I'd like to present my experience with the LX3. I was going on a trip to Costa Rica and didn't want to lug around the DSLR. I was torn between it and the FX37--the ZS3 hadn't been released yet.
After reading the reviews here (both were reviewed in group reviews) and consulting the forum (great place, btw), I decided to go with the LX3. I read the manual and learned how to use it and was resolved to take this with me. And I did. Here are my thoughts:
1) Daytime shots were great (although when compared to a couple year old olympus P&S my friend was shooting with, it was not like comparing a DSLR to a P&S, but instead, like comparing a great P&S to a good P&S).
2) The (lack of) zoom was incredibly limiting. Now, I shot mostly with a 50mm lens, so I understand how to work under limiting conditions, but after comparing my shots of iguanas in trees to my friend's shots (with her 10x lens), I was jealous. Sure the shots were marginally less crisp, but she captured the details of a moment I could not. Neither of us would be able to create huge prints, and the quality I gained just didn't seem worth the lack of versatility.
3) The LX3 was not as convenient as I thought it would be. Still had to have an extra bag (jacket pockets--sure, pant/short pockets--no way). Still had to mind the lens cap.
4) Indoor shots weren't much better than my friend's cam. Mine were incredibly noisy. Hers were incredibly blurry. Reduce the ISO? OK, now mine are blurry too. And some of these were indoors with reasonable lighting--not a dark bar. As a point of reference, my favorite way to shoot is with a handheld 50mm f1.4 lens on a Canon 30D (no flash). Yes, I know, I'm biased, but aren't we all. I tried very hard to accept the inherent limitation of a P&S.
I could forgive the lack of zoom and the inconvenience, but in conjunction with the poor indoor quality--even if better than most--it was not worth the marginally crisper daytime (or low-light) shots. I sent the camera back.
I hear all the time how great the LX3 is. And it's a very good P&S. And I can forgive it for not being able to fit in my pocket and having limited zoom. But is the indoor THAT much better than say the ZS3 (that hit the news days after I left on my trip). I'm thinking about picking up the ZS3 and hear people in this forum (sometimes with both) say how much better the LX3 is, but I never really see quality comparisons of both daytime AND low-light conditions. And I'm not talking about zoom, or convenience, or movies, or anything else--just image quality. Is it really THAT much better?
Before I buy the ZS3, I would love to see the comparisons I mentioned (same shots, same conditions, each camera). If anyone can assist me, great, if not, at least I got this off my back.
I'm more of a stalker her than anything, but thanks for listening. Love this forum.
After reading the reviews here (both were reviewed in group reviews) and consulting the forum (great place, btw), I decided to go with the LX3. I read the manual and learned how to use it and was resolved to take this with me. And I did. Here are my thoughts:
1) Daytime shots were great (although when compared to a couple year old olympus P&S my friend was shooting with, it was not like comparing a DSLR to a P&S, but instead, like comparing a great P&S to a good P&S).
2) The (lack of) zoom was incredibly limiting. Now, I shot mostly with a 50mm lens, so I understand how to work under limiting conditions, but after comparing my shots of iguanas in trees to my friend's shots (with her 10x lens), I was jealous. Sure the shots were marginally less crisp, but she captured the details of a moment I could not. Neither of us would be able to create huge prints, and the quality I gained just didn't seem worth the lack of versatility.
3) The LX3 was not as convenient as I thought it would be. Still had to have an extra bag (jacket pockets--sure, pant/short pockets--no way). Still had to mind the lens cap.
4) Indoor shots weren't much better than my friend's cam. Mine were incredibly noisy. Hers were incredibly blurry. Reduce the ISO? OK, now mine are blurry too. And some of these were indoors with reasonable lighting--not a dark bar. As a point of reference, my favorite way to shoot is with a handheld 50mm f1.4 lens on a Canon 30D (no flash). Yes, I know, I'm biased, but aren't we all. I tried very hard to accept the inherent limitation of a P&S.
I could forgive the lack of zoom and the inconvenience, but in conjunction with the poor indoor quality--even if better than most--it was not worth the marginally crisper daytime (or low-light) shots. I sent the camera back.
I hear all the time how great the LX3 is. And it's a very good P&S. And I can forgive it for not being able to fit in my pocket and having limited zoom. But is the indoor THAT much better than say the ZS3 (that hit the news days after I left on my trip). I'm thinking about picking up the ZS3 and hear people in this forum (sometimes with both) say how much better the LX3 is, but I never really see quality comparisons of both daytime AND low-light conditions. And I'm not talking about zoom, or convenience, or movies, or anything else--just image quality. Is it really THAT much better?
Before I buy the ZS3, I would love to see the comparisons I mentioned (same shots, same conditions, each camera). If anyone can assist me, great, if not, at least I got this off my back.
I'm more of a stalker her than anything, but thanks for listening. Love this forum.
