D-Lux vs. LX3; follow-up thread

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by tonmestrom, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. as promised here is the follow-up of the thread I opened the 17th of May where I asked about these two camera's. Opinions differed somewhat in that thread although it was acknowledged that both were good camera's. Then Ray came along and adviced not to overlook the Sigma DP2 because of the advantages of its bigger sensor.
    To be complete I'd tested the G10 before posting that question but found it to be a noise machine. Great looking camera with great design and solid build but a bit too many drawbacks for me.
    So after that thread those three were left to choose from and in the end I decided to buy the LX3. There are a few reasons for that. Although I took Ray's advice serious, the specs and indeed his photos look very good, I couldn't find a indepth review but after a thorough search found a lot of negative ones about the DP1. also it's still backordered here. Given current price differences over here there is in fact a steep difference between the D-Lux and LX3. So much so in fact that I could get one with a viewfinder for less money than the D-Lux alone would have cost. There are some rumours out there that the lenses are not the same but I've found absolutely no proof of that and since I was looking for a compact with RAW capability the fact that the D-Lux does better JPEG conversions isn't all that important to me.
    I wanted to road test it on the street and under harsh light conditions and so went to Amsterdam last Friday. Sunny day with extreme hard light so ideal conditions. I have to say the camera/lens delivers. Dynamic range proved to be good. Street photography was a bit awkward without a viewfinder. It tends to make you react slower and you stick out like a sore thumb. As all compacts it suffers from shutter lag although not too bad. Besides, there are ways around that like using the manual and prefocus. All important controls are within easy reach on the outside of the camera and easy to handle I found, even with big hands like mine. Although some complained about the mode dial, it does indeed turn light(ish) I had no problem with rotating it inadvertently to another setting (maybe mine is from a good badge). The biggest attraction, the 2.0 24mm works very nice and I myself have no problem with what some call a very limited zoom capability. Most shots I took were at or around the 24mm anyway. Even with the viewfinder on it will fit nicely into a pocket (hoping to get mine this week).
    Included software, Silkypix, automatically corrects the well documented barrel distortion. RAW support sofar is rather limited. I have RAW support in PS CS4 (ACR 5.3), Lightroom 2.3 and ACDsee 2.5 Pro. Lower versions don't support the LX3 RAW files. The HD video is not important to me (just fun) but I found to be true what some said. Tendency to overexposure in bright light but very good in low light.
    Battery life is not impressive (partly due to the screen of course). Two batteries are no luxury and I'm thinking of getting a third one. RAW writing time is rather fast (8Gb SDHC).
    The most important thing though is image quality and for me it really delivers what is promised. Since I tjae nothing for granted I have printed some photos on A4 size paper and they look very good. So I went one further and with adequate exposure and post-processing it's quite possible to produce a A3 size print that looks very good.
    All in all a good buy for me and perfectly usable on the street (with a viewfinder) and one or two spare batteries.
    Some of my first results you can find here
    P.S. in some reviews these compacts are benchmarked against DSLR's which is ludicrous, they are not. High-end compacts yes but they are limited. Also some said they wanted one as a backup camera. Frankly I think that if you need a back-up you should get at least one extra DSLR.
     
  2. Ton:
    You're getting good results. Glad to see that!
    I bought an LX3 a few weeks ago. Since then, I've made a couple purchases on ebay...
    Lens Adapter DMW-LA4 Replacement: $10, free shipping
    52mm 52 Screw Mount Petal Crown Flower Shape Lens Hood: $2 + $2 shipping
    52mm Center Pinch Snap on Front Cap: $3, free shipping
    So for $17, I now have an adapter knockoff with lens hood and a front cap. I like.
    Eric
     
  3. Thanx, Ton. Nice hands-on review and pix...

    And don't forget the v1.3 firmware available now...
     
  4. Nice photos.
    In your review you have some important negatives that can not be understated. 1. "Street photography was a bit awkward without a viewfinder. It tends to make you react slower and you stick out like a sore thumb." 2. "As all compacts it suffers from shutter lag although not too bad. Besides, there are ways around that like using the manual and prefocus. All important controls are within easy reach on the outside of the camera and easy to handle I found, even with big hands like mine." 3. "Battery life is not impressive (partly due to the screen of course). Two batteries are no luxury and I'm thinking of getting a third one."
    Your final comment is also important and bears repeating: "P.S. in some reviews these compacts are benchmarked against DSLR's which is ludicrous, they are not. High-end compacts yes but they are limited. Also some said they wanted one as a backup camera. Frankly I think that if you need a back-up you should get at least one extra DSLR."
    Thank you for your careful and thoughtful analysis.
     
  5. For bright sunlight, you can try setting the LCD brightness to "automatic" and see if you can then see easily.
    For shutter lag, try setting auto focus to "Quick AF". It shoud cut down shutter lag because the camera tries to focus before you press the shutter half-way down.
     
  6. If you pre-focus and preset the aperture and shutter speed, does the shutter lag improve considerably?
     
  7. Ton, I'm sorry to see the reason you didn't pick the Sigma was because of negative reviews. I've seen reviews that say things like the camera is only good for landscapes, yet I've seen others work and used it myself for street just fine. And indeed the Sigma is a compact that could be benchmarked against DSLR'S with regard to image quality.
    I think you'll get used to the lack of a viewfinder, it's just another way of photographing- point and shoot- and with a wide lens that shouldn't be difficult. LCD screen is useful on most compacts too for framing shots. One advantage of a tiny sensor is you can compensate for poor ISO performance by shooting more wide open since there's so much depth of field.
    I fail to see what's so special about this camera though other than 24mm view and the panoramic format, which for me is mostly a novelty.
    That said, congratulations on your new toy and if you enjoy it that's all that matters..
     
  8. I should have mentioned that (on purpose) I only used standard settings, shot with either aperture or shutter priority and set the dynamic ISO to 80-400. I think if I set it up a bit differently it's ease of use will further improve.
    Last things first. Ray, I spend two days researching both Sigma's and on the whole indeed most applaud it's image quality and yes I've seen some examples of such a paradox as well (it's after all ourselves who make those photos) but in the end it was just another trade off. Spending € 599,00 ( $810,00) on a camera that got a lot of negative reviews (DP1) or has just arrived (DP2) I found a bit tricky (yet) especially since both the D-Lux4 and LX3 are getting good reviews all over the board concerning IQ. A shame we can't compare that and discuss prints. I would gladly work with a standard lens (well 41mm is kind of that) any day of the week. Still, the 2.0 24mm is a big bonus for the reasons you mentioned and more but your right, the 16:9 ratio is merely fun.
    Also true one could getting used to work without a viewfinder but still I think it will affect my way of working as much as my results in a way that I don't want to.
    For me this camera is an extra with a specific purpose, nothing more and nothing less. If it was just IQ I was after I would always buy another DSLR.
    Steve, I think this answers your implied question as well. It's great but only as an extra.
    Brad, thanks as well, also for including the link for the upgrade.
    Nee, thanks for the tip
    So David. the answer is yes.
    Eric, seems you've got yourself a bargain.
    .
     
  9. Pics look nice and if you like, what else matters? Thx for the review. Ive been using the GRD2. The viewfinder is cool, but you will get used to the LCD. the pics look as good as anything i get on the Ricoh.
     
  10. has the iso800 quality improved over the earlier versions?
     
  11. I'm still using my compact film cameras - Olympus 35 RC, Agfa Isolette folder, others - for candid photography when I don't want to tote the dSLR because so far I haven't found an equally responsive compact digital camera that also has an optical viewfinder.
    Another problem with the LCD screens instead of an optical viewfinder is that I can't use those for projects such as theater photography. The bright screen and arms-extended hold are a distraction to others in the audience, unless I'm behind the audience or in the tech booth area. Several potentially attractive digicams out there but the lack of an optical finder is a deal breaker for me.
    Still waiting for a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar.
     
  12. talking about the external viewfinder you might want to consider this: while the lx-3 and d-lux 4 are the same camera's with a 30% price difference, their viefinders are quite different while there is only a 10% difference in price. i think leica makes a better finder, it's a little off-centred so no hroizontal paralax. it comes with an extra 35 mil. frameline and has a nice rubber eyepiece (i wear glasses). my 2eurocents
     
  13. Just came across these pics from the DP2. They're posted on June 2 on this person's photostream. The guy usually has whatever street type gear is new to test out so he probably has samples from the LX3 and/or D-Lux 4 also.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/
     
  14. I've got a DP2 in my hands for a review, and while it has some strong points, I sure wouldn't recomend that anyone buy one without actually trying it out. The user experience of the camera itself leaves something to be desired. The images can be stunning though, considering the size of the camera.
    I love my LX3 though and would recomend it to anyone.
     
  15. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the DP2. Looks interesting, but considering the shortcomings of the DP1, I wanted to hear more about how it handled.
     
  16. There seems to be some misunderstandings on the size of the DP2 sensor. It is an APS sized sensor, i.e. same size as the DSLR. It is not a tiny sensor present in other compacts. The IQ should therefore correspond.

    There also seems to be some misunderstandings on the focal length. A normal lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the film/sensor area. In the traditional full frame, the film size is 36X24mm. So the diagonal is 43.27mm. Therefore the 41mm (equivalent) lens on the DP2 is closer to a normal lens than the traditional Leica "normal" lens. The 28mm on the DP1 is much wider. The 24mm on the D-Lux 4 is wider still.
     
  17. >>> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the DP2.
    Here's a recent but short hands-on. Not thorough enough to call it a review.
    >>> I love my LX3 though and would recomend it to anyone.
    Another forum member emailed me last night that Amazon had it in stock (rare, not via a partner member) at a decent price. So I bought one. Ten minutes later it was gone, and it was then again only available through a partner for $749. Looking forward to receiving/using mine...
     
  18. The LX3 is indeed a very cool camera. Got one for my wife and she actually uses it. Haven't played with it a lot myself yet but really want to try it out on a tripod one day.
    Here's a shot I did yesterday with the LX3. Handheld, aperture priority, 1/30 at f/2.8.
    00TY3Z-140539684.jpg
     
  19. "Still waiting for a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar."
    Still awaiting The Rapture? Your faith is stronger than mine.
     
  20. Yeh, well, a feller can hope, Don. At this point I'm so tired of lugging my D2H around I'd consider selling all of my Nikon gear for a digital equivalent to that Konica Hexar.
     
  21. Isn't this where someone should tell you to use film lex?
     
  22. "As all compacts it suffers from shutter lag although not too bad. Besides, there are ways around that like using the manual and prefocus." - Ton Mestrom
    I don't understand what the focusing has to do with the shutter/shutter lag? It doesn't. I don't think enough people know what shutter lag actually is from comments like this. The amount of time for the shutter to open and close and produce an image after fully depressing the shutter button is shutter lag. So, where do you find auto focus coming into play here? You are talking about the auto focus speed and somehow thinking it will effect the shutter speed? Two different animals my friend.
     
  23. I got this from another thread-
    "Just a reminder for newcomers to this thread:
    The shutter lag discussion should be related only to the "manual focus" shooting. In other modes the time for the autofocus to work can be percieved as a shutter lag as the camera does not shoot right after you hit the shutter. In fact, that is not shutter lag.
    This said, the real shutter lag is certainly a bit longer than that of a mechanical rangefinder but this is like comparing apples with oranges, I guess :)"

    -Bulent Celasun
     
  24. Len wrote: << ... You are talking about the auto focus speed and somehow thinking it will effect the shutter speed? ... >>
    I didn't read Ton's post that way.
    For me, shutter lag is the time that elapses between my depressing the shutter, intending to take the photo, and the time the shutter actually opens to take the photo. (I agree that the actual "shutter speed" -- whether manually selected or a product of autoexposure -- has nothing to do with this.)
    Two possible component parts of this lag are: (i) the time it takes the camera to focus, if using autofocus, and (ii) the time it takes the camera to determine exposure, if using autoexposure (P, A, S, or the "Full Auto" mode).
    So what Ton was saying, if I read his post correctly, is that he can reduce or minimize lag by (i)setting exposure manually (using 'M' or Manual), and/or (ii) focusing at a preset distance, rather than using autofocus. The extraordinary depth of field in all of the small sensor digital compacts, particularly at wide angle, makes this a useful strategy.
    And if I've correctly understood Ton, then I agree with him, because I do the same things myself (using different digital compacts than the one he has).
     
  25. Isn't this where someone should tell you to use film lex?​
    Zing! Hey, I just got back from a walk around the block while toting my Olympus 35 RC. Didn't take any photos, but my back isn't complaining about the weight.
    For that matter, I still haven't seen a lightweight digital camera with optical viewfinder that's any better than my 7 year old Olympus C-3040Z. Well, except for the stupid SmartMedia cards. And sluggish AF response.
    Funny thing... I keep lurking here and on the street forum hoping that magical digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar will appear. But here we are, nearly a decade into the development of P&S digital cameras, and we're still talking about the same basic limitations: almost but not quite fast enough for effortless candid, casual and street photography. All that effort put into megapickles, replacing viewfinders with LCD screens, somewhat better high ISO performance, blah-blah-blah... but we're still stuck on the same limitations that dSLRs solved years ago.
    Bleh. Oh, well, sorry, Ton, didn't mean to hijack your thread. I really had high hopes for the Lumix lineup and have seen some very good street photos taken with it, via the critique queues. But, darn it, I still want an optical viewfinder. I could deal with just about every other limitation but that one.
     
  26. >>> But, darn it, I still want an optical viewfinder.
    You can get one, but like me, probably would not want to pay for it...
     
  27. Ouch. I think I'd rather modify a Pez dispenser and aim through it.
     
  28. Thanks Michael, you indeed understood me correctly. Len, Bulent and me don't disagreee about that.
    Lex, from my opener:
    "P.S. in some reviews these compacts are benchmarked against DSLR's which is ludicrous, they are not. High-end compacts yes but they are limited. Also some said they wanted one as a backup camera. Frankly I think that if you need a back-up you should get at least one extra DSLR."
    I don't think this is going to change anytime soon. These camera's are made for the consumer market and since they, at least in the mind of most manufacturers, all want a camera with a zoom that covers 10-1600mm, a zillion MP and a TV on the back that swivels in all directions of the compass with a video capability that enables them to enter America's most funny home video competition all for a price around $ 200,00 and pocketable there is definitely another price to pay.
    The Nikon P6000, now there's a compromise camera, has already geotagging built-in. I noticed another thread has been opened on the G10. Great camera design for sure but what nobody has touched so far is its horribly noise characteristics. Both these camera's have got a viewfinder though, although if these would become the norm I'd rather go without.
    Panasonic/Leica (or Leica/Panasonic if you want) have at least put a dent in that stupid marketing induced MP race with some noticable advantages as a direct result.
    Just like you I prefer to have a decent viewfinder. In fact I would trade that whole LCD screen for a decent built-in one but it isn't going to happen. Brad is right, you can get a optical viewfinder and I received word yesterday that mine is arriving this week. At half the cost of the camera (in $$$) it's horribly expensive though.
     
  29. Mike, admittedly first reports are always a bit sketchy but being what they are it seems that most, if not all, of the shortcomings of the DP1 are to be found in the DP2 as well. All the info I've found so far suggests the same. To be honest I think Ray and Josh can tell you more since I haven't held one in my hands so far.
     
  30. I found a couple of other brief, hands-on reports on the DP2 in addition to the one Brad linked to. Doesn't look too promising for my uses. Maybe the upcoming Olympus micro-4/3 camera will be a winner. I've had a very bad experience with Panasonic (non)service in the past, so I'm reluctant to buy anything they make.
     
  31. Ha! Ton...
    Don't they say that...
    GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE?
    ;-)
    On your findings, I mostly agree with some exceptions/comments.
    - I actually find the display to be a plus from the point of view of not being noticed. People have this strange reflex (pun intended): bring a DSLR to the eye, you are a pervert secret agent terrorist who want to rape their children, track them on behalf of CIA and bomb the train station all in a single run. Shoot with a small compact camera holding it openly 40 cm front of your face, you are just one more clueless tourist that can be ignored. You blend in. I don't know if it would be better with the VF, I would miss the llive histogram and the aperture / focus placement informations. And I don't want to pay for it, that price is just ridiculous.
    - I have no problems with battery life, but this is perhaps because I am used to the D200 that is seriously battery-aholic.
    - You mention "Lower versions don't support the LX3 RAW files", ACR upported the LX3 already in 5.2, and perhaps 5.1 as well. RPP supports the LX3 as well (no distortion correction). I am waiting for Bibble 5 to introduce support because I have really NEVER seen something so annoyingly slow as silkypix.
    L.
     
  32. For those potentially interested in the Sigma DP2 (or DP1):
    Have a look at this earlier thread in which Markus Hartel and Kendall Gellner commented at some length on their actual picture-taking and processing experiences with the DP1:
    http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00PXHf
    [Note: I don't have any of these cameras, so I have no favorite in this group.]
    For Lex -- You might find at a (more) reasonable price a Voigtlander finder, and with any luck it'll come with a nice little V/C lens usable on a rangefinder camera.
    Finally, the best use of the Pez dispenser in photography is illustrated here -- worth a peek for all who are unfamiliar with this:
    http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00CSnG
     
  33. Luca, thanks. It makes one wonder though. (it's by no means directed at you Luca but your comment merely triggered something)
    I mostly shoot with a big DSLR with a battery pack attached (really like that vertical shutter release) and I have never been challenged as if I were a pervert while on occasion I even shoot kids. It's not the camera, it's the guy behind that's important here.
    I didn't buy the LX to be unobtrusive but in a crowd it can be quite handy. Also there are some places that you can't get in or are singled out with a big camera. Lastly it's easy to carry with you all the time. Pocketable quality.
    Histogram, nice for landscape shooters but on the street it's useless, In fact I think it's completely useless because indicative at best. I still rather rely on my handheld lightmeter. Browsing though all the forums on this site one could get under the impression that without a histogram it's impossible to shoot a decent photo while in fact it's the other way around.
    The same applies to a LCD screen. I myself have done 30 years without it. I think it's especially usefull for people who are just starting out because of the immediate feedback but if you know what you are doing there is no need whatsoever to have on. If anything it distracts (chimping).
    Back on track:
    As for supporting software I didn't test everything of course. I merely mentioned where I found it was supported in my software. CS3 (ACR 5.1) doesn't. And yes, Silkypix isn't the best nor is it's interface. As far as battery life is concerned it's obvious that without an external viewfinder you can only use the screen and after just four hours my first battery was totally drained so for a day out there you'd need at least two. That's info that I think I should mention.
     
  34. Michael, thanks for that link. I still think that a comparison with a DSLR is flawed because there are more things to consider than a chip that not a single compact at this time can provide.
     
  35. Ton, thanks for the post, likewise I'm deciding between LX3 and Dlux4 at this stage, and more inclined to choose LX3 after reading your post here. I noticed you mainly shoot B&W, but may I ask your opinion about colour rendition on the LX3? Also, do you use exposure compensation on the LX3?
    In another forum, someone commented the green colour looks unnatural on the LX3 but honestly, I can't see any colour tone difference between the comparison pics under identical settings (e.g the "grapes" photo in the following link).
    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/69106-d-lux-4-lx3-3.html
    I intend to use the new camera for traveling (to bring back scenes that impresses me), and rather keep post editing to a minimal.
    Much appreciated!
     
  36. "...but may I ask your opinion about colour rendition on the LX3?"
    looks very good so far


    "...the green colour looks unnatural on the LX3"
    could be a tad rich but to be honest I haven't shot enough yet to provide you with a definitive answer. Still, even if so, it's always easy to correct.
    "...and more inclined to choose LX3 after reading your post here"
    some good advice: do your research as did I. Mine is just one opinion.
     
  37. I didn't buy the LX to be unobtrusive but in a crowd it can be quite handy. Also there are some places that you can't get in or are singled out with a big camera. Lastly it's easy to carry with you all the time. Pocketable quality.​
    Basically my same reasons. I noticed photo-worth scenes had the annoying habit of jumping out when I did not have my DSLR. And more, many times I go out with my wife and some friends and do not want to look like a camera-geek. Most of the times, I end up not even taking it out of its nice retro-looking leather case (which I found by chance in Munich, not even looking for it, and is really good). But in many cases (e.g. the "FNAC" picture I liked above, the one linked on "THINK" ;-) ) I got the photo because I had the LX3 ith me ince I was not around with the purpose of taking photos.
    Histogram, nice for landscape shooters but on the street it's useless​
    Hmmm, I don't agree. Consider I always shoot raw and tend to expose to the right. The LX3 has a pretty decent meter, but the DR is not the strongest point on any P&S, nor is noise handling (although the LX3 is quite good in this respect I feel). So getting the max S/N while avoiding to burn the highlights is something to care for, of course if one has time to do so. The histogram though might get fooled hard if very strong highlights are present, because saturation is too strong to allow a reliable rescaling to your exposure. So one has to be a bit careful. This said, it is a matter of what you are used to. I never used external meters so that would be quite exotic for me.
    The same applies to a LCD screen. I myself have done 30 years without it.​
    Me too, apart from the detail that 30 years ago I was 5... ;-). I don't like LCD per se. I have no live view in my DSLR and I never felt I need one. Even quite good LCDs like the one on the LX3 are close to unusable in bright sunlight. Only, I have the feeling it makes you look "normal". Besides, I always shoot in aperture priority and the LCD is the only feedback you can have about your shutter/aperture couple in such a camera. Not to mention framing when zoomed. My dad has a beautiful 50 years-old multi-focal russian external viewfinder I once mounted on the LX3 and it looked pretty funny and nice. But unlike SLR and (many) DSLR, these cameras are not really made to be used without the LCD. Surely not the LX3. Every control except the mode dial has only LCD feedback. Framing (especially with the variable aspect ratio), AF point position (which is quite effective once you get used to it), ISO seection, exp. compensation... you can get trough without, but it is clearly not the way they had conceived it. For what concerns me, I could glue the mode dial on aperture priority. I change ISO aperture, and exp compensation continuously instead. It is actually a pity for me that the only control that can be set without looking at the LCD is the one I don't use...
    This reminds me of one of another complaint I have about the LX3. I quite often have the camera off, see the scene, decide by eye how to frame it, and being a prime shooter I tend to think "I need this focal length". When you turn on the camera, on the other hand, it starts always all-wide, and there is no visual feedback on focal length, neither on the lens body nor in the LCD. So I have to point, and zoom, which i neither fast nor very precise.
    As far as battery life is concerned it's obvious that without an external viewfinder you can only use the screen and after just four hours my first battery was totally drained so for a day out there you'd need at least two​
    Perhaps this is because I have energy savings options turned on and you don't? My screen goes off after 30 seconds or so of inactivity (unfortunately, the lens closes as well, see the above point). I did never do a day of intense shooting with the LX3, I have to say. I believe I did at most 50 shoots in a row. In my experience, I can easily go around one day without the battery gauge moving from "full". But it is well known that battery life is the parameter where users differ most for every camera. Too dependent on usage patterns.
    L.
     
  38. On the topic, I found this very pertinent thread on DPReview:
    SELL ALL DSLR!!!
    I'm wondering what is more funny, the OP, or some of the answers. DPReview forum is famous to have some pretty amusing fauna, but this one thread I find really above average.
    L.
     
  39. Ton, you made a good choice. The price difference is too steep. With the price of DLUX4 I got a LX3, Panasonic LUMIX LX3 case and a LUMIX 0.75x wide angle adapter lens LW46 [​IMG]
     
  40. Nothing like an early start is there and starting at the age of five sure means having a headstart ;-)
    "Even quite good LCDs like the one on the LX3 are close to unusable in bright sunlight"
    "But unlike SLR and (many) DSLR, these cameras are not really made to be used without the LCD. Surely not the LX3"
    See the paradox here? That's why they offer an optional viewfinder and that's why I bought it. I know realise I didn't explain that all shots I took and linked to were made with the internal light meter of the LX3, without correction. I never expose to the right. First of all I wanted to see how accurate the built-in light meter was and I found it to be very good, well you can check the photos I took yourself. Normally however in extreme conditions I often use a handheld 1 degree spotmeter.
    On the usefulness of the histogram it seems we disagree Luca. While I find it to be very usefull in PS and LR, in-camera it's something I never use. I think too many people treat it as an absolute which it certainly isn't. I think more than anything else use of the histogram has become a cult with a lot of people. I prefer to still rely on basic light reading(s) which I believe to be far more accurate. (don't use a computer when a pencil does it better and faster, just an analogy that people tend to forget).
     
  41. Thanks Martin, yes I like to think that as well ;-)))
     
  42. Nice to find out someone's curious enough to actually bought both cameras and did comparison shots with identical settings. Potential buyers can judge whether it's worth the extra $$ for the difference.
    Considering the fact that Leica's viewfinder costing almost as much as LX3, I bought the LX3 last night. But sadly I couldn't get the RW2 format to show on my mac :_(
    In case if you're not aware, a new firmware became available just 4 days ago (v1.3).
    Thanks again for the post.
     
  43. If Lex or others interested in the finder issue are still around, there's a helpful new thread here by Ben Schaefer, who describes his experience using the V/C 21mm finder on a DLux 4.
    http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00TZje
     
  44. starting at the age of five​
    I did not really start at five. I don't really remember but likely 12... but with a great little thing :-D
    See the paradox here? That's why they offer an optional viewfinder and that's why I bought it.​
    Of course I do. In fact, the viewfinder issue is perhaps the one single reason why I will never fall for the recurring "compacts-have-become-better-than-dslr" myth. Composing on an LCD is doable, but that's it. A good optical viewfinder (also a not-so-good one) will always be another thing. I would really love for these compacts to have a real viewfinder. The ones built in, where present, are always extremely sad (G10 included... it would have been better to leave it out and make the camera smaller, rather that put such a joke). The LX3 external one I suppose is quite good, but as I said, no info at all, no zoom.
    I don't know. I was tempted by it because it looked very cool. I was stopped by the price, perhaps if I tried it I would end up preferring it.
    On the usefulness of the histogram it seems we disagree Luca.​
    In these days I'm among the beta testers of Bibble 5, and you should read the furious debates about this or that interface choice. Given things are useful and natural to use for some, and totally useless or annoying for others. So I'm not surprised. I have to say: I try to expose to the right, but I don't always have time to. If I don't, I don't even look at the histogram. It happens not so rarely (with every camera not only the LX3) that I shoot a photo, then have to look at the playback because I did not notice what aperture/time couple I used. I agree with you the LX3 meter is quite good, but it is not conceived for raw use, where you often wanto to ETTR, and in general assume the curves will be manipulated.
    Which brings me to the interesting fact that I NEVER saw a meter which is calibrated that way, not even in cameras like a D3x which almost nobody will use in jpeg. Providing an alternate meter calibration conceived for RAW would be ridicolously easy for Canon/Nikon, it is just some software... and yet they never did
    L.
     
  45. Besides the pixel count, wider FOV, hot shoe, and a "sturdy" way to add a filter tube mount to it, what does the LX3 have over the LX2 or LX1? I don't remember the same "buzz" when they were introduced.
     
  46. what does the LX3 have over the LX2 or LX1?​
    The pixel count is the same as the LX2. The lens is wider AND it is one stop faster (eq. 24mm f2 vs 28 f 2.8). On the other hand LX2 went to 112mm (equivalent) vs. 60 for LX3.
    Apparently (i.e as per reviews), the noise is significantly improved. Whether it is true, whether it would be "significant" for me, I cannot tell, for I never owned a LX2/1. In general, I find the LX3 quite usable up to400 ISO, where it has (very roughly) 1 stop worse noise than my D200 (which in fact I like up to 800 ISO). But this is comparing Noise Ninja noise reduction for the D200 (in Bibble) with the SilkyPix noise reduction for the LX3. And this could advantage the D200 somewhat, since NN is the noise reduction program I prefer. For sure the LX3 is significantly worse than the D200 anyway (not surprising). I Don't really want to use the LX3 at 800 ISO, but I can if needed, especially if passing to B&W. The point is, 400 ISO with a 24mm f2 and the depth of field of a small sensor (plus the effective stabilization) really allow you to do a lot/
    For further details, you can check the DPReview and Imaging Resource reviews, but I get the feeling the buzz about the LX3 are 1) f2 lens and 2) 24mm zoom. They never appeared together in a compact camera, and make for an impressive street photography machine.
    L.
     
  47. Luca et al, here's a 1600 ASA shot with EXIF details. Nothing of consequence has been changed.
    00TaSL-141813584.jpg
     
  48. while I certainly agree that it's not brilliant it's for sure usable if needs must. It was only uploaded and downsized in PS CS4 to be able to display it here. The only thing I did was correct some of the barrel distortion.
     
  49. "Have a look at this earlier thread in which Markus Hartel and Kendall Gellner commented at some length on their actual picture-taking and processing experiences with the DP1:"
    Ah, ya mean you actually have to know how to use a camera before you diss it? That aint fair!
     
  50. Ton, I'd be interested to see some samples where lighting contrast was significant.
     
  51. be assured, so would I ;-) I'll see what I can do
     
  52. Luca,
    Thank you for the concise explanation (having come into the thread late). As an LX1 owner, the noise improvement would be welcome.
    Bill
     
  53. Dudes, all this hand wringing over things like batteries and viewfinders. You guys are killing me. Batteries for these cameras are small. Stick a couple extra in your pocket (if you even need that) and be done with it. What's the big deal? And why do you need a finder for a 24mm field of view? Point the camera and shoot. That's why it's called a point and shoot. Plus the screen in most situations works great if you need perfect Cartier-Bresson geometric precision if that's really your deal. I know, old habits die hard. But sheesh, I dare say hundreds of millions of people are using these kinds of compact cameras with amazing success as we speak.
    Btw, one thing with the DP1/ DP2.... easy to get out of focus backgrounds oof whatever if that's what you want.
     
  54. Wha?
    [​IMG]
    GRD
     
  55. Well said, Ray. Just so well said;)
    Great little cams with a very very nice lens.
     
  56. Nice flower photo taken with one.....
    00Taew-141935584.jpg
     
  57. Ray, why so sarcastic? People ask these questions and I for one am happy to provide answers if I can rather than mock them. As for the LCD screen it's not very usable in some situations simple as that. And I don't need a finder but I prefer one and the reasons for that I have given. Whether you or anyone else finds that ridiculous is of no consequence to be honest.
    One of the questions I'm happy to answer is actually yours. I've been out tonight and took some high ISO shots.These you can find here.
    "Well said, Ray. Just so well said;)"
    you wanna light the fire some more Allen?
     
  58. Thanks to my eyesight problems (presbyopia - 'far-sightedness') I find the LCD screens on cameras pretty much impossible to use unless I'm wearing glasses - everything is a useless blur without them. However, when I'm out and about I don't need glasses for anything beyond the first metre or so. Hence trying to use an LCD screen leads to a 'glasses off; glasses on; glasses off; glasses on....' situation. So I look for a camera with a viewfinder, e.g. a DSLR or a Leica M, because I can see the scene I'm taking a picture of perfectly through the VF. In my case a DLUX4/LX3 with a VF would be a good solution.
    I already know from a test in a shop that I simply cannot see the image on the LCD with either of these cameras, or indeed all others. Even using a DSLR screen gets problematic, e.g. checking the histogram.
     
  59. jtk

    jtk

    The digital Hexar AF is reportedly in the pipeline... 4/3 from Oly....June 16 supposedly.
     
  60. Tom, you should also check this thread if you haven't already. The original viewfinders on both the D-Lux4 and the LX3 are quite expensive. There seem to be good working alternatives though.
     
  61. Didn't mean to offend... just trying to make the point it's not that difficult, but I understand if you're not familiar. Really, never met a camera that couldn't take a good photo.... unless it was flat out dead.
     
  62. One feature in favor of Canon's G10 has been that you can set the focal length that the camera wakes up to, so to speak. I think this is done by saving settings in one the user (C) modes. Has a similar feature by any chance been added to the LX3 by means of firmware updates lately? Or does the Leica version perhaps have it?
     
  63. Ton - I think that you will find your new LX3 to be a very capable and flexible camera. It's video performance is quite decent and the wide angle coverage is really helpful in travel photography. Here's a short video captured with the LX3 (click on the thumbnail image for the video page):

    [​IMG]

    The B&W mode of the LX3 is also very good:

    [​IMG]
     
  64. Ray, some Chinese camera's spring to mind.
     
  65. Anders, no & no
    Berg, thanks
     
  66. Dudes, all this hand wringing over things like batteries and viewfinders. You guys are killing me.​
    You should not over-interpret it... The LX3 is a pretty good camera, so one ends up discussing a bit over minutiae. You know, for the sake of discussing. Enter any bar and you will find people spending more time than this discussing sport, and not even the one they do, but the one of professional teams to which they are irrationally attached. Or the privat life of former un-reality show contestants. I guess our dissertations over the merits of LCD vs viewfinder are highly significant in comparison. What actually stops me from going on arguing with Ton on the LCD is basically the absence of beer. If we were in the aforementioned bar, and there was an excuse to find to order one more beer, I can go on forever :-D.
    On the usability above 400 ISO (one more good beer-excuse): yes, it is still usable if you need, but I feel you are a bit on thin ice regarding DR and chroma noise. So I prefer not to go up there especially when shooting night city scenes where contrasts are strong or when you want some postprocessing latitude. The nice thing, you don't really need so much. I spent an evening at Munich Christkindlmarkt (the Chrismas market) and never needed to go above 400 ISO.
    L.
     

  67. "Well said, Ray. Just so well said;)"
    you wanna light the fire some more Allen?


    Jeez,Ton,i was just being playful.....chill my friend. Okay, i'll sit in the corner and quietly berate myself.

    I don't know Ray another fine mess you have got me in ;)
     
  68. Excellent review, Ton.
     
  69. forget it guys, and while you sit in that corner have a blonde one with that dog of yours, or wasn't that a self portrait you uploaded in the Couples thread ;-). Maybe just a cultural difference and anyway I have no sense of humour worth mentioning.

    About time this thread ended anyway.
     
  70. Very impressive little camera, particularly if the screen is turned off, a 50mm viewfinder fitted in the accessory shoe, aperture priority and pre-focus.
    00Tc9x-142717584.jpg
     
  71. One last thing, I received my viewfinder yesterday and used it out there. It does make for a significant difference.
     
  72. I'd love to have the viewfinder. In the meantime I've got an old Ansco bellows camera with a fold down 'viewfinder' I may remove and stick on top.
    Todd
     

Share This Page