LX3, first impressions

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Louis, I wouldn't use a the pocketfullof noise for colour work but they have a great place in the B&W world. Shit for wacking in nails though

[Advertisement]

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

[jsjxyz]

Ricoh GRD II is noticably faster in AF than LX2, we can feel it instantly. Moreover in Ricoh the camera can shoot even before the focus is locked, so the instant feeling is much better

[davesum]

This is my first post so I hope I have done this right.

 

Having just put my D-Lux 3 on e-bay after being disapointed with image quality - but not usability - this is what I shoot when I don't have my DSLR with me!

LFI Gallery - Galerie > Fotografen-Galerie > davesum

 

Anyway I have been reading everything I can and deciding whether to get the D-Lux 4 and I just came across this little bit of very interesting information and wondered if anyone would care to comment. I didn't realize that the new D-Lux 4 / Lx 3 only has 8.9 MP when shooting in 16:9 ratio and only gets the full 10 MP at 4:3 ratio. The opposite of the D-Lux 3 due to the new sensor configuration. In other words from what I have seen here the pixel peepers (yes, I guess I am one too sometimes) have been comparing 10 MP images with 8.9 MP images. Not that it would make that much difference. Actually, it would be more interesting to compare a 7.5 MP 4:3 ratio from a D-Lux 3 with a 10 MP 4:3 ratio from an Lx 3

 

This is where I found the info;

LX3-LX2 sensor aspect ratios 01 photo - Bjorn Utpott photos at pbase.com

Panasonic LX3 vs LX2: Relative Sensor Sizes and Effective Sensor Areas per Aspect Ratio

 

I appologize if I didn't read it right or if I'm stating something eveyone already knows.

 

I seriously don't think it will make much difference but a very interesting fact. If I was testing though I would be using 4:3 ratio for maximum lens quality. I will probably end up getting the D-Lux 4 but I will wait a few months.

 

David

Summerhayes.com - Informationen zum Thema summerhayes. Diese Website steht zum Verkauf!

[Clique72]

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

 

I couldn't agree with you more. It always surprises me how many people chase image quality over image content and character (or to put it another way "lack of noise does not a good image make"). I've just bought an LX3 and while some of the comments being made about "fair to good" image quality may be valid in JPG mode, I really don't find it true in RAW mode. I would not recommend Nikon or Canon to any of my friends (unless they just wanted another "me too" item in the "let's see how many pixels we can squash onto a sensor" race), and I've been a Canon user for what seems like forever!

 

I am more than happy with my purchase as it gives my shots a quality and reality that I just cannot find elsewhere in this "super-smooth" pixel-counting, noiseless-obsessive age. It's a keeper, that's for sure.

[vicaf]

Greetings -

I am an avid DSLR shooter ( Olympus and Nikon systems) who still enjoys a point and shoot for spontaneous shots - I have used a Canon G9 since it came out on the market, and have been somewhat pleased in its performance. A week ago, I purchased an LX-3, and for my purposes, it blows the doors off the G9. The colors are brilliant in comparison, the size and handling are superior, and it is much more flexible in its feature sets. No, it does not offer the IQ of my Oly E-3 (love it with the Leica 25 f1.4!), but as Sean said, it is a different canvas with different colors, and a wonderfully robust tool that can always be at hand. Remember: you can only squeeze so much out of a small sensor - this PanaLeica does it as well or better than anyone ( a great Leica f2 lens among all the great features)

Thanks for your time and attention,

Vic

[biglouis]

Four months later, I think it only right to re-comment on the LX3.

 

First impressions were disappointing, I really was expecting a significant improvement in colour noise control and sharpness in the iso400-800 range.

 

Time has proven my initial assessment wrong in this area and I only feel it right that I restate my conclusions.

 

What I have discovered with the LX3 (or D-LUX 4 with minor variations) is that judicious use of the manual settings turns this into a cracking little camera. I've had some excellent results in both colour and black and white (B&W especially) and it all comes down to exploiting the manual capabilities of the camera.

 

I stick by my original assessment that if you want a very pleasing P&S in the iso80-200 range then this is an excellent camera. But I would now add that if you invest time in learning about the different film modes and white balance controls then you will find that this little camera is in fact a gem and much better than its predecessors.

 

I'm not proud enough to admit that my initial assessment is wrong. Used with care this is a great little camera.

 

LouisB

[stuny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Big -

 

Ben (roguewave) bought an LX3 for his wife. I don't know what arrangement they have, but if you search for his recent photo posts you'll see that he took most of them are with the LX3, and their excellence seconds your revised opinion.

[Tenor1]

This is my first viewing of this post. I do not claim to have the photographic knowledge as most contributors here but I have made some very good pictures using ISO 800 coupled with the manual settings this camera offers. My Canon G-10 does not meet it, although it is good.

 

I actually prefer accessing the settings using the toggle switch. All the information displays on the screen whereas the manual switches on the G-10 are more difficult to manage in a dark environment.

 

The dynamic film mode adjustments make it easy to get some very fine shot

 

Regards,

Carlos Marques

[petewayne]

From my experience of the DLux 4 over the last few weeks of owning one I would say that the real power of this camera comes from the ability to manually control many elements of the technical side of the image (and by inference I would expect the same of the LX3).

 

Having used a variety of Canon, Panasonic and Fuji P&S cameras primarily for landscape reconnaissance I have to admit that I am using the DLux 4 more as a camera for artistic imaging than as a planning tool and have taken some excellent landscape images (and its a lot lighter than dragging MF or DSLR across the land ).

 

However, having read this thread for the first time I would agree with some of the comments made earlier that the small sensor fulfills basically two roles......the first is for the "point and squirt brigade" where the issues of blown highlights, shadow blocking and noise are of no real consequence; the second is where the photographer gets his hands on it and use this as an artistic tool, overcoming the apparent "limitations" (compared to APS-C or FF or MF or LF) to produce an image that appeals. I am always amazed by the quality of some of the images people get out of cellfone cameras when you think that the sensors are horrendously small (my iPhone is 2MP..... ).

[FastFashnReloaded]

Four months later, I think it only right to re-comment on the LX3.

 

First impressions were disappointing, I really was expecting a significant improvement in colour noise control and sharpness in the iso400-800 range.

 

Time has proven my initial assessment wrong in this area and I only feel it right that I restate my conclusions.

 

What I have discovered with the LX3 (or D-LUX 4 with minor variations) is that judicious use of the manual settings turns this into a cracking little camera. I've had some excellent results in both colour and black and white (B&W especially) and it all comes down to exploiting the manual capabilities of the camera.

 

I stick by my original assessment that if you want a very pleasing P&S in the iso80-200 range then this is an excellent camera. But I would now add that if you invest time in learning about the different film modes and white balance controls then you will find that this little camera is in fact a gem and much better than its predecessors.

 

I'm not proud enough to admit that my initial assessment is wrong. Used with care this is a great little camera.

 

LouisB

 

I got an LX3 for work and have been playing with it a bit at home. The camera is a lot of fun, definitely not a DSLR no matter what you do, but as a convenient pocketable camera for day shots it can be interesting.

 

If I had $800 for the Leica Digilux 4 though I'd just buy another lens for the E510 instead. Focus in the LX3 is still too slow.

[Marty J]

Very helpful posting Louis. I have bought a D-Lux 4 in the past week and have a bit of an issue with build quality... I wonder if you've found similar with your LX3??? See my posting on this forum of 4th Jan. I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts who owns either the Pana or the Leica version... Marty J

[biglouis]

Very helpful posting Louis. I have bought a D-Lux 4 in the past week and have a bit of an issue with build quality... I wonder if you've found similar with your LX3??? See my posting on this forum of 4th Jan. I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts who owns either the Pana or the Leica version... Marty J

 

Marty

 

Can't find your post, may be looking in the wrong place. No issues with build quality. The LX3 feels and operates like a very high quality piece of kit. The lens cap is a bit quirky and I'm surprised that for this version they haven't gone for some kind of built in solution. But really, I am nitpicking - build quality on my LX3 is excellent so if you have any issues you should take them up with your dealer and get a replacement.

 

LouisB

[ammitsboel]

I've tried the LX3 today.

I like the small size and that you can adjust it so that it makes no noise at all. The auto focus is very quiet too. I've purchased this camera because I would like to train exposure and moment capture while not being noticed. The LX3 seems like the best pocket camera you can get today.

 

I think it's all about balance.

[ammitsboel]

By the way, the smeared colors and sharpness is due to the image stabilizer.

Just turn it off right away.