D-Lux vs. LX3; follow-up thread

Ton Mestrom , Jun 01, 2009; 05:51 p.m.

as promised here is the follow-up of the thread I opened the 17th of May where I asked about these two camera's. Opinions differed somewhat in that thread although it was acknowledged that both were good camera's. Then Ray came along and adviced not to overlook the Sigma DP2 because of the advantages of its bigger sensor.
To be complete I'd tested the G10 before posting that question but found it to be a noise machine. Great looking camera with great design and solid build but a bit too many drawbacks for me.

So after that thread those three were left to choose from and in the end I decided to buy the LX3. There are a few reasons for that. Although I took Ray's advice serious, the specs and indeed his photos look very good, I couldn't find a indepth review but after a thorough search found a lot of negative ones about the DP1. also it's still backordered here. Given current price differences over here there is in fact a steep difference between the D-Lux and LX3. So much so in fact that I could get one with a viewfinder for less money than the D-Lux alone would have cost. There are some rumours out there that the lenses are not the same but I've found absolutely no proof of that and since I was looking for a compact with RAW capability the fact that the D-Lux does better JPEG conversions isn't all that important to me.

I wanted to road test it on the street and under harsh light conditions and so went to Amsterdam last Friday. Sunny day with extreme hard light so ideal conditions. I have to say the camera/lens delivers. Dynamic range proved to be good. Street photography was a bit awkward without a viewfinder. It tends to make you react slower and you stick out like a sore thumb. As all compacts it suffers from shutter lag although not too bad. Besides, there are ways around that like using the manual and prefocus. All important controls are within easy reach on the outside of the camera and easy to handle I found, even with big hands like mine. Although some complained about the mode dial, it does indeed turn light(ish) I had no problem with rotating it inadvertently to another setting (maybe mine is from a good badge). The biggest attraction, the 2.0 24mm works very nice and I myself have no problem with what some call a very limited zoom capability. Most shots I took were at or around the 24mm anyway. Even with the viewfinder on it will fit nicely into a pocket (hoping to get mine this week).

Included software, Silkypix, automatically corrects the well documented barrel distortion. RAW support sofar is rather limited. I have RAW support in PS CS4 (ACR 5.3), Lightroom 2.3 and ACDsee 2.5 Pro. Lower versions don't support the LX3 RAW files. The HD video is not important to me (just fun) but I found to be true what some said. Tendency to overexposure in bright light but very good in low light.

Battery life is not impressive (partly due to the screen of course). Two batteries are no luxury and I'm thinking of getting a third one. RAW writing time is rather fast (8Gb SDHC).

The most important thing though is image quality and for me it really delivers what is promised. Since I tjae nothing for granted I have printed some photos on A4 size paper and they look very good. So I went one further and with adequate exposure and post-processing it's quite possible to produce a A3 size print that looks very good.

All in all a good buy for me and perfectly usable on the street (with a viewfinder) and one or two spare batteries.

Some of my first results you can find here

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.

Responses

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... Next Last

Eric Merrill , Jun 01, 2009; 07:35 p.m.

Ton:

You're getting good results. Glad to see that!

I bought an LX3 a few weeks ago. Since then, I've made a couple purchases on ebay...

Lens Adapter DMW-LA4 Replacement: $10, free shipping
52mm 52 Screw Mount Petal Crown Flower Shape Lens Hood: $2 + $2 shipping
52mm Center Pinch Snap on Front Cap: $3, free shipping

So for $17, I now have an adapter knockoff with lens hood and a front cap. I like.

Eric

Brad - , Jun 01, 2009; 08:07 p.m.

Thanx, Ton. Nice hands-on review and pix...

And don't forget the v1.3 firmware available now...

Steve Bellayr , Jun 01, 2009; 09:06 p.m.

Nice photos.
In your review you have some important negatives that can not be understated. 1. "Street photography was a bit awkward without a viewfinder. It tends to make you react slower and you stick out like a sore thumb." 2. "As all compacts it suffers from shutter lag although not too bad. Besides, there are ways around that like using the manual and prefocus. All important controls are within easy reach on the outside of the camera and easy to handle I found, even with big hands like mine." 3. "Battery life is not impressive (partly due to the screen of course). Two batteries are no luxury and I'm thinking of getting a third one."
Your final comment is also important and bears repeating: "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."
Thank you for your careful and thoughtful analysis.

Nee Sung , Jun 02, 2009; 12:14 a.m.

For bright sunlight, you can try setting the LCD brightness to "automatic" and see if you can then see easily.
For shutter lag, try setting auto focus to "Quick AF". It shoud cut down shutter lag because the camera tries to focus before you press the shutter half-way down.

David Spady , Jun 02, 2009; 01:00 a.m.

If you pre-focus and preset the aperture and shutter speed, does the shutter lag improve considerably?

Ray . , Jun 02, 2009; 01:04 a.m.

Ton, I'm sorry to see the reason you didn't pick the Sigma was because of negative reviews. I've seen reviews that say things like the camera is only good for landscapes, yet I've seen others work and used it myself for street just fine. And indeed the Sigma is a compact that could be benchmarked against DSLR'S with regard to image quality.

I think you'll get used to the lack of a viewfinder, it's just another way of photographing- point and shoot- and with a wide lens that shouldn't be difficult. LCD screen is useful on most compacts too for framing shots. One advantage of a tiny sensor is you can compensate for poor ISO performance by shooting more wide open since there's so much depth of field.

I fail to see what's so special about this camera though other than 24mm view and the panoramic format, which for me is mostly a novelty.

That said, congratulations on your new toy and if you enjoy it that's all that matters..

Ton Mestrom , Jun 02, 2009; 01:46 a.m.

I should have mentioned that (on purpose) I only used standard settings, shot with either aperture or shutter priority and set the dynamic ISO to 80-400. I think if I set it up a bit differently it's ease of use will further improve.

Last things first. Ray, I spend two days researching both Sigma's and on the whole indeed most applaud it's image quality and yes I've seen some examples of such a paradox as well (it's after all ourselves who make those photos) but in the end it was just another trade off. Spending € 599,00 ( $810,00) on a camera that got a lot of negative reviews (DP1) or has just arrived (DP2) I found a bit tricky (yet) especially since both the D-Lux4 and LX3 are getting good reviews all over the board concerning IQ. A shame we can't compare that and discuss prints. I would gladly work with a standard lens (well 41mm is kind of that) any day of the week. Still, the 2.0 24mm is a big bonus for the reasons you mentioned and more but your right, the 16:9 ratio is merely fun.
Also true one could getting used to work without a viewfinder but still I think it will affect my way of working as much as my results in a way that I don't want to.
For me this camera is an extra with a specific purpose, nothing more and nothing less. If it was just IQ I was after I would always buy another DSLR.

Steve, I think this answers your implied question as well. It's great but only as an extra.

Brad, thanks as well, also for including the link for the upgrade.

Nee, thanks for the tip

So David. the answer is yes.

Eric, seems you've got yourself a bargain.

Barry Fisher , Jun 02, 2009; 04:20 a.m.

Pics look nice and if you like, what else matters? Thx for the review. Ive been using the GRD2. The viewfinder is cool, but you will get used to the LCD. the pics look as good as anything i get on the Ricoh.

Travis . , Jun 02, 2009; 06:07 a.m.

has the iso800 quality improved over the earlier versions?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... Next Last

Notify me of Responses