Panasonic LX3 Review – Image Quality (Part 3)
OK now my favourite part, Image Quality. To begin with, I'd like to start with the lens but before I kick things off, a few notes on RAW vs JPEG. All the images below are taken with the LX3, but they were shot in JPEG mode. All images (except those in the high ISO section) have been post processed using my 1 minute rule (i.e. less than 60s of post processing – i.e. basic levels / adjustments, resize, etc). As part of this review, I do not intend to be evaluating RAW. Other sites which will review this camera will cover this in depth and if you want to get analysis – you'll need to wait for those as I won't be covering it. There are a few reasons for that but mostly its because I'm not a huge fan of RAW in compact cameras. While I shoot RAW in my DSLR's the almost exclusively I almost never do in compacts. I list some further thoughts on the pros / cons of RAW (and how the suggested image quality benefits are sometimes significantly overstated) in my RAW vs JPEG article. OK onto the lens.
Lens / Optics
The Panasonic LX3 houses a 24-60mm lens that features a fast maximum aperture of f/2.0 at the wide end and a f/2.8 at the long end. This was one of the most exciting things when I heard about the camera initially and as I said at the start of this review, it's the fastest lens we've seen on a compact for years. The main argument of the lens choice however has been about the decision to employ a shorter telephoto range. As has been pointed out, Panasonic had little choice in the end when opting to go for a faster maximum aperture. Unless they were willing to let the lens get larger (which clearly they weren't) it likely came down to a compromise – in essence, speed vs focal length.
Everyone ultimately needs to decide for themselves how much telephoto range they need. After all, these are fixed lens cameras and we don't have the luxury of slapping on longer lens if they don't fit our requirements. However, I would say in the vast majority of cases there is a big difference between the telephoto range that a photographer typically wants and what they actually need. Basically, many people want a long range – to capture that occasional moment that is taking place too far away – but the number of times they actually make use of it is often very infrequent. People who shoot wildlife, occasional sports, and a few other subjects will obviously be outside of my broad categorisation but it's something to consider. To help you decide, check out this post which describes a useful tool. What I personally find is that whenever I perform analysis of my own shots (which I have done many times as it dictates whether I spend $500 or $1500 for a prime lens for my DSLR system at any given focal length), the vast majority of my images take place at a focal length less than 85mm. What kind of percentage? Well, your mileage will vary but for me (when I'm not shooting sideline sports), its more than 80%.
One more things to consider when weighing up the requirement for a longer lens is a quote by the legendary Robert Capa "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". I summarised that view in post last year which you're welcome to check out. It's worth remembering also that some of the greatest images of all time have been taken with a 50mm lens (think Doisneau, Capa, Cartier Bresson).
OK, I'll stop short of making a full case for a shorter lens – as I say it's ultimately a personal thing. What it important to understand however is what 24mm gets you. Well, for one thing, very wide angle shots. A simple example of that follows (taken with the LX3). Shooting this with a 24mm allows you not just to capture more of a scene but to accentuate size and (in this case) emptiness which would have been much harder with a regular 28mm or even 35mm which is where many compacts start from.
Another thing that 24mm allows you to do is get creative on portraits by getting closer and allowing the natural distortion of the lens to actually enhance the effect of a shot. I've made use of that technique on some of my favourite animal shots over the years. As a simple example, this is a shot of my dog sleeping using the LX3's full 24mm (in this case combining it with macro mode).
At the longer end, I consider 60mm to be just long enough for human portraits. Any shorter and it'd be strictly a head / shoulders only length but 60mm is just about long enough. Bear in mind that it does mean you need to be relatively close to your subject (not a bad thing). Here's an example of the LX3 at full extension:
Another portrait – this time of my other pet:
Both these images looked perfectly fine to me – no distortion, a decent enough flattening perspective and shot at a very workable range.
In talking about the LX3's lens, it would be impossible to write about without mentioning the speed of the glass. So, what does f/2.0 get you? Well lets take this example:
So this was shot under normal indoor (tungsten) lights at the following settings:
Aperture: f/2.0
ISO: 400
Speed: 1/3s
Its speed is at the limit of my handholding skills. Any slower and I'd have a blurry image. So, in comparing the LX3's glass to the competition, if say we were limited to f/2.8 then I would have had to have shot either:
ISO: 800
Speed 1/3s
OR
ISO: 400
Speed: 1/1.5s
On the vast majority of other cameras, both shots would have resulted in unacceptable image quality. The first would have been too noisy, the second too blurry. In other words, it was a shot that could only be taken with the LX3 (and incidentally, this prints very well up to 12" x 8" size – but I cover high ISO / printing later). This is the benefit of faster glass and is one of the primary reasons why some photographers (myself included) spend a large amount of money buying prime lenses (which in the case of Canon often begin at f/1.4).
To wrap up the optics section, I can really only summarise the lenses performance as being excellent. The wide start range of 24mm is superb, and due to the subjects I shoot I find the 60mm long end perfectly fine for the vast majority of situations. The trade off on the long end is more than made up for by the extra stop of speed that is provided and lens otics in general was very good with CA well controlled and distortion only a factor at the very wide end (which I expected). Sharpness, something I saw mentioned on some of the forums when I briefly checked, is excellent and far more to do with a function of sharpening algorithms than the lens which is capable of producing extremely sharp images.
ISO performance
I was encouraged by Panasonic's marketing claim that the LX3 has significantly improved high ISO performance. Even if the claim turned out to be exaggerated and they turned in "as good as" high ISO performance, then combined with a faster lens, it'd still be a very good low light camera. So, given the importance of this point, when I received the LX3, this was one of the first things I checked.
If any of you read my previous reviews, you'll know that I don't provide dozens of examples / 100% crops of high ISO. What I instead try to provide is a qualitative analysis of its performance, backed up with samples where appropriate. The way I judge images is really in two ways; by viewing them in web resolution and viewing them when printed. I do of course look at 100% crops myself, but I find the most accurate way to judge them is by printing. After all, the only time you actually need an image more than a couple of megapixels is for when you print it. The other thing to note is that the presence of noise is vastly overrated (misunderstood) as a way of judging high ISO. The presence of noise in images is not always a huge problem – the real issue that is faced with with high ISO images is usually the destruction of colour and dynamic range. This is something that noise reduction algorithms can never effectively repair and a image with poor colour / DR is very evident even at web resolution sizes. So when I rate ISO performance, you'll often see me focusing on these two points.
Anyway, onto my thoughts. All images below are taken with default camera settings and no post processing / noise reduction.
Lets start first of all with some daylight examples. This is the LX3 under ISO 400, ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The scene was shot in the shade but in good light:
ISO 400 (with 100% crop) – Daylight
When I first saw this I was immediately encouraged. Here, colour is well under control although you can see some noise, it's well controlled and there is plenty of sharpness.
ISO 800 (with 100% crop) – Daylight
So this was a bit of a surprise. I actually expected the fall off in performance to be greater from moving from ISO 400 to ISO 800 but while we lose some detail around the edges the colour and contrast remains very good.
ISO 1600 (and 100% crop) – Daylight
OK so that's a bit more like what I expected. The ISO 1600 version now has plenty of noise. Having said that, it's still not that bad and in fact when you look at the web resolution image it's quite hard to tell it apart from the other samples which again is a testament to how well colour and contrast are being held.
To explore the issue further I printed the ISO 1600 version in a size roughly around 5.5" x 8" and I was very pleasantly surprised to see that it was of very acceptable performance.
So as a brief summary daylight high ISO was very good. However, this is by no means a full test as poor high ISO performance actually shows up much more pronounced in lower light situations (which is also when you need high ISO the most). To continue, I take an example under indoor lighting.
ISO 400 (with 100% crop) – Indoors
This was an image I showed earlier and is dedicated to anyone who ever wanted to know what a dog's nose looks like close up. This was shot in ISO 400 under normal tungsten lighting and represents a very typical scenario of where compact cameras break down in terms of high ISO performance. Bringing back the topic of the benefit of f/2, this was shot at 1/8s meaning that a slower lens would have had to been at least 1/4s (or ISO 800). Anyway, back to the 100% crop, I think this looks great. We lose some detail but not a lot and again, colour and contrast are excellent which is why this looks good in web resolution and also prints so well.
ISO 800 (with 100% crop) – Night / Streetlights
This was a much more challenging situation – and about as bad as it gets from a lighting perspective. This was shot in a street at dark with overhead street lamps. Here we can see much more evidence of noise and flecks of purple in some of the shadows in the 100% crops. Once again, I have to mention that this was shot at f/2.1, ISO 800 and 1/5s so on a slower lens it would have been an almost impossible shot (I hope I'm making the point clear on the benefit of an f/2.0 lens). So how do I rate this image? Well, web resolution I think it looks great – I'd have no problem sharing this online, etc. You can see noise in the flare of the lamp post but its quite tolerable – again because the colours and DR are well controlled. I decided to try to print this at 12" x 8" and to my astonishment it actually looks very good. I was expecting to get up to 5.5" x 8" so that was a big surprise.
ISO 400 (with 100% crop) – Night
Here's a typical night scene (actually shot at twighlight hence the nice blue sky). Again ISO 400 – noise present of course but quite usable so I won't labour the point.
ISO 800 (with 100% crop) – Night time
Here we see a similar (if not slightly more) noise than the snail shot. The good news is that while there is plenty of noise, there is also plenty of sharpness so this is something that cleans up quite well in a noise reduction application. I was curious to see how prints would handle on this and I actually wasn't comfortable taking it much more past 5.5" x 8".
Summary of ISO performance
The following gives my guidelines on what I find acceptable for ISO usage;
EDIT – in the original version of this review, I accidentally left the following text in this section regarding ISO performance. This was actually my summary of the Canon G9 ISO performance from (from a previous review). I've since corrected this – leaving the old G9 text here in strikethrough.
ISO 80 – 100. Excellent detail and low amounts of noise. Noise can be visible in blue skies at 100% but it’s not an issue. Well exposed images are printable up to 13 x 19” with interpolation for regular viewing distances
ISO 200. Noise definitely noticeable at 100%. Not noticeable in web prints. 6" x 8" and for well exposed images, 10 x 12” is OK here.
ISO 400. For well lit scenes (e.g daylight), ISO 400 is acceptable. For low light scenes, I won’t show images at ISO 400 any larger than web resolution (e.g. 800 x 600). Prints at 6 x 4" is OK for well lit scenes.
ISO 800. For well lit scenes (e.g. daylight), ISO 800 is acceptable for web resolution. For low light scenes it’s not usable for web. Not usable for prints in either case.
ISO 1600. Not usable for anything except maybe your MSN avatar.
Here's the ISO performance of the LX3:
ISO level
Performance under well lit conditions
Performance under low light / poorly lit conditions
ISO 80 – 100
Excellent. Noise can be visible in blue skies at 100% or poorly underexposed areas that are corrected in post but effectively a non issue. Printable up to 13" x 19" with interpolation
Same as "performance under well lit conditions"
ISO 200
The first time noise becomes noticeable in images at 100% viewing. Not noticeable in web resolution images or in prints up to 12" x 8".
Same as "performance under well lit conditions" for images that are well exposed
ISO 400
Noise is clearly visible at 100%. Not noticeable in web resolution images or in prints up to 12" x 8"
Noise is clearly visible at 100%. Not noticeable in web resolution images. Prints up to 12" x 8" are still possible but do show evidence of noise. Still very acceptable however
ISO 800
Plenty of noise at 100%. Not noticeable in web resolution images. Prints up to 12" x 8" and while show evidence of noise are very usable
Very noticeable noise at 100%. Becomes noticeable in web resolution images in shadows and blue skies, etc. Acceptable prints can be made from 5.5" x 8" up to 12" x 8" (in some cases) and while show evidence of noise are very usable
ISO 1600
Plenty of noise at 100%. Not noticeable in web resolution images. Prints up to 5.5" x 8" and while show evidence of noise are very usable
Plenty of noise at 100%. Noticeable in web resolution images. Prints possible but must be small
Overall, due to the intelligent handling of noise / sharpness and excellent retention of colour / contrast, I would summarise the LX3's high ISO to be "as good as" the best compact cameras out there. I rate it about a 2/3rds of a stop to full stop better than the Canon G9.
Summary
In terms of a brief summary of image quality in general, I rate it as good as anything that's out there in the compact camera market. The LX3 is capable of producing large prints with excellent detail and resolution and a very good, usable range of high ISO settings. Coupled with a class leading f/2.0 for higher shutter speeds / lower ISO's and it gets a very important edge that I believe sets it apart.
Other issues
Two side issues were:
- While auto white balance was very good, I thought tungsten could have been better when shooting under regular household lighting
- Unlike most cameras which tend to overexpose when faced with scenes with lots of blacks, the LX3 (at least my version) tends to under expose. This is something I strongly recommend watching out for and adjusting accordingly when shooting
Other images
My Image Quality section wouldn't be complete without a sampling of images taken with the camera over the past few days. I would have liked to have had more time to spend on portraits but unfortunately time did not permit.
If you liked this review and intend to buy the camera, you can support me / this site by purchasing it through this link:
Related posts:
- Olympus E-P1 Review Diary – Part 11 – C Mount Glass and Samples VII One of the most compelling advantages of the micro four...
- Have the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZE, will review I have a copy of the above lens for review…...
- Olympus OM Zuiko 135mm f/2.8 Lens Review (with Canon EOS) I recently wrote about an adapter I bought for...
- Olympus E-P1 Review Diary – Part 2 – Autofocus Had a proper chance to sit down with the E-P1...
- Canoscan 8800F vs Nikon Coolscan 5000 (budget vs high end) – a quick comparison Today someone asked me to elaborate about my reference yesterday...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
very nice sample images! love the dog-shots as i know how hard it is to shoot dogs.
very nice review. love the dog pictures, they are adorable :)
Excellent review.
Good points about DR and color at high ISO.
Hi Bro.
Thank you for such an amazing review! Love the shots. Considering the LX3 myself and after reading your review I am confident :)
Regards,
Faisal.
PS: Was there at John 3:16 yesterday and saw the box there. Will be visiting him again :p
How does this compare to Fuji's F20/F30 High-ISO miracle cameras?
Hi Faisal! I own a Fuji F31 so I can compare the low light performance:
The Fuji F31 has a f/2.8 objective. It lets only half the amount of light to the sensor compared to the the f/2 objective of the Panasonic LX3.
The noise level at 800 ISO seems to be much lower on the Fuji F31 compared to Panasonic LX3. But in reality it's hard to compare. The Fuji F31 performs very strong noise reduction combined with a smart sharpening algorithm.
My conclusion is: The Panasonic LX3 has a vastly better objective for low light, but the noise levels are worse compared to the Fuji F31.
However, the good low light performance of the Fuji F31 is partly due to very advanced image processing. (Noise reduction + smart sharpening) This image processing is often annoying, because you can never be sure if a particular detail does exist in reality or if it is an artifact of the image processing. The sharpening algorithm is so extreme that it is often hard to judge wether an image has a small motion blur or not. The sharpening algorithm will often succeed to remove the motion blur.
Very useful review – thanks. I'm another dog photographer (candids, not studio) and I have a question for you. I'm wanting to take more low-light shots and had JUST purchased a fairly expensive f1.4 prime for my DSLR. Now appears the LX3, which even at introduction costs about 40% less than the prime I bought (and can still return). Do you have any thoughts about which of these options would be a better choice for indoor, low-light, candid photography?
What appeals to me about the LX3 for this purpose is that it would be easier to grab (with the correct lens always on it by default), and maybe cause a little less worry about dogs smushing their noses up against the lens, yet still has almost the low light performance of my f1.4 prime without quite as limited DOF. I'm a big admirer of your dog shots, which makes me curious to know if you could only have one of these tools for that purpose, which would you choose and why? Thanks.
Hi Alaska!
Your f/1.4 lens collects twice the amount of light than the LX3's f/2 lens. So it's very much better for low light.
I think however, your comment shows that with a compact camera you get much more value for your money.
this is th best review I have come across
in the web on the lumix lx3. keep at it and thanks mate.
Thank you all.
Eolake, re your comment: "Good points about DR and color at high ISO." – thanks also. This is one of the most misunderstood things about high ISO. Pixel peeping has caused an inherent fear of any noise in images by most amateur photographers when its not necessarily noise that ruins an image (there is film that goes up to ISO 1600 / 3200 and looks fantastic). The inherent problem is the destruction of dynamic range, contrast and colour that can occur with bad sensors at high ISO that degrades an image at any size. This is why you can look at an image, even at web res, which has had noise processing run on it and it still looks awful.
To answer the comment: "How does this compare to Fuji's F20/F30 High-ISO miracle cameras?"
I have a F30 which I dug out for comparisons when writing this review originally and I'd say that when you factor in additional resolution size (i.e. resize a 10mp image to 6mp to match the fuji's), there's not a huge amount in it. Fuji has the edge but it's probably true that you get better sharpness with the LX3. My real answer depends on how reluctant / happy I am to use ISO 400 or ISO 800 with both cameras and I'd say on average it's about the same. The main difference then is the speed of the F2 lens which is at least a stop faster than the Fuji so as far as low light champs are concerned, I'd say the LX3 is the winner.
Hi Alaska,
Interesting question. For my 5D / 1D Mk3 I have f/1.4 lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm). There are three reasons why I shoot primes rather than zooms (in this order):
- More shallow depth of field
- Better image quality (contrast / sharpness)
- Faster (speed is important but with every generation of DSLR sensor it becomes less so due to better high ISO0
- Force me to change my pov to compose which can result in better images
I have a post somewhere about this which you can search for ('why your next lens should be a prime').
On the speed issue first of all, F1.4 is twice as fast as F2 so that's an immediate DSLR advantage (assuming you're using the fast prime). You can work out how important that is to you. Regarding my primary issue for shooting primes however, we have depth of field. Shallow dof is important for subject isolation and can be used extremely creatively. When shooting dog portraits on the fanastic 35mm f1.4 for example, I often use it wide open. With the LX2, because of the small sensor size there is the opposite – you get a huge depth of field (even at f2 relatively speaking) and everything in focus. The pluses / minuses are more than I will cover here but you could view that as a negative point for subject isolation, but a good point for close ups / macros (again, I'm simplifying drastically here).
So it depends what you want to do. The LX3 (and any smaller sensor camera) will never be able to do what a DSLR + prime can from a shallow depth of field point of view. On the flip side, compacts have a huge depth of field advantage when shooting macros / close ups. So ultimately it comes back to the point of compromise and finding what is important to you.
Great review, even without knowing much about photography I understood most parts, and now understand a bit more. :-)
Off-topic: are those nice dogs Beauceron breed?
Lawrence, thanks for the great review. I am just wondering if you did a head to head image quality comparison with the Canon G9 and if yes, what is your take on it. I currently have a G9 which I really love. But I am keenly interested in the LX3 because of its lens. So if It can give me a comparable image quality like that of my G9 then I'm sold. Thanks. I hope to hear from you :)
Hi Lawrence,
Reading your test I feel the LX3 is exactly what I was looking for. But I had the chance to test in a shop against others models with the same artificial light condition and I was really disappointed by the ISO noise starting 200ISO. In black and white background noise is really stronger compare to others compact like Nikon S710 or Canon Ixus850. I tested it twice and same problem so I didn t bought it.
Thank you Laurence for your reply, and especially for pointing out that f2 still results in quite a lot of depth of field on a small sensor camera. I've just come from looking at portraits taken with the LX3 on flickr and can see the difference (from portraits taken at the same aperture and focal length on a DSLR) quite obviously.
An LX3 may still be in my future, but for now I will happily concentrate on mastering the f1.4 prime I just acquired. Thanks again for your response.
Hi Lawrence,
Thank you for your review, the best I have found about the LX3 and very informative about photography technique too. I think, traveling "light" with a G9 or higher zoom compact and LX3 will be very nice for some situations (ad wide-angle and more low-light possibility to the G9). To travel with both camera could be seen as "over equipped", but it's still lighter then covering that range with a DSLR&lenses (which has of course many advantage if weight doesn't mater).
Greetings! Thanks for the great review of the Panny LX3. It certainly is a compact of note, with several unique features such as the f/2.0 lens. As for low light, has anyone considered the Fujifilm S100FS? It has a slightly larger (2/3) sensor with a super sharp 28-400mm Zoom. Of course, it's about 3x larger than the Panny, and probably 3x as heavy, but the resulting images are quite nice too. See samples at http://www.totalqualityphoto.com.
Thanks,
Steve
Great review. Probably the first/only full-featured one on the web. My black LX3 sits on my bed behind me. It's an amazingly involved piece of machinery. The manual is a testament.
Here's my question: I've always felt that every person should have 3 cameras – ultracompact, midrange, and SLR. I have two of the first, and a 40D for the SLR. My idea of a midrange is something that doesn't need to be pocketable yet still smaller than a SLR. In other words, something that won't have to suffer from the size restrictions of, say and Elph, but isn't as bulky as the 40D.
For many, this is the Canon G9 .. now the G10. How do you think this compares? If you had to pick one of those two cameras, for my mid-range category, what would you choose?
I too am interested in the comparison to the G9. You compared when you talked about usability but not when considering image quality. The LX-2 could keep up with the G9 up to about ISO 200 and then it was all over because the photos got really muddy at higher ISOs. Has this been fixed? Do you think that there has been a significant improvement over the LX-2 in image quality? I realize that pixel peeping doesn't make sense when you just resize them or print them but you've forgotten to mention that if you crop an image or have to post process it a great deal it's best to have the cleanest starting point you can.
I'm choosing between the LX-3, P6000 and G10. Reviews just aren't out yet for all three.
I too am interested in the comparison to the G9. You compared when you talked about usability but not when considering image quality. The LX-2 could keep up with the G9 up to about ISO 200 and then it was all over because the photos got really muddy at higher ISOs. Has this been fixed? Do you think that there has been a significant improvement over the LX-2 in image quality? I realize that pixel peeping doesn't make sense when you just resize them or print them but you've forgotten to mention that if you crop an image or have to post process it a great deal it's best to have the cleanest starting point you can.
I'm choosing between the LX-3, P6000 and G10. Reviews just aren't out yet for all three.
Very impressed with the review, your amazing sample shots and the camera itself. Although most impressive is your obvious talent for photography. I am also interested in a comparison against the G9/G10. I'm trying to decide between these 3 and would appreciate your input. Thanks!
Does anybody have any thoughts on the Ricoh gx200 in comparison with the Lx3, I'm interested in low light performance.
I enjoyed this review very much. Wonderful pictures also…. I'm gonna buy this camera in the next hour!
I am a novice, looking for a general all around camera that I can also use for shooting my artwork. The LX3 interests me in many regards, esp wide angle, but I wonder if the white balance would be a problem. Your thoughts and any other suggestions. Thanks.
Too many people get carried away with pixel count and the manufacturers are forced to compete with each other over this. Basically a high pixel count in a small sensor is a recipe for disaster. The Fuji F30 is a great camera for low light use because it only has six million pixels and the pixels are larger and more sensitive to light. A 12mp camera with the same sensor size is going to have much smaller pixels which are less sensitive to light resulting in more noise at higher ISO. What Fuji should have done with the F30 is to keep the pixel count the same and increase the sensor size, improve the lens, introduce more manual options and add image stabilisation and it would have been better camera than any compact camera currently on the market. The Panasonic LX3 has smaller pixels than the Fuji and can never be as good in low light.
Thanks for the great review. Hmm… tempting. I'm still nursing a Canon 10D, but I've borrowed friends' 5D bodies many times to use with my 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2, and it was absolute heaven. But I find that I often don't want to lug around a SLR kit, while at the same time being a dog owner now (love it!) I often want a camera by my side. I was going to save for a used 5D, but maybe something like the LX3 could hold me over for another couple years… at a certain point it becomes more about capturing the image rather than absolute quality. And that 24mm f/2 lens makes it far more palatable than other digicams…
Thank you for the in depth and useful knowledge. I just went to Singapore on my honeymoon and looking at your images brought back memories…
I refer to Steves comment above about the Fuji 100fs – It has problems with chromatic aberation + other minor niggles
I like the LX3 very much
Got a good price from Mathers of Lancashire (Bolton UK) who are phoning me when they have one in stock.
Excellent review – Its what made me pick the LX3 Thanks very much
Pete
I actually came here looking for info' on how well it performas with an external flash on that lovely hotshoe.
I'll comment though if only to offer my sympathy for all the "aw, cute doggies!" comments rather than commenting on the actual review. Feeling for ya dude!
Alan
Love this post. Beautiful pictures. Beautiful review. I am planning to buy this camera on this Christmas.
Leave your response!
Stay Connected
Tags
Twitter Feed
Recent Comments
Archives
Admin
Best of the Best
Most Commented