thinking about getting the LX3....

[Lee Beasley]

A more flexible option than the LX3, if you're concerned about the age and technology of the D40, might be the Pentax K200D, or even the newer K2000. I love the little LX3, but to tell you the truth, I wouldn't use it for the situations you describe. The K200D is great in low light, even with the kit lens, and is just a super performer. I would imagine the K2000 is good in this respect, too, although I don't have any experience with it.

Also the LXZ3 RAW function, for the average consumer (myself definitely included) is unwieldy. I shoot in RAW+JPEG but only to hold on to the RAW file in case anybody ever supports it without a conversion to DNG first. I'm just not a fan of Silkypix. The jerky screen redraw alone is enough to put me off, even if it were the best converter made.

 

[Bazuk]

Someone else does support the raw file - Adobe. Either Photoshop (but that's expensive) or Adobe Lightroom 2.2 which I use for all my photo needs.

 

[Barry Carter]

Well, one can do a lot of prelim processing with Silkypix; especially if your exposures are off the mark. Then you can batch convert the files to 16-bit uncompressed TIF's. I use Paint Shop Pro X2, which will eventually support the LX3. Currently only the LX1 and LX2 are supported. Patience, the LX3 is the new kid on the block.

Ciao....Barry

Someone else does support the raw file - Adobe. Either Photoshop (but
that's expensive) or Adobe Lightroom 2.2 which I use for all my photo
needs.

 

[cdenes]

A more flexible option than the LX3, if you're concerned about the
age and technology of the D40, might be the Pentax K200D, or even the
newer K2000. I love the little LX3, but to tell you the truth, I
wouldn't use it for the situations you describe. The K200D is great
in low light, even with the kit lens, and is just a super performer.
I would imagine the K2000 is good in this respect, too, although I
don't have any experience with it.

just when I thought I had made up my mind! aaargh!

okay, I'll bite. why the pentax in particular? Forgive me for not knowing.

I'm not necessarily concerned about the age and technology of the Nikon D40, I just didn't like holding it very much. I'm a woman, don't have big burly hands and appreciate a smaller package. that is why I liked the Olympus evolt. But I confess I did not look at the Pentax range at all. There are so many cameras! it is overwhelming!

 

[Steph Kimball]

Yeah, I'm not paying attention.... didn't mean to mislead. It's looking like the OP is having a difficult time choosing between the many camera options. Perhaps that is why so many of us end up owning an arsenal of gear? LOL

SLR's have removable/interchangeable lenses.

You can most certainly buy a lens that opens up to f/2.0. In fact,
you can buy a lens that opens up to f/1.4, which allows even MORE
light onto the sensor.

Not at 24mm equivalent Steph, that's what we're considering when
comparing with the LX3. If you want to allow any focal length in the
comparison then why stop at f/1.4? There are much faster lenses
available at other focal lengths.

--
John Bean [GMT]

--

 

[O P S]

Christy I always used the viewfinder on my FZ10 but how with my FZ28 I use the LCD screen and can get sharp pictures. For the type of photography your talking

about the LX3 fits the bill very very well . I'm sure you like Bill Mc Clung's photos
that he posted for you. And if you haven't done so yet look at Dan Polley's
photos on the Post Your Best LX- 3 Shots thread.
David F
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourphotostore

 

[Jeff]

I've been shooting dslr's seemingly forever, with multiple bodies and a very complete (and expensive!) lens collection. I picked up an LX-3 at Christmas mainly for the convenience of having a compact camera for those times when carrying a bulky body around is a non-starter.

Well, guess what. I haven't used my dslr set up since picking up the LX-3. It's a great little cam. It has different capabilities - greater DOF, more unobstrusive, wide to roughly normal focal range.

You won't be sorry either way you go. My guess is that you'll eventually want both anyway.

Jeff

I thought I was going to get my first DSLR this month - am finally
ready to step up from my combo of old film SLR and compact digital. I
will always love film but I'm a working mom and only photograph for
my own personal enjoyment & let's face it digital is much easier to
use these days. Anyway, I thought I would find a good entry level
DSLR that would offer me all the manual options of my old SLR and not
be too bulky.

But so far I have been more impressed with the photos taken with the
LX3 vs those with the Olympus evolt or the entry level canon eos. I
have a decidedly point-and-shoot kind of style, shoot indoors a lot
and hate to use flash, love wide angle, love super-saturated colors &
high contrast.... am I right to think I should go for the LX3 instead
of a DSLR??

The major drawback for me is the lack of viewfinder. I really miss
looking through that viewfinder. and yes I know there is one you can
add but it costs a lot of money for a rangefinder! and makes the
whole 'package' quite different.

What else am I not thinking about? advice please!

Christy

--
Jeff