snegron Offline Image Upload: On
|
p.1 #1 · Lumix LX3 is a winner! | |
I have been using mostly Nikon equipment for the past few years (D1X, D70, D70s, D200, and a bunch of old Nikon and Mamiya film cameras). I have tried EVF's (currently own a Lumix FZ-50) and a few Nikon, Olympus, and Sony point and shoots. I have never been happy with images produced by compact cameras; they were either very noisy, pixelated, details were smeared, or simply not good.
I have been looking for a small, compact camera that can capture decent images so I can leave my heavy, expensive equipment home when I go to the park with my kids and for daily use. I did the research and I narrowed it down to the Canon G10 and the Lumix LX3.
I decided to go with the LX3 mostly because I have already owned a Lumix in the past and I know that they are surprisingly well built. Also, I didn't need the longer zoom lens offered on the G10 as most of my shots are portraits and candids.
The LX3 was out of stock in most places, so I clicked on "notify me when in stock" at B&H. As soon as I got the email from B&H I ordered the LX3 (black body) and recieved it this past Friday.
My first impressions of the LX3 were rather mixed. It was smaller than I expected. As I waited for the battery to charge I flipped through the owner's manual. I kept looking at the camera trying to figure out how to hold it without touching one of the buttons on the back or without touching the large rear LCD display. After the battery was charged I set the date and started playing around with the buttons and features.
The next day I took a few pics of my kids both indoors and out, using ISO 100 and ISO 400 and different settings. All images were captured in high quality JPEG as I really wasn't in the mood to fiddle with or try to figure out how to use the RAW application program that came with the LX3 (SilkyPix Developer).
I wasn't really expecting much, but wow!, I was in shock! The images were absolutely stunning! I went pixel-peeping at 300% and I was amazed at how the details were so well preserved. Normaly when I view images of my D1X or D200 at 100% I will see some loss of detail (more so with the D1X than with the D200, and yes, I use good glass like my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, and several primes), but the images taken with the LX3 were clean and sharp. This really blew me away because I was finally able to actually see the individual little fuzzy hairs on the surface of my kid's face!
While the LX3 is not a DSLR and is not perfect (too small to grip without touching some button if you have large hands), I believe that the images are outstanding and rival those of a DSLR (much less noise in my LX3 images and more detail visible than with my D200).
I am sure that there are several DSLR users out there looking for a high quality point and shoot as was I, and all I can say is that this one did it for me! I know many people post fantastic threads with biased emotional comments whenever they purchase a new camera, but I am not doing it for that purpose. I have been brutally honest about my experiences with cameras and lenses I have purchased new in the past (especially about that lemon D70 I had; all three of them, and the lenses I never cared for like the Nikon 85mm 1.8 AF-D, etc.). I have chosen to share my findings with everyone because I know there are many here who are in the market for this type of compact camera, and I believe that Lumix has a winner this time! Good luck trying to find one though, it seems like they don't stay on retailers shelves all that much!
p.s., My older Lumix FZ-50 was very well built and had an amazing lens. Problem was that the images were not all that great. The details were mostly smeared and anything over ISO 100 was a joke IMO. I still keep it because I am doing a stop motion animation project (clay animation) with it and I was able to get the remote cable shutter release button for it. I will be converting the JPEG's into animation sequences in Toonboom. I would rather shoot a few thousand frames with this FZ-50 than with any of my other cameras because it will be cheaper to replace if it dies, and the JPEG's are captured in a low quality setting in order to speed up production work.
|