D-Lux vs. LX3; follow-up thread

<p>as promised here is the follow-up of <a href="q-and-a-post-new?topic_id=1548">the thread I opened the 17th of May</a> 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.<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>All in all a good buy for me and perfectly usable on the street (with a viewfinder) and one or two spare batteries.</p>

<p>Some of my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=914796">first results</a> you can find here</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ton:</p>

<p>You're getting good results. Glad to see that!</p>

<p>I bought an LX3 a few weeks ago. Since then, I've made a couple purchases on ebay...</p>

<p>

<p>Lens Adapter DMW-LA4 Replacement: $10, free shipping<br>

52mm 52 Screw Mount Petal Crown Flower Shape Lens Hood: $2 + $2 shipping<br>

52mm Center Pinch Snap on Front Cap: $3, free shipping</p>

</p>

<p>So for $17, I now have an adapter knockoff with lens hood and a front cap. I like.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

Thanx, Ton. Nice hands-on review and pix...

 

And don't forget the v1.3 firmware available now...

<p>Nice photos. <br>

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."<br>

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."<br>

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful analysis.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For bright sunlight, you can try setting the LCD brightness to "automatic" and see if you can then see easily.<br>

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.</p>

<p>If you pre-focus and preset the aperture and shutter speed, does the shutter lag improve considerably? </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>That said, congratulations on your new toy and if you enjoy it that's all that matters..</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.</p>

<p>Steve, I think this answers your implied question as well. It's great but only as an extra.</p>

<p>Brad, thanks as well, also for including the link for the upgrade.</p>

<p>Nee, thanks for the tip</p>

<p>So David. the answer is yes.</p>

<p>Eric, seems you've got yourself a bargain.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>has the iso800 quality improved over the earlier versions?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Still waiting for a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar.</p>

<address><address>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</address></address>

<p>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.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I love my LX3 though and would recomend it to anyone.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

>>> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the DP2. <P>

 

<a href= "http://gizmodo.com/5275208/sigma-dp2-camera-review-its-complicated">Here's a recent</a> but short hands-on. Not thorough enough to call it a review.<P>

 

>>> I love my LX3 though and would recomend it to anyone.<P>

 

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...

<p>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.</p>

<p>Here's a shot I did yesterday with the LX3. Handheld, aperture priority, 1/30 at f/2.8. </p>

<div></div>

<p>"Still waiting for a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar."</p>

<p>Still awaiting The Rapture? Your faith is stronger than mine.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>Isn't this where someone should tell you to use film lex?</p>

"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.

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

<p>Len wrote:<em> << ... You are talking about the auto focus speed and somehow thinking it will effect the shutter speed? ... >></em></p>

<p>I didn't read Ton's post that way.</p>

<p>For me, <strong>shutter lag</strong> 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.)</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't this where someone should tell you to use film lex?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>