LX3, first impressions

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I decided to recycle my D-LUX 2 and upgrade to a LX3. This time round I also decided not to pay the Leica premium, for the red dot and the styling differences.

 

As the moderators really don't like pictures here in the discussion fora I'll put some captures in the Other section under a suitably identifiable title. However, unless you really pixel peep at full resolution, which of course you cannot on this site, the results may please you but are somewhat misleading.

 

Pros:

- First class styling and construction, seriously high quality feel to the camera and the controls are all intuitve and easy to reach, fits very nicely in your hand. This must be one of the best, or even the best, P&S in manufacture.

- A massively improved (over the D-LUX 2) LCD screen which is bold and bright.

- Lovely colour saturation of pictures with a very Leica-like feel - reminds me very much of the RAW output I get from my M8 - at a snapshot level, you will not be disappointed.

- Good level of customisable controls and fully manual operation (if you want it).

- A 50/50 chance, in tests so far, that iso400 will yield a usable capture (whereas there was a 100% chance that iso400 would yield a completely unusable capture on the D-LUX 2)

- 24/2.0 wide angle lens - the only one available for a P&S?

- 16:9 aspect ratio - which I personally think is very useful but others may disagree

- Some very decent film simulations, including a good couple of B+W options (which you'll need)

 

Cons:

- No real improvement in image quality. The same smeared colours and unacceptable noise in dark areas if you pixel peep - in short, depressingly similar to all Panaleicas to date.

- A 50/50 chance, so far, that iso400 will yield a usable capture (whereas there was a 100% chance the iso400 would yield a completely unusable capture on the D-LUX 2)

- This means that really, the camera only has three usable iso settings, 80, 100 and 200 you can rely on.

- 24/2.0 wide angle lens creates significant barrel distortion, which you can actually see in live view!

- No support as yet for RAW output, except through supplied Silkypix which is the pits (sorry if you're a Silkypix user but I find it hard to believe if you are that deep down in your little black heart you aren't consumed with Lightroom-envy) and means a two stage process for CS3 development.

 

So, there you have it. A beautiful silk purse which enwraps a sows ear of an image processor, if you want to blow your pictures up to a decent size. I am perhaps a tad extreme here because if you do finally get your picture into Lightroom (via Silkypix) then with judicious use of sharpening, noise reduction and CA reduction, you can finish up with a decent, if not even good, image. Still, I have not yet had time to print up to A3 and I'll report back if I am pleasantly surprised.

 

I suppose you could say that my last con about lack of RAW support could be a short-term issue but given that Adobe only update RAW four times a year, and the last time was in late July, you may have to wait 2-6 months for an update to Lightroom and CS3. Surely Panasonic has enough clout to convince Adobe to swing in with a slipstream update?

 

To date, I have not tried any captures above iso400. Call me squeamish but I hate pain and I literally have a mental block towards setting the iso to 3200 and taking a picture. It would take someone with a considerably better sense of humour than I to test that setting out.

 

I also personally dislike the "intelligent iso" feature which is included in this camera. I first came across it on my long gone D80 where many a fine capture was destroyed because in perfectly decent light situations the camera decided to record captures at iso800 instead of iso200. If you are buying a camera with this level of manual control this is a feature you will probably permanently turn off (as I have)

 

As a snapshot camera, e.g. for web work, where you can creatively adjust aperture, speed and compensation, it is still, for my money, the kind of camera I want to work with. In fact, going back to my comment above, the colours are, imho, quite remarkable and perhaps this is where most effort has been put in the software and new Venus IV image engine. I emphasise again how 'Leica'-like are the colours.

 

As a milestone in P&S development, it ain't and until Panasonic do something about their image processing, I'd still recommend a Sony, Canon or Nikon to my mates. I certainly won't be rushing out to get a reduced 4/3rds until someone else reviews it and confirms that it is not also plagued by Panasonic's completely baffling denial about image noise.

 

LouisB

[johnwolf]

Really appreciate your post, Louis. My daughter wants my G9, so I'm looking for a replacement. On paper the LX3 looks so promising. But yours is not the only disappointing impression.

 

John

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[biglouis]

Really appreciate your post, Louis. My daughter wants my G9, so I'm looking for a replacement. On paper the LX3 looks so promising. But yours is not the only disappointing impression.

 

John

 

John

 

I wouldn't out and out not recommend the LX3 for serious photographers. I still think the positives outweigh the negatives. I'd just hoped that by now Panasonic had cracked the poor image processing - their marketing hype certainly trumpets how great it is. I'd be interested to know how image quality compares to the G9. And it is worth remembering that at iso 80-200 you can rely on good quality captures. See my examples in the 'Other' section.

 

LouisB

[bussta]

This is the whole reason why I sold my D-Lux 3, to me the 100% crop on the champagne bar image just goes to show that Panasonic or Leica have not addressed the issue of making the images look like watercolours, I so much wanted to like my D-Lux 3 but at the end of the day I was not prepared to sacrifice the image quality, so I bought a Digilux 2, at 1/2 the megapixel resolution it totally stumps the D-Lux 3 and doesn't give you that awful watercolour effect on images.

 

That's not to say your pictures are bad, I know they are test shots, but this has unfortunately proven to me to steer clear of the new models.

[Photoskeptic]

Unfortunately Panasonic press releases are nothing but pie in the sky. I'm still using my LX-1 with success and have even printed to 12 x 18, but see no reason to upgrade.

[Guest malland]

Although I appreciate that apparently only Silkypix supports the LX3 RAW files this, as the OP states, is only temporary and, at least for my way of photographing with small sensor cameras, there is not much point in judging on the basis of JPG files. I assume that the IQ of the LX3 will be at least as good, if not better, than the D-Lux 3, which was a very capable camera and from which here are two pictures, as I don't agree that pictures should be discouraged in a photography forum thread — an absurd proposition:

 

 

Victoria Falls

 

 

 

Nanking

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitch

 

I don't dispute that with careful exposure and post processing you can't get a good result from the LX3. I posted some early attempts in the Other section which show what the camera is capable of. I guess I'm just disappointed that while the functionality has improved significantly, the bottom line is that IQ is still the same = fair to good.

 

LouisB

[Guest malland]

Understood, Louis. And that's fair enough — my only point was that the new camera should not be written off simply on the basis of only looking at JPG files, unless, that is, by people who only shoot JPGs. On the other hand, RAW shooters should still be interested.

 

A more general point is that, since the world turned largely digital, people have become obsessed, excessively in my view, with image quality, with little tolerance for grain or grain-like digital camera noise. Even in colour grain can be beatifulm as in the following grainy series of colour photographs of the by Harry Gruyaert on the Magnum site:

 

Magnum Photos :: Magnum Ad

 

As Sean Reid has often pointed out, small sensor cameras are a new type of format, characterised by great depth of field, graininess, and a rougher way of drawing than larger sensor cameras. Indeed, small sensor cameras are a new format the way 35mm was a new format when the first Leicas came out. Having another format gives the photographer more choice; and I feel it is unfortunate that so many people want these small sensor cameras to have the image characteristics of larger sensor cameras. (I don't really like to say "image quality" because I don't think the small sensor cameras have worse IQ — they simply have a different way of drawing.

 

—MItch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[AlanG]

 

...As Sean Reid has often pointed out, small sensor cameras are a new type of format, characterised by great depth of field, graininess, and a rougher way of drawing than larger sensor cameras. Indeed, small sensor cameras are a new format the way 35mm was a new format when the first Leicas came out. Having another format gives the photographer more choice; and I feel it is unfortunate that so many people want these small sensor cameras to have the image characteristics of larger sensor cameras. (I don't really like to say "image quality" because I don't think the small sensor cameras have worse IQ — they simply have a different way of drawing.

 

—MItch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

 

I agree with you completely on this and have really enjoyed using this type of camera. Some of my favorite shots have been made with them.

[narayanpavgi]

Well said malland - I cannot agree with you more. According to me, all Leicas draw the image differently, I don't know know or care of the IQ- I like the way they come out with all the watercolors and grains and all, and that is why I love my Leica.

[biglouis]

Well said malland - I cannot agree with you more. According to me, all Leicas draw the image differently, I don't know know or care of the IQ- I like the way they come out with all the watercolors and grains and all, and that is why I love my Leica.

 

Trust me, buy the camera, take pictures, especially above iso200 and you will care about IQ.

 

I tried my first iso800 shots yesterday. For anything above 800x400 pixels, you can completely forget using the images. They'd do for web work but that's about all.

 

Also, black and white shots are the reserve of people too scared to show the unacceptable colour noise in their colour shots. Yes, the noise turns to grain which can be quite attractive but I mainly work in a colourful world.

 

Amateur Photographer have just declared the LX3 to be the best P&S shot they have tested, scoring above the Canon G9 and the Ricoh thingy. I'll leave you to your own conclusions about that ringing endorsement.

 

LouisB

[Guest malland]

Trust me, buy the camera, take pictures, especially above iso200 and you will care about IQ.

 

I tried my first iso800 shots yesterday. For anything above 800x400 pixels, you can completely forget using the images. They'd do for web work but that's about all...[/quoteAgain, that's true for LX2 JPG files at these speeds as well, but not true for RAW files, a distinction that should be made for the sake of clarity and truth. For those who think that small sensor cameras cannot be shot above ISO 200, here are three Ricoh GRD2 pictures shot in RAW form, respectively, at ISO 1600, 800 and 400. Incidentally, these are all shot with Ricoh's 40mm tele-converter, which I thought I would highlight because in another thread here people generally think that converter lenses "cannot be good".

 

 

 

ISO1600

 

 

 

 

ISO800

 

 

 

 

ISO400

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[nostatic]

I'm with Mitch on this one. I've shot the DLux3 at 400 and 800 with great results - it just depends on what you're trying to achieve. I don't pixel peep (much), but I do print 20x30 and larger. For certain subjects in certain conditions I like the look of the small sensor more than the APC in my K20d. Most of these are DLux3: hk08 - Page 1

 

B&W is a choice for aesthetic reasons, not borne out of fear. It totally depends on your needs and who/why you're shooting. Sometimes color works for what I'm seeing. Other times it doesn't. It frankly doesn't have much to do with the camera in my hands, though certain tools tend to be better at some things than others.

[jsjxyz]

I gave up my LX2 (D-Lux3) because of the annoying shutter lag, then change to Ricoh GRD II which I am happy with its fast response.

 

How about LX3? For candid shoot, is is often not firing fast enough to capture the right moment?

 

JSJ

[elgenper]

I gave up my LX2 (D-Lux3) because of the annoying shutter lag, then change to Ricoh GRD II which I am happy with its fast response.

 

How about LX3? For candid shoot, is is often not firing fast enough to capture the right moment?

 

JSJ

 

The "secret" with shooting fast with a compact is to pre-focus manually, and the controls of both the LX2 and the LX3 are quite good at that. I´ve heard the Ricoh´s are equally easy to use that way.

 

Since you´ve owned and used both, is the AF of the GRDII really much faster than that of the LX2?

 

As for the aesthetics of high ISO, as well as B/W, Mitch is one of those who have really proved the potential of these choices in his type of work. It would not suit everybody, and not every kind of subject, but that´s beside the point. It´s the choice of several photographers during the history of photography, and they´ve given us lots of memorable images.

 

To state that B/W is a choice dictated by fear is so ignorant and absurd that it hardly deserves any comment. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Josef Sudek, Robert Frank - they were just too chicken to use colour?

[Guest malland]

...Also, black and white shots are the reserve of people too scared to show the unacceptable colour noise in their colour shots. Yes, the noise turns to grain which can be quite attractive but I mainly work in a colourful world...

To speak about an aesthetic choice in this way shows an ignorance of photography or is just plain silly. Here is a series of colour photographs with heavy grain by Magnum photographer Harry Gruyaert:

 

Magnum Photos :: Magnum Ad

 

You may not like these pictures, although I do, but he certainly is not shooting grainy colour because he is scared of having grainless colour. Also these pictures should make you think about what is "unacceptable" noise or grain.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[nugat]

I believe that D-lux3 is an excellent camera for what it is: a P&S. People who complain apparently want a piece of equipment that does not exist.

I bought it just before summer holidays in Greece and used way more often that any other cameras. It is small enough to stick in your pockets and carry everywhere everytime. It's good enough to shoot any picture under any circumstances. It's zoom is flexible, it's manual setups exhaustive. Look here what's possible with the camera:

Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe

 

My own are way more modest, but poor low light/high ISO performance? In color yes, but B&W poetics is something else...

Two moments captured at 800 ISO at a greek taverna:

 

 

 

[elgenper]

...

My own are way more modest, but poor low light/high ISO performance? In color yes, but B&W poetics is something else...

...

 

Wow! This is what´s it´s all about.... Very, very good!

 

Wish I´d be able to speak "D-lux 3" as well as you do. but I keep returning to my Digilux 2 all the time.... Excellent, but not really pocketable.....

[dNorm]

Louis - I agree with your assessment 100%. I thought I was being critical, but I can see that there are at least two of us . I am a former owner of the D-Lux3 and use that as a baseline. The Venus IV is really horrible at rendering anything ISO400 and beyond. I tried changing many of the image parameters to find a compromise for the horrendous blotchy artifacts in dark and/or shadow areas and to try to even out the transition from dark to lighter. Despite setting the sharpness to -2 and leaving the NR to 0, the results as you say when shooting at ISO400 and beyond is a 50/50 chance of getting something barely satisfactory to unacceptable. Silkypix is more like a SilkyPits. I am a Lightroom user and can only hope that Adobe will update LR to support the LX3 soon.

 

After all the rave over this camera, I'm finding that it is only best used at ISO200 and below. I do not plan to sell my G9 anytime soon. -Norm

 

I decided to recycle my D-LUX 2 and upgrade to a LX3. This time round I also decided not to pay the Leica premium, for the red dot and the styling differences.

 

As the moderators really don't like pictures here in the discussion fora I'll put some captures in the Other section under a suitably identifiable title. However, unless you really pixel peep at full resolution, which of course you cannot on this site, the results may please you but are somewhat misleading.

 

Pros:

- First class styling and construction, seriously high quality feel to the camera and the controls are all intuitve and easy to reach, fits very nicely in your hand. This must be one of the best, or even the best, P&S in manufacture.

- A massively improved (over the D-LUX 2) LCD screen which is bold and bright.

- Lovely colour saturation of pictures with a very Leica-like feel - reminds me very much of the RAW output I get from my M8 - at a snapshot level, you will not be disappointed.

- Good level of customisable controls and fully manual operation (if you want it).

- A 50/50 chance, in tests so far, that iso400 will yield a usable capture (whereas there was a 100% chance that iso400 would yield a completely unusable capture on the D-LUX 2)

- 24/2.0 wide angle lens - the only one available for a P&S?

- 16:9 aspect ratio - which I personally think is very useful but others may disagree

- Some very decent film simulations, including a good couple of B+W options (which you'll need)

 

Cons:

- No real improvement in image quality. The same smeared colours and unacceptable noise in dark areas if you pixel peep - in short, depressingly similar to all Panaleicas to date.

- A 50/50 chance, so far, that iso400 will yield a usable capture (whereas there was a 100% chance the iso400 would yield a completely unusable capture on the D-LUX 2)

- This means that really, the camera only has three usable iso settings, 80, 100 and 200 you can rely on.

- 24/2.0 wide angle lens creates significant barrel distortion, which you can actually see in live view!

- No support as yet for RAW output, except through supplied Silkypix which is the pits (sorry if you're a Silkypix user but I find it hard to believe if you are that deep down in your little black heart you aren't consumed with Lightroom-envy) and means a two stage process for CS3 development.

 

So, there you have it. A beautiful silk purse which enwraps a sows ear of an image processor, if you want to blow your pictures up to a decent size. I am perhaps a tad extreme here because if you do finally get your picture into Lightroom (via Silkypix) then with judicious use of sharpening, noise reduction and CA reduction, you can finish up with a decent, if not even good, image. Still, I have not yet had time to print up to A3 and I'll report back if I am pleasantly surprised.

 

I suppose you could say that my last con about lack of RAW support could be a short-term issue but given that Adobe only update RAW four times a year, and the last time was in late July, you may have to wait 2-6 months for an update to Lightroom and CS3. Surely Panasonic has enough clout to convince Adobe to swing in with a slipstream update?

 

To date, I have not tried any captures above iso400. Call me squeamish but I hate pain and I literally have a mental block towards setting the iso to 3200 and taking a picture. It would take someone with a considerably better sense of humour than I to test that setting out.

 

I also personally dislike the "intelligent iso" feature which is included in this camera. I first came across it on my long gone D80 where many a fine capture was destroyed because in perfectly decent light situations the camera decided to record captures at iso800 instead of iso200. If you are buying a camera with this level of manual control this is a feature you will probably permanently turn off (as I have)

 

As a snapshot camera, e.g. for web work, where you can creatively adjust aperture, speed and compensation, it is still, for my money, the kind of camera I want to work with. In fact, going back to my comment above, the colours are, imho, quite remarkable and perhaps this is where most effort has been put in the software and new Venus IV image engine. I emphasise again how 'Leica'-like are the colours.

 

As a milestone in P&S development, it ain't and until Panasonic do something about their image processing, I'd still recommend a Sony, Canon or Nikon to my mates. I certainly won't be rushing out to get a reduced 4/3rds until someone else reviews it and confirms that it is not also plagued by Panasonic's completely baffling denial about image noise.

 

LouisB

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rob_x2004]

The hammer bent the nail.