume you mean RAW support for the LX3 specifically; Camera RAW has been part of Photoshop since at least the original CS release, but only later versions of ACR will handle cameras as recent as the LX3.

And, as luck would have it, the latest versions of ACR and Lightroom don't quite fully support the LX3 as of yet.

Looks like I'm stuck with Silkypix for now, if I get the LX3 anytime soon.


- Barrett
 
That's only when you convert to DNG. I don't do that and didn't find any limitation when using LR to convert the raw files. But then again I didn't see any improvement over the jpg's out of the LX3 itself.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
can anyone shed some light on the "barrel distortion correction only in software" issue of the the LX3? anyways waiting for the DP2.
 
My current pocket camera is the Nikon P5100, in 'most situations' it produces very nice results, - but unlike the latest version ( P6000 ? ) not raw files.
Dave.
 
Got one, keeping it!

Got one, keeping it!

I got myself the LX3 some 2 months ago, and i'm still not very sure if i like it or not.

It is a great compact camera, with a great lens and great IQ up to ISO400. Once you get used to the controls and menus, it is as fast to change them as ony any other compact.
In some situations i found myself adapting the settings faster than on my DSLR (K10D).
The manual focus is quite usless except in macro, it is just not possible to focus fast enough and precise with that tiny joystick. But i found the AF to be very good, and i missed the right spot only because i had the wrong setting selected, or just didn't compose correctly.
There is no real DOF except in the macro shots, you have to know that.
f2.8 at 60mm is still far away from a f2.8 look you get from any 50mm on 35mm film or even APS-C sensor.
That are the only two issues with the cam: the short zoom and the small sensor.
But in this class, it it the best cam you can get out there at this moment.

So for now it's ok, but as soon as that G12 with the APS-C sensor and the 24-105mm f1.8-f2.8 L USM lens comes out...
 
infrequent said:
can anyone shed some light on the "barrel distortion correction only in software" issue of the the LX3? anyways waiting for the DP2.
Click to expand...

That's quite true, and there's no workaround. ACR actually corrects it, too, I am told, as well as Silkypix. As a result, the useful RAW files are not any better than JPG.

Personally, I don't care. I shoot JPG with it, and the results are spectacular, esp. for a small-sensor camera. For me, it's just about perfect--great in low light, excellent IQ up to 800 in color and 1600 and beyond in B&W. I wish it had a built-in lens cover, but that's a minor quibble.

One problem that I hope a firmware update will fix is that, when you're shooting something with bright light in it, the LCD displays very distracting streaks and lines, and may blank out entirely. It can be pretty frustrating.

It's the best P&S I've ever used, though!
 
I have owned all 3 LXs. For me the LX1 is still the best though the LX3 has incredible functions and image quality. The LX2 I feel was the worst - incredibly bad shutter lag. I sold it to a friend after having used it for an hour. The LX3 suffers from shutter lag as well, though not as bad as the LX2. I could never understand how the shutter lag response grew worse in each subsequent model. I spoke to Panasonic about it, and they admitted at the time that the LX2 had shutter lag unlike the LX1. The LX1 has virtually none like the Ricoh GR and GX series cameras.

I wasn't sure about keeping the LX3, but its features and superb image quality have changed my mind. I just can't get over the fact that the LX1 still has the best shutter response of the series.
 
I traded mine for a DP1 and am happier.
The biggest issue for me was....
I use a viewfinder. When the camera falls asleep, when
you wake it back up the focus distance changes to
about 1/2 of where you were. I use manual focus at
hypercocal distance to work and you have to reset
everytime.
The DP1 holds settings forever. Slower camera but actually
faster as I just turn it on and it's where I want it to be.
shooter
 
In good light, the DP1 really isn't in the same category. Its IQ is unbeatable in a camera this size. But it's pretty bad at 800 and up, at least in color.

BTW, I find the LX3 to have pretty much no shutter lag at all, I'm kind of surprised to hear this raised as an issue...
 
mabelsound said:
In good light, the DP1 really isn't in the same category. Its IQ is unbeatable in a camera this size. But it's pretty bad at 800 and up, at least in color.
Click to expand...

Spot on. I use my DP1 from iso100-400 in colour. From 800+ i typically convert to B&W. At iso1600-3200 (pushed, not native iso setting), it's a great B&W shooter. Love the grain and tones.
 
boy_lah said:
Spot on. I use my DP1 from iso100-400 in colour. From 800+ i typically convert to B&W. At iso1600-3200 (pushed, not native iso setting), it's a great B&W shooter. Love the grain and tones.
Click to expand...

I sold mine to buy an R-D1, but I agree, the B&W "grain" is pretty cool. Although I don't mind the LX3 grain either. This was taken at 3200 and pushed to about 6400 in Lightroom!

32001.jpg
 
It has disappointing shutter lag! The sports mode is a joke!

mabelsound said:
In good light, the DP1 really isn't in the same category. Its IQ is unbeatable in a camera this size. But it's pretty bad at 800 and up, at least in color.

BTW, I find the LX3 to have pretty much no shutter lag at all, I'm kind of surprised to hear this raised as an issue...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom