Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]2008-09-27-14:24:13 Lottermoser George: > while the angle of view > will appear similar to a 24 > the depth of field and other characteristics > certainly will not appear similar Not a bit. It's a 5.1mm to 12.8mm f/2.0-2.8... I've been playing with one recently. It's fun. (And fits in a back pocket.) And of course, the pictures don't look like the pictures from a larger-sensored camera would. F'rinstance, check out this depth of field wide-open at f/2.0: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/jbm/scratch/jbm-20080924-lx3-031.jpg.html ...and, of course, the noticeable noise at ISO 400, and an overall soft feeling. It's just a different beast. Who here used to play with Minoxes? (Minoxen?) Here's another snap with the wee beastie: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/jbm/pwigomlaap/jbm-20080924-lx3-032-silky2-1280max.jpg.html It's disturbing that even the dpreview summary table for the camera http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmclx3.asp shows only the 135-format equivalent focal lengths, not the real info on the lens. (Maybe you could use those equivalents and the notation that it's a 1/1.63" sensor, which they do include, and work your way back, at least approximately...) dpreview do now routinely note pixel density (in this case, 24MP/cm^2) which can be instructive. We need to get away from this 135-centered cultural imperialism -- that's the sort of silliness which causes people to use the phrase "full format" and assume that a camera like the M8 whose sensor isn't that particular arbitrary historical size is somehow lacking because of it. -Jeff M