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!

snegron wrote:
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!




I couldn't agree more... choices.... and good one's too !!!

However, it seems like the trend with emphasis on image quality versus megapixels may never change (in favor of the former).

I would be happy with 10MP or 12MP... but everytime one of the OEM's up the resolution, the other has to leap frop to meet or exceed... and that's where I wish they would just draw the line at what works best in terms of image quality and stop there.

With the technology we have now, I am sure both Canon and Nikon could have made two excellent P&S's at 12MP instead of going up to 14.7MP and 13.5MP. The G10 really is quite good with very nice colors and decent ergonomics. Even the lens is really good. But by taking it to 14.7MP, I think they had to give up on image quality past ISO 400. I think had they kept resolution to 10MP or maybe 12MP, we may have had very usable ISO 800 files.
Why the rush to go as high as 14.7MP... I don't really understand.... who's wanting more megapixels ?

I prefer more megapixels to better performance at high iso. For better high iso performance, I can just reduce the size of the G10 iso 800 files to 8 megapixels, and they're very good.

pascal03 wrote:
I couldn't agree more... choices.... and good one's too !!!

However, it seems like the trend with emphasis on image quality versus megapixels may never change (in favor of the former).

I would be happy with 10MP or 12MP... but everytime one of the OEM's up the resolution, the other has to leap frop to meet or exceed... and that's where I wish they would just draw the line at what works best in terms of image quality and stop there.

With the technology we have now, I am sure both Canon and Nikon could have made two excellent P&S's at 12MP instead of going up to 14.7MP and 13.5MP. The G10 really is quite good with very nice colors and decent ergonomics. Even the lens is really good. But by taking it to 14.7MP, I think they had to give up on image quality past ISO 400. I think had they kept resolution to 10MP or maybe 12MP, we may have had very usable ISO 800 files.
Why the rush to go as high as 14.7MP... I don't really understand.... who's wanting more megapixels ?

I suppose I agree, in that I don't really need any more resolution than 12MPixel for the vast majority of my photos. But I don't think the G10 would have been much--if any--better at ISO800+ if it were 6MPixels. There'd be less noise per pixel, but fewer pixels as well. It seems to balance out pretty well.

Case in point, see the Fuji F30/40/50/60/100. Each higher res body shows more noise, but the images from each look roughly the same when viewed scaled to a specific output size (ie: 1600x1200).

That said, if there's one thing I'd like P&S makers to focus on right now, it's sensor performance at ISO400+. Noise, dynamic range, and color saturation gets poor very quickly as you creep up the ISO dial. There's a long way to go, however. The 5D is the only camera I've been truly happy with at ISO1600... not as a "well, at least I got the shot" ISO, but happy in absolute terms. I doubt we'll see P&S cameras jump over that particular bar in the next three years unless someone decides to wedge a Four Thirds or APS-C sensor into a P&S.

CKrueger wrote:I doubt we'll see P&S cameras jump over that particular bar in the next three years unless someone decides to wedge a Four Thirds or APS-C sensor into a P&S.

sigma actually has an aps-c sensor in the dp-1 and dp-2.

jaetie wrote:
CKrueger wrote:I doubt we'll see P&S cameras jump over that particular bar in the next three years unless someone decides to wedge a Four Thirds or APS-C sensor into a P&S.

sigma actually has an aps-c sensor in the dp-1 and dp-2.


The sensor in the dp-1 and dp-2 (as with the SD-14 and Sd-15) is a little smaller than what we know as an APS-c sensor. It's essentially in-between a APS-c sensor and the 4/3rds sensor in size.

Nikon APS-c sensor is 23.6 x 15.8 mm
Sigma Foveon sensor is 20.7 x 13.8 mm
4/3rd's sensor is 17.3 x 13.0 mm

neilvan wrote: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...


thanks for the info about the raw files. For that 800iso shot, do you have a full size jpg you could upload, or a crop viewed at actual pixel size? I'd love to see how it looks! Can't really judge anything from a small web image, unless your final output is always small web images

Camera RAW 5.2 just released and supports the LX3!

Kuan wrote:
Camera RAW 5.2 just released and supports the LX3!

Can I install Camera RAW 5.2 in CS2, or is it specific for newer versions of Photoshop?

It's specific for CS4. You can download the latest version of Adobe DNG converter (Released with ACR 5.2) to convert RAW's from cameras supported in ACR5.2 to DNG's which your copy of ACR 3.x will be able to read.

PS CS uses ACR 2.x (2.4 required for full DNG support)
PS CS2 uses ACR 3.x
PS CS3 uses ACR 4.x
PS CS4 uses ACR 5.x
Where x is the minor version number.

mawz wrote:
It's specific for CS4. You can download the latest version of Adobe DNG converter (Released with ACR 5.2) to convert RAW's from cameras supported in ACR5.2 to DNG's which your copy of ACR 3.x will be able to read.

PS CS uses ACR 2.x (2.4 required for full DNG support)
PS CS2 uses ACR 3.x
PS CS3 uses ACR 4.x
PS CS4 uses ACR 5.x
Where x is the minor version number.

Thanks for the info!

On another note, I also noticed that Panasonic just released a firmware upgrade for the LX3. I think it corrects the WB issues and enhances compatibility with a new flash unit.

Can anyone report on the shutter tripping responsiveness of these cameras? I've bought my wife P&S's in the past which have frustrated her with the delays between pressing the shutter release button and the actual time the camera fires, causing countless missed moments with our son. I finally bought her a Rebel, which she likes much better but a smaller P&S might be nice for travel.

I got mine two weeks ago and am amazed at the quality and ease of use. The ability to move the focus point around by the press of a button is great!!! The Leica lens is better than I expected.

I just picked up a new LX3 with 4GB card for $313 total! I'd been thinking about getting one for a while, but I saw an ad for Microsoft Live offering 25% rebates on eBay Buy it Now items. Plus I noticed in my eBay account a message about a 15% off coupon.

I found an auction for a new LX3, the total was $500.. after both discounts were applied, it was $313, quite a steal! If anyone is thinking of getting one, check those deals out!

ToutSuite wrote:
Can anyone report on the shutter tripping responsiveness of these cameras? I've bought my wife P&S's in the past which have frustrated her with the delays between pressing the shutter release button and the actual time the camera fires, causing countless missed moments with our son. I finally bought her a Rebel, which she likes much better but a smaller P&S might be nice for travel.

I find it to be about the same speed as an EVF-type camera; not as slow as the older generation point and shoots but not as quick as a DSLR. I too found the old P&S's frustratingly slow, but the LX3 is faster. It doesn't come close to the speed of my Nikon D200, but it will capture the image once you get to know how to plan for the shot.

I shot a few images at a Thanksgiving party today and I was able to capture two out of 5 images I really wanted in terms of timing. With my Nikon D200 I probably would have captured 4 out of 5 images in terms of timing. I have only owned the LX3 for a week, so I am still getting used to its controls. I compare the speed of the LX3 to that of an old 35mm film SLR with manual rewind lever; it takes me the same amount of time to get from one frame to the next on the LX3 that it would on a Nikon F3 using the manual film advance lever (without the motor drive).

I have had one of these little jewels for three months now, and have been on the road for two... still in Vietnam, as it happens. I have shot thousands of images with the LX-3, both in Raw and JPEG together (because CS3 will not process Raws, and I have not found another processor yet).

My hands have learned how to use the truly excellent manual controls: EV comp, fill flash comp, ISO, and so on; MF works great, and you can get to EV comp easily whatever you are doing.

I shoot mine -1/3 to -2/3 stops under; I just like that saturated look.

I would like the long end of the zoom to be 80 or 90, at 2.8, for sure, but this is a keeper as is. When I get home I will post a few shots. It really is a pocket camera: I have been walking everywhere with it in a pant side pocket, with no problems at all. cheers to all, KL