Here's one more point. Someone above was griping about not being able to shift the 500 songs they bought on iTunes to some other player.

A very fair point. I wish all the Apple Fan Boys would wake up and smell the freaking coffee that IT IS APPLE that is preventing you from using anything other than an iPod to play your iTunes on.

They have created a very restrictive MONOPOLY-like situation for the SOLE PURPOSE of locking you into Apple products for the rest of your life. If Microsoft does that kind of thing people go insane but Apple gets a free pass. No clue why. I guess the fan boys honestly believe the Apple is "really cool."

Hate to keep making such a trivial point but it doesn't really matter what any of you think the system *should* be. The fact of the matter is that the DMCA makes software like this illegal.

To those of you who think it's ok to break the law just because you don't agree with it, well, I guess there's not really much point in discussing it further.

More fundamentally, I don't have the slightest clue why anybody would think that it should be just A.O.K. to distribute copyrighted music/films freely across the planet via the internet without any restrictions.

Someone quoted "Star Wars" above (which I thought was pretty funny). Movies like Star Wars that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get made will cease to exist if the producers of that content have no way to ensure that they will recoup their investment. Piracy and P2P greatly undermine their ability to do so. Therefore, the need for DRM.

People who think they have some sort of fundamental right to get whatever they want free of charge as long as they can figure out how to download it on the internet are just living in some weird fantasy land that I don't understand.

A) Ryan, what exception from the DMCA were you relying on in first using this software and then confessing to its use in writing?

B) People who think this is great news are very short sighted. If you think that someday the major media producing companies (music, film) are just going to roll over and make of their expensive-to-produce-and-promote properties available to everybody for free and without any kind of copy protection, you are smoking crack. So, all software like this does is freak media producers out and make them less and less willing to make things available digitally in the first place.

As far as I can tell, what this software does is completely illegal and anyone that uses it in the United States will be violating the law. You can make fun of those laws if you want, or think they're stupid or whatever. The DMCA *is* law.

Great comment, Mike. I totally agree. I think the FZ50 has the S3IS beat on just about every front. Actually, I think the FZ30 had the S3 beat on just about every front. The constant harping by reviewers on the Noise issue about the FZ30 was an issue but I honestly believe that has likely been addressed with the FZ50. The press releases trumpets "dramatic" improvements in noise reduction, which to me means they at least have made "some" improvement and I never found it to be a real world issue with my LX1 anyway.

By the way, Mike, since you seem to like lots of different form factors, I really recommend you check out the LX1 (probably worth waiting for the LX2 at this point). I rarely take the time to rave about a product and the LX1 is just a killer little camera. The combination of wide angle lens and 16:9 native resolution (full 8.1 megs in 16:9 format) makes for some really cool panoramic shots. I've been playing around with using that format for portrait perspective as well and you can do some pretty cool things with it.

You can check out some of my photos here if you want: http://www.gather.com/viewImages.jsp?memberId=48422

They're nothing fancy, believe me. But it might give you an idea of the LX1 (check out some of the Macro flower shots as well as the panoramic). They don't show up perfectly at that link but you'll get the idea.

Peace

Oops, it's the LX2 that does 1280 x 720 video at 15 fps -- not the LX1

Here's an interesting spec on the LX1 from the press release. It will record video at 1280 x 720 pixels
at 15 fps.

I'm not sure what to make of that due to the low frame rate (meaning I'm not sure what it would look like in playback). Still, those are High Definition resolution numbers.

Damn, now I'm going to be waiting all the way until next July to find out if Panasonic will add full frame rate High Def video to the LX3.

The LX2 also does full frame rate (30 fps) video at 848 x 480 resolution, which is already a higher resolution than most dedicated video cameras.

I'm very impressed with the quality of video my LX1 creates. It is definitely not a Video camera but definitely IS just fine in a pinch.

Zulu, I still think you are overstating the noise "problem" in terms of whether it will even be noticed by most users.

I think the fact that you are using this camera to try and produce "salable" images says an awful lot about the quality of this camera. It is a terrific camera.

I'm picky about my photos but I'm not a pro and I don't try to sell my images. Whenever I can, I lock the ISO at 80. I would do that anyway (I mean even if there wasn't a perceived noise issue). I also don't shoot in RAW and I doubt if most users do.

So, shooting in lower ISOs and in normal jpeg format (or whatever it is) I definitely get 2-3 frames a second of very good quality pictures.

Still, I agree with you that the upgrades on the LX-2 sound great. I have confidence in Panasonic with the Lumix line and if they're saying the new Venus III engine offers "dramatic" improvement, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt at least until some reviews come out.

Personally, I'm gonna keep the LX-1 and get an FZ50. I was holding off on the FZ30 for just this reason. Since noise was the only gripe anybody had about the FZ30, I figured Panasonic would focus on fixing that in the new model, and that's what they are saying they did.

I could do without the extra 2 megapixels but the marketing guys probably convinced them they needed to do it since the new Sony's have 10MP.

Rodimus, lots of (most?) DSLRs have image stabilization. The issue is that in order for it to work with the add-on lenses, the lenses have to be specifically designed for it and that makes them cost more.

For example, the Canon EOS 30D (or whatever the current model is) has great image stabilization and you can get fantastic lenses that work with the image stabilization. But those lenses are VERY expensive. If you bought the Canon 30D and two canon lenses that work with the image stabilizer, you would arguably have a better set up for still photos than you have with the FZ50 but the Canon set up would cost you around $2000. You would gain a bit in pure specs on the Canon but you would also give up the video feature that you get with the FZ50 plus you'd have to carry two lenses and change them (and keep them clean, and keep dust from getting inside your dslr).

Don't get me wrong, DSLRs are great but the advantage in picture quality for even demanding consumers is almost non-existant in most situations and price differential to really duplicate the flexibility of the super zoom lenses on the all-in-ones is very substantial.

One more thing on the video capabilities of the newer cameras -- it's REALLY good. If you're thinking of the older digital cameras that took choppy, crappy videos, that is not the case any more. With my Lumix DMC-LX1 it will shoot video at 720x480 (DVD resolution) at 30 frames per second. Played back on a full size TV, it looks amazingly good. Yes, you would still rather have a dedicated video camera for shooting videos in a lot of circumstances but the video features on the newer cameras is totally usable (and in fact it's much better than the still photo capabilities on video cameras, so if you're only gonna carry one I'd choose my LX1 every time and it's a bunch smaller than my video camera).

@BK, the unique thing about the LX1 (and I assume it's the same with the new LX2) is that it has a widescreen sensor. So you would get 10.2 megapixel full resolution when shooting in widescreen mode. It would be slightly less in 4:3 or 3:2 mode.

For what it's worth, I have a DMC-LX1 and I have nothing but great things to say about it. It is a really, really excellent camera with tons of manual control, a great LCD and a great burst mode that is really easy to turn on and off. You can shoot 2-3 frames a second until the card is full. Also, the optical image stabilization is VERY effective.

Reviewers complained about noise levels on the LX1 but I have never found it to be much of a problem and most reviews I've read from owners (as opposed to reviewers) say the same thing.

The LX2 supposedly improves on Noise with the Venus III engine.

If you like this camera and have patience and money, I guess I'd wait for the LX2. But if bargains start popping up on the LX1 (I think I paid $400 about 3 months ago), I wouldn't hesitate to grab one of those either.

This is cool. I have the Lumix DMC-LX1 as a "pocket" camera and it is excellent!

The big news here, I think, is the Venus III engine which supposedly addresses the complaints (overblown in my experience) about excessive noise levels.

Elliot, $650 is the MSRP. It will sell for less. You will not get anywhere near the flexibility and quality of lens that you get on this camera on a DSLR for less than around $2000. You need to remember that this lens has integrated optical image stabilization throughout its focal length. Suggesting that you can buy a telephoto lens for $100 stick it on a $550 DSLR will NOT get you the same capabilities. You will not get a high quality lens with image stabilization for $100. I'm not trying to argue with you. If you want a DSLR, go for it. But I've looked at this stuff pretty closely and I'm convinced this camera is an amazing value (or at least the FZ30 was and this sounds better with the new Venus III engine).

The Lumix line with its Leica lenses has so far remained a real bargain and the quality, in my experience, is fantastic. I really love my DMC-LX1.