I'm participating in a multisport adventure where we will be covering many miles a day via packraft, foot and bike. We need to document the trip in RAW and 1080p .MOV files. We'll have a headcam, so I'm less concerned about video when selecting a camera.

I was originally considering a M4/3, but after handling the EP1, I think its still too large and would remain in the pack, missing shots. So I've narrowed it down to the DP2/(DP1x) or the Panasonic LX3.

I've read all the dpreview stats and BPL reviews, so I'm versed on what each can do. It comes down to user interface and am hoping some of you with experience can answer the following:

We'll be uploading RAW files from the field to an FTP. Do either of the cameras' RAW have more true-to-life, out of the camera results than the other (does one need more post editing than the other to get the shot)?

Can Photoshop convert RAW files for either/both, or do you need to use the proprietary software to edit RAW in either?

My favorite travel film camera was a GR-1, so I'm used to a prime lens and not super fast. Is the Sigma so slow that it would be a bad match for documenting images during 60 miles a day--or did they work that out with the True II processor and AF algorithm?

Do you need a tripod to get the shots with the Sigma, or can you use it successfully as a hand-held tool?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Steve,

I can't speak to the DP twins. Ryan Jordan is a huge fan and if he's in civilization at present might be able to share workflow and field realities. Obviously, you surrender a lot of flexibility and features going that direction but gain the excellent lenses and the big Foveon sensor--with all its plusses and minuses. If your ultimate desire is big prints it's the obvious leader.

LX3 RAWs can be readily processed in PS and LR. I understand the new LR3 tools are significantly better than LR2, so I'm probably on the hook for the hundred-buck upgrade. I don't find LX3 output requires much fiddling WRT color and noise, especially at lower ISOs. However, be aware of the in-camera optical correction that won't be applied to RAWs. Evidently the new LR has much improved lens and camera profiling, so that too is likely easily addressed, but at wide angle it does need addressing. (Being lazy, I generally shoot jpgs but use either the RAW editing tools in PS or the processing tools in LR to process them.)

FWIW the LX3 does not offer an AdobeRGB color profile option.

As to how the camera handles in the field, I find the controls mostly intuitive at this point, and the OIS is a huge help. I continue to use the variable aspect ratio to match the shot.

I too have a GR-1, which is a nifty little camera that handles quite well. Have you ruled out the GR-DII?

Cheers,

Rick

Edited by halfturbo on 06/16/2010 11:54:57 MDT.

As a coda, this fine Finnish fellow has taken 100k frames with his LX3.

http://lightscrape.blogspot.com/2010/06/100000-photographs-taken-with-panasonic.html

Cheers,

Rick

Edited by halfturbo on 06/29/2010 10:44:49 MDT.

Thanks Rick:

I did look at the Ricoh, but the RAW files seemed to lack the quality that either the LX3 or DP twins put up.

It may come down to OIS vs. print quality. It doesn't make sense to pull out the tripod for all our shots, and if the DPs require that, I'll probably go with the LX3.

Thanks again,

SG