# Panasonic DMC-LX3 digital compact looks good



## mod (Aug 27, 2008)

Anyone got one of these beauties?

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsId=3580

Looks very nice indeed. How does it compare to the Leica D-LUX 3 Digital ?


----------



## ElasticBubble (Sep 17, 2008)

I've used one it's a belter. Well worth buying. Got some great expousre preview options, and a nifty spot meter that you can move around the screen. And the lens is super sharpe


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2008)

The specs are good, although I'd probably still prefer the Ricoh GX200 for its superior interface.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 17, 2008)

Amateur Photographer rated it the 'best compact we've ever tested' in last week's issue, though I'll admit that I'm more likely to lust after a GX-200 too.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2008)

cybertect said:


> Amateur Photographer rated it the 'best compact we've ever tested' in last week's issue, though I'll admit that I'm more likely to lust after a GX-200 too.


Oh really? That's interesting.

I really wanted to love the LX1 I reviewed a while back, but the high ISO performance was the stuff of nightmares.

Just pulling up a review now and it's fairly positive, although a 2.5s start up time isn't going to excite me much.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-LX3-2
Another review: http://www.cnet.com.au/digitalcameras/cameras/0,239036184,339290909,00.htm

I'll see if I can get a review model as I do like the look of this fella.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2008)

Wooargh! Check out the photos this guy's taken with the LX3. Awesome.








http://www.laurencekimblog.com/index.php?link=110&cat=16


----------



## stowpirate (Oct 14, 2008)

Lack of an optical viewfinder 

This is the missing option that turns a great camera into a toy, albeit you could attach a viewfinder on top but I am not sure how that fits in with the zoom. 

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/1570989/index.html


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2008)

stowpirate said:


> Lack of an optical viewfinder
> 
> This is the missing option that turns a great camera into a toy, albeit you could attach a viewfinder on top but I am not sure how that fits in with the zoom.


It'll have markings etched on to the glass for the various zoom settings. 

I'd hardly call it a toy either - those photos are absolutely incredible, especially seeing as they came from such a small camera. I'm tempted alright.


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2008)

I've just sold some pics and am feeling horribly, horribly tempted by the LX3...

The big win is the relatively large 1/1.63-inch CCD Panasonic developed specially for this camera and the fact they've restricted it to a sensible 10MP.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LX3/index.shtml
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/0,39029429,49298214,00.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2008)

Very interesting review here written by a pro photographer: http://www.lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2008/08/panasonic-lx3-review---introduction-part-1.html


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 16, 2008)

Another very detailed review here;-

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3.php

I like the fact that there are accessories available for this camera including a wide angle (18mm equivalent) conversion, also filters, compact flash and the optical viewfinder.

It looks like the Canon G10 has a very serious competitor here.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It looks like the Canon G10 has a very serious competitor here.


The G10 is just _too big_ for my liking and comes with a daft amount of pixels.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Bloody hell. The G10 is *massive* compared to the LX3!






Comparison pics: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=29621071&changemode=1


----------



## Paul Russell (Oct 20, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I like the fact that there are accessories available for this camera including a wide angle (18mm equivalent) conversion, also filters, compact flash and the optical viewfinder.



I don't like the fact that the optical viewfinder costs about £170. How do they justify that when you can get an OK SLR prime lens or zoom for that price?!


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> I don't like the fact that the optical viewfinder costs about £170. How do they justify that when you can get an OK SLR prime lens or zoom for that price?!


That's daft pricing - probably as a result of expected low products runs.

I'd just stick on an old optical viewfinder and work out the equivalent field of view in my head (my old Ricoh one should work fine).

I'm getting more tempted by this LX3 after having a play in a shop on the weekend. f2 is *very* nice for a compact.


----------



## Paul Russell (Oct 20, 2008)

Editor

How was the shutter lag, as I just put myself off by reading this

0.7 seconds or 0.46 seconds for autofocus - doesn't sound good!


"When pre-focused, shutter lag (the time it takes for an image to be captured after you press the shutter button) is a rather average 0.08 seconds. Autofocus lag was a little less than impressive, as the LX3 takes 0.7 seconds to acquire autofocus in the multi-area autofocus mode. A much better 0.46 seconds for focus lock and capture can be realized in the high-speed center focus mode, however."

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3735&review=panasonic+lumix+dmc-lx3


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Editor
> 
> How was the shutter lag, as I just put myself off by reading this


It felt more or less the same as the Ricoh, but it was only a quick play around. I've looked up other reviews, and generally the LX3 is reported as being acceptably fast.

For low light, I often switch to manual pre-focus anyway.

I have to say that this LX3 outfit positively melts my old-school heart!






http://erikahrend.com/smallsensordiary/?cat=22


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Here's another pro getting awesome results out of the LX3:






http://www.theblogisfound.com/index.cfm?postID=413


----------



## Paul Russell (Oct 20, 2008)

editor said:


> I have to say that this LX3 outfit positively melts my old-school heart!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it looks very nice. Bit devious the way they always manage to photograph these cameras with the lens extended just a tiny bit, rather than the mini telescope they are in reality, so they look even more cute


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Yes, it looks very nice. Bit devious the way they always manage to photograph these cameras with the lens extended just a tiny bit, rather than the mini telescope they are in reality, so they look even more cute


I'd kill for a digital compact as good as the LX3 with non telescopic lens!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 20, 2008)

Still waiting for something digital that can replace this:






I'll be real interested when it shows up though ...


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Still waiting for something digital that can replace this:.


There are already digital SLRs that will better that camera's performance, but you'd have to pay a small fortune.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 20, 2008)

Well, I'd buy a D3 if it was that size, the performance characteristics are nice, but it's about the size and weight of a breeze-block and the lenses are not only larger than my penis, they are larger than that of a typical blue whale.

Also, due to its construction I have absolute confidence in my F3 as a weapon of self-defence, which I wouldn't have with some modern plastic rubbish. These may seem eccentric criteria to many people, but they are important to me and I stand by them ...


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Thing is, the LX3 is still capable of excellent photos that for the most part will be indiscernible from pictures shot with your F3, it's about half the size, it can shoot HD video and - crucially - you'll end up carrying it to far more places and taking far, far more photos.

My Olympus OM4 is as good as a F4 and I love the thing - but if that'll all I had to shoot on, I'd only be able afford a tiny fraction of my current collection.

Some of the Olympus digital SLRs are probably not much bigger than an F3, btw.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 20, 2008)

Yep, I'm still using my Fuji F11 for that sort of stuff, but I'm waiting for something that really does the job I want. 

Ideal would be something about the size and shape of a Leica, but with all the useful modern bells and whistles, image stabilisation, a sensor equivalent to the D3, a proper big bright viewfinder and proper controls, all in a solid little chunk of well-engineered metal. Ideally supporting Nikon SLR lenses 'cos that's what I have, but Leica fit would be OK too 'cos I get the idea their lenses are decent.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Ideal would be something about the size and shape of a Leica, but with all the useful modern bells and whistles, image stabilisation, a sensor equivalent to the D3, a proper big bright viewfinder and proper controls, all in a solid little chunk of well-engineered metal. Ideally supporting Nikon SLR lenses 'cos that's what I have, but Leica fit would be OK too 'cos I get the idea their lenses are decent.


If it supports Nikon SLR lens with a full frame sensor inside, it'll have to be way bigger than a Leica.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 20, 2008)

Yeah, I know. Which is why I'd happily settle for Leica fit.


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2008)

I unexpectedly sold another photo earlier in the week so recklessly splashed out on the LX3 (one review declared the camera as an 'M8 on the cheap' and that pushed me over the edge!).

Actually, I say 'recklessly' but it took me three days to get the order in - the first store had it for £294 sold out before I'd finished faffing over it, and the other cheap store was sold out until they announced a fresh order coming in yesterday. 

I kept hitting refresh through the day, and managed to grab one for £284 when it finally appeared as in stock. The eight models they had in stock went within a couple of hours so this camera's looking to be a bit of a hot ticket!

I should get it tomorrow.


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 27, 2008)

Mr Editor, how's the camera so far?


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> Mr Editor, how's the camera so far?


It's very good actually. I've not really given it a full run out, but it seems snappy enough and the HD video quality is hugely impressive.

I'll give it a good go over the weekend,


----------



## Grobelaar (Oct 29, 2008)

FWIW I'm loving the interface on the Ricoh GR Digital - I'm assuming the GX200 has a similar set up?

That said the f2.0 lens on the LX3 sounds good too, but I'm guessing you have to be careful - before long you are hauling around a right old bag full of cameras... 

Well apart from the fact I don't have money for all these aforementioned cameras - but you can dream - or dream of a compact camera with all of the above features...


----------



## Grobelaar (Oct 29, 2008)

editor said:


> Wooargh! Check out the photos this guy's taken with the LX3. Awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He is toting some external flash power too



> I really wanted to try some off-camera flash, so I took along a 580exII, umbrella and a couple pocket wizards.



I think you'd get similar quality results with most compacts toting a hotshoe attachment.


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2008)

Grobelaar said:


> FWIW I'm loving the interface on the Ricoh GR Digital - I'm assuming the GX200 has a similar set up?


The GX200 is very similar but with a few noticeable improvements.

The LX3 is nowhere near as robust as the Ricoh, but the quality is noticeably superior to the GX100, and there's a lot more power on hand too. The Ai auto-everything mode is really, really good.


----------



## untethered (Nov 3, 2008)

I'm in the market for one of these now as an upgrade from a Canon G7, which is mostly very good. It is of course an addition to rather than a substitute for SLR kit.

Would I be right in thinking that the LX3 and Leica D-LUX 3 differ in that the Panasonic has two strap lugs (and therefore can be slung around the neck) whereas the Leica has only one?

The GX200 looks very attractive. I particularly like the "square" mode, giving 1:1 proportion shots. Does anyone know how this is implemented in the interface? Does it black out the other bits of the screen/viewfinder?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

untethered said:


> Would I be right in thinking that the LX3 and Leica D-LUX 3 differ in that the Panasonic has two strap lugs (and therefore can be slung around the neck) whereas the Leica has only one?


Leica tweak the software a bit but it's fundamentally the same camera expect they charge a ton more for it - and you get the round red badge to pose with.

After using both, I'd say that the LX3 is definitely a better camera when it comes to image quality, but the Ricoh GX200  feels far more rugged and has a slightly faster control system.

There's not a great deal in it though.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2008)

DPreview have just given the LX3 a massively positive review:



> And then there's that lens. Image stabilized, 24mm at the wide end of things and offering an F2.0-2.8 maximum aperture range that gives you the choice of shooting at lower ISOs than its competitors. It's a feature that really sets the LX3 apart, even amongst cameras aimed at keen photographers and, as DSLRs become less expensive, that's exactly what this camera needed. The only concern must be that the lens only extends as far as 60mm equivalent. This is pretty short by most measures and may limit the cameras appeal, depending on your shooting needs (it's great as a walkaround landscape camera for instance).
> 
> Beyond all the good intentions of the specifications, it's a camera that appears to directly address many of its predecessor's shortcomings. Noise performance is greatly improved and the level of noise reduction is much less destructive (and you can shoot in RAW if you're the kind of person who has a prefered noise-reduction method in post-processing).
> 
> ...


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/


----------



## mod (Nov 4, 2008)

editor said:


> I kept hitting refresh through the day, and managed to grab one for £284 when it finally appeared as in stock. .



Where did you get it from Mr Editor


----------



## mod (Nov 7, 2008)

Just ordered the following from CameraBox...

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Black  
£290

Samsonite Protector Case 
£20

Silicon Power 8GB HC Class 6 High Speed SD Card 
£25

CGAS005 Battery For Panasonic 
£30

*Bundle price: £340 *


----------



## mod (Nov 11, 2008)

Had my first play with it and all seems great apart from the fact it only has a puny 2.5x optical zoom. If you bring down the image size/quality that does go up to 4x but I'm still a little unimpressed with that. 

Should I be?


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2008)

Well, you should have known about the 'puny' zoom before you bought it!

The 24mm lens is a real asset and after taking a quick look at the photos taken over the walking weekend in Wales, I'm *very* impressed with the quality, which is SLR-like in some shots.


----------



## untethered (Nov 11, 2008)

If you want a long zoom you're better off with something like the Canon G7/G9/G10, which do 35-200mm equivalent or so. You're sacrificing the wide end to get it, though.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 11, 2008)

Looking at the specs I get the idea that the LX3 is meant to be used like a sort of digicam substitute for a rangefinder. i.e. working fairly close to the subject in most cases (except for stuff like landscapes say) 

It does look rather useful within those limits I have to say ...


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2008)

It's a street shooters camera, not a wildlife snappers tool!


----------



## mod (Nov 11, 2008)

editor said:


> Well, you should have known about the 'puny' zoom before you bought it!



Its not something that crossed my mind as I assumed it would have at least 4x.

Its just a bit of a shock as my other Lumix is the 10x zoom model.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2008)

mod said:


> Its not something that crossed my mind as I assumed it would have at least 4x.
> 
> Its just a bit of a shock as my other Lumix is the 10x zoom model.


You could probably send it back if you're quick but I'm amazed you didn't check beforehand!


----------



## mod (Nov 11, 2008)

Yes I am too now! 

The camera does give you the option to crop, zoomed images which is one way around it and and the zoom does go up to 4x at lower image size. 

Given the other features, I think i will stick with it. You obviously rate it very highly as does my mate who has one.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2008)

mod said:


> The camera does give you the option to crop, zoomed images which is one way around it and and the zoom does go up to 4x at lower image size.
> 
> Given the other features, I think i will stick with it. You obviously rate it very highly as does my mate who has one.


Some of the greatest photos in the world were taken on cameras with _no_ zoom!


----------



## untethered (Nov 11, 2008)

editor said:


> Some of the greatest photos in the world were taken on cameras with _no_ zoom!



Maybe so, but imagine what Cartier Bresson could have done with a decent superzoom bridge camera.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2008)

untethered said:


> Maybe so, but imagine what Cartier Bresson could have done with a decent superzoom bridge camera.


Missed most of his shots, probably.


----------



## untethered (Nov 11, 2008)

editor said:


> Missed most of his shots, probably.



The world of photography would be a very different place.

Rather than the decisive moment, we'd have had .75s after the decisive moment. A whole different aesthetic.

Bet he wishes he had face detection and red eye reduction.

And colour.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 11, 2008)

I think HCB would have been very frustrated with digital cameras.  I remember my first digital camera in the days when there was a lot of shutter delay and trying to photograph some high-jumpers.  Pressing the button as they cleared the bar just produce pictures of them hitting the mat.  Cartier Bresson never even used an SLR because the slight delay as the mirror was raised which most of us never really were aware of would spoil his composition.

As for image recognition that would not be of any use in a manual focus camera of course.  He could have used colour, it was invented before he was born but the magazines he worked for would have become too expensive if they had set up colour printing.  According to Wikipedia he tried colour but was unsuccessful.  Until the invention of Kodak Gold and other T grain colour 35mm  films colour prints were very dull and lacking in contrast.  He could have used colour slide film but the fast ones were much grainier than TriX and HP5 black and white film.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 11, 2008)

What's the response time like on a current digicam like the LX3 compared to a rangefinder?


----------



## mod (Nov 12, 2008)

Not sure yet but will find out.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What's the response time like on a current digicam like the LX3 compared to a rangefinder?


It's pretty nippy in AF, and just about instant if you select manual focus.


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 13, 2008)

I've ordered one of these beauties.  I didn't get round to testing it, so I'm relying on the many reviews I've read.  Got a 16Gb Class 6 SD-HD card too


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 14, 2008)

My camera has arrived 


e2a: and the battery has finished charging...


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2008)

You should check out the HD video mode. Awesome!


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 14, 2008)

Still waiting for my 16Gb SD card to come through, so I can start doing HD video...


----------



## mod (Nov 14, 2008)

I got one of these protective cases from Amazon for my LX3. Fits perfectly and there is a small compartment for a spare battery. Plus a rain proof cover.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kata-DP-415-Pouch-Compact-Cameras/dp/B0013HG4JU


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 14, 2008)

I was going to pop into John Lewis tomorrow morning and pick up one of them Crumpler cases.  Doesn't need to be rainproof, since it'll be inside another bag usually.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2008)

I use an old sock and a plastic bag for my camera case.


----------



## mod (Nov 14, 2008)

editor said:


> I use an old sock and a plastic bag for my camera case.



What utter disrespect for such a beautiful little object. That's like asking Kylie Minogue to get into a bin liner.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2008)

mod;8341097]What utter disrespect for such a beautiful little object. [/quote]Cameras are there to be used said:


> That's like asking Kylie Minogue to get into a bin liner.


She might like that.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 14, 2008)

I keep my Olympus E420 in a cut off corner piece of plastic carrier bag.  It helps it to slip into and out of my jacket pocket without catching.  It also helps to disguise what it is that is stuffed into my pocket.  In the summer I was carrying it about with a large zoom from my old OM days.  A standard rucksack with a bit of padding in the bottom was home for the camera while the zoom was in a side pocket.  Like editor I don't want to advertise that I am carrying stealable kit.

My Caplio R5 lives in a dedicated leather belt pouch which unfortunately doesn't have a proper top, just a thin strap that holds the camera in place and itself is held with a magnetic catch.  When I first bought it I added a piece of black Teflon plastic to cover the top but that has since fallen off.  There was no glue that would hold it unsurprisingly.  In any case it is hidden under my shirt.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2008)

I just took some more shots today as I wandered around town. It's a very, very good camera. Some of the results really are SLR-like. I'll post some up later.


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 16, 2008)

I took my camera out to a houseparty last night.  A few girls commented on how cool and retro it looked.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2008)

Here's a few swifty snaps I took wandering around London yesterday. The light was grey and I had a hangover, but the camera did a grand job.
























http://www.urban75.org/london/london-november-2008.html


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 17, 2008)

Yes those pictures look good including the ones on the link.  I would like to see how the camera performs in low light at high ISO numbers and also some 100% crops in various coditions to see how resolution and colour reproduction holds up.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 17, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think HCB would have been very frustrated with digital cameras.



I reckon he would be using that Olympus 420 with the pancake lens that you have - especially as it's the same focal length (50mm) as he usually used.


----------



## mod (Nov 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Here's a few swifty snaps I took wandering around London yesterday. The light was grey and I had a hangover, but the camera did a grand job.



Were these taken on the auto IA setting?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2008)

mod said:


> Were these taken on the auto IA setting?


Almost all of them, yes. It's *very* good.


----------



## mod (Nov 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Cameras are there to be used, not to be mollycoddled.



I managed to drop mine twice whilst pissed on Saturday night but it seems to have taken the beating well. Its a robust little thing.


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 17, 2008)

The photos (and video) off this camera are fucking amazing.  Took a few snaps in low light of our band rehearsing.  The vibration-reduction (or whatever it's called) is brilliant.  I took 2 sec shutter speed snaps, and they look great.


----------



## mod (Nov 17, 2008)

I took a video of Jimmy Bullard taking a free kick against Spurs and the quality was excellent.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 17, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> The photos (and video) off this camera are fucking amazing.  Took a few snaps in low light of our band rehearsing.  The vibration-reduction (or whatever it's called) is brilliant.  I took 2 sec shutter speed snaps, and they look great.





mod said:


> I took a video of Jimmy Bullard taking a free kick against Spurs and the quality was excellent.



Come on guys put these pictures up somewhere where we can see them.  A clip or two from the video could be shown.  And Xanadu I would love to see that picture.  I do a lot of band photography by available low light but never at longer than a fifth of a second.  If the mesh on the microphone is clear and still then I don't mind if the band is a bit swirly.  Two seconds must leave some long trailing light streaks.  

I am intrigued by this camera.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2008)

A real quick one: here's a 100% clip of this pic:






ISO 400, f2.8, 1/125s, no flash, auto exp.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 17, 2008)

Thanks editor That camera looks to be very useful.  The images are nice and clean, sharp and with well-saturated colour.  That could be the camera that becomes the preferred second camera for lots of dSLR users.  It seems to be a bit of a breakthrough on the small sensor scene.

Now all we have to wait for is the Micro 4/3 miniature in the pipeline from Oly.  I bet that is expensive though.  Olympus tend to charge the full dollar for their stuff.


----------



## untethered (Nov 17, 2008)

The LX3 is looking like a bit of a bargain but I'm still torn between it and the Ricoh GX200.

I might just buy both and return/sell the one I like the least.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2008)

untethered said:


> The LX3 is looking like a bit of a bargain but I'm still torn between it and the Ricoh GX200.
> 
> I might just buy both and return/sell the one I like the least.


I've had both and the LX3 wins it for me, although the GX200 feels far more rugged.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2008)

Here's one more. here's the full size pic:


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2008)

And here's the 100% crop (80ISO, f4.5, 1/800, no sharpening, 70% JPG to fit attachment size here)


----------



## mod (Nov 19, 2008)

Got one of these today...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joby-GP1-01...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227110970&sr=8-1

Some form a tripod is essential if your going to utililse the manual settings / long exposures.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2008)

Loads of photos taken with the LX3 here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/wales/chirk-wales-walk.html (all the links on the right). 
http://www.urban75.org/photos/wales/chirk-wales-walk.html


----------



## mod (Nov 19, 2008)

Nice one thanks. That one inside Chirk tunnel. What settings / exposure did you use?


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 19, 2008)

mod said:


> Got one of these today...
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joby-GP1-01...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227110970&sr=8-1
> 
> Some form a tripod is essential if your going to utililse the manual settings / long exposures.



I've managed to take a couple of 1 sec exposures with my LX3 that look surprisingly good.  No doubt they'd look better with a tripod, but I've been surprised.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2008)

mod said:


> Nice one thanks. That one inside Chirk tunnel. What settings / exposure did you use?


Handheld, auto-everything mode. It was pitch black! 

That f2 lens sure makes life easier. One thing that bugs me is that the mode dial is too easy to knock but apart from that it's a grand little camera.


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 20, 2008)

In my photo taking, I've found the main limitation I'm facing is a lack of off-camera flash.  I was trying to take some photos of some chocolate tartlets, and the reflection off the chocolate ruined most of the photos.  I ended up adjusting angles in some photos, and taking without a flash in others, but it wasn't as good.  

Any recommendations?


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 20, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> In my photo taking, I've found the main limitation I'm facing is a lack of off-camera flash.  I was trying to take some photos of some chocolate tartlets, and the reflection off the chocolate ruined most of the photos.  I ended up adjusting angles in some photos, and taking without a flash in others, but it wasn't as good.
> 
> Any recommendations?



Either turn the flash off and move the tartlet near an open window, or get Hocus Eye to come round your house.


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 20, 2008)

It was late at night, so virtually no light from outside.


----------



## mod (Nov 21, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> Any recommendations?




You can fit a proper flash on the top.


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 21, 2008)

Any recommendations for a flash gun?  I'm hoping to nab one off my dad, but it might be a bit too bulky for the LX3.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> Any recommendations for a flash gun?  I'm hoping to nab one off my dad, but it might be a bit too bulky for the LX3.


Not cheap but there's the dedicated DMW-FL360 gun otherwise you could get summat like this: http://www.urban75.org/photos/metz-mecablitz-28-cs2.html


----------



## mod (Nov 21, 2008)

I've seen a much smaller one that loosk like its made for our camera. Will try to find it....


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 24, 2008)

What aspect ratio should I be using, if I don't want my camera to crop at all? 3:2?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2008)

I keep it set at 4:3.


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2008)

There's a comprehensive review of the Canon G10 with comparisons to the LX3 on dpreview.  It's a positive review, but the conclusion seems to favour Lumix's approach of less pixels+better lens=better all-round camera.



> This is also an interesting time in the high-end compact segment, as the three camera we have compared in this review (the Canon G10, Panasonic LX3 and Nikon P6000) all have different sensors of different resolutions but at about the same size. The G10 has shown what is possible with resolution in a controlled high contrast image at base ISO, but LX3 showed what is possible with current sensor technology in a compact. In the real world, try as you might, it is just not possible to shoot at ISO 80 all the time, and in these conditions the LX3 performed better than the G10 with fewer pixels. The LX3 also has a faster lens which enables it to use lower ISO settings most of the time. The question arises: how good could the G10 have been if Canon had put a LX3 like sensor in it?
> 
> That is not to say the news is all bad in the image quality department. As stated earlier, at base ISO and in high contrast conditions, the G10 can produce detail and resolution that is astounding (better than some DSLRs). If your main use is in good lighting conditions outdoors, and you are prepared to take care with correct exposure, this camera is almost as good as it gets in compacts. Also if you were to only make small prints, view the images on computer monitors, or the images are mainly for web use, the the G10 would be a great choice. If cameras were to exist in a vacuum, the G10 would certainly get our highest rating, and if no other cameras of this sensor size could do better then we could have said 'maybe it is just not possible with current sensor technologically'. The Panasonic LX3 shows that this is not the case.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2008)

> This is also an interesting time in the high-end compact segment, as the three camera we have compared in this review (the Canon G10, Panasonic LX3 and Nikon P6000) all have different sensors of different resolutions but at about the same size.



Thom Hogan reviewed the same three cameras BTW:

http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 2, 2008)

Just had a play with the G10 and the LX3 in Fenwicks. G10 is actually much lighter than I thought. I'm stuck between the two right now. If I can get a good deal on the G10 (i.e. similar in price to the LX3) it might clinch it. Although I do like the fast lens on the LX3.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2008)

Since my FUCKING SHIT $650 Nikon zoom lens has fucked again, I'm having to exclusively use my LX3 and it's a truly superb camera. The fast f2 lens makes an unbelievable difference to low light photography...


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 2, 2008)

arrrghghghashdh.asfnjskadjfksafdfs m


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2008)

Refused as fuck said:


> arrrghghghashdh.asfnjskadjfksafdfs m


Thanks for that.  Very useful.

Meanwhile, I'm continuing to be impressed with the LX3 - after using both for a reasonable time, I can definitely recommend it over the Ricoh GX200.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 7, 2008)

Right, I've just ordered one of these, preferring it to the G10.


----------



## editor (Dec 7, 2008)

I've taken something like 500 photos with this little puppy over the last ten days and I remain very impressed indeed. It's a grand little camera.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 9, 2008)

Fuck, even the battery is sexy.


----------



## mod (Dec 10, 2008)

Been using mine during the last week in India and its a cracking camera. Image quality and manual ability are amazing. The lack of zoom is a negative IMO (I had to get far too close to get a nice full framed shot of an aggressive little monkey outside a temple) but its a price worth paying for the overal standard of this camera.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 10, 2008)

editor said:


> I've taken something like 500 photos with this little puppy over the last ten days and I remain very impressed indeed. It's a grand little camera.



Yes I always take it easy running in a new camera.  Once you get to a thousand pictures you can then take her over 30 an hour without worrying.


----------



## Pie 1 (Dec 22, 2008)

Right. 
Love the camera, but that Silkypix software is a fucking dog with arthritis in all 4 legs.

Adobe camera RAW updater to include the LX3 only runs with CS4   - any thing I don't know about? or am I stuck with the mutt until I UG to CS4


----------



## cybertect (Dec 22, 2008)

You can run it through Adobe's DNG Converter [Mac, Win] which should allow you to open the resulting DNG file in CS3. Though according to this post at DP Review it makes them three times larger than the original RAW file. 

If you have Lightroom, the v2.2 update out last week supports the LX3.


----------



## Pie 1 (Dec 23, 2008)

cybertect said:


> DNG Converter ...post at DP Review it makes them three times larger than the original RAW file.



Hmmm as well - I'll investigate this later.

cheers though


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2008)

Refused as fuck said:


> Fuck, even the battery is sexy.


Delightfully, the battery and charger are exactly the same as the Ricoh, so I've already got spare batteries!


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 26, 2008)

Just ordered one of these.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 26, 2008)

The pop-up flash is actually quite good, better than I was expecting.


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2009)

Funnily enough, I'd already tried this myself but thought that the cap would obstruct the view. Apparently it works just fine, so I'll try it tomorrow because the Ricoh lens cap is superb.
*
Ricoh LC1 auto lens cap on Leica D-Lux 4 and Panasonic LX3*





http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/ricoh-lc1-auto-lens-cap-on-leica-d-lux.html


----------



## Spion (Jan 7, 2009)

What's battery life like on the Lumix LX3?

I currently have a Fuji F31 compact - which I only have to charge about every two months - but I'm tempted by the LX3


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2009)

Spion said:


> What's battery life like on the Lumix LX3?


Pretty damn excellent - I've shot 200 photos and still had juice left. You can buy spare third party batteries for around 7 quid or something too.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 7, 2009)

Battery life seems to be quite good. Used it for 2 weeks (taking about 10/12 shots per day) in December and have used it sporadically since then and still on its first charge. Edit: see above.


----------



## Ae589 (Jan 8, 2009)

*HD*

Don't know how this compares to other cameras - it's the first HD video I've seen from a compact, but sweet monkey jesus...

http://photoshipone.com/prescott_lx3_720.php


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jan 11, 2009)

editor said:


> Funnily enough, I'd already tried this myself but thought that the cap would obstruct the view. Apparently it works just fine, so I'll try it tomorrow because the Ricoh lens cap is superb.
> *
> Ricoh LC1 auto lens cap on Leica D-Lux 4 and Panasonic LX3*
> 
> ...



have just ordered an LX3 so I'm wondering whether the new lenscap worked out all fine ed?


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jan 11, 2009)

Ae589 said:


> Don't know how this compares to other cameras - it's the first HD video I've seen from a compact, but sweet monkey jesus...
> 
> http://photoshipone.com/prescott_lx3_720.php



the quality is amazing...it's making me wish the LX3 had a minijack mike input - then I could get broadcast quality TV results out of it..weird

I guess I could also use my clip on mike anyway and then synch it up in iMovie...oh now that could be really cute.

I can't wait to get my new LX3


----------



## cybertect (Jan 16, 2009)

v1.2 firmware update for the LX3 is out

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/LX3/index.html


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jan 16, 2009)

thanks...now I just need to find my card reader


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 17, 2009)

I'm continuing to find the images from this little beauty, seriously impressive.

I was having a fuck around with long exp's a couple of nights ago:
Fully manual, 10secs @f8 (inc. setting the colour temp in ºK)







at 100%:


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2009)

Lovely pics Pie1. Really nice. Where are you?

*envy


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Where are you?
> 
> *envy



Engadin region of Switzerland. Stunning area.
Picture is of Silvaplana - near St. Moritz


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 19, 2009)

cybertect said:


> v1.2 firmware update for the LX3 is out
> 
> http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/LX3/index.html



That has to be the most complex/baffling firmware process I've ever seen!

What are you supposed to do with no sd slot or reader on macs


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jan 19, 2009)

I think us mac people have to have a usb card reader basically!..there's no other way

Infuriatingly I cannot find mine...and I need it also to transfer TomTom from the old palm phone to the new centro

so....if you find a good multicard usb reader online let me know!


----------



## cybertect (Jan 19, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> What are you supposed to do with no sd slot or reader on macs



I think that's the same whether you're using a Mac or a PC.

Slightly confused about the need for a card reader though. Doesn't the LX3 mount as a writeable disk when you connect it to your computer like most other digicams anyway?


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jan 19, 2009)

it mounts..but it aint writeable - at least on my mac


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 19, 2009)

cybertect said:


> I think that's the same whether you're using a Mac or a PC.
> 
> Slightly confused about the need for a card reader though. Doesn't the LX3 mount as a writeable disk when you connect it to your computer like most other digicams anyway?



Yeah, it mounts & I've tried dropping the dl'd firmware file from Panasonic onto it, but nada


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2009)

I just bang the card in my card reader, slap it in the LX3 and it upgrades itself in about a minute. You can get external SD card readers for next to nothing (is there really nothing in your house that can write to a SD card?).

I'm loving the Ricoh lens cap big time - no more fumbling trying to get the lens cap off!


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 20, 2009)

editor said:


> is there really nothing in your house that can write to a SD card?



No, believe it or not - never had the need!
All my pro stuff runs CF's & in any case, firmware updates go straight in down the firewire pipe.
The only sd devices that I've ever owned before this, are the old ixus & a Garmin sat nav, which again updates via the usb lead.
I find it a bit odd that you can't do the same with the LX3. tbh.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 20, 2009)

Bought a multi cardreader for a tenner - that was easy 

One thing that's pissing me off now is these accessories. 
They look like lovely compliments for the camera & I'd like the nd & the polorizer (you need the adaptor for those too) + the viewfinder  - but your looking at almost £500 
I mean £115 for a 48mm polorizer or ND. Fuck right off.

(That's if you can even find a dealer who's actually seen them in the flesh. They remain somewhat mythical atm by all accounts.)

I guess they're waiting to see how demand is.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2009)

Seeing as I managed to wedge on the Ricoh lens cap, I cant see why you couldn't bodge on filters too, you know.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 20, 2009)

editor said:


> Seeing as I managed to wedge on the Ricoh lens cap, I cant see why you couldn't bodge on filters too, you know.



Oh, I'm sure you can.Though you probably still need the adaptor ring I'd imagine.
There's already people suggesting using old Voigtlander viewfinders or other horseshoe ones for example. Plus they come in different focal lengths.


----------



## Reg in slippers (Jan 20, 2009)

the dpreview panasonic talk forums could help there, 3rd party filters and rings do fit


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2009)

Cool. The new ACDSee Pro 2.5 can handle LX3 RAW files.


----------



## MBV (Jan 25, 2009)

Does the LX3 have a time lapse mode?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 25, 2009)

editor said:


> Cool. The new ACDSee Pro 2.5 can handle LX3 RAW files.



Do I need CS4 to open them in photoshop?


----------



## t0bytoo (Mar 25, 2009)

Just bought one of these after the good buzz on this post. It's been ten years since I did any photography, and I'm blown away by this camera. Even IA mode produces good results.

Very cool...


----------



## mod (Apr 6, 2009)

Does anyone else think the iA setting isn't perfect? What I mean is, it seems to retain some of the settings I change when in manual mode.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2009)

The iA setting is the most accurate auto mode I've ever used on a camera.


----------



## mod (Apr 9, 2009)

editor said:


> The iA setting is the most accurate auto mode I've ever used on a camera.




I used to think that but am convinved its not as good as it was. Shots on iA seems a little flat now when once were unbelievably rich (and real) in colour.


----------



## mod (Apr 20, 2009)

Took this at the weekend on macro setting iA. The detail is really amazing. Attached image doesn't do it justice as I've had to crop it, reduce it by 50% and compress it down to 19.5 KB so I could attach it.

4MB full size/resolution/100% image can be seen here....

http://www.lab63.co.uk/eddie/


----------



## little_legs (Oct 11, 2012)

I really don't like the thin strap of LX3 and I'd like to find a strap like this:



 



I am guessing the camera on the pictures is not LX3 and maybe my question is completely ridiculous. Apologies. Any advice would be appreciated.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2012)

It's kinda hard to work out what it is from those pics. Do you mean something like this?





http://www.picstop.co.uk/accessories/camera-strap/op-tech-bin-op-strap-qd-red


----------



## little_legs (Oct 12, 2012)

I think it's a leather strap that she's got. I'll have a rummage around the website you linked to though. Thanks.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2020)

The DMC-LX3 really was a great camera. I can't remember who I gave mine away too, but I kinda miss it now!









						The gear that changed my (photographic) life: the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3
					

Shooting with an unusually capable compact taught Technical Editor Richard Butler the real photographic impact of sensor size and F-number, along with the role math could play in lens design.




					www.dpreview.com


----------



## nick (Apr 1, 2020)

top left   😜 

Stuff you keep


----------

