User experience with DP vs LX3

Hi Steve,

I can't speak to the DP twins. Ryan Jordan is a huge fan and if he's in civilization at present might be able to share workflow and field realities. Obviously, you surrender a lot of flexibility and features going that direction but gain the excellent lenses and the big Foveon sensor–with all its plusses and minuses. If your ultimate desire is big prints it's the obvious leader.

LX3 RAWs can be readily processed in PS and LR. I understand the new LR3 tools are significantly better than LR2, so I'm probably on the hook for the hundred-buck upgrade. I don't find LX3 output requires much fiddling WRT color and noise, especially at lower ISOs. However, be aware of the in-camera optical correction that won't be applied to RAWs. Evidently the new LR has much improved lens and camera profiling, so that too is likely easily addressed, but at wide angle it does need addressing. (Being lazy, I generally shoot jpgs but use either the RAW editing tools in PS or the processing tools in LR to process them.)

FWIW the LX3 does not offer an AdobeRGB color profile option.

As to how the camera handles in the field, I find the controls mostly intuitive at this point, and the OIS is a huge help. I continue to use the variable aspect ratio to match the shot.

I too have a GR-1, which is a nifty little camera that handles quite well. Have you ruled out the GR-DII?

Cheers,

Rick

As a coda, this fine Finnish fellow has taken 100k frames with his LX3.

http://lightscrape.blogspot.com/2010/06/100000-photographs-taken-with-panasonic.html

Cheers,

Rick

Thanks Rick:

I did look at the Ricoh, but the RAW files seemed to lack the quality that either the LX3 or DP twins put up.

It may come down to OIS vs. print quality. It doesn't make sense to pull out the tripod for all our shots, and if the DPs require that, I'll probably go with the LX3.

Thanks again,

SG