#1 Slawas

I found original sized photos from this camera on other site and I must say that they are.... dramatically bad !

1:18 pm - Tuesday, July 22, 2008

#2 c'est moi

Indeed; smeary details, as we are already used to from Panasonic. More pixels and smaller pixel size means less quality. Good for producing impressionistic paintings with. The Japanese just don't get it with this megapixel race and too many useless overkill features: why don't they concentrate on Image Quality first and foremost?

3:03 pm - Tuesday, July 22, 2008

#3 Alien

Why no full-size pics as usual?

3:17 pm - Tuesday, July 22, 2008

#4 Matt

Well, panasonic insisted on reduction to 640 wide: does that mean they have no faith in their own product? You can't say anything about image quality on this basis. However, this guy http://tinyurl.com/5vkott
seems to have posted a few full-size snaps: they look ok to me. all things considered. His conclusion: "certainly initial impressions are overwhelmingly positive".

5:03 pm - Tuesday, July 22, 2008

#5 GT

Very disappointing.

And why no good examples of the very wide angle at 16x9?

Such poor examples. Really.

5:12 pm - Tuesday, July 22, 2008

#6 Vista

There seems to be a general impression of underexposure. Despite the sunny conditions there are very few photos that seem to be nudging towards the right of the histogram. Here's a good example - http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3/photos/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3_06.jpg - despite the sunny conditions the land and sky looks like it was shot at dusk. The white vessel is just a bit brighter than grey. I'd expect to be dazzled by the brilliance of that ship. Even pictures with no tricky whites seem to be subdued to me.

5:53 pm - Tuesday, July 22, 2008

#7 BJN

640 pixels wide? Why bother. A cameraphone could produce these.

12:41 am - Wednesday, July 23, 2008

#8 Mark Goldstein

They at least give a good idea of the dynamic range, exposure, colours etc.

We'd love to post the full-sized images, but Panasonic have said no because the supplied camera was using a very early, pre-production firmware version.

We'll be doing a full review of the LX3 asap...

11:26 am - Wednesday, July 23, 2008

#9 Jimmy

Unless you have a compulsion to make snap judgments based upon a few samples taken by a preproduction unit under adverse lighting conditions...WHY bother to come to any judgment at all? Patience and full size samples from a full production unit under 'normal' conditions...THEN rush to judgment.
In the meantime...these conclusions are foolish to jump to.

2:09 pm - Wednesday, July 23, 2008

#10 serwei

No real effect on DOF with f2.0 though. A bit disappointed :).

2:30 pm - Wednesday, July 23, 2008

#11 Jimmy

The DOF is not a 'defect' in design, but simply a reflection of physics. Size of sensor, focal length, aperture and distance from the subject.

4:04 pm - Wednesday, July 23, 2008

#12 oluv

when will panasonic's ban for publishing full-size images be over?

the whole excitement after their annoucement is already over, so maybe you could... ;-)

3:53 pm - Thursday, July 24, 2008

#13 Jimmy

This line gave me a good laugh...

"the whole excitement after their annoucement is already over....."

Must have access to some CNN survey that I haven't seen yet. :}

8:32 pm - Thursday, July 24, 2008

#14 CARL HAMILTON

the general color tone of the photographs pleases me . it resembles the photographic output of an earlier Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 , the color pallette being neutral . what bothers me though is that given the LX3s 10megapixel count , the camera fails to capture vividly glowing images which had always been a Leica hallmark . at any rate , i understand that this camera is a pre-production model and as such a whole lot of reworking can be expected before its official market introduction . i am hoping in earnest that Panasonic would address these concerns as the LX3 holds a lot of promise for photography enthusiasts as a viable DSLR backup.
thanks very much , Mark , for sharing with us these images.

8:49 pm - Saturday, July 26, 2008

#15 Ron Weasley

Don't agree with the underexposure comment above. Any (quality) camera will try to avoid clipping highlights and is bound to underexpose a shot with a large white ship in it!

I have to say though, posting samples at these sizes is next to useless. We need to see full size images to get any idea of how this camera performs.

6:17 pm - Monday, August 11, 2008

#16 oluv

any chance we see any full-size samples soon? what about those already posted?

9:08 am - Tuesday, August 12, 2008

#17 Mark Goldstein

Our full review, complete with 36 JPEGs, 6 RAW and 1 HD movie, has just been published:

http://tinyurl.com/5w5um8

2:04 pm - Tuesday, August 12, 2008

#18 oluv

hey mark! thanks so much! been already eagerly waiting for this. cannot await to see all the samples!

3:16 pm - Tuesday, August 12, 2008