Camera Labs

Hi, thanks for your replies.

Frank B, thanks for the detailed explanation of the advantages of each model. I think the 24mm, F2.0 & weight are the biggest advantages of the LX3, which is why, at present, I prefer it to the G10.

I went to Jessops (UK) as they have recently received the LX3. I have to say I really liked it but there is one thing that is really driving my nerves: the joystick (Q.Menu button). When I pressed it (on the manual modes) to access the Q.menu, I could hear the "click" sound but it didn't do anything! And it wasn't a delay or anything like that. But when I pressed it harder it opened the Q.Menu. This really worries me, as the camera has only been on display for a few days and I don't think many people have played with it. And it looked to me like it was already half broken. So, could you tell me what is your experience with the joystick? Is it likely to be an isolated problem with this unit? Is it really that fragile?

It doesn't matter whose opinion of image quality prevails - you can see my actual images from the LX3 and TZ5 side by side on the LL User Critiques forum and see what I'm talking about. And I doubt that the *very* thick LX3 will fit into any pants pockets unless you have really baggy clown pants on. The bottom line with the LX3 is the undeniable fact that the design as stated is a failure, to produce better quality with fewer pixels. See my comparisons.

Thanks I'm glad if my comments were useful. The 'trick' with the joystick (when you want to use it to change aperture and/or shutter speed) is to press it North or South, East or West, but not down. Pressing it down sets the Quick Menu. I had the same problem you did, until I checked the manual. It takes a little getting use, but it works pretty well. I don't think the camera in the store was broken.

_________________
Frank

Actually my jeans are fairly tight and I keep it in my left front pocket. It just fits. In my shorts and slacks it is easy to carry it in a pocket.

For a comparison I recommend people go to Imaging Resource and use their Comparometer.

Here is the link:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I compared the Still-life -400 pictures of the LX3 and TZ5 and I think the LX3 wins.

_________________
Frank

I showed some people the LX3 in "fairly tight" jeans, and they had a good laugh. YMMV. I'm also sure anyone could swear the LX3 pic is better than the TZ5 pic. It is better actually. But what's tragic here is the difference is *less* than the 10mp/9mp difference in the sensors. So the larger sensor design and the other "quality" features Panasonic trumpeted so loudly contributed NOTHING to the final quality of the LX3's images. And BTW, if you're trusting these big-time test sites, you're the customer Panasonic hopes to reel in with their turkey.

Hi Frank,

I, too, noticed that Gordon gave the TZ5 a Highly Recommended rating while giving the LX3 only a Recommended rating. I think this is appropriate, though, because I believe Gordon rates the cameras relative to other cameras in the same class. Gordon does not use one sweeping set of standards to judge all cameras, and that's what I like about Camera Labs -- it makes the reviews more fair and ultimately a lot more useful to prospective camera buyers.

Before I came to Camera Labs, I was demoralized by all the extremely negative reviews of consumer-grade cameras by professional camera reviewers. When I read Gordon's reviews, I realized there was nothing wrong with the cameras -- there was something wrong with the way they were being reviewed on other websites! Other reviewers seemed to have unreasonable expectations for the features and performance of consumer-grade cameras, probably because they have been spoiled by the advanced features and superior performance or semi-pro or pro gear.

It seems to me that economics simply do not allow a moderately-priced consumer-grade camera like the TZ5 to have the same advanced features and high performance as a semi-professional camera like the LX3, which costs almost twice as much. The LX3 offers full manual control, a flash hot shoe, a fast lens, and a larger sensor -- all features appropriate for a camera in this class. The TZ5 has none of these features -- but then again it is in a very different class of cameras. Because the two cameras are meant for two very different kinds of photographers, it would actually be unfair to judge the TZ5 by LX3 standards. That's my philosophy, and it appears to be Gordon's as well.

In the end, I think the TZ5 got a Highly Recommended rating here because it was the best automatic compact available at the time of the review. I think the LX3 got only a Recommended rating because it was very good, but not the clear leader among high-end compacts; the Canon G9 is better in some ways, and the Canon G10 may yet emerge as the winner in this class.

I don't speak for Gordon, but these are my impressions based on the philosophy I've observed in his reviews.

Gordon, do you want to comment on this?

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

Not quoting the last text (too large), but it seems to have a contradiction: It says the LX3 has higher performance than the TZ5 (which is disputable), then says it got a less-than-good rating because of its performance. I don't understand the insistence on expert judgement on the LX3 - ordinary people can decide if they have something to compare to. I posted probably the only consumer images comparing the LX3 to a "lesser" camera, and found it to be not significantly better. Those photo comparisons tell more than anyone's expert opinion. Gordon's review covered the features excellently. My review spelled out the actual performance in actual photos.

Dale, there's no contradiction in what I wrote. It is not in dispute that the LX3 is designed to appeal to more advanced photographers, that it sports high-end features, and that it costs considerably more than the TZ5. The two cameras are clearly designed for different classes of photographers, regardless of whether the LX3 lives up to its marketing. I wrote that the ratings of the TZ5 and LX3 on Camera Labs were most likely based on their performance relative to other cameras in the same class, not relative to each other. This explains how the more advanced camera could end up with the lower rating.

By the way, I believe Gordon's review also "spelled out the actual performance in actual photos."

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

Fred,

I think you may well be correct. Also, Gordon might have considered the lack of telephoto in his recommendation on the LX3.

_________________
Frank

EDIT: Several posts removed due to a lack of civility which goes against the rules of the forum. May I remind members that rude behaviour or name-calling will not be tolerated here.

The TZ5 got a Highly Recommended because it delivers a unique and highly compelling feature-set for the money. The people that it's aimed at will have few complaints with it.

The LX3 received our lower Recommended rating because while it has many great points, it fails to deliver on some aspects which higher-end enthusiasts look for.

While some people would consider both models, they're aimed at different markets, so were judged as such.

Gordon, what cameras do you consider in the same market as the LX3? I personally would not include the G9, G10 or Panasonic G1 as direct competitors, due to their higher weight and bigger size. As far as I know, the Nikon P6000 and the LX3 are the only compacts that weigh less than 10 ounces with decent wide angle lenses, full manual control and raw format. Are you aware of others?

As an 'enthusiast', when I chose the LX3 I was fully aware that I should not expect SLR performance from its relatively small sensor. I have been pleasantly surprised at its resolution and particularly its dynamic range. When using it at lower ISOs (which the f/2-2.8 lens helps me to do) I don't feel I am making a significant sacrifice in image quality, when compared to my E-3. Of course, it can't match the E-3 at higher ISOs, but I expected that. It has certainly has met my expectations.

_________________
Frank

I agree the G9 /G10 are bigger and heavier, but they are in a similar market - compacts for enthusiasts. The G1 is of course more different, but I included it in the comparison because it appeals to people wanting DSLR quality and control in a smaller form factor.

Sadly there's not many other options. I've not tested the Nikon - or any Ricoh compacts - so can't comment on those.

It's my opinion as an LX3 user that the reason it's in a market by itself is because the design is illogical. Canon provided more pixels and more zoom, and several years ago at that. With the G10, they made a logical advance in pixels, and Panasonic went backwards, pandering to the dpreview crowd instead of serving their customers. At the end of the day, all you really have is pixels(!), and the LX3 is the expensive loser there.

Well I'm sure glad they pandered to me, as the LX3 is the only compact camera available that meets my needs. It all depends on what you want in your camera.

_________________
Frank