if got budget, DP1 or LX3. which one?


Status
Not open for further replies.

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
#1
wondering.. the landscape pics I saw on pbase from DP1 looks really nice..
LX3 is quite new and i am still concerned with noise..

so which one is more preferrable if i want to shoot landscape?

24vs28mm WA doesnt seem bother me..
 

Parchiao

Deregistered
Jan 2, 2003
1,829
0
0
Visit site
#2
Get the Sony R1 for lanscapes.

Sigma DP1 is okay, but you cannot use PS to manipulate its RAW images. Screen can be difficult to view outdoors in the day.

Panasonic LX3 sensor is rubbish.
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#3
how come suddenly pop up R1

i find LX3 not bad, a tad noisy but its a PNS... and i kinda like the controls, more controllable than the Canon Ixus 860IS my gf had last year.
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,515
11
0
63
Visit site
#4
I have the DP1 and I use it primarily for landscapes. It's image quality is so good that it stopped me dead in running out and buying the LX3... a bad BBB habit of mine. :(

I generally find Adobe Camera Raw to be mostly 'rubbish' for raw conversion... it has many features but image quality and colours of the jpeg it produces usually can't compare with those from the proprietory software of the respective brands... in this case Sigma Photo Pro.

Also most P&S and even most DSLR LCD screens are problematic for viewing under bright sunlight. I have yet to find a digicam with a LCD screen that could be used properly under such conditions...except for the Samsung NV24HD with the first OLED screen in a digicam maybe...:think:
 

Last edited:

Parchiao

Deregistered
Jan 2, 2003
1,829
0
0
Visit site
#5
how come suddenly pop up R1

i find LX3 not bad, a tad noisy but its a PNS... and i kinda like the controls, more controllable than the Canon Ixus 860IS my gf had last year.
Because the Sony R1 is really really really that good for landscape photography. The downside is it's size which may not be what the TS is looking out for. The DP1 is like a subset of the Sony R1, but with a different type of sensor and software to manipulate RAW images. Adobe has fill light, so the advantage of DP1 is not that much. In terms of colours, the DP1 does badly with reds. The Sony R1 has some of the best colours you will ever find in a digital camera.
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,515
11
0
63
Visit site
#6
Sigma Photo Pro also has a special Fill Light feature which in addition to its normal usage, could be put to creative use when applied 'negatively' (something not reproducible in ACR's highlight recovery or fill light functions) as demonstrated here...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=29159864

Then again, the DP1 is not for everybody as it is not an easy camera to use. For one thing, it has a fixed focal length and like all fixed focal length P&S, it forces the user to actually think and compose his shots properly each time to achieve the most impact. In other words, if one could master the use of the DP1, it might actually make one a better photographer. That however, might not be what the typical P&S user is looking for in a P&S digicam.
 

Last edited:

Parchiao

Deregistered
Jan 2, 2003
1,829
0
0
Visit site
#7
Then again, the DP1 is not for everybody as it is not an easy camera to use. For one thing, it has a fixed focal length and like all fixed focal length P&S, it forces the user to actually think and compose his shots properly each time to achieve the most impact. In other words, if one could master the use of the DP1, it might actually make one a better photographer. That however, might not be what the typical P&S user is looking for in a P&S digicam.
I have to agree with you on this. The jpeg engine really has to do better. The DP1 can be a great landscape camera for the willing, the lazy people like me cannot make it with this gem. :bsmilie:
 

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
#8
Thanks but R1 is too large liao.. better keep my 350D than getting R1..
For pocketables with WA and best among the herd, it seems only there are only these two models.. I am no fan of Ricoh's photo quality..
Panasonic TZ series too noisy..

Unfortunately there is still no formal reviews from dcresources/dpreview/steves which can give side by side comparisons..
 

undercoverone

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2007
2,236
0
36
#9
i think panasonic LX-3 is rubbish. :thumbsd:
 

Parchiao

Deregistered
Jan 2, 2003
1,829
0
0
Visit site
#10
Thanks but R1 is too large liao.. better keep my 350D than getting R1..
For pocketables with WA and best among the herd, it seems only there are only these two models.. I am no fan of Ricoh's photo quality..
Panasonic TZ series too noisy..

Unfortunately there is still no formal reviews from dcresources/dpreview/steves which can give side by side comparisons..
Ricoh's photo quality is far better than the LX3. Looks like you have narrowed yourself down to only one camera.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#11
sad to say, many just look at the sensor performance of a camera alone, its barely enough to judge how well those camera do in lowlight. the lens used play a part, the lx3 uses a f2.0-2.8 which can easily give you a stop or 2 of lights more than most of the other PnS including the DP1.

No doubt sensor performance is important, but what about lens? PnS does is NOT like dSLR where you can change ur lens to a faster one. It imho play a good 50% part of how a PnS will performance at low-lighting. Beside that the stabiliser are also there to aid you especially so on landscape with mainly static object.
Its the same logic as y people buy fast prime lens over slower zoom lens... etc, not just becos of bokeh and IQ, but a huge pull would probably be the aperture speed as well.
 

Last edited:

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,515
11
0
63
Visit site
#12
Most zoom lenses are not sharp wide open and for those who are sticklers for sharp image quality it is not much use to have a lens capable of f/2 but not sharp.

The 28mm lens of the DP1 is however pin sharp from centre to edge and combined with the Foveon sensor could even beat DSLRs like E-3 and its critically acclaimed 12-60mm zoom lens. ;)
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=372416
 

Parchiao

Deregistered
Jan 2, 2003
1,829
0
0
Visit site
#13
sad to say, many just look at the sensor performance of a camera alone, its barely enough to judge how well those camera do in lowlight. the lens used play a part, the lx3 uses a f2.0-2.8 which can easily give you a stop or 2 of lights more than most of the other PnS including the DP1.

No doubt sensor performance is important, but what about lens? PnS does is NOT like dSLR where you can change ur lens to a faster one. It imho play a good 50% part of how a PnS will performance at low-lighting. Beside that the stabiliser are also there to aid you especially so on landscape with mainly static object.
Its the same logic as y people buy fast prime lens over slower zoom lens... etc, not just becos of bokeh and IQ, but a huge pull would probably be the aperture speed as well.
The TS did not specify his/her photography techniques, so I envisioned a camera on a tripod with a photographer waiting for the right time to take a photo with the right lighting. I am not sure if a fast lens or IS is necessary for landscapes. :D

I agree that the DP1 has a good lens that can produce good center to edge sharpness. Noise wise, DP1 wins hands down, LX3 naturally cannot even compare.
 

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
#14
The TS did not specify his/her photography techniques, so I envisioned a camera on a tripod with a photographer waiting for the right time to take a photo with the right lighting. I am not sure if a fast lens or IS is necessary for landscapes. :D
yeah, like that..
though i have got some samples.. LX3 is just not as sharp as DP1.. even after scaled down..


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2846477101_9c9485c347_o_d.jpg

the color seems nicer.. and no grains in the sky like those from TZ1.. but won't make me spend another $660 i bet..
 

xtemujin

Senior Member
Apr 1, 2005
2,778
1
0
Singapura, Singapore
#15
Does the LX3 has a tendency of the watercolour effect ?

I was a former LX2 user and it has a tendency of the watercolour effect.
 

CYRN

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2002
4,575
0
36
photoevangel.com
#18
That's the watercolour effect I've experienced with my LX2.
Hav you seen DP1 @ ISO 3200?:think:

edit* aniway you guys are comparing a 24 MP/cm² pixel density using a zoom lens against 1.6 MP/cm² pixel density on a prime lens.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom