LX3, LX5, or something else?

K

kartracer

Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
Trying to convince myself that I need a compact, based on the idea of wanting always to have a camera with me. Some user reviews, e.g Amazon, claim the LX5 is not as sharp as the LX3. What do you think? One thing I'm not sure about is the lack of a viewfinder. I was looking at the Panasonic based on bang-for-the-buck, but would consider anything similar - if the picture quality is up there, and good low-light performance (something users also slate the LX5 for over the LX3).
 
I went from LX2 to LX5 and I don't think that the 5 is anywhere near as sharp. Whole images are ok, but they're not so good once you start to pixel peep. Having said that for me the move was worth it as the LX2 wouldn't record RAW without also recording a JPEG and that slowed the camera down, the LX5 will at least record RAW and only RAW and for me that in itself makes the move worthwhile.

As for higher ISO, I'd say that it's useable up to ISO 3200 after noise reduction.
 
So it sounds not like sample variation, rather there is an issue with sharpness due to the design? Incidentally, have you done any large prints from LX5 shots, and how were they?

Do you have an external viewfinder, or just use the LCD?
 
I don't have a viewfinder, I just use the screen and I have no problem using it even in direct bright sunlight.

I don't know if the lack of sharpness is sample variation, I just assumed that it's the consequence of the tendency for manufacturers to use ever more and ever smaller pixels but whatever the reason my current LX5 doesn't seem as sharp as my previous LX2 to me. I think that it's probably a good idea not to view shots at high magnification on screen.

The biggest I've printed is A4 and they do look good even when viewed with a magnifying glass.

I have a GF1 as well and the difference in image quality is noticeable.
 
Consider the GF1 (can be had s/h for 200£ or less) and a 20mm instead of a compact. You will be a lot happier with the results.
 
I have an LX3, but can't compare to the LX5. The LX5 has greater zoom range, however I'm very happy with my LX3 and have no plans to change it.

One thing to consider it is not quite pocketable (big pockets just). The S90 was out around the time I was looking at the LX3, and this is a bit more 'compact' and seems to also get good reviews.
 
I've got a LX3 and am generally pretty happy with it.
The TL500 from Samsung is also worth considering.

I would like my lx3 to have better high ISO performance (which I think the 5 does get; but it does seem that in some cases the shots from the latter aren't quite as sharp.)

What I do think really helps the LX3 for it's whole 'handy camera'ness is sticking one of these 'auto caps' on. It's just about 'pocketable'; fine in a jacket pocket generally, but a bit tight in jeans.
With the auto-cap and the camera set to an autoish mode you can get used to pull it out, flicking it on and taking a pic pretty quickly.

Definitely like the 24mm for getting everything in, which is handy for those quick shots.
 
Yes, one of the reason I'm interested is the wide end.

Read something about in-camera processing being responsible for the apparent lack of sharpness, so I wonder if RAW into LR might sort it?

Extra zoom would be handy, but not essential.

Will look at GF1.

Any pocket will do!
 
I've got an LX-3, never used a 5. It's OK, never really been blown away by it but it's not my main camera. The wide end is useful, but anything over ISO400 is awful, in fact 400 is noisy in lowish light. Only tend to shoot raw so can't comment on sharpness. I should really just use jpegs as I'm mainly doing snapshots on it, and it'd save time messing round processing images.
 
I do like the relatively 'native' 16:9 aspect ratio which I find works well with the 24mm lens for most of the pictures I take (and of course easy to change if not).
Not a picturesque image, but stuff like this shows how useful the wide angle can be :) - he was sat like that thinking he wasn't in the picture :) - ok, it's also nice for landscapes and most photograpraphy at festivals where generally you either want to get a lot in, or can't step far enough back for a longer lens).

I presume the compact 4/3 cameras get a fair bit better high ISO quality; do occasionally have a look at them, but can't justify it unfortunately. And I think that extra bit of size and the lack of auto-lens cap would mean it'd get used less.

Different ISO settings as an idea, not amazing pics again:
ISO400
ISO800
ISO3200
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top