Panasonic LX3 review

[dalethorn]

I'm comparing the LX3 in actual use to the Panasonic TZ5, rather than a DSLR as hyped, which will make more sense in a moment...

Sensor: Bigger than the TZ5's, yet there is no significant difference in image quality I can detect.  The LX3 has much lower noise in dark shadow areas, yet in normal lighted scenes, everywhere that the TZ5 smears pixels, the LX3 smears them just as badly.  See RAW comments below.

Movies: For 'HD' clips, the LX3's are much better, and the sound is better.  The LX3 clips are smaller, due probably to the 24 fps rate.

RAW format: This was a surprise.  Whereas the Pana FZ50's RAW images (RAW converted to JPEG) were far better than those shot as JPEG's, the LX3 RAW images converted to JPEG were no better than the TZ5 camera's JPEG's, except in dark shadow areas as noted above.  I was not expecting better resolution or noise, but I did expect better color rendition.  The conversion was the same as the FZ50 conversions using Silkypix.

Summicron lens: I cannot discern any superior quality compared to the TZ5's Elmar lens.

24-60 mm effective zoom: This lens limits the camera to landscapes and macros.  When shooting, I also carry the TZ5, and find that I'm pulling it out more frequently than I would like to capture things that the LX3 can't reach.

460k pixel LCD: This doesn't make sense, since composing doesn't benefit from the extra pixels, and playback when zooming uses the thumbnail only, so the image blurs at 4x or greater magnification.

Battery life: Better than other digicams I've used.  If you carry two extras, you can shoot for eight hours or so.

Size and weight: Contrary to the specifications, the LX3 is 45 mm or so deep, yet when wrapped in a soft case, will still fit into a shirt pocket.  Better use a reinforced pocket, or heavy-duty shirt.

There are a lot of things I haven't tried, but the central issue I keep coming back to is that the images under average conditions are not only not better than the TZ5's images, they just don't look anything like the hype that was generated for this new camera.

[BJL]

Summicron lens: I cannot discern any superior quality compared to the TZ5's Elmar lens.
... the images under average conditions are not only not better than the TZ5's images, they just don't look anything like the hype that was generated for this new camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dale,
    surely the biggest hype about the LX3 is its faster lens, allowing one to use less high ISO speeds in low light/fast action situations. Have you compared these cameras wide open at equal shutter speed in low light, and so with correspondingly lower ISO speed on the LX3?

Anyway, when small sensor compacts get as expensive as the Panasonic LX3, Canon G9 and Nikon P6000, I would prefer an "Interchangeable Lens Compact" with a larger sensor, like the Micro 4/3 system promised by Panasonic and Olympus or the system that Samsung says it has coming in 2010. At least if a body and 3x zoom can be "pocketable", which seems possible given how small some 35mm film compacts are. Pushing low light performance on small sensors by using very bright lenses cramps the zoom range too much to be sufficiently flexible for my needs. (I would not bother with the constant f/2 zooms in 4/3 for the same reason, even as a 4/3 user.)

[dalethorn]

Dale,
    surely the biggest hype about the LX3 is its faster lens, allowing one to use less high ISO speeds in low light/fast action situations. Have you compared these cameras wide open at equal shutter speed in low light, and so with correspondingly lower ISO speed on the LX3?
Anyway, when small sensor compacts get as expensive as the Panasonic LX3, Canon G9 and Nikon P6000, I would prefer an "Interchangeable Lens Compact" with a larger sensor, like the Micro 4/3 system promised by Panasonic and Olympus or the system that Samsung says it has coming in 2010. At least if a body and 3x zoom can be "pocketable", which seems possible given how small some 35mm film compacts are. Pushing low light performance on small sensors by using very bright lenses cramps the zoom range too much to be sufficiently flexible for my needs. (I would not bother with the constant f/2 zooms in 4/3 for the same reason, even as a 4/3 user.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't do a lot of comparisons, but the trend was clear from a dozen or so of each, that the quality did deteriorate slightly more on the TZ5 as the light went down.  But the total variables I had to consider to make definitive tests were too many even for a well-paid review.  These little cameras are complex and tricky to get good images from, so my main concern was the middle of the road approach - how do the images compare across a broad range of light, where the light is some reasonable percentage of average daylight?  I read quite a few other reviews, and other than some very specialized use for the camera where a particular feature is a perfect match for a need, I just don't see the justification for hyping the lens and sensor etc. to the degree that's been done with the LX3.  Even the RAW capability is a bad joke in my view.  The things that make sense are manual controls, zoom range, pixel count, etc.  "Real" things in other words.

[dalethorn]

Duplicate.