Panasonic LX3

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Paul Furman, Nov 9, 2008.

  1. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Seems like a nice compact camera to compliment a DSLR.
    Other than the lack of viewfinder (guess you can get a rangefinder
    thingy for the hot shoe), and the image quality (yeah but for the size &
    price) it sounds great. Nice 24-60mm f/2-2.8 lens (not overly ambitious
    except in speed), a somewhat larger sensor for a compact (and a
    conservative 10MP), big fat 3" LCD on what seems to be a pocket sized

    How does it handle? Seems to have great manual controls with switches &
    knobs to avoid menu diving. Does it have a time lapse timer mode? Is the
    lens slow in extending making for slow startup (relative to the
    competition)? The lens retracted is probably more bulky than the LX2?
    Will it fit into a pants pocket without struggling?

    Other comparable cameras?
    -small (might be too big already)
    -wide fast lens

    I don't think I'd miss the 60-125mm range in a pocket camera.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Nov 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Nov 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Furman

    ASAAR Guest

    Check out Thom Hogan's Compact Shootout, which compares the G10,
    the LX3 and Nikon's P6000. It's thorough and delves much more
    deeply into ergonomics than other reviews and comparisons.

    Spoiler Alert: The article must be read for the conclusion to be
    understandable, but for the impatient or those that won't trouble
    themselves to read Thom's article, scroll down. Otherwise, use the
    link above . . .
    ASAAR, Nov 9, 2008
  4. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Excellent, thank you. I still think the LX3 suits my needs perfect, if
    only it was a bit smaller. The Nikon gets ripped in this review and the
    Canon looks much bigger and doesn't go as wide. The LX3 seems to have
    awesome manual control. The lack of CA sounds great.

    I don't expect miracles, I just want something decent that I won't
    hesitate to throw in my pocket when running a quick errand. My
    8-year-old oly C3030 is so slow, I never use it any more and it's fatter
    than these so only fits in a big jacket pocket.

    Possible problems from my perspective:

    LX3 has a lot of barrel distortion at 24 (though in camera jpegs are

    White balance reported to be sketchy in dpreview. I guess that means
    shooting raw which is a hassle, and I assume it doesn't do raw plus jpeg
    or if it does, that slows it down a lot & chews up batteries. Dpreview
    said raw was slow, and it sounds like it's got some funky raw format
    that I sure hope can be converted to dng. No matter it's going to mess
    up my workflow, adding lens corrections, upgrading photoshop, kludging
    white balance from jpegs or spending time twiddling in the menu in the
    field. This review has raw files to compare, the LX3 looks generally
    better in the in-camera jpegs on dpreview.

    If you need pixels, you need the Canon, hands down. If you need the
    fast, wide, defect-free lens, you need the Panasonic."

    This says it for me, plus the small size.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Nov 9, 2008
  5. Paul Furman

    Marty Fremen Guest

    The most obvious alternative is the Ricoh GX200 which is the same size and
    weight, has 24-72mm f2.5-f4.4 zoom, same size sensor I think (but 4:3
    instead of 3:2), and also has a clip-on viewfinder (EVF though, so it gives
    the full zoom range unlike LX3 one), lots of programmable buttons etc for
    full manual control (inc focus), time lapse etc. Without the finder on it
    will fit in a shirt pocket (a little heavy but not too bad), I expect the
    LX3 would too by the looks of it.

    Also has 19mm w/a adaptor available, and a modest tele adaptor (I forget
    the x).

    It's pretty astonishing the dpreview review didn't compare the two cameras,
    they are so similar in spec.
    Marty Fremen, Nov 9, 2008
  6. Paul Furman

    RichA Guest

    $500 for a P&S that has noise at 200 ISO that looks like the WORST
    DSLR at 800 ISO. People are frigging insane to buy it.
    Anyone buying this toy is:
    1. Lazy.
    2. Insane.
    3. Unaware that you can get at least 3 entry DSLRs cheaper.

    BTW, check out it's zoom range and figure out how CONFINING it will
    be, unless you thing trying to screw-on worthless tele-adapters and
    wide angle attachements is much fun in the field.
    RichA, Nov 9, 2008
  7. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Ah, thanks!
    (they don't even have a proper review) it is a bit expensive but maybe a
    bit smaller. The EVF add-on is neat though!
    press release & specs:
    previous model:

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Nov 9, 2008
  8. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    $389 at the link I provided (the Canon & Ricoh are more) but yeah
    smaller & cheaper would be easier to swallow for a pocket camera.
    If there was a cheaper 6MP version I'd get one tomorrow.

    No, I just want something more compact.

    No attachments for me (maybe the Ricoh EVF if I was feeling flush), what
    really sparked my interest was the 24mm wide angle, fast CA-free lens &
    realistic price. I wasn't actively searching, just noticed this &
    thought: "hey, cool and it'll fit in my pocket." For my needs I have no
    problem losing telephoto range in exchange for speed, compactness &
    clean optics.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Nov 9, 2008
  9. Paul Furman

    just bob Guest

    I read some threads from users on DPR a about a month ago: I understand the
    most frustrating thing about this camera is the lens cap, and if you can get
    around that it's a nice camera.
    just bob, Nov 10, 2008
  10. Paul Furman

    Hiroyuki Guest

    Ricoh got round that criticism of the GX100 by coming up with an
    ingenious lens cap with hinged flaps for the GX200 which the lens simply
    pushes itself through. Personally I'm a bit sceptical about how dust
    proof such a cap can be, but since they've seemingly copied the rest of
    Ricoh's ideas for the LX3, maybe Panasonic should fit one too.
    Hiroyuki, Nov 11, 2008
  11. Paul Furman


    Apr 25, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Atlanta, GA
    I have an LX3 that I keep for travel use when I can't justify bringing along my 5d or other dslr bodies + glass. I fly every month to FL so the LX3 goes in my carry on. I was using a Canon g10 prior to getting the LX3.

    I find that I can get some decent pictures with it. I'll agree it can get noisy, but it really depends on what I'm shooting. I got it for extremely cheap so I wasn't worried about losing money or not liking it. I got mine with several B+W filters that made it a better snag IMHO.

    My only issue with the LX3 is that I'm used to using a bigger camera, so the placement of the controls feels very awkward to me. This is more of a user issue, not a design issue. I have a hard time shooting in manual mode and adjusting the shutter speed as the toggle is just in a weird place for me to access when holding it and trying to shoot. I constantly feel like I'm going to drop it in the process.

    The lens cap can be annoying but I'm somewhat used to that issue with my dslr and swapping lenses and having the same cap issues.

    I find the compact size accomplishes what I need it to. Flying with gear is always a PITA so the LX3 saves me some time.
    ccshallcross, Apr 25, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.