Originally Posted by Confused
Hi Art
Does this scenario feel familiar ?....
Yep, that does sound familiar, but I've also seen pics taken with the
Panasonic LX2 at ISO400 and exposed properly (not underexposed like that Brooklyn Bridge photo) that look far better. So I assume the LX3 at virtually the same pixel count will perform equally as well.
And again, you can stop posting quotes such as this:
"Shots taken at high sensitivity that have been saved as JPEG's look very soft"
I haven't shot a single JPEG image in my last 5,000 frames, and I'm not going to start anytime soon. I enjoy post processing in Light Room all most as much as I do taking the photos. It really reminds me of using the dark room back in college.
All that said; what alternatives do we have exactly? Fuji doesn't currently make a single pocket camera with the design and controls that I would want to use, and neither does Pentax, Sony, or Nikon. Canon has the G9, but the view finder is crap and it's already at 12 megapixels; which is obviously worse. The Ricoh GX200 is also at 12 megapixels (and $700). That leaves the Sigma DP1. However, less than stellar reviews of the camera functions plus the $700 price tag have scared me off.
So that puts the LX3 in a pretty attractive position at under $500 US dollars street price; and at the moment my only realistic option.
Finally,
here is another LX2 ISO400 image that would make a perfectly acceptable 8x10 print. It may not be up to pixel peeper's standards, but hang it on a wall and 9 out of 10 people would have no clue what ISO it was taken at or what kind of camera was used. At some point any image is better than no image; and that's exactly what role this camera will fill for me. It would be on me when walking to work or while out to dinner...basically times when I don't feel like carrying my man purse around.