Lumix LX3 triumphs in enthusiast camera shoot out

[editor]

Lumix have admitted there's big problems with the update:
http://www.wirefresh.com/lumix-lx3-firmware-update-bad-news/

 

[Pie 1]

Ok heres something I'm just throwing in for fun.
I saw on the Lumix LX3 website ages ago some comissioned images & one of them was a long exposure at 3am in full moonlight of Monument valley & I recall being a little about the shot & thought no more of it tbh.
Well, I found myself thinking about it again as it was full moon last night & I happened to be looking across a very nice mountain valley at 2am this morning from a hotel room so I whipped out the LX3 & popped it on the windowsill & set the exposure mauually for 30 secs/80iso @ f2.0 to see what it 'd do.

Here's my result pretty much straight out of the box processed in ACR & then curves in CS4.
I can tell you, it doesn't exactly stand up to much scrutiny.

& here's the gallery on the LX3 site - (click on image no.8 from the left) his was a 1min @f2 exp as well

What do we think?...

 

[editor]

The LX3 really is a fabulous camera and it's certainly making me think harder and harder about investing in the GF1.

 

[Pie 1]

The LX3 really is a fabulous camera

Of course. But possibly just not quite as fabulous in reality as that Monument Valley shot?..if you get my drift.

 

[editor]

Of course, the photographer's eye and skills are always more important than the camera, but the LX3 really is an exceptional performer.

That photo on the Bruce Dale site is astonishing.

 

[Pie 1]

Oh, no doubt - it's astonishing that a compact can deliver a night shot like this, period.
But mine was also shot on 80iso at f2 & for less time & still it's pretty darn noisy & still is after a good remixing in PS - just wondering how Mr Dale's shot looks quite so slick, as I'm assuming there is not much more he could have done with the original exp in camera than I did...

<anyway I appear to be pixel peeping which is a sure sign to go and do something better with my afternoon >

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Pie1 you mentioned that you adjusted the levels of your picture. Given that your exposure was half the time of Bruce Dales one, that probably accounts for the extra noise. His picture probably didn't need the levels to tweaked because it was exposed more.

Also I think his picture was taken outdoors while yours was shot through a window, which is another light absorbing and reflecting surface. Also I see wispy clouds in your sky. There may have been a thin layer of cloud over the moon during your exposure. He says he waited for 5 hours for the cloud to clear. The difference in the amount of moisture in the air in the two countries is also probably a factor.

What I don't understand is the colour balance and saturation in Bruce Dales picture. He comments on it himself, stating that the Sunlight is reflecting off the Moon. We all know this but in experience, the red end of the spectrum is usually much diminished unlike in his picture.

 

[Pie 1]

Also I think his picture was taken outdoors while yours was shot through a window

Oh come on, give me some bleedin' credit

 

[Hocus Eye.]

And I bet it was double glazed as well.

 

[Pie 1]

Pie1 you mentioned that you adjusted the levels of your picture. Given that your exposure was half the time of Bruce Dales one, that probably accounts for the extra noise.

Yep, I exposed it for 30sec thinking that was what I'd read his was - levels needed a big push.

There may have been a thin layer of cloud over the moon during your exposure. He says he waited for 5 hours for the cloud to clear. The difference in the amount of moisture in the air in the two countries is also probably a factor.

This is an interesting factor tbf. The day had been a perfect clear sunny one, but slightly smokey & there was a definate haze in the air earlier in the evening.

What I don't understand is the colour balance and saturation in Bruce Dales picture.

Quite obviously I'm not denying the right to post process & I'm not naive about it's use, but should images specifically promoting the image quality of an particular camera, come with some kind of post processing disclosure?
Aside from anything else, it'd be interesting.

 

[winjer]

Lumix have admitted there's big problems with the update:
http://www.wirefresh.com/lumix-lx3-firmware-update-bad-news/

Now at v2.1, to correct those problems.

 

[leftistangel]

Now with nights getting darker, does anybody know of a decent light weight and portable tripod that I could use with my LX3?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I suggest a monopod with such a small and light camera. As to the make that is up to you. Get a ball and socket head to go with it rather than buying one with a pan and tilt head which is superfluous on a monopod in my opinion.

Another option might be to get a Gorrillapod which lets you attach the camera to a handy post or similar structure. This will fit in your pocket. You know how to use search engines I am sure.

 

[craigxcraig]

Admittedly, the lighting was favourable but - blimey - the LX3 can produce some amazing photos:

Actionettes at Duckie Club. Top pic: ISO 320, no flash, P mode -0.66eV. The photos look pretty close to dSLR quality full size.

Wow - these are really good.