Look forward to it Mark, as I am considering getting an LX3 as a point and shoot carry everywhere camera. The CA people are complaining about in the LX3, is this very noticeable compared to the GX200. Could it be because people were comparing the LX3 with aperture wide open at 2.0 or 2.8? Most lens, can perform better when stopped down. And is it possible that the "not so sharp" images form the LX3 is due to a very narrow depth of field?Tim.. I have both cameras now. I really find the IQ to be better with the LX3. The one caveat is that I have to use different raw converters since the LX3 files are not yet converted in CS3. The difference in IQ is really most apparent in the high iso images. The LX3 RAW files are really less noisy. I like noise ninja but to get the noise levels equal, you really do loose some of the detail. The CA and fringing is a bit better on the GX200. In real life use and normal sized prints, I doubt there is going to be a huge or any real difference. THe controls and use of the GX200 is better. I am going to try a few more comparisons but these are my early impressions.
MAzor