Compact digital recommendations

[Biggsy]

I'll be keeping my LX2 for a while for the sake of the telephoto capability.  That to me is as important as anything else.

[Sergeant Pluck]

I like the LX3. I read around quite a lot before getting it and bought it fully aware of the lack of zoom. My reasoning was that a fast lens and a decent wide would suit most of the pics I take. However, the TZ5 was a strong contender and possibly the better all-rounder. Another factor in my choice was what the camera was like to hold: initially I was on the hunt for a smaller camera, but realised that in fact most of the small ones are a bit fiddly to handle on the move (I like to take photos while riding). The LX3 is good in the hand and I like the look of it.

It does have its limitations though and there are situations, I think, where my old Fuji F30 does a better job in auto modes, especially in relation to colour balance indoors.   

[andyoxon]

I like the LX3. I read around quite a lot before getting it and bought it fully aware of the lack of zoom. My reasoning was that a fast lens and a decent wide would suit most of the pics I take. However, the TZ5 was a strong contender and possibly the better all-rounder. Another factor in my choice was what the camera was like to hold: initially I was on the hunt for a smaller camera, but realised that in fact most of the small ones are a bit fiddly to handle on the move (I like to take photos while riding). The LX3 is good in the hand and I like the look of it.

It does have its limitations though and there are situations, I think, where my old Fuji F30 does a better job in auto modes, especially in relation to colour balance indoors.   

Shame the TZ5 doesn't have manual, AP, & SP modes... but seems a versatile performer. 

[Sergeant Pluck]

Another thing to consider: can you live with a lens cap?

[inc]

It looks like same conclusions as me, too short telephoto. separate lens cap and for me a bit pricey for what it is, the new Canon PowerShot SX200 IS looks good on paper, just need to wait for a test. I do like Canon from my first an  FTBn I bought in 1978 and still have.

[andyoxon]

It looks like same conclusions as me, too short telephoto. separate lens cap and for me a bit pricey for what it is, the new Canon PowerShot SX200 IS looks good on paper, just need to wait for a test. I do like Canon from my first an  FTBn I bought in 1978 and still have.

How does this work..?   

Short telephoto - H.Cartier Bresson mostly used a 50mm, and the LX3 has 24-60mm!

Lens caps - you do just get used to them, I did with other cameras... and you could try this
LX3 Lens Cap Mod IV on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

SX200?  £10 less than LX3?   LX3 has a bigger sensor, with slightly less than half the pixel density of the SX200 - and more than likely a significant edge on IQ.


almost convincing myself...   

[Rob S]

It looks like same conclusions as me, too short telephoto. separate lens cap and for me a bit pricey for what it is, the new Canon PowerShot SX200 IS looks good on paper, just need to wait for a test. I do like Canon from my first an  FTBn I bought in 1978 and still have.

If you want 'too short telephoto and expensive for what it is' then rather than the LX3 you need a Sigma DP1

The focal length range is a big factor with the LX3...24-60 is a niche that's come about in order to maintain the best image quality it can....whereas a 28-336mm lens on a small compact is bound to be disappointing at both ends.

[Biggsy]

I wouldn't mind an LX3 with a 24-200mm lens that was optimised for the 28-50 part of the range, or with two lenses like some Kodaks have.

Having such a limited range of 24-60 for the sake of quality is admirable, but it's just not compatible with what most people (without the talent of Bresson!) want to do with their cameras these days.  Niche indeed.

The lens cap is no big deal though (like the LX2's too).  It is tethered... unlike my 67mm Tamron that's probably been eaten by a deer in Richmond Park by now.

[inc]

My original thread about a camera for cycling directed me here. I can see the shortfalls of the LX3 for my intended use  but had illogically hoped that in use the issues were not so relevant but of course they are. I like the LX3 and my heart is saying buy it and my head is saying no. I expect just about any reasonable quality digital camera will give acceptable results so I want one that gives the versatility of a reasonable lens range, is as compact as possible and a quality build so it can take the inevitable knocks that getting carried while cycling will give it.

As for he comments about  H.Cartier Bresson using mostly  a 50mm, and the LX3 has 24-60mm!

So what, he would have produced better photos with a pin hole camera,than most people with an LX3 


And -- the  LX3 has a bigger sensor, with slightly less than half the pixel density of the SX200 - and more than likely a significant edge on IQ.

Technical specification, pixel count and sensor sizes don't always give the best results as even a casual read of the lens performance tests show but Canon seem to be near the top of the pile on lens performance throughout their range.

[Rob S]

Having such a limited range of 24-60 for the sake of quality is admirable, but it's just not compatible with what most people (without the talent of Bresson!) want to do with their cameras these days.  Niche indeed.

Loads of manufacturers, including Panasonic, make loads of cameras that 'most people want' or rather most people put up with what they offer...a neverending pixel count increase, smile detection, automatic everything, ISO 1600 that is more noise than detail, a zoom range to cover everything in one lens but which makes a square look circular at 28mm and pin cushioned at 120mm, soft edges, etc etc.

The LX3 is for people that have a decent dSLR and a 28-70 and 70-210/300 and perhaps a fast prime, lens but need something to easily carry around that takes an excellent image . That's why I bought an LX3 for cycling.

[Biggsy]

I appreciate that, Rob, but a lot of keen dSLR users want more of a range from their compact camera lenses as well these days.

I don't think Panasonic had to be quite so purist with the lens.  The LX2's lens is excellently sharp but has a larger range.  For the LX3, a reasonably large range but optimised for the wide end would have been really good.

The LX3 is not for people that have a decent dSLR and a 28-70 and 70-210/300 lens but need something to easily carry around that takes an excellent image.  It's for people that have a decent dSLR and a 28-70 and 70-210/300 lens but need something to easily carry around that takes an excellent wide-to-standard-angle image.  Niche niche.

ps. If you're gonna be that purist, why not go all the way and have the prime wide-angle lens of the Sigma DP1?
EDIT: Please ignore this ps!

[andyoxon]

Re the DP1 - have a look at the Con-clusions in the Dprev review

[Biggsy]

Re the DP1 - have a look at the Con-clusions in the Dprev review

Half those things wouldn't bother me, but yeah the other half make it seem a crap camera.  Ok, the LX3 looks a better choice for the wide-angle specialist.

[Rob S]

I appreciate that, Rob, but a lot of keen dSLR users want more of a range from their compact camera lenses as well these days.

I don't think Panasonic had to be quite so purist with the lens.  The LX2's lens is excellently sharp but has a larger range.  For the LX3, a reasonably large range but optimised for the wide end would have been really good.

The LX3 is not for people that have a decent dSLR and a 28-70 and 70-210/300 lens but need something to easily carry around that takes an excellent image.  It's for people that have a decent dSLR and a 28-70 and 70-210/300 lens but need something to easily carry around that takes an excellent wide-to-standard-angle image.  Niche niche.

ps. If you're gonna be that purist, why not go all the way and have the prime wide-angle lens of the Sigma DP1?
EDIT: Please ignore this ps!

Yeah I should've added that it's for the person that has those lenses but finds he really tends to stick to the 28-70 as that is what I meant. I bought a 70-300 zoom for my Nikon D70 a week before I went to the Goodwood Festival of Speed as I knew I'd want it for the track shots...and I find that's the only time I use it each year. That observation also saved me some dosh on the much respected VR version that I skipped on as I simply wouldn't use it much.....as it is the D70 sits unused for a couple of months at a time as I take most of my pics whilst cycling.

[Rob S]

Re the DP1 - have a look at the Con-clusions in the Dprev review

Also have a look at Ricoh's take on the fixed lens 'super compact' GR1D (or something) If I recall correctly the image produced can be described as 'watercolour like'
 

[frankly frankie]

Thinking more positively, I suppose I might be interested in an LX3 if I had a second camera as well with me for telephoto, or if a converter worked OK.

I'm surprised more people don't jump on this idea.

Something like an LX3 in one pocket and a G10 in the other makes a great deal of sense to me, and certainly better than going down the converter route.  If either manufacturer were to make a 'matched pair' - eg a G10Tele and G10Wide - so using the same battery and same controls layout - so much the better.  I think I'd see that as a better option than a compact with interchangable lenses, even.