D-Lux vs. LX3; follow-up thread

[Brad_]

>>> But, darn it, I still want an optical viewfinder. <P>

 

<a href= "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sq=desc&gclid=CJ-HsNS275oCFRxNagodBD3EBg&Q=&sb=ps&pn=1&ci=0&A=search&shs=Panasonic%20Lx3%20Viewfinder">You can get one</a>, but like me, probably would not want to pay for it...

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ouch. I think I'd rather modify a Pez dispenser and aim through it.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Thanks Michael, you indeed understood me correctly. Len, Bulent and me don't disagreee about that.</p>

<p>Lex, from my opener:<br /> <em>"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."</em></p>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>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.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>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.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>Ha! Ton...<br>

Don't they say that...<br>

<a href="../photo/8485249&size=lg">GREAT</a> <a href="../photo/8481679&size=lg">MINDS</a> <a href="../photo/9064851&size=lg">THINK</a> <a href="../photo/8839937&size=lg">ALIKE?</a></p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>On your findings, I mostly agree with some exceptions/comments.<br>

- 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.<br>

- I have no problems with battery life, but this is perhaps because I am used to the D200 that is seriously battery-aholic.<br>

- 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. <a href="http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html">RPP</a> 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.<br>

L.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael s.]

<p>For those potentially interested in the Sigma DP2 (or DP1):<br>

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:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00PXHf</p>

<p>[Note: I don't have any of these cameras, so I have no favorite in this group.]</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Finally, the best use of the <strong>Pez dispenser</strong> in photography is illustrated here -- worth a peek for all who are unfamiliar with this:<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00CSnG</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Luca, thanks. It makes one wonder though. (it's by no means directed at you Luca but your comment merely triggered something)<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>Back on track:<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>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.</p>

[hymn_l]

<p>

 

<p>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?<br>

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). <br>

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/69106-d-lux-4-lx3-3.html<br>

I intend to use the new camera for traveling (to bring back scenes that impresses me), and rather keep post editing to a minimal.<br>

Much appreciated!</p>

<br />

 

</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"...but may I ask your opinion about colour rendition on the LX3?"</em> <br /> looks very good so far<br /> <em><br /> </em> <br /> <em> "...the green colour looks unnatural on the LX3"</em> <br /> 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.</p>

<p><em>"...and more inclined to choose LX3 after reading your post here"</em> <br /> some good advice: do your research as did I. Mine is just one opinion.</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Histogram, nice for landscape shooters but on the street it's useless</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The same applies to a LCD screen. I myself have done 30 years without it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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...<br>

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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>On the topic, I found this very pertinent thread on DPReview:</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32045709">SELL ALL DSLR!!!</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>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 src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8542819-md.jpg" alt="" width="500" /></p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Nothing like an early start is there and starting at the age of five sure means having a headstart ;-)</p>

<p><em>"Even quite good LCDs like the one on the LX3 are close to unusable in bright sunlight"</em><br>

<em>"But unlike SLR and (many) DSLR, these cameras are not really made to be used without the LCD. Surely not the LX3"</em></p>

<p>See the paradox here? That's why they offer an optional viewfinder and that's why I bought it.<em> </em> 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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32045709" target="_blank">SELL ALL DSLR!!!</a></p>

<p>Well, some people tend to get a bit hyper it seems.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Thanks Martin, yes I like to think that as well ;-)))</p>

[hymn_l]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 :_(</p>

<p>In case if you're not aware, a new firmware became available just 4 days ago (v1.3). </p>

<p>Thanks again for the post.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael s.]

<p>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.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00TZje</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>starting at the age of five</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not really start at five. I don't really remember but likely 12... but with a <a href="http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/ricoh_500g.html">great little thing</a> :-D</p>

<blockquote>

<p>See the paradox here? That's why they offer an optional viewfinder and that's why I bought it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>On the usefulness of the histogram it seems we disagree Luca.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>L.</p>

[bill a.]

<p>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.</p>

 

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>what does the LX3 have over the LX2 or LX1?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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/</p>

<p>For further details, you can check the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/">DPReview</a> and <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LX3/LX3A.HTM">Imaging Resource</a> 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.</p>

<p>L.</p>

 

[tonmestrom]

<p>Luca et al, here's a 1600 ASA shot with EXIF details. Nothing of consequence has been changed.</p><div></div>

[tonmestrom]

<p>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.</p>

[ray .]

<p>"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:"</p>

<p>Ah, ya mean you actually have to know how to <em>use</em> a camera before you diss it? That aint fair!</p>