|Posted by telefontubbie|
Yea, Canon s95 is plan B so far...Although it seems not as good as LX-5 in some aspects.
Depends if you are shooting in very low light with a tripod or handheld in dim to moderate light.
Compare them side by sidehttp://www.dprevie...ews/sidebyside.asp
The LX5 is better in almost every respect, especially long exposures.
Canon disappoints me with their 15" min exposure time. It's what has put me off Canon point and shoots, their dslr's do 30" + bulb no reason their top of the line can't at least do 30".
LX5: 24-70mm, F/2-3.3, 60"-1/4000"
S95: 28-105mm,F/2-4.9, 15"-1/1600"
The S95 has a smaller pixel density and more ISO options (it handles noise better)
S95 IS0400 15" vs LX5 ISO100 60" the LX5 should have the edge.
S95 IS0800 15" vs LX5 ISO200 60" the LX5 will have the edge.
S95 IS01600 15" vs LX5 ISO400 60" the LX5 will definitely have the edge.
The s95 will have cleaner images vs the LX5 when both cameras are set to ISO400 or higher, but this is only relevant when you are shooting handheld, if you use a tripod (and there's zero reason you can't carry at least a pocketable one) the LX5 will be the better camera. Oh and the S95 is a bit smaller too.
I researched these extensively, the LX3/LX5 is the winner.
The other option is a mirrorless camera with prime lens:
Sony Alpha NEX 3 and 16mm (1.6 APS-C)
it will be better than both s95 and LX5