LX2 vs. D-LUX 3

[fran_zisken]

I'm consantly hearing that one should buy the LX2 as opposed to the new D-LUX 3,

same camera, cheaper price blah, blah, blah. I know the LX2 is being criticized

about noise etc. Is their a chance the new Leica will have improved on what

Panasonic has overlooked? The concept of these camera's are really cool, I'd

like to get one that isn't being slammed by photographers. Thanks for any help.

[erikhaugsby]

This does not come from factual knowledge, just past experiences.

<br><br>

Leica D-Lux <i>x</i> cameras are re-branded Panasonix LX<i>x</i> cameras. No more, no less.

<br><br>

Therefore, I am confindent that the D-Lux 3 will suffer from all the flaws of the LX2 in addition to a higher price tag.

[michael s.]

Differences: <p>

 

1. Different U.S. warranty (Leica is longer). <p>

 

2. Different included software (Leica includes PS Elements 4.0 -- may or may not be important to you). <p>

 

3. Finally, Leica <i>claims</i> different firmware, resulting in a difference in image processing (assume this refers to jpeg processing, not RAW files). Some are understandably skeptical about this claimed difference, but I guess time will tell. I don't think the D-Lux 3 is widely available as yet. <p>

 

Info from <a href=http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2016491,00.asp>this site</a>. <p>

 

When you say "slammed by photographers," I'm not sure that's consistently the case. At least one very capable pnet photographer has taken some <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=597319>terrific photos</a> with the predecessor, the LX1. I believe he shoots raw files, and uses noise reduction software where necessary. And I've seen some recent posts featuring photos from the Panasonic LX2 that I thought were very good.

[jtk]

Wee's LX1 work features a little more sharpening-edginess than I'd have employed, shooting film and scanning...just a touch unnatural around the edges (personal taste...it's probably attractive to many of us and I envy his work, of course).

 

Is that edginess the result of LX1, the noiseware, or the intentional result of his post-processing technique?

[neil_swanson]

Well I'll let you know. A local store had their big fall tent sale this weekend. Reps from Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Pentax and Leica were there. It was a good chance to see and touch many many toys. I saw tried and orderd a black DL3. The show discount left it $50 more than the Pana LX2 so why not.

 

The why not may be the image quality. I've seen and read reviews of both. 100% screen shots of a small sensor camera seldom look good. I've never owned any small sensor digicam at all and I may just hate the way all of them look anyway. I may just never get to like not having a viewfinder. I'm just gonna give it a try.

 

The DL3 display is very very nice. The controls you need often are right there. I doubt I'll ever manual focus the camera but the DOF display in manual mode makes hyperfocal shooting a no brainer.

 

So the hi ISO won't be great. That is almost a given. But who knows. I may find the SS look something I like for some work. Why not get a Fuji F30 for low light. It has the hi ISO covered but doesn't have the 19:9/28mm/manual exposure and RAW of the DL3.

 

I will have the xamera Wednesday ot Thursday. Results to follow.

[fotografz]

The trick with these little "no brainer" cameras is to shoot RAW and use the tools under the

advanced tab in the Adobe Camera RAW to lessen the noise > (Color noise reduction and

Luminance sliders). Enlarge a section of the file before applying these tools so you can see

the effect as you apply it. While there, you can apply the vignetting controls if you used a

wide zoom.

 

I take my D-Lux 2 all over the place ... mostly places where I don't want to carry anything

bigger, or where they won't allow any serious camera. At the Las Vegas show I just saw

they allowed P&S cameras as long as you shut off the flash ... which would be useless

anyway.

 

I just don't have expectations of the camera beyond a nice 5X7 for the family album.

[fotografz]

Like this ...<div></div>

[kbg32]

Many of the images on my Photo.net page were taken with the LX1 http://www.photo.net/

photos/kbg32. I bought a LX2. I wanted a bump up in megapixels. While the quality is a

bit better, I immensely dislike the fact that it is slower for street shooting. The shutter lag

is unexceptable to me. The LX2 freezes, focus lock, just before the image is captured,

resulting in many missed moments. I have not experienced this with the LX1, which I find

to be just as quick as a manual film camera or a DSLR.

 

If anyone is interested, I have a brand new boxed black LX2 for sale. Less then 10 images

shot with this camera.

[kenghor]

<i>The LX2 freezes, focus lock, just before the image is captured, resulting in many missed moments. I have not experienced this with the LX1, which I find to be just as quick as a manual film camera or a DSLR. </i><p>

 

Dont' sell your LX2 yet! Simply select the proper focusing option and u'll not have the freeze. Read the manual.

[kenghor]

I've the LX2 for a week before selling it because I wanted a nicer looking DLux3.<br>

The LX2 noise is certainly better than LX1 at ISO 200 and above. LX2 is certainly worth the upgrade if u wanna shoot higher ISO. And the 16:9 LCD screen is certainly sweet! Otherwise I don't see much improvement on the 10MP file at ISO 100 files.<br>

 

I've kind of missed the ISO 80 on the LX2 but it is available in the Dlux 3.<br>

Some images I've taken with the LX2. <p>

<img src="http://www.lens-scape.com/article/lx2/004.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.lens-scape.com/article/lx2/005.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.lens-scape.com/article/lx2/008.jpg"><p>

[fran_zisken]

I just purchased an LX-1 for $308. It's some sort of aftermarket, pirated, imported model but I figure I have to see for myself what all the hubub is about. When the D-Lux comes out in...November??? I'll check back and see if the camera is indeed any improvement on the LX-2. Wee Keng, your pictures are incredible, if I can capture a moment like one of yours I'll be satisfied.

[neil_swanson]

Fast shutter response? Set it to manual focus and then use the display for zone focusing. Admittedly I only tried this in the store but it is extremely fast to respond. I read about it on Sean Reids review site. I showed it to the Leica rep (the dof scale) and he said "huh, damn, that's really cool".

 

I look forward to the phone call telling me it is in. I already have the latest ACR that works with DL3 RAW downloaded.

[kenghor]

Marc, have u tried weddings with LX1? BTW, I'm a great fan of yours.<p>

 

There's one thing which I've wanted to do with LX1 for a long time and that's using it to shoot

wedding. My cousine is getting married soon later this year and I might use this opporunity

as her backup photographer and shoot it with D-Lux3.

[Jim_Tardio]

I love my LX-1. I think the 16:9 ratio sets it apart form the others.

<a href="http://www.jimtardio.com/lumix/lumix.html">My Lumix Gallery</a>.

<p>

Noise is fairly easy to deal with. I've had two images from this camera accepted as stock.

[Jim_Tardio]

I'm not a wedding photographer but here's one wedding image. You'd need a more sophisticated flash system than the LX-1 has to deal with a wedding.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

The LX1 has a number of really good features.

 

1.The 16.9 Aspect Ratio, unique.

2.It converts to BW with that Leica BW look.

3.It's small and very light and perfectly formed...a minuture M6 in design...

4. It's fast, very fast.

5. It's cheap as chips with Leica BW performance.

8. 8.4 million pixels will give you a A4/A3 quality print.

 

The LX1 is very very poor for low light performance..buy a Fuji that's what they are really good at. Forget noise ninja or the LX2 they are just waiving flags at half mast.

 

Great little camera, i got mine for 199gbp , serious value for money.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

................<div></div>

[sprouty]

<I>"It converts to BW with that Leica BW look."</I>

<P>

Ah, well there you go, that's all I needed to hear.

[michael s.]

Allen - Interesting that the discreet little camera enabled you to get that photo of Dick Cheney reading on the bench somewhere in the U.K. Moments later, he brought the book inside and <a href=http://files.myopera.com/Rubitomas/albums/75470/thumbs/Dick%20Cheney.jpg_thumb.jpg> all that fresh air had evidently got the better of him</a>.

[larry_kincaid1]

Wee's photos are brilliant...as in oversaturated or "vivid." I've noticed that many of the photos from digital cameras have this oversaturated color look. His photos are nice, but you have to like over saturated colors to enjoy them. The trend/fad/fashion that is slowly taking over the world is for this type of oversaturated color. It's just not what you get from traditional film photos unless you use PS to saturate them. I've been using a Lumix TZ1 and have found that it gives this same oversaturated view of the world. It's "okay," but it's not what the scene looks like to your eyes. This is quite noticeable with some of Wee's market photos where there's a lot of red and green. I'm going to try to desaturate a couple of his in PS to see if they look just as good or perhaps better. Ironically, if you totally desaturate them and convert them to b&w images, this problem goes away!