While I was trying to pick a model, I faced the following conundrum: First, I wanted a camera that gives me manual control over, at the very least, aperture, speed and focus. And not by sifting through 387 menus and sub-menus, but with actual controls on the body. Knobs, buttons, joysticks, whatever, in any case something I can set quickly and with my eyes closed. And second, I wanted a camera so small that it can fit in my wallet, or at least a very small handbag. Is that even possible?
Y'see, I already have a 35mm SLR. The Minolta is nothing spectacular, it gets the job done and that's all I need. My main reason to go digital wasn't the indisputable convenience, but size. Size matters. I don't have the courage any more to carry a big, heavy camera wherever I go, "just in case", much less drag along lenses and tripods and whatnot. Which is why my poor Minolta is currently shelved, dusted, without a battery, and still with my last, undeveloped film from god knows when inside. I wanted a small, digital camera that I can carry everywhere without making a big production.
However, digital cameras which do offer manual control over aperture and all that jazz fall under the DSLR category. Awesome, except that these things are huge. They are bulky and inconvenient, and if I could carry one of those, I would take the Minolta and get done with it.
So, when I began my noble quest, I didn't even know if such a camera exists. My starting point was Canon cameras, due to their reliability and, perhaps even more so, compatibility: there's a spectacular selection of lenses and accessories, manufactured either by Canon or by third parties (usually cheaper but not cheap), to choose from. Now or next year or five years later, I can be sure to find something that fits my current needs and modest budget. But all Canon had to say on the subject was "hey, kids! I sell bulky DSLRs !" So did most of the major manufacturers. I was also annoyed by the sum total of unnecessary features which I would pay for dearly without needing them at all, like 50 million pixels (what am I gonna do? print a billboard? I'll print nothing but a couple of normal size photos, maybe) or literally hundreds of scene modes:
I turned to the Lumix series out of blind luck. I hadn't bothered with compact cameras at all, but when a friend showed me her Lumix, I liked the feel of it. It was pretty neat, for a compact, and I was admittedly impressed by the basic concept: a Panasonic with a Leica lens. Huh. Her model wasn't quite what I was looking for (no manual control), but I searched further, and there it was. The Lumix DMC-LX3, my Holy Grail. A digital camera which gives you creative control almost as quick and easy as a 35mm SLR, and happens to be as small as a compact - as it should be. That alone covered most of my needs at once, but there was more:
1) The lens. Dear god, the lens is magnificent. It's a 5.1-12.8mm Leica (35mm equivalent for old school grognards like yours truly: 24-60mm), with F2.0 - F2.8. I'll say that again: 2.0-2.8. The best lenses in this category begin at 2.8 to 3.2. It's spectacular. It also allows for those precious extra stops when the scene is not properly lighted but you really hate using flash. Now, this lens is not for everyone. You can't zoom to that guy's eyebrow three miles away. But it suits me perfectly. The humble 50mm lens had always been my weapon of choice. Additionally, it's pretty neat for macro, and lately I've been shooting a lot of close-ups for some reason.
2) The looks and build. I'll shamelessly admit that, when it comes to cameras, something as frivolous as appearance matters to me. And the LX3 is gorgeous. I don't really like the look of normal digital cameras, and I didn't like very much my Minolta either. I like the classics. I'm very traditional in these things, give me an old Pentax and I'll give you my soul. Literally give me a Leica, and I'm literally yours. But this Lumix here looks and feels like a real camera which will serve you for decades, not a plastic gadget that will be out of fashion next year. This Lumix here has class.
Unfortunately, I can't swear that it will indeed last forever. Oh, I trust the chassis. Beautiful, solid metal, none of the hated planned obsolescence here. But once we're in the digital realm, Moore's Law applies and all bets are off. It is extremely likely that ten years later all those amazing features will seem tragically obsolete. At least, from all the cameras I've seen out there at this category, this seems the best bet.
3) The A.I. It's amazing. Of course, this has nothing to do with manual control and is in fact the exact opposite. And of course, I'm not really qualified for assessments here, because my experience with other digital cameras is rudimentary at best. But it's extremely useful for situations when you just need to shoot fast, not stop and think. Photography at its most basic and often best: see and shoot. The rest is book-keeping.
Naturally, not everything is peachy. Ever. If money wasn't an issue, I would have bought me a real Leica and get done with it. But since we're talking about normal budgets, we'll have to do with a couple of drawbacks:
1) The manual control of aperture and speed is a piece of cake, very quick and easy to use. (Setting ISO and a few other things, somewhat less so - but that's not so important). But the manual focus is rather bad. There's no ring of course, there's a joystick you move up or down, and the scale is logarithmic. Switching to manual focus is quick, but actually focusing with that thing is pathetically slow. Other than still scenes, I can't imagine manual focus being quicker or more precise that the ridiculously complicated auto focus. I'll get back to that once I understand fully how the auto focus works, but for now it looks like you can do anything with it in any conditions slightly brighter that complete darkness. In any case, the verdict remains: the manual focus is simply too slow to use creatively.
2) It's a compact camera. You can't change the lens, and that immediately takes out a hundred of options. I settled with that, since it was the best compromise. At least the lens is perfect for my everyday needs. For those special, once-in-a-while occasions, I'll just have to suck it up.
3) Err... actually, I can't think of another drawback right now, at least for me. There are a few things that could annoy other people, but thankfully I'm immune. The manual controls are all tiny and cramped on the body, but it's not a problem for me (small fingers). The lens, as I said, has no zoom to speak of (only 2.5), but I'm not really interested in that either. It's a 10.1 million pixels camera, which some might find lacking, but I honestly don't believe anyone needs more, unless you want to print flawlessly and print big. (I understand that resolution isn't the only thing that pixels affect, but with this particular camera I can find no flaws anywhere else, and the current resolution is more than enough for me.)
...So, that's it. Professional, in depth reviews of the camera are here and here. I hope there will be less talk and more photos from now on. Last but not least, an honourable mention to the shop, Adorama. I chose it simply because it had the cheapest LX3 in Athens, but people there are also polite and helpful and really know their stuff, about both digital and film photography. And if they like you, you might even get a discount.
P.S. I am perfectly aware that, in photography, equipment accounts only for a 20% of the result, tops. And I am painfully aware that my best pictures are 10 years old. But ten years ago, I never left home without my camera, and had the energy to, say, go hiking for miles dragging my bulky SLR and a second, horribly heavy 200mm lens and a big mean tripod. And back then, I had the energy to jump through hoops and turn an ordinary bathroom to a developing room. (And then change it back, because well, we were using it.)
Frankly, I got bored of all the hassle.
I love film. It's a beautiful thing, better than anything digital technology has to offer. I love the procedure of developing photos. There's nothing half as magical as that fleeting moment in the dark room, when the image appears on the paper out of thin air. And I love printed photos, objects that tell a story beyond the picture they show, that you can touch and hold and give away and discover in an old shoebox years later. It's definitely worth the time, the energy and the money. But I'm not any more passionate enough to go through all that.
This camera here, I'll carry around with no second thoughts. I'll shoot and shoot to my heart's desire, without wondering "how many films per month I can afford". And it's a great educational tool. I look at my pictures and can see on the spot exposure, aperture, ISO, every single setting.
Film or digital, photography is basically manipulating a box with a hole and a diaphragm in front of a light-sensitive surface. A device which does that, not amazingly but reliably, and is convenient enough for me to carry and use, is all I need at this point.
Maybe all I'll ever need.
