LX3 to -> GF1

[Tim]

Hi all,

I am considering a GF1 (maybe and EP2) and was just wondering if anyone went to a GF1 and dumped their LX3? There is a lot of potential cross-over with these two, has anyone found that they kept their LX3 or missed it once going to the GF1?

The thing is the zoom LX3 compacts a lot more and the camera is somewhat smaller than a GF1 and zoom.

Tim

 

[Show Performance]

Hi Tim,

See my post "E-P2 First Thoughts" - there's even a photo of the LX3 taken by my E-P2!

In a nutshell, the LX3 stands up extremely well to the micro four thirds cameras. I did some comparison shots today and the LX3 was actually sharper straight out of RAW on some images. That Leica lens is super sharp!

Of course the E-P2 takes very pleasing shallow DOF images and has much more flexibility if you want to play around with additional lenses. Add to that, the excellent video and you'll probably be pleased with the platform.

I'm keeping my LX3 for times when I want even more portability and for evening "party shots". The E-P2 does not have a focus assist lamp so even with the external flash, focus speed is very poor in low light.

Good luck with your decision but I would advise getting the new camera first and spending some time with it before jettisoning your LX3.

 

[iiiNelson]

I have a D-Lux 4 and I have a G1. I will probably pickup a GF1 this week (as an early Christmas present to myself) if I can find one with a 20mm kit. IQ wise the G1 beats it all day but not by an astronomical margin under great conditions. The difference comes down to a larger sensor, optics, and sensor behavior. I don't think of either as replacements for the other. They are more complimentary. The menus and look of the images are largely similar with the 4/3 having a bit extra crispness and detail. Here's a review comparing the two though.

http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/THE_PANASONIC_GF1_REVIEW.html

 

[nostatic]

fwiw, I have a DLux4, bought the GF1 and took it back within a few hours. I frankly didn't see the night/day difference in IQ. Yes, I could see the advantage to u4/3 but it wasn't as big as I'd hoped. While I admit that I'm a "better hook me quick or you're out" guy, I took the exact same shots under the exact same light in my typical low light conditions and I actually preferred the DLux4 output.

Take it with a salt lick because I've seen people get great images out of the GF1. But I just didn't see the pop to keep it in the house. I actually liked the EP1 output much better than the GF1. This was shooting mostly jpg (Aperture doesn't support the raws), but messing around with raws in RawDeveloper didn't change my mind. Heresy perhaps, but rather than a slam on the GF1, I think it is a testament to how good the DLux4/LX3 is.

 

[mark1958]

i was going to sell my LX3 but decided to keep it. However, have not used it since getting my GF1

 

[47th_vacuum_space]

I dumped both the LX3 AND my DSLR rig, and haven't so much as glanced back. I added a G1 as well. IQ is superb--I have no regrets.

 

[jpmac55]

I also decided to dump my DSLR and will buy a 4/3 to replace it. Right now I am leaning toward the GF1. I also have a Leica Dlux4 which I am keeping.

Of course neither of these cameras are supported by Apple Aperture but that's another story.

 

[Rich M]

I keep my LX3 in my kit......along with my GF1/GH1 combo.

I must admit I rarely use it.....but this weekend it sure came in handy for some tight, poorly lit architectural shots.

 

[Show Performance]

fwiw, I have a DLux4, bought the GF1 and took it back within a few hours. I frankly didn't see the night/day difference in IQ. Yes, I could see the advantage to u4/3 but it wasn't as big as I'd hoped. While I admit that I'm a "better hook me quick or you're out" guy, I took the exact same shots under the exact same light in my typical low light conditions and I actually preferred the DLux4 output.

Take it with a salt lick because I've seen people get great images out of the GF1. But I just didn't see the pop to keep it in the house. I actually liked the EP1 output much better than the GF1. This was shooting mostly jpg (Aperture doesn't support the raws), but messing around with raws in RawDeveloper didn't change my mind. Heresy perhaps, but rather than a slam on the GF1, I think it is a testament to how good the DLux4/LX3 is.

I second Nostatic and as I said in my own post, the LX3 output holds up amazingly well to the E-P2 (and I assume the GF1). I took sample shots today under the same conditions and when the LX3 image was clearly much sharper, I went back and reshot the E-P2 stopped down to see if it could do better. It did, but still not as sharp as the LX3. I'm sure that the results you get comparing these cameras varies according to many variables but in this circumstance the LX3 was the winner.

Does this mean that I'm disappointed with the E-P2? Not necessarily. Do I want every image to be sharp from edge to edge with a deep DOF? No, of course not. The overall impression that the E-P2 images makes is superb and usually, better than the LX3.

So while, I hoped to unload the LX3, I'm holding onto it for situations that suit its strengths.

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

G1...works well with fast lenses 20mm & greater (35mm equivilant 40mm) ...LX3 does 35mm equivalent 25mm & 18mm @ f/2.0...very sharp and with a greater depth of field than one can get with larger sensors at that speed...I carry both... they are different animals.

 

[apicius9]

Same as many others, I was thinking about replacing the LX3 with something even more portable, but the picture quality is just great, it does everything I need, and it's small enough to throw it in a bag - so I decided to keep it. It does go well with the G1. Sometimes I'm still wondering about upgrading from the G1 to the GH1 for the slightly better pic, more variable format and video capability, but I hardly ever use video, so the price jump seems to steep for the ROI. I'll see what the GH2 looks like

Stefan

 

[Tim]

Wow, thank you all for your responses, from what I have read I think I will keep the LX3 while I try out a GF1. The 17mm does fit a lot of what I take so I might go with that lens to start!

 

[rgeorge911]

So here's something that is very important to me in comparing the two - the M4/3 cameras have no way of manually zone focusing! I absolutely love my G1, but even with the great little 20mm f1.7, I can't just set it on f8, adjust to the dof scale (because it doesn't exist) and use it for street photography.

The LX2/LX3 on the other hand displays a depth of field indicator when manually focusing. So, I can use it that way.

This is very important in my opinion.

I contacted Panasonic about it, but couldn't get anyone there who could understand my question.

Like I said, I love my G1. However, I just upgraded from the LX2 to the LX3 for this reason.

Reed

 

[slau]

I have read that in general the LX3 image is 'sharper'. Are you comparing jpeg images or raw? Did you just look at the 100% pixel on your monitor or from prints? I have been processing and printing my friend's LX3 images all the time. While the LX3 images are good for a tiny sensor camera, it does not give me the impression of 'sharper' than G1/GH1 images, especially from prints 11X14 or larger. I am talking about comparing raw files and with landscape type of shots with tons of details.

Just being curious. Thanks.

 

[Rawfa]

Tim, while in between cameras I've recently bought an LX3 to take to a trip to Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and I've found out that the IQ in plain day light is not THAT far from the micro 4/3 bunch. Micro 4/3 cameras have a bit more dynamic range but it's not a night and day difference as I see it between compacts and larger sensor DSLR. The biggest difference is high iso and the ability to use all types of lenses ( and in the case of Panasonic cameras, faster AF). I also think that since concept of the micro 4/3 is relatively new this system has yet to evolve a lot, like when the first DSLRs showed up. Things like AF, dynamic range, high iso will keep getting better. From my point of view if invest on micro 4/3 equipment you are investing in the future (even if you sell your micro 4/3 camera latter you can keep your lenses and start building a nice collection for when the perfect camera for you hits the market).

 

[blindrobert]

I got the LX3 in the summer and then the GF1 in the early fall. My LX3 is now up on
'the Bay" because I just stopped using it. I usually travel by bicycle in the city and find that there is no difference in carrying one or the other in my messenger bag, so I would rather have the GF1. I haven't used the LX3 since getting the GF1, so I doubt I will miss it.

I think they are complimentary to one another, but for me the overlap in usefulness was too great to justify owning both.

 

[Show Performance]

Stephen,

Indeed, I have compared LX3 RAW images to E-P2 RAW (with the 17mm) and the LX3 is sharper. However, the LX3 also exhibited some nasty artifacts in highlight areas.

 

[slau]

Stephen,

Indeed, I have compared LX3 RAW images to E-P2 RAW (with the 17mm) and the LX3 is sharper. However, the LX3 also exhibited some nasty artifacts in highlight areas.

Thanks. I have processed and printed quite a few of my friend's LX3 images. They do look good if the exposure is right on and there is not too much shaded(under-exposed) area. Otherwise, the noise or artifacts (?) is just unacceptable to me.

The lens on the LX3 is pretty sweet and optimized for that camera. The camera definitely shows the advantage (and disadvantage too, of course) of a fixed lens camera. I wonder how much different in 'sharpness' is due to larger DOF, optics or the creation of the raw file process.

Neverthelss, I don't think there is anything to complain about the sharpness of GF1 or G1/GH1. Not to me anyway .

 

[Howard]

Tim,

I have a LX3 and G1 and periodically I consider getting a GF1. With the 20 1.7mm, it will only be slightly larger than the LX3. If I put the kit lens on the GF1, the GF1 will be much larger than the LX3, but with a longer reach, but not as wide. I lent my LX3 to my daughter who went to Italy for 10 days. The weather was mostly gray and she shot all her photos as jpg's. Of the 600 photo's that she took, most needed some minimal PP, but with a little PP. she ended up with about 100 nice photo's and some excellent photos. With a bit more explanation from me, her keeper percentage would have been higher. When lighting was bright, her photos were very sharp and many looked very good at 100%. I am very impressed with the LX3. Maybe I will ultimately end up with a GF2, whenever that is introduced and my daughter will happily get my LX3.

 

[Show Performance]

I think we can all agree, the LX3 is a wonderful little camera...