LX2 is about 2" thick

[Maverick_]

I finally got the see the new LX2. Did anyone notice that with the lens cover this baby is 2" thick? I couldn't even put it in my jeans front pocket... I think the measurements on this site don't take the lens and the lens cover into consideration. I am turned off. I went to J&R to buy it today and when I saw the thickness, I simple couldn't get into it.

I'll look at it some more later, my bike was parked illegally downstairs, and I couldn't spend too much time. The performance is lovely though, focusing is fast and it wasn't even in the "H" mode.

Hmmmm, maybe I'll look at the FX01 next. For those who don't care about the size of course this is a non-issue, but why buy a compact when you can't treat it like one... Cheers, S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

 

[villebon]

And what's stopping you from using a small belt pouch?

 

[gosh137]

My belt pouch is from Jansport (so it is not obvious I'm carrying a camera in it). It easily fits my 2.7" wide Olympus C770. My jean pockets are for my keys in one and the folb? (what do you call the button thing to open/lock the doors) in the other. This way the camera does not get scratched/broken.

 

[JmChez]

Geez! If thickness is you most important criteria, then obviously the LX2 is not for you. A Pentaz S series or Casio exilim, perhaps?

Considering what the LX-2 can do, the fact that it fits into a belt pouch or a jacket pocket, as opposed to DSLR, is what entices a bunch of us.

 

[ddan daniel]

The typical listings of measurements is misleading, and only careful reading of certain places makes it clear that the lens is not included in these typical measurements. For example, DCResource lists 'cubic inches' numbers in their reviews, and the LX1 (same size) is maybe 1/4 to 1/3 larger at most than the FX01... until you read the comment that these numbers don't include the lens projection...
It isn't a jeans pocket camera. It will fit in a jacket pocket.

I've had an FX01 for a few months, and just got an LX2. For basic feel, heft, and size, the LX2 is much more comfortable and I am willing to have to acomodate it. But that's me and how I use a camera like this- the LX2 will be for certain types of shooting where carrying something larger works fine. I'll probably keep the FX01 and carry it in a bag as my 'just in case' camera.

All cameras are a series of trade-offs. It's good that you got your hands on the LX2 before buying it! At least now you know what the trade-offs will really be if you do still want what it provides.
Dan Daniel

 

[Maverick_]

I hope you guys understand my dismay. Check this out:

This is from this site:
Dimensions...106 x 56 x 26 mm (4.2 x 2.2 x 1 in)

Imagine all this time I've been researching this camera I thought I was looking at a 1" thick digicam. Very surprised that it was double the advertised thickness.

I'm still onboard, will go for a 2nd longer look next time. S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

 

[Maverick_]

Great point. So here's what I want in my "compact" digicam:

28mm (3 or 4X zoom)
OIS
Manual Controls
7MP+

I don't think anyone else makes a camera like this besides Panasonic LX2. Am I correct?

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

 

[Maverick_]

I'm dealing with the surprise of the "large" size. You'd think this site would try to be as accurate as possible, or at the very least mention "not including lens."

Dimensions...106 x 56 x 26 mm (4.2 x 2.2 x 1 in)

Any how, I don't think that I have any choice, since there isn't one compact camera out there that has the features that I want, except for the LX2. Or have I missed one...

Canon SD800IS is not bad, but no manual control whatsoever, not even shutter priority. G7 must be double the size of the LX2 and it has no 28mm. I've been using a Sony digicam for a long time and although it has been working fine, for my type of work, which is shooting mostly bikes, 28mm and some manual is a must and I miss it on my Sony.
--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

 

[ddan daniel]

I'm dealing with the surprise of the "large" size. You'd think
this site would try to be as accurate as possible, or at the very
least mention "not including lens."

Dimensions...106 x 56 x 26 mm (4.2 x 2.2 x 1 in)

Yep- annoying. And certainly not unique to this site. At least this site has a side view of the LX1 in its review of it that gives dimensions including the lens projection.
Dan Daniel

 

[Maverick_]

I'll check out the LX1 review. thanks, S

--
***
http://www.shahramshiva.com

 

[wolfie]

since digital came along:
But the choice is easy - tiny body, poorer image quality, fewer controls

or bigger body allows better lens, better image quality, more controls.

OR...maybe you should get pants with a bigger pocket!
--
Shoot the Light fantastic