Yes, the LX3 is a very good cam, but boldly claiming it to be 'better' than the LX5 is too bold a statement in my eyes. It is better in some respects, but not in all which means that for some users (like me) the LX5 will serve them better. I have owned both the 3 and the 5. Both are terrific little machines. The base iso jpeg-files from the 3 was definitely better than the jpegs from the 5, and the lens was sharper in the extreme wide and tele ends. (Apart from the base iso's none of them produces good jpegs due to panasonics awful blotchy approach to jpegs.) But apart from that I for my type of use find the 5 an overall better camera producing more keepers for me than the 3 did. If you work with Raw-files in ACR the difference is clear. Even the base iso is cleaner in the 5, and from then on they are around one step better than the 3 all the way up to 800 for a gritty look. Wide open 24 mm is soft in f2, but sharp from 2.8, the 90 mm tele is sharp in f4 and really sharp corner to corner in f5 (but awful in full open 3.3). And most importantly the image stabilisation is far better (at least one stop) in the LX5. With patience, steady hands and doing some extra shots to chooce the best, you can actually shoot in 1/4 of a second in tele. All in all I very seldom come home with unusable shots from the 5, but you really have to learn to handle its limitations!