Reading mode: Light Dark

GF1 + LX3 + Lens Selection + Total Cost = ?

Go to last post
M

MacguyFT

Active member
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I'm seeing awesome reviews thus far the GF1... and quite frankly I agree. What I don't hear people talking about are the quality of the "kit" lenses that the GF1 is shipping with. After all, a camera is only as good as it's lenses. I agree that the camera itself is awesome... and something many of us have been waiting for. But what about the quality of the lens? How for example does the 20mm 1.7 compare with the glass on the LX3? And what about the zoom... 30 extra mm's at a cost of 2 stops slower? Plus, add the cost of both lenses to the body plus a few accessories and one could purchase 2 1/2 LX3's for the same price. And we still don't have a fast WIDE lens. I've been inspecting the sample images from both the GF1 and LX3... and quite frankly I'm not seeing THAT much of a difference.

I love this camera... but I just don't see that many advantages of replacing my LX3 for it.

Your thoughts?
 
Russ,

I agree that the camera is a "different beast"... but unfortunately I can't afford both. So I guess my question comes down to overall image quality at the best price (best bang for the buck). If the image quality of the GF1 was appreciably better than my LX3 then I would 'bite' easily... but I'm just not feeling it.

Frank
 
MacguyFT said:
Russ,

I agree that the camera is a "different beast"... but unfortunately I can't afford both. So I guess my question comes down to overall image quality at the best price (best bang for the buck). If the image quality of the GF1 was appreciably better than my LX3 then I would 'bite' easily... but I'm just not feeling it.

Frank
Click to expand...
I agree, the LX3 has great IQ. Maybe some extreme pixel peepers could find a difference between the two cameras, in real life you won't. I could throw a dozen photos in front of someone, half taken with my DSLR and the other half with the LX3 and with average photos, no one could tell the difference. I'm not talking about really shallow DOF or extreme high ISO photos (so people won't jump on me with arguments about how much better DSLRs are..heheh).

I would never buy the GF-1 because I expected the IQ is better, I would buy it just for the type and style of the camera. Best bang for the buck is definitely the LX3. It is one of the greatest cameras I have ever used.
Russ
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/quietrvr/
Gear=A camera with a lens.
 
Thanks for your valuable input! I think for now I'll hang on to my trusty LX3 :-)
 
It will probably be a nice camera, but it is hard to say until a production camera ships and can be tested. Suggest you be patient.

What you can tell is that it is very similar to the Olympus micro 4/3 camera. Neither are compact enough to pocket like your LX3 and will need to be hung around your neck or in a camera bag. So there is no advantage to a compact DSLR from any of a number of makers except for a small weight difference. Any of those will give you fast, wide lenses and any number of features missing on these micro 4/3 models. In addition they will have superior viewing systems, vastly superior fast and accurate focusing, and the ability to react quickly to sports, children and pets.

I have an LX3 and it is great for what it is, that always there little camera in your jacket or cargo pant pocket. There is no substitute for a DSLR and if you have to hang a camera around your neck it might as well be a good one. Cheaper too.
 
Well, LX3 and GF1 are completely different camera. One is a digital camera and the other is a SLR (or almost a SLR with a larger 4/3 camera size sensor). GF1 do have couple good lens. I personally am very interested in the 20mm pancake... consider that it does have a F1.7 aperture. Not to mention they do have a wide angle 7-14mm len (14-28mm for 35mm standard) and a good zoom 14-140mm len (28-280mm).

While LX3 offer a convienence wide angle 24mm, but only 24- 60mm zoom. But then these really are 2 different type of camera, and you cannot compare apple to orange.
 
The LX3's lens is 2 stops faster than the GF1/14-45mm kit lens (never mind the 20 1.7, it doesn't zoom, we hear enough about LX3's short 24-60 zoom).

I shoot my LX3 wide open at ISO800 all the time, which means the GF1 will be shooting at ISO3200 in those same conditions, which means GF1's ISO3200 will have to look like LX3's ISO800 to have the same IQ. For that reason, it's kind of pointless to switch from the LX3 to GF1. Already got the m4/3 45-200mm lens? Then get the GF1/20 1.7 kit. Complements the LX3 nicely.

Very tough to top the 24-60 f2-2.8 lens of the LX3.

--
NIK0N D9O/18TO1O5VR/35MM1.8/SB4OO
PANAS0NIC LX-3 & ZS-3 & TS-1
 
... you can't just dissassociate low noise and the larger sensor's effect on depth of field, as somehow not representative of IQ, if anything they are more important than pixels. You therefore can't seriously look at the shots produced by the GF1 and particularily the 20mm lens, and say that they look about the same as the LX3's output.

The LX3 has a pretty good little lens but it has its limitations, with the GF1 you can stick just about anything on it including some real high quality glass. I would have liked to see an articulated screen or a nicer EVF but it's a good upgrade in IQ from an LX3 in every way which counts!

--
http://www.buchangrant.com
 
Those are really my thoughts exactly. Don't get me wrong... if I had an extra $900.00 sitting around I'd be on the waiting list for the GF1. But since I don't... I think I can be happy with my LX3... at least until they release the LX5 :-)
 
No problem, I just updated it with Flash Burst speed, and Speed/Image Priority samples as requested. Hope it helps.
 
Perhaps if Leica takes houses as a trade-in I just may be able to afford this. Course my family won't have any place to sleep... But at least I could get some awesome shots of everyone sleeping in the street!
 
i disagree entirely.

if you do a lot of people photography, the discreetness and quite shutter will be very useful, and an important advantage over dslrs.

also, the ability to carry very small lenses is great too. i could carry a 50mm 1.4 and 20 1.7 in my jacket pockets, and that makes for a mean bit of portable low-light.
 
i think that the gf1 will have a two stop advantage over the lx3 concerning high iso noise. i think 3200 on the gf1 wil compare with 800 on the lx3.

also, why do you discount the 20mm 1.7 because it doesn't zoom?

do you take into account the fact that you can mount a 50mm 1.4 on the gf1 as well?

they are different cameras. if i could have either, i would take the gf1, definitely.

i love my lx3, but i think there's little point in it now.

i think a micro four thirds might drag me away from my dslr too. i'll wait until my current equipment dies on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top