I have had the LX3 for ten months or so now, and it has been a great little camera. Pocketable, so you can carry it everywhere. Versatile, from close-ups to portraits to landscapes. Fine, in terms of image quality.
Here are two images from yesterday. Both were processed slightly in Lightzone to make the images appear as the eye saw them.
There have been recently more and more rumours of a follow-up to the LX3. It is said to have a (slightly) bigger sensor - 1/1.3 inch - producing better high-ISO capabilities. Well, you can always wish. Meanwhile, I'll continue taking photographs with the LX3.
What kind of successor would I like to have to the LX3? Well, there seem to be two alternatives. The micro 4/3 cameras such as E-P1 are promising, but the E-P1 is still a bit too large for me. Perhaps a fixed-lens version will appear soon, with a nice wide-angle lens to go. Another possibility is an upgraded LX3, and the rumour I pointed out above seems excellent for me.
I have used the LX3 at ISO 400 (and even ISO 800), but for my type of photography - landscapes - the graininess starts to be disturbing, because the texture of the landscape disappears easily to noise. Thus, clean images at ISO 400 (and perhaps even at ISO 800) would be excellent to have. (Because I'm shooting jpeg, I'm at a slight disadvantage here. If I were shooting RAW I could eliminate noise in post-processing better than the LX3 is able to do in-camera.)
But then there is the other side the picture, namely the usability of the camera. Here the LX3 shines, dispite one or two quicks, such as the easily turning mode dial and the easily opening battery compartment. The on-screen display is excellent, including a live histogram, which helps in getting the correct exposure. And then it is up to the photographer to catch the image he/she really wants.
Posts
Men's room
7 hours ago
2 comments:
I'd agree with you on that summary. Of course, I shoot exclusive RAW so am happy with results up to ISO800 and ISO1600 for small prints/on-screen.
Don't hold your breath for a fixed lens micro four-thirds as it is an interchangeable lens standard.
Yes, micro 4/3 is of course mainly an alternative to current DSLRs and not so much for compacts (even though Olympus marketing seems to think differently), but on the other hand it might at the same time force to make changes in the compact camera market.
Post a Comment