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.

Any samples and crops you could post? Pictures, as they say, are worth a thousand words. ;-)

I'm really looking into this one as well as a point&shoot - but I'd love to see a fast prime for it! A small, light 28mm equiv would be be wonderful.

Antje

Antje wrote:
I'm really looking into this one as well as a point&shoot - but I'd love to see a fast prime for it! A small, light 28mm equiv would be be wonderful.

Antje


The lens it comes with is a 24mm (equivalent) 2.0 and zooms to 60mm (equivalent) 2.8! Also, it has vibration reduction feature!

Lotusm50 wrote:
Any samples and crops you could post? Pictures, as they say, are worth a thousand words. ;-)




Ok. Here is a sample image. The first one was resized to fit it here, so it might appear a bit soft due to compression factor. The second is a crop of the facial details. The image was shot in JPEG, ISO 100, program mode, had held. I wish I knew abetter way to post the image closer to what it looks like on my screen, but unfortunately, no matter how much I try, my images posted here look soft.

My posted image does not do this little camera any justice, but here is a link that shows others using the LX3 http://www.micahwalter.com/category/panasonic-lumix-lx-3/

Did you have to tweak any settings in the camera to obtain the right color/skin tones or is this as shot at default settings.

I too like my LX-3 quite a bit, but find the saturation and colors a bit off. I am eagerly waiting for Bibble to provide the conversion software for this P&S to really get to use it.

snegron wrote:
My posted image does not do this little camera any justice, but here is a link that shows others using the LX3 http://www.micahwalter.com/category/panasonic-lumix-lx-3/


I think your sample looks quite encouraging. I wonder how it looks at 400, 800 and 1600 ISO...

snegron wrote:
Antje wrote:
I'm really looking into this one as well as a point&shoot - but I'd love to see a fast prime for it! A small, light 28mm equiv would be be wonderful.

Antje


The lens it comes with is a 24mm (equivalent) 2.0 and zooms to 60mm (equivalent) 2.8! Also, it has vibration reduction feature!

...I'm not sold yet. Maybe the microFourThirds SLRs would be something for a P&S. I know, I'm spoiled.

Antje

I really enjoy my LX3, it is always in my pocket. If it wasn't with my this morning I wouldn't have got these...

Very little post-processing with these, just a minor crop for compositional sake on the first one...

Awesome review and pictures being posted. I am highly interested in a P&S and looking at this one. Can you guys post any other pictures from this camera? I really want to get this right the first time and not regret this important purchase.

Chris

pascal03 wrote:
Did you have to tweak any settings in the camera to obtain the right color/skin tones or is this as shot at default settings.

I too like my LX-3 quite a bit, but find the saturation and colors a bit off. I am eagerly waiting for Bibble to provide the conversion software for this P&S to really get to use it.


That image was straight out of the camera, no photoshop or enhances other than resizing the image for posting it here.

Chris Langer wrote:
Awesome review and pictures being posted. I am highly interested in a P&S and looking at this one. Can you guys post any other pictures from this camera? I really want to get this right the first time and not regret this important purchase.

Chris

Some of my first LX3 photos are in this gallery here:

http://www.thewarmland.com/p663708797

I have others strewn throughout my site, here is a sampling...

This is a big pano shot I did the day I bought the camera, I think it was 8 images in all:

Chris Langer wrote:
Awesome review and pictures being posted. I am highly interested in a P&S and looking at this one. Can you guys post any other pictures from this camera? I really want to get this right the first time and not regret this important purchase.

Chris


Here are two more taken about an hour ago shortly before sunset. The second one is at the 24mm setting. Both images shot with available light, no PS work done, straight out of the camera (except for resizing the image to fit this post). The skin colors are exactly as they really are. I am sure that I can make the images look better if I tweaked them a bit in Photoshop, but I wanted to show what the images look like staright out of the camera.

I think that you won't regret purchasing an LX3 (providing you are able to find one in stock somewhere). Then again, it depends on your uses and expectations. If you are looking for a P&S with a powerful zoom range, the LX3 is not for you. If you are looking for a waterproof P&S, Olympus makes a few good ones. However, if you are looking for a P&S that takes stunning images and will be using it for portraiture and landscape images, the LX 3 is a fantastic camera!

I joined the Panasonic Lumix family a month ago, and am very pleased with the results (both still and HD video). My model is the FX150 which varies slightly to its LX3 sibling: fully recessed lens, zoom range of 28-100mm (135 equiv), no manual focus. The Nikon D300 and 17-55/2.8 DX get little air-time. I find Venus IV JPEG quite acceptable, and even great with a touch of PP.

(duplicate post deleted)

Thanks for the review. I'm planning to pick one of these up for backpacking early next year and am looking forward to the compact nature and decent image quality of this camera. I've been carrying a rebel XT along with my 4X5 and using the SLR to capture documentary trail shots and am looking forward to ditching the SLR.

There is a review by Thom Hogan comparing the top canon/Nikon P&S to the LX3. He found quite a few faults with the lx3 (though he found the nikon the worse of the bunch). Anyways, if you're interested in the lx3 you might want to read the review....

He's not unhappy with the LX3 - just found it to have a fair number of flaws.

Anyways his review is detailed so you might find it interesting. Oddly one of his 'big' complaints is jpeg out of the camera which doesn't seem so bad from the images presented in this thread.

http://bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm

you2 wrote:


Anyways his review is detailed so you might find it interesting. Oddly one of his 'big' complaints is jpeg out of the camera which doesn't seem so bad from the images presented in this thread.

http://bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm

The JPEGs out of the LX3 are excellent. People have to slow down and realize that this isn't a high-end DSLR for taking fine art images to be printed at poster size. It's a point and shoot camera that is always with you wherever you are. I have printed JPEGs at 12"x18" with this camera that look extremely good at a normal viewing distance. I am normally a RAW shooter and have been since 2002 with all of my cameras but feel comfortable using JPEGs with the LX3 knowing that the exposure accuracy and level of sharpness are fine (it's easy to tweak to suit your expectations).

It's easy for anyone to pick apart a camera, Thom is proof of that. For him to say "Panasonic to their credit hasn't compromised anything that made the LX2 a good camera. On the other hand, they haven't gone very far from where they were." is humourous to say the least. The LX2 image quality wasn't anywhere near as good as what I am getting with the LX3. Whatever, he has an opinion and so do I...

I used the LX3 for about two weeks. I agree it's a very good camera. However, it wasn't good enough by my standards even at base iso to make 18" or so large fine art prints. Also, at infinity focus, I found the lens fairly soft at the edges at many focal lengths, even stopped down a bit; at closer to mid-range focus points it was sharp. The LX3 lens was sharpest on the wide end. For what I wanted, it wasn't good enough; I also found the LX3 too small to hold comfortably. . . . In contrast, the G10 is, IMHO, fantastic. It's sharp across the frame at all focal lengths and at all f stops, whether focused to infinity or closer. It's images stand up very well to 18" fine art prints at base iso. The LX3 is very good, but wasn't good enough for what I wanted; the G10 is fantastic. Based on my unscientific recollection/experience, the G10 performs better at iso 200 and 400 than the LX3 (something that thom hogan also found). Also, if you reduce file size in photoshop of the G10 to the LX3 equivalent, then noise advantage at higher isos become marked. I'm finding that a well-exposed G10 file is very good at iso 400, and even at iso 800 it's usable for excellent 8" x 10" prints.

httivals wrote:
I used the LX3 for about two weeks. I agree it's a very good camera. However, it wasn't good enough by my standards even at base iso to make 18" or so large fine art prints. Also, at infinity focus, I found the lens fairly soft at the edges at many focal lengths, even stopped down a bit; at closer to mid-range focus points it was sharp. The LX3 lens was sharpest on the wide end. For what I wanted, it wasn't good enough; I also found the LX3 too small to hold comfortably. . . . In contrast, the G10 is, IMHO, fantastic. It's sharp across the frame at all focal lengths and at all f stops, whether focused to infinity or closer. It's images stand up very well to 18" fine art prints at base iso. The LX3 is very good, but wasn't good enough for what I wanted; the G10 is fantastic. Based on my unscientific recollection/experience, the G10 performs better at iso 200 and 400 than the LX3 (something that thom hogan also found). Also, if you reduce file size in photoshop of the G10 to the LX3 equivalent, then noise advantage at higher isos become marked. I'm finding that a well-exposed G10 file is very good at iso 400, and even at iso 800 it's usable for excellent 8" x 10" prints.


It's so funny, everyone's opinion varies so much. This is just the reason that I just buy cameras and try them out myself. I don't read online reviews at all anymore, haven't for years in fact. I found the exact opposite of the G10, I had it for a week and didn't like it as much as my LX3, I found the image quality wasn't as good overall. The ergonomics weren't bad, definitely better than my G9.

It's good that you found a camera that works for you, have fun!

I agonized over the the G10 vs LX3 choice. I ended up choosing the G10, for its longer telephoto, better manual controls, and less barrel distortion at the wide end. But that dial-a-ratio feature, the fast lens, and notably smaller size are great features, and more than once I've considered buying an LX3 to replace my wife's F30, and steal it sometimes.

It's great to finally have some good choices in P&S cameras, isn't it?

I've played with the LX3 for a few weeks now and I am really loving it. I obsessed over the G10 vs. LX3 choice. I think both would be wonderful cameras for most anyone. I was a sucker for the wide angle on the LX3 though. Also liked the smaller size.

As far as JPEG goes, a group of folks over at DPR fiddled with the settings quite a bit to get slightly better colors straight from the camera. I've tried their settings and find them to be very good as well:

Nostalic "Film" mode
Contrast +2
Sharpness 0
Saturation +1
Noise Reduction -2
White Balance adjust two steps towards B and one step towards M

Note that every WB selection has its own fine tuning, so you'll need to apply the +2B, +1M adjustment to every WB selection (or at least the ones you use). Give these a try, I much preferred the results over the standard. The reds in particular seem to behave better.

Apart from the JPEGs I've been playing with Silkypix and actually it is growing on me. At the pixel level it sometimes doesn't look as detailed as other RAW converters but you can do some really wonderful global adjustments and fuss with color and contrast and end up with great results. I've been able to do some surprisingly extreme contrast and color adjustments and the image stays together wonderfully where as other tools seem to fall apart on me...

Some Silkypix examples:

I'm interested in this camera, to replace my little fuji, so I can get a wider view! How is the RAW performance, can you open the RAW files in photoshop? Also, how is the ISO? is 800ISO usable?

Daniel Buck wrote:
I'm interested in this camera, to replace my little fuji, so I can get a wider view! How is the RAW performance, can you open the RAW files in photoshop? Also, how is the ISO? is 800ISO usable?

The RW2 files are not yet supported by Adobe. From what I understand the next version of ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) will offer support though...

What you consider usable and what others consider usable can be completely different things. I very rarely shoot beyond base ISO, even with my DSLR's.

Here is an ISO800 shot for you...

CKrueger wrote:


It's great to finally have some good choices in P&S cameras, isn't it?



I agree! I wonder why it took these companies so long to finally listen to us? I hope that the new trend from no on will be higher IQ instead of simply more useless megapixels!