Nikon Coolpix P6000 or Panasonic Lumix lx3???

Matt__P · « **on:** 15 Oct 2008, 08:59 pm »

boss is buying me a new compact camera for work and I've kinda narrowed it down to these two.
Both are rather new on the market. Anyone have an opinion on either?
I'd probably go for the Lumix but the Nikon has a geo-tagging feature that would be nice for my line of work. help

BradJudy · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Oct 2008, 09:16 pm »

I take it you need RAW format images and a flash shoe? And perhaps you're more concerned with wide angle shots than telephoto?

Matt__P · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Oct 2008, 09:18 pm »

exactly

low.pfile · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Oct 2008, 09:43 pm »

what sort of work? real estate? landscape? product documentation? employee documentation?

I have an LX3 and haven't given it a work out yet. The Nikon didn't sway me (poor UI) especially with the Windows linked RAW format (which doesn't work for me on a Mac) But I learned that Lumix RAW isn't supported by Adobe/Apple yet, though the included panasonic software works fine to process RAW fine, though slowly. BTW I shoot with a Nikon DLSR and use Capture NX2 which does not work with the P6000's new RAW format. Go figure!

Canon P&S has a very easy to use UI. Nikon is not as easy and Panny is about even with Nikon. And Sony really irks me- I think it is terrible (we have Sonys and a Nikon in our dept) So I always recommend Canon for ease of use. Did you consider the G9/G10?

Some recently it was uncovered that the Jpegs out of the LX3 has both barrel distortion correction and Chromatic Abberation correction in camera making images that you would expect, But those two items are not corrected in LX3's RAW files- and can be pretty bad in some cases. But the Jpegs are pretty amazing once you get the color profile sorted out. Lots on that in the Panasonic forum at dpreview.( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033) I don't have any samples myself. some sitting in the camera at home.

Panny has a very limited zoom range (24-60mm) compared to the typical P&S cams out there, it does go wide to 24mm. But the amount of control of exposure is great. Nikon has a optical viewfinder where the lx3 does not. Depends on your wants and needs.

So if you want control I would consider the LX3 but if you want fast Auto everything jpegs and a wide zoom range consider Canon and Nikon(35-112mm)

JohnR · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 08:52 am »

Hey, lots of activity on the dpreview Panny forum with the LX3 - a good sign!

low.pfile - c'mon, let see some shots from that baby

Matt - I wish my boss would buy me cameras! What would the camera be used for?

goldlizsts · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 09:36 am »

Quote from: Matt__P on 15 Oct 2008, 08:59 pm

boss is buying me a new compact camera for work and I've kinda narrowed it down to these two.
Both are rather new on the market. Anyone have an opinion on either?
I'd probably go for the Lumix but the Nikon has a geo-tagging feature that would be nice for my line of work. help

Think dcresource.com just posted their review of the Lumix. Check it out.

JohnR · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 10:15 am »

Thanks for the link

The review quotes the same 1.1" depth that reviews of the LX2 have. This is wrong, the actual depth of the LX2 (I just went and measured it) is a tad under 1 3/4" without lens cap. I would be pretty surprised if the LX3 is significantly different (it looks the same).

Matt__P · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 01:02 pm »

I work in Outdoor Advertising so I shoot alot of background photos for billboards. lake scenes, realestate, autos, etc. Being able to shoot in RAW format would be good to have but not absolutely necessary.
The one thing I liked about the Nikon was the geo-tagging. having the coordinates of the signs themselves in the photos would be a great feature.

low.pfile · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 09:32 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 16 Oct 2008, 08:52 am

low.pfile - c'mon, let see some shots from that baby

OK, OK. My second round of shots on the LX3. I just walked around downtown last night about 8pm. I had a 8 in. tabletop tripod with me. There is not a lot going on downtown at that time so these are mainly building shots. No flash was used.

The photos are JPGs straight from the camera and only used photoshop to resize to 900 x 600 and the 100% crop. Not sure what photobucket does to them though.

top: f2.0, 0.8 sec, +0.7, 24mm, ISO 100, Dynamic B&W, 9MP jpg, resized in PS. Tripod
bottom:f2.2, 0.4 sec, +0.7, 32mm, ISO 100, modified Nostalic, 9MP jpg, resized in PS. Handheld

More shots with EXIF data: http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s113/bpmandfps/lx3samples/?albumview=grid

The Black and White mode is very good on this camera. there are 3 B/W modes. I used Dynamic on these. I plan to do more people photos, candid and street type. I am not a landscape photographer, unless traveling. The grain that is present is no problem for me, others find any grain objectionable. I like the feeling it adds. Post processing can handle that. I haven't gone that route myself.

Cheers,
ed

low.pfile · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 10:46 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 16 Oct 2008, 10:15 am

Thanks for the link

The review quotes the same 1.1" depth that reviews of the LX2 have. This is wrong, the actual depth of the LX2 (I just went and measured it) is a tad under 1 3/4" without lens cap. I would be pretty surprised if the LX3 is significantly different (it looks the same).

The LX3 total maximum depth is 50.5mm or 1.99 in.

Yeah I can't get the LX3 in my jeans or trouser pockets.

I carry it or wear it on the strap.

my measurement....

nathanm · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Oct 2008, 12:29 am »

Bah, measurements! Why don't you just look at the camera and figure out what size it is? Sure, have fun fiddling with your precious calipers, the rest of us will just eyeball stuff.

low.pfile · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Oct 2008, 01:33 am »

Quote from: nathanm on 17 Oct 2008, 12:29 am

Bah, measurements! Why don't you just look at the camera and figure out what size it is? Sure, have fun fiddling with your precious calipers, the rest of us will just eyeball stuff.

Funny!!! I do visualize stuff all the time....I am a designer but work with engineers who need things to be down to the quarter of a millimeter-that pesky manufacturing thing I guess. So I have the calipers for that reason. Otherwise I am good at eyeballing things smaller than a breadbox. Usually close within a couple of millimeters.

Bottom line is that the LX3 ain't fittin in your pocket without discomfort or some stares

<--click me

So maybe these would work?

low.pfile · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Oct 2008, 01:46 am »

Matt,

There are not a lot of P6000 image samples. it is very very new.

P6000: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikonp6000/pool/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/minami/sets/72157607228347224/

LX3: http://www.flickr.com/groups/843626@N22/pool/

you probably already read this discussion

JohnR · « **Reply #13 on:** 18 Oct 2008, 10:58 am »

Nice photos! Thank you

Have you tried shooting in the 16:9 mode? That's what sold me on the LX2. With the 24mm equiv that would be awesome.

I'm actually starting to wonder if I should forget about getting a wide zoom for my SLR(s). i.e. just carry another camera instead of another lens. Wide is not my main thing, so the quality from the compact is actually working out fine for that range...! And what price for a 24mm f/2.0 lens in Nikon mount... I'm not even sure there is such a thing (other than the AIS prime)...!

low.pfile · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Oct 2008, 10:02 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 18 Oct 2008, 10:58 am

Nice photos! Thank you Have you tried shooting in the 16:9 mode? That's what sold me on the LX2. With the 24mm equiv that would be awesome.

I'm actually starting to wonder if I should forget about getting a wide zoom for my SLR(s). i.e. just carry another camera instead of another lens. Wide is not my main thing, so the quality from the compact is actually working out fine for that range...! And what price for a 24mm f/2.0 lens in Nikon mount... I'm not even sure there is such a thing (other than the AIS prime)...!

john,
your Lx2 actually has a higher resolution 16:9 mode than the Lx3. see this image: http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/100570650

I have shot a bit with 16:9 but it is not my preferred ratio. 16:9 crops upper and lower image content. I like 3:2 the best and 4:3 next. for any amazing travel landscapes I think the extra pixels on the left and right will be useful. Though the video mode can only use 16:9 or 4:3.

Not sure about the LX2 but the LX3 has the capability to shoot all three formats with one click. Shoot now choose later!
cheers, ed

JohnR · « **Reply #15 on:** 20 Oct 2008, 11:03 am »

Aha! I didn't realize my LX2 just cropped off the sides for the other modes, for some reason I thought it was like the TZ series (and now the LX3)

So I guess I have to shoot 16:9 if I'm going to get my 28mm wide end...

Quote

Not sure about the LX2 but the LX3 has the capability to shoot all three formats with one click. Shoot now choose later!

Heh! That's kinda cool

Zero · « **Reply #16 on:** 23 Oct 2008, 08:39 pm »

I pulled the trigger and brought him the LX3 Panny early this week. I've been playing with it and - what can I say? It seems like a capable camera. Its too bad I utterly SUCK at photography. F2.0 what? 1/30? whoo??? !!!

low.pfile · « **Reply #17 on:** 30 Oct 2008, 02:28 am »

Congrats Zero. just play with it. turn a dial or two.

I tested out the LX3's Multi-Film feature today....
Up to 3 color modes In this mode the images are taken in sequence with different color settings.
All the test shots are here > http://www.flickr.com/gp/9563275@N03/979URT

Flickr images are ISO 80, Fine JPG and resized in Photoshop CS3 to 1600px with no other editing.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2985874300_8eea3304cd.jpg

I had nice pre-sunset light around 4:30pm. And the wind was blowing quite a bit in all of these shots. You will notice the object move. Tree with fruit/nut is a California Buckeye.

1 of 60 (cropped)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2985874286_57716d8fc4.jpg

BTW I rarely take nature shots.

JohnR · « **Reply #18 on:** 1 Nov 2008, 09:08 am »

The EXIF is removed from the image so I can't tell what the aperture was but I gotta say that looks pretty good with nice shallow depth of field (the second image)

WerTicus · « **Reply #19 on:** 1 Nov 2008, 09:40 am »

+1 for the panasonic, fantastic little junk camera.