Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3?!

so here's what i want...quality images, good WIDE ANGLE with a zoom and takes video. any suggestions for a new one would help too if you dont have anything like this to sell me.
Wish the Lumix LX3 had better zoom (2.5X Really?) Anyone here got junk on the G11? Micro-4/3rds dirt? does wide angle with zoom exist?

Depends on what level of PRO quality you want.
I consider myself a "pro-sumer" and just recently
bought a CANON SX20IS.

Its 20 megapixel, with a 20x optical zoom,
and a very nice aspect ratio for good wide angle and macro shots.
It also takes nice HD video with decent file sizes.
you can find them for $350 if you look around.

hope that helps

seems like everyone is happy with the Lumix cameras. If the LX4 or 5 was coming out i would just wait, but even the hearsay is ambiguous. G2 doesnt come out till August 2010? So any more advice on the type of camera that works best for wide angle with professional quality, shoot!
PS i've looked at most of the other forum posts regarding this subject and belive there needs to be a more recent (ie. 2010) thread.

i would love to hear more input if anyone else is interested in sharing opinions on cameras or the LX3...

I recently bought a Lumix DMC-ZS3 and it's amazing. Almost a pocketable compact camera, with a 12X optical zoom and still maintains a decent aperture. Also the anti-shake is incredibly good, which really matters with tightly zoomed shots and any video recording.

Can't speak for the Lumix, but you mentioned G11. My dad has the G10 and my sister has the G11. I've used both and they're both freakin rad. They shoot in raw and have a 28-140mm lens (35mm equivalent), which at the 28mm end should be serviceable in terms of wide angle. Down side is they're expensive and big for a point & shoot.

I've got a Leica D-Lux 2 and it rocks, you can get them on ebay for like $200 and the lens is so crisp, and it takes really wide shots. Battery lasts, video is only so-so, but the still images are beautiful, and you have a lot of control! A bit bulky with the lens not retracting into the body but I'm really impressed, and it's a pretty old camera. Only like 9mp but mp's are over-rated, unless you want to print out a billboard sized poster. Anyway, Leica and Lumix are rad cameras, lots of people like the G series Canons but they seem heavier and bulkier then the comparable Leica/Lumix.

whats bigger to have for climbing, RAW? or Zoom? What are the top 3 reasons to shoot in the RAW? Cant you still photoshop a jpeg?

As far as raw goes, find someone that has a camera that shoots raw and go take a few pics. Now, open the raw and jpg images in photoshop, the benefits of raw should be quite evident. You are basically dealing with a digital negative and you (not the camera) decide what colors to bring out and how to adjust your photo, just like you were in a dark room. If you don't feel like or have the time to work on your photos in a powerful photo editor then raw probably doesn't matter.

There was a similar question over on rockclimbing.com recently and I posted my reply over there (Malcolm made his recommendation as well on the thread), might be worth a look:

rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/fo…

In short I recommended the Canon s90. That said, the LX3 has a sweet feature set - I just found the images a bit too noisy for me.

As for RAW, I made a comment about it in the rc thread, but Beagle hit on it above as well... "If you don't feel like or have the time to work on your photos in a powerful photo editor then raw probably doesn't matter." For most 99% of people, the camera's processing is just fine. And if you have PS, you can always tweak a jpg as well.

I've had some experience with the LX3 and Leica D-LUX4 (nearly identical cameras), and they both rock. Their lenses have just been designed to sway toward the wide end of things, as opposed to telephoto, and their smaller zoom ranges allow them to keep their lenses optically top-notch. The images produced by these cameras are on par with pro/prosumer SLR lenses and sensors, at least at lower ISO settings.

If you want something with more zoom, check out the Canon G series cameras, they may be more what you're looking for...

I love camera threads.

The thing about your 12X zoom is that it doesn't fit in your pocket and you're less likely to bring it out resulting in fewer shots. For this situation I love this canon ultra compact camera for its size and HD video
kenrockwell.com/canon/compa…

For the ultimate in resolution you might like the low tech, light weight, medium format film alternative: a Holga.

Not a bad camera for climbing shots:
mountainproject.com/images/…

Or landscapes:
flickr.com/photos/47004238@N03/4385839079/

You can even shoot plain ol' 35mm with cool sprocket holes:
flickr.com/photos/47004238@N03/4312374448/

For what it's worth I have the Leica version of the LX 3 and it's hands down the best point and shoot I've ever owned. The Leica is a couple of hundred dollars more than the Lumix but I'm told the software in it is much more advanced. I'd say you get the LX 3, can't go wrong with it. Wide Leica lens, great in low light, and a tough metal body.

stredna wrote:whats bigger to have for climbing, RAW? or Zoom? What are the top 3 reasons to shoot in the RAW? Cant you still photoshop a jpeg?

Shooting in raw is a complete waste of time if you using anything "less" than micro 4/3. (you could maybe make an argument for shooting raw with the G11...but not the G10). The problem with point and shoots is that your image-quality limitation is not a lossy file format, it's your tiny sensor (and the associated noise). Unless you're playing with single-image HDRs or some other niche interest, shooting in raw format with a point and shoot is as pointless as buying a camera based on megapixel count. Also, if you plan on playing with color, WB, exposure, etc. you shouldn't really be in the p&s market anyway.

If you want to take good climbing photos, I'd recommend trying one of the newer micro 4/3 setups. I've seen a lot of camera gear come and go, and I really believe this is the future. I still shoot with a D90 and a number of canon p&s models, but bang for buck, versatility, compact size, and image quality...i say go micro 4/3.

Look for the Panasonic DMC-TZ3. I bought one a few years ago and love it. 10x zoom, plus 2x digi. zoom, which you don't want to use. 7 Megapix. 28mm Leica lens. Many shooting modes. I carry it on almost every long climb I do. I brought it to AK with me and it did great there. The best part I feel is that it doesn't have the delay in taking the shot that digi's are notorious for. I shoots when you push the button. It also takes video, for what its worth. All for around $300, I think.

I have the panasonic Lumix LX3 and I find it to be an excellent climbing camera. About half the size of the G10-11 and it opens a full stop more, which means better pictures in the same light conditions if you have moving subjects or are shooting from a hanging belay, etc. The size is convienient too. I am fine with the range because for me having a 24mm equivalent rocks, but I am mostly taking pictures of my own climbs while on them, not shooting other climbers on other routes when having a lot of reach would be useful. I wish it had a viewfinder, but with the wide angle it's not like you miss much, just can be hard to compose in bright light. That's my take after having one for a year. Picture quality is as good as it gets for the size sensor this thing has.

Chris D wrote: Shooting in raw is a complete waste of time if you using anything "less" than micro 4/3 ...

What is meant by 4/3 micro? I don't think we are talking about aspect ratio like TV sets, but instead a Four Thirds System that involves a 4/3 type sensor. Micro then would just be a step further in body size reduction.

Joseph P. Crotty wrote: What is meant by 4/3 micro? I don't think we are talking about aspect ratio like TV sets, but instead a Four Thirds System that involves a 4/3 type sensor. Micro then would just be a step further in body size reduction.

Not really.

Edit: In a way you could say that the difference between 4/3 (and other DSLR cameras) and Micro 4/3 is one of the most important steps in the history of digital photography. Really.

The big departure that micro 4/3 made was the abandonment of the mirror mechanism in SLR cameras that permitted TTL (thru the lens) composing of images. Doing so permits a mirror-box-less camera body with fewer moving parts (and significantly less depth) than a standard SLR or a 4/3 SLR.

The 4/3 format maintained the standard SLR mechanism, just in a smaller package. I believe that a dramatic (over time) improvement in LCD display technology made replacing the TTL system with an electronic viewfinder much more palatable.

At least that's how I understand it. I was really on the fence buying the D90 not too long ago. I decided it would still be good to have a DSLR for "serious" photo trips when I don't mind lugging the gear, continue using my smaller compacts on climbing and backpacking trips, and wait until the price of micro 4/3 systems drop to replace my P&S cameras with a good micro 4/3 model.

I think that time is getting nearer, with more players entering the ring (Samsung just joined the fray) and Nikon and Canon surely soon to follow.

Edit: Looking at the Samsung, it's actually not micro 4/3; it has the same size sensor (APS-C) as most crop-back DSLRs. But it's lack of a mirror and pentaprism puts it in the same category as micro 4/3: mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. I think considering history and the jumpstart that micro 4/3 has, it'll be the future of this class, which is important because the lenses for competitors like the Samsung will not be interchangeable with the micro 4/3 lenses and will fall into obsolescence quickly.

so here's the latest goodness: Panasonic ZS3 seems to be quite the front-runner with PROs being: 12X optical Zoom, HD video, Quality pics; decent sensor, and wide angle. Cons: no RAW, only so-so sensor, so-so lens, lack of manual control.
So, has anyone pitted the Canon S90 vs. Panasonic ZS3?

so-so sensor and so-so lens basically means- Why bother taking pictures, IMHO. Go for the lens!

I've now thrown in the G11. Furthermore, i cannot decide which is more important HD Video or Zoom. I mean who wants 640 when a pack of juicy fruit from i-pod shoots 740? and zooming on just fingertips and eyes is always good.
Canon G11-5X
Lumix LX3-2.5X
Canon S90-4X