Hi Tensai - I am interested in your obseervations here. I think it would be very instructive if you could explain why you think the LX-1 is better than the LX-2, because on the face of it - that is, from what is said in print, the LX-2 is 10MP instead of 8 and it is supposed to have better noice reduction using their new Venus III engine - so superficially one would expect the LX-2 to make higher quality images than the LX-1.
On the question of RAW image capability, I assume Elie (the person who started this thread) is using RAW format from the 5D, and this person is looking for a camera as a back-up to the 5D. I think anyone accustomed to working with RAW files would want to preserve that capability even in the back-up camera, therefore should limit their choice to small cameras that also provide RAW files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
MarkDS - Its nothing conclusive, or scientific, but I just took a look at the studio shots from the link I provided, and some studio shots from the LX1. I printed some out too. I totally don't mean this as a definite/final call on the LX1 vs the LX2, but from what I saw, I personally made the choise to get the LX1 instead of the LX2 (although as said in the end I ended up with something else...). To me the LX2 seemed to have quite heavy noise reduction, and I just prevered the look of the LX1 files over the LX2 files for that reason.
For me a pocket cam with 8mb was also more than enough. Again, just my call, your milage - and needs - may vary.
I still think either of them looks like a real nice camera though. Great to have such a lens, manual options and RAW at your disposal. About RAW - Although I only shoot RAW with my D200, I don't feel I miss it with my FX01 though.
Hope that clearified things a bit.