Very responsive in Raw - minor shutter lag, for all intents and purposes. Fair to good in low light.

Jim Cummings

As a former pro who has seen a lot of camera equipment in 40 years, I believe there is a difference in filters. That said, it is often not enough of a difference to justify the cost. My former partner, who had everything labeled Nikon, conducted a series of challenges with me and my cheap (but name independent brand) filters. The conclusion - not much difference. True, his did last longer and were less likely to get broken, scratched or become loose in their mounting - all of which has happened to me. However, his cost from five to ten times what mine cost and we could never see anything different in the real results - on the prints.

Therefore I have a number of name brand cheap filters, and a few unique (Moose Peterson) ones which cost a bunch. Of course, YMMV but I think "Rolls Royce" filters are much like Monster cables for your stereo system. They look better but they don't make any significant difference in the final outcome, despite their cost. My 2 cents.

Jim Cummings

I have had the LX3 for some time now and find myself grabbing it about 50% of the time - especially when I don't want to take the 40D, I shoot a lot of wide angle and the quality is remarkable in raw. I also have played with the picture modes, something I have never done before and dfind some of them very helpful. Nice camera at a good price.

Jim Cummings