http://phanfare.disqus.com/Views from Phanfare, Photo and Video sharing for the iPhoneenMon, 06 Jul 2009 12:15:15 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-12200994kitesurf, LX3 is meant for taking photos, HD video with an average sound quality. If you want yourself a good sound clarity etc. go get yourself a recording device. And ow 1 more thing, So far LX3 is one of the best point and shoot camera out there. It has a Leica lens on it, nuff said.Back MassagerMon, 06 Jul 2009 12:15:15 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-8639509Many people recommends LX3 than it's nearest competitor the CanonG10. I planning to buy this one, It has good reviews and setting similar to dslr's but it much more compact and light to carry.psychologist perthFri, 24 Apr 2009 02:03:53 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-7784771There is so much to say, one thing that I didn't like the most was the sound clarity!kitesurfFri, 03 Apr 2009 05:38:11 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-6372960can you tell me more?erlichsonWed, 18 Feb 2009 08:46:03 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-6370910I have used Lx3 for five months and found it very irritating.kitesurfWed, 18 Feb 2009 05:57:05 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-5046142my experience is similar to yours; iso 400 the highest place you want to be. but, i find that having an f2.0 lens helps me use lower iso speeds and hence the camera is more versatile in low light situations. i think it is the lens and manual controls, not the sensor, that is the story with this camera.erlichsonSat, 10 Jan 2009 13:52:30 -0000http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/12/initial-impressions-of-the-panasonic-lx3/#comment-5045801I was carrying the LX3 around with me at CES--I was shocked by how poor the image quality was at high ISO levels. I did some natural light pictures at a party, at 1600 ISO and could see some human beings there under the dots. Better at 800, much better at 400, and decent in great light. But if that's the case, why get a camera with a 2.0 lens if it can't perform in low light?jefferson grahamSat, 10 Jan 2009 13:22:34 -0000