LX3 review - reason for happy DP1 owners

--

See : http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3_review/

This review proves my thoughts since the beginning of "LX3" miracle!
There is no way to have miracles and serious image quality from a tiny sensor!

No matter of scenes, buttons, etc, Sigma DP1 is a really much better camera (If serious output and image quality are of some interest)

LX series cameras and as such, should do fine. You watch - more reviews will be released and they will mostly be positive. Remember - a review is a subjective thing. We know that the DP-1 is capable of superb performance (within it's operating envelope), but the DP-1 receives so-so reviews - so go figure.

Besides, why should it botheranyone if another camera may have the possibility of selling well? I crack up whenever I see folks rejoicing when another camera may not get the best of press. As one who uses so many different brand cameras, I look forward to the various releases because we all benefit. This LX-3 will sell in droves - and it will overshadow any DP-1 sales. But I will continue to enjoy my DP-1 and the rest of my collection - because in the end, they are just man-made instruments, and it's up to use to make them work effectively.
--
As always - good shooting....

Ben Herrmann said:

This LX-3 will sell in droves - and it will overshadow any DP-1 sales. But I will continue to enjoy my DP-1 and the rest of my collection - because in the end, they are just man-made instruments, and it's up to use to make them work effectively.

Click to expand...

Well said Ben.

If I was in the market for a small sensor compact, the LX3 might make it to the short list. It looks like a capable camera with good handling. But then I look at the image detail..... thank goodness for my DP1.

The 'logic' behind your headline is the exact reason for so many senseless 150 post threads, for so many idiots coming to this forum bashing Sigma cameras, and for other idiots bashing bayer sensor - equipped cameras. Why in the world should any DP1 owner be happy about a bad review for another camera (or upset about a bad review for his own)?

What many expensive hobbys are all about is the fit between gear and user properties. And not seeing the second part of this is why usually the biggest gear nazis are the worst photographers/music producers/bicyclists/fishermen. From what I have seen the LX3 is a crappy camera (according to my taste), the new Fujis are not better, neither is the P6000 - but I cannot be happy about it.

O.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ollivr/popular-interesting/
http://seen.by.spiegel.de/ollivr-1

It should be obvious from my 5+ years using the SD9 and SD14 cameras that I am totally in favour of the Sigma/Foveon concept - primarily for the IQ. That's the reason I entered the digital camera area - it had to give as good a qiuality IQ wise as my former 5x4 and 6x9 had done. WIthout the SD9 - I would most likely still be using film.

Anyway - I have a friend who does some excellent work and he now has the Panasonic FZ50. One advantage is the stabilisation (he has suffered from hand shaking/trembling symptons since a child so holding cameras still is not easy and whilst he uses a tripod when out with his 5x4, he prefers to handhold if possible, so swiveling rear screens are almost essential for him - he had the Canon G1 for several years mainly due its rear screen, which was/is excellent). When he first tried the Panasonic LZ50 out, he called me and was excited in that "at last, I can get 3 out of 5 shots sharp due the IS". So, he produces A3 prints relatively easily from that camera, so in the right hands (meaning someone who knows how) it can produce good images.

He did try my SD9 and SD14 on a visit but neither was comfortable for him. He does appreciate the IQ but other considerations are for him equally important.

Let's not knock everything - some cameras in the right hands can make good images for their owners. However, the new dinky-toy models are surely going the wrong way? Well, at least for those of us wanting to achieve the best quality but they may, of course, be fine for many who only produce 6x4 prints - but then, so are most inexpensive compacts.

I well remember another friend who went white water rafting on holiday in the USDA. He bought a little one-use film camera and got some really good shots, without of course endangering his best photo gear.

--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS

Tiffles said:

The 'logic' behind your headline is the exact reason for so many
senseless 150 post threads, for so many idiots coming to this forum
bashing Sigma cameras, and for other idiots bashing bayer sensor -
equipped cameras. Why in the world should any DP1 owner be happy
about a bad review for another camera (or upset about a bad review
for his own)?
What many expensive hobbys are all about is the fit between gear and
user properties. And not seeing the second part of this is why
usually the biggest gear nazis are the worst photographers/music
producers/bicyclists/fishermen.

Click to expand...

All of these things for the headline? Maybe they are your feelings but sure not mine !

Anyway enjoy your DP1 (as I do mine) no matter what any review may point.

Bye

Paul

light_reaction said:

Why in the world should any DP1 owner be happy about a bad review for another camera (or upset about a bad review for his own)?

Click to expand...

Camera did get 4.5 stars and a rave review outside the IQ. But even there, they said it was slightly better than the LX2, which in itself has a good reputation.

Paul,

With respect and affection for those whose opinions differ, I didn't take umbrage with your headline, or at least didn't attach too much innuendo to it. The review was pretty even handed I thought. And though I don't own a DP1 myself, my "investment" in the success of Sigma by way of SDs and lenses is enough to empathize with DP1 owners. Many of us quietly (or not so) resent the waves of self-annointed critics who come here - not to engage in serious, thoughtful give and take about virtues and limitations - but rather it seems to create prestige for themselves by spending countless hours pointing out the "folly" of Sigma Foveon and demanding affirmation.

At face value, I can see how (in the face of the endless onslaught of Sigma criticism on the Sigma forum, labels of "fanboys", fanatics, and (shudder) enthusiasts ) some might have a little insecurity having dropped nearly $1000 US for this unconventional camera. And seeing that yet another proclamation of a "miraculous" new camera from one of the established names might itself have been a bit beyond the mark, could quiet some of that almost-buyers-remorse. No glee here - just reassurance that what sounds too good to be true, usually is, no matter whose name is on it. God willing, I plan to go on holiday in fall with my SD 14 snuggled up next to my Panny Mini-DV Camcorder with Leica lens. It's all good.

Kind regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

Very well said, Ollivr, on its points.

I have been attracted before by the LX-N, and from what I can see in the review, this is a much improved one.

Why would I want it, if liking what is served up by Foveon so well, and would long ago have bought a DP-1?

Well, for pleasure and so forth, DP-1 gives that.

For taking photos for work endeavors, they are not going to be seen larger than a pc screen, and usually much less than that. Everything I can say about Bayer images still holds; reduction does not buy back what has never been captured. But...zoom, antishake, the basics of p&s framework, emergency ISO range and a decent lens, could take probably very good care of a number of situations I am very likely to run into. It has 28/24mm, so I am ok there.

All I am saying, is that without the extreme view on either side, and nothing about 'modern featuritis' LX could also be a camera I could use.

If I can only have one, hard to say the DP-N doesn't take it. Such beautiful images there.

But it's very easy to see that by the point of development of the LX, persons would be as valid to prefer it. What Brian says about antishake is just one of the reasons, but could be a very good one.

Diversity in a world; it's like a beginning. So many advantages, so much good for new oncoming surprises.

Regards,
Clive

yes I am fusted up about something, but not badly, and it is a pleasure to write a little here while I think the other out quietly. Another benefit

Tiffles said:

The 'logic' behind your headline is the exact reason for so many
senseless 150 post threads, for so many idiots coming to this forum
bashing Sigma cameras, and for other idiots bashing bayer sensor -
equipped cameras. Why in the world should any DP1 owner be happy
about a bad review for another camera (or upset about a bad review
for his own)?
What many expensive hobbys are all about is the fit between gear and
user properties. And not seeing the second part of this is why
usually the biggest gear nazis are the worst photographers/music
producers/bicyclists/fishermen. From what I have seen the LX3 is a
crappy camera (according to my taste), the new Fujis are not better,
neither is the P6000 - but I cannot be happy about it.

O.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ollivr/popular-interesting/
http://seen.by.spiegel.de/ollivr-1

Click to expand...

I laughed so hard when reading this ...

"he built-in flash is particularly neat. It pops up out of the top of the body when you open it, and then is stored safely away by pushing it back down."

Don't get me wrong, I upgraded from the LX2 to the DP1 ... the LX2 is still a very good little camera.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thesorus/

pkaliaf said:

This review proves my thoughts since the beginning of "LX3" miracle!
There is no way to have miracles and serious image quality from a
tiny sensor!
No matter of scenes, buttons, etc, Sigma DP1 is a really much better
camera (If serious output and image quality are of some interest)

Click to expand...

True, the DP1 is better but better for what? Low ISO good light photography with a fixed lens camera? The LX3 will be much better in low light due to IS and the f2 lens so instead of using ISO 800 on the DP1 you can use ISO 200 on the LX3, if you need more wideangle the 24mm lens on the LX3 will be better or the 60mm end if you need some zoom, it has a better video mode etc..

So while the IQ might not be up to the DP1 in all cases it is a much more versatile camera than the DP1 and will suit more people.

And what is "serious image quality" exactly? You keep mentioning this when dismissing small sensor compact cameras but what is this really? How do you define "serious image quality"?

--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega

VladimirV said:

And what is "serious image quality" exactly? You keep mentioning this
when dismissing small sensor compact cameras but what is this really?
How do you define "serious image quality"?

Click to expand...

I define it as anything that you can enlarge beyond 8x10 and still maintain visual integrity. I don't want any digital artifacts drawing away attention from the subject of the photograph. There's a subjective element to my definition, but I know it when I see it. I never see from cameras with tiny overcrowded sensors.

I started in digital photography in the late 90s with the Olympus C2000 and C2500, then the Nikon Coolpix 990. I then went back to film as the primary technology of choice with a Contax G2 electronic rangefinder with a series of prime lenses. Digital DSLRs were still expensive at the time, and I didn't which brand to standardize on. When the DP1 came out, it was the samples of photos seen here from Karl Rytterfalk and others, with a combination of street, landscape, and people shots that made me decide it was finally time to re-look at digital. So, with all of its quirks, the DP1 is capable of great things in the right hands. But the one constant is the great clarity and optics of its lens.

Martin

MartinDC said:

I define it as anything that you can enlarge beyond 8x10 and still
maintain visual integrity. I don't want any digital artifacts
drawing away attention from the subject of the photograph. There's a
subjective element to my definition, but I know it when I see it. I
never see from cameras with tiny overcrowded sensors.

Click to expand...

I have seen and have very good prints from small sensor cameras at A1 and A3 size, without any artifacts or noise (if anything, I should've sharpened them more).

This guy printed a ISO 400 image from the GRD II at 60x45":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewartpratt/2751579882/

Considering that the LX3 seems to have better or equal IQ, I don't think it will have problems printing big.

--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega

VladimirV said:

True, the DP1 is better but better for what? Low ISO good light photography with a fixed lens camera? The LX3 will be much better in low light due to IS and the f2 lens so instead of using ISO 800 on the DP1 you can use ISO 200 on the LX3, if you need more wideangle the 24mm lens on the LX3 will be better or the 60mm end if you need some zoom, it has a better video mode etc..

Click to expand...

It does look like a versatile small sensor camera. If I was in the market for one, it would definitely make my short list next to the GR2 and G9. We need to see a lot more from it, but from what I'm seeing, the noise at even low ISOs is pretty bad. It reminds me of my PentaxWP. I guess it's all subjective (I know noise doesn't bother GR owners), but where you you it'll be much better at high ISOs, I'm sure it can't compete.

Thanks for the post. I wish I could see one of those up close, but it good to see people taking chancing and going big.

It could cook my dinner, fire lazers, speak, work as a GPS, take better pictures than myself on its own and still I would order again a DP1 (I´m waiting for it to arrive). Because when I print A3+ in my R1900, I can really see the diference between a small sensor and not. Of course a Powershot S70 is not the same but still gives me a good comparison to bigger sensors. Let´s not even talk about High Iso and noise, because then there isn´t even nothing to discuss. Really, do you think that noise with a small sensor can compete with bigger sensors? Even if the lens is 2 stops faster? I guess everyone that buys a full sensor camera and spends 3000€ is just out of his mind. After all they could get a top quality P&S for 200/300€ that is much smaller and compact. Really, some folks should think a litlle before writting the first thing that comes to their mind.
--

K20D; 21 f/3.2 Limited; 31 f/1.8 Limited; 43 f/1.9 Limited; M 50 f/1.7; Noktor 58 f/1.4; 77 f/1.7 Limited; Apo Lanthars 90 f/3.5 and 180 f/4

Gian Luca Patriarca

I won't "endorse" or "critique" your specific language as there are apparently sensitivities on these issues on both sides, but I do admire your candor and clarity. One poster on another thread recently chided DP1 enthusiasts (a common theme with SDs as well) for talking about a "thinking photographer's camera" as a dodge for the many features they (the poster) found wanting. Sigh.

If nothing else I think your comments underscore the diversity of reasons people choose what they do. Like many satisfied Sigma owners, you seem to place image quality and photography "basics" ahead of button and mode envy. I applaud your view. I personally, having invested in a couple of sweet Sigma primes for my SDs am finding joy in shooting with one, fixed focus lens (at a time), using manual focus when I can. I don't need or want (for most of what I bought a Sigma for) a "robot" doing the work for me. If I miss a few shots - at least the ones I get are the fruits of my work, not a cyberware programmer making photo decisions for me.

Kind regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

Thank you. Anyway I wanted to say I wasn´t atacking anyone in particular. I just feel a little anoyed because anyone can read our coments, and when we affirm some thoughts without backing them up, it might confuse some who don´t understand the basics. If I were in that situation, by reading some coments, I would ask myself why on earth would someone choose a DP1 over the others since it has so many functional quirks? Hell why on earth should I even consider a much expensive and heavier DSLR? Everyone has the right to choose what suits them best, but at least they should understand why they are choosing it, for what and what are the alternatives.

Lately I´m discovering the beautifull world of MF and taking my time to shoot, so for me the DP1 won´t even represent a downside in the issues it presents to the user. For me, at this time, it is all about interaction with the subject and the more I can control paramatrs the better. So, when I print an A3 picture, see the composition, the colors, the contrast, micro-contrast, the DR and sharpness (or softness in some ocasions) that for me are part of the IQ and I´m satisfied... I don´t care if it was tacken with a brick!

I will tell you later, but I think the DP1, besides the sensor and IQ, it is a camera that will make you think your photography. Also even if you wanted to rush it too take more pictures... you couldn´t

--

K20D; 21 f/3.2 Limited; 31 f/1.8 Limited; 43 f/1.9 Limited; M 50 f/1.7; Noktor 58 f/1.4; 77 f/1.7 Limited; Apo Lanthars 90 f/3.5 and 180 f/4

It seems fruitless to bring up comparisons of these cameras at all because the technology inside is so different that comparisons cannot logically be made.

One has a bayer sensor and one the foveon, which is what attracted us to the sigma camp to begin with.

Another company could virtually clone the DP1 down to the last wire or electrical component only with the bayer sensor used and come up with a different image producing machine altogether just on that one fact, the sensor!
This is not small sensor vs. large sensor.

I don't beleive even terms like ISO can be given the same credibility when dealing with the different technologies without much more understanding of these technologies and there capabilities.

The foveon gives a different image than the bayer in almost all respects and until other companies choose foveon or sigma chooses bayer sensors for there cameras all comparisons between sigma and others are moot!

The camera, no matter who produces it, has one reason for existing and that is to record a certain place or happening as the photographer sees it and preserves it for history, how well it captures that is the all important point and is highly personall to the photographer so choose as you will.

Sigma is the only camera in the world using the foveon sensor and the results are different to all others, Does that make them better or worse? that is for the photographer to decide but to constantly pit other cameras against the foveon based sigma will create an endless obiss of useless squable.

I wish more people when considering a camera purchase would undrstand that when considering purchasing a sigma camera you are forgoing things like speed or ease of handling for" perhaps" the best IQ existing today, if you understand that basic fact you will be better informed to make a decision.
Just my opinions
Don

webshark3 said:

webshark3 said:

Why in the world should any DP1 owner be happy about a bad review for another camera (or upset about a bad review for his own)?

Click to expand...

Camera did get 4.5 stars and a rave review outside the IQ. But even
there, they said it was slightly better than the LX2, which in itself
has a good reputation.

Click to expand...

How is it a camera can get rave reviews when its image quality is weak?

What's the purpose of a camera, after all?