<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"When Panasonic threw down the much-anticipated successor to the LX1, we couldn't wait to get our paws on one, and while glamour shots tell a portion of the story, we all know it's the performance that counts. The digicam gurus over at DPReview put the DMX-LX2 through a gauntlet of tests, and found that Panasonic (yet again) delivered a \"unique, powerful, and innovative\" camera that suffers from an all too common inability to shoot at even moderately high ISOs. While the crew was thoroughly impressed with the near-perfect 16:9 implementation, plethora of manual controls, and \"effective image stabilization,\" they just couldn't get over the \"excessive noise\" seen at all ISO levels above 100. It was noted that image quality was \"superb\" when plenty of natural light was available, and even minute details like the \"big, bright LCD monitor\" and \"high quality construction\" were given adequate attention; however, the unnecessary increase in pixels and less-than-effective Venus III engine rendered disappointing low-light results. Nevertheless, reviewers did admit to being overly critical due to Panasonic's neglect in addressing the noisy shortcomings from the LX1, but eventually awarded the LX2 a shiny \"Recommended\" medal for those confident in their post-processing skills (and ability to conjure light).[Thanks, cycomachead]"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/12/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx2-reviewed/>