The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
GX200 or LX3
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
I took the plunge and ordered a GX200. While i am convinced the noise is more of an issue than the LX-3 there are a few features about the LX-3 that may be of concern.
1) Based on the images I have been able to download, there seems to be some substantial distortion that is most apparent at 24mm equivalent (e.g. wide open). Without direct comparison hard to tell how this compares to the GX200 but in general, the distortion with wide angle shots I have seen with the GX200 is not bad.
2) Some of the cameras appear to have an asymmetric softness. The examples I have seen are not convincing since it is hard to know how the images were captured but there are a few that I have looked at that brings some concern. Whether this is camera to camera variation, a real flaw, or user error still not determined.
3) Better controls, electronic viewfinder (I hate looking at an LCD to compose my shot)-- things that are more apparent.
Since I still have my Leica DLUX 2, I can do some comparisons and see how much of a difference or improvement and decide which to keep.
1) Based on the images I have been able to download, there seems to be some substantial distortion that is most apparent at 24mm equivalent (e.g. wide open). Without direct comparison hard to tell how this compares to the GX200 but in general, the distortion with wide angle shots I have seen with the GX200 is not bad.
2) Some of the cameras appear to have an asymmetric softness. The examples I have seen are not convincing since it is hard to know how the images were captured but there are a few that I have looked at that brings some concern. Whether this is camera to camera variation, a real flaw, or user error still not determined.
3) Better controls, electronic viewfinder (I hate looking at an LCD to compose my shot)-- things that are more apparent.
Since I still have my Leica DLUX 2, I can do some comparisons and see how much of a difference or improvement and decide which to keep.
I got my GX 200 yesterday and did some comparisons with the Leica DLUX2, which is the same as the Panasonic LX-1. THe controls on the Ricoh are much better. The speed to AF and get the shot appears faster with the GX 200. I did most of my tests in RAW using CS3 with all NR and sharpening turned off. In terms of noise, at ISO 200 both are pretty close but the GX 200 is much worse for noise at ISO 400. With that said, it cleans up nicely with noise ninja without too much damage to detail. THe default jpg is not so good --- at iso 200 and 400. Lots of artifact. I have the NR off but I probably need to see how to shut off sharpening. My impression is that the fill flash and exposure is better with the GX 200 as well. I plan to take a couple of shots and print 16x20ish to see how the noise looks in print.
N
nei1
Guest
Lilli,if they bring it out lets hope they call it the DPcool,it would be so....cool.regards,Neil.
Lili
New member
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Neil (and Lili)
If it keeps the same interface/LCD/speed of focusing, it'd better be called the DPHot, to match the temperature under user's collars
I so nearly bought an LX3 today . . . . but resisted at the last moment. Such GAS control has never been seen.
simonclivehughes
Active member
As attractive as a DPx with a faster lens would be, from everything I've read, we're not likely to see one as the glass would have to be significantly larger in relation to the sensor and at that point the form factor is fundamentally changed.
I've only had my DP1 for just over a week but I'm really loving what it can do even given the "slow" lens. Yes, it has niggles such as the interface and buffer, but if shot in MF, it can be very responsive. Mind you, you still have the shot-to-shot timing issue but for the most part, for the way I shoot, it works admirably.
Having said all the above, I'm anxiously awaiting what Sigma might announce at Photokina.
Cheers,
I've only had my DP1 for just over a week but I'm really loving what it can do even given the "slow" lens. Yes, it has niggles such as the interface and buffer, but if shot in MF, it can be very responsive. Mind you, you still have the shot-to-shot timing issue but for the most part, for the way I shoot, it works admirably.
Having said all the above, I'm anxiously awaiting what Sigma might announce at Photokina.
Cheers,
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
You've been in too much sun, Jono !
N
nei1
Guest
Jono ,Ive been lucky in that my scanner arrived(minolta dimage 5400)today,Ive been after a good one for ages,so all this here new stuff can sort itself out while I get to grips with the past,by the time Ive worked out how to get the best from some of my badly overexposed negatives Im sure a digital path will have opened to the future,well fairly sure. All the best,Neil.
jonoslack
Active member
Hmm - personally I'm much MUCH more excited about what Olympus/Leica/Panasonic might announce for micro four thirds. One can expect fast shot to shot times, interchangeable lenses and decent sensor support by raw programs together with a very very good LCD for something which is going to be about the same size as the DP1, with the image quality of an E3 . . . . ..
Bring It ON!
jonoslack
Active member
That's Next Week Robert . . .You've been in too much sun, Jono !
We're off here:
On Tuesday morning (and yes, that ramshackle building with the wooden plank is a GOOD (if basic) restaurant)
jonoslack
Active member
I wish you well Neil. My Nikon 5000 went to ebay a year ago. I now scan all film (and I'm working slowly backwards through my library) using a decent flatbed scanner - I can scan 24 slides at a time, and the images are quite good enough for an A4 print . . . .the really good ones I could get professionally scanned . . . . but I don't think I'll be bothering!
Tim
Active member
Jono,That's Next Week Robert . . .
We're off here:
On Tuesday morning (and yes, that ramshackle building with the wooden plank is a GOOD (if basic) restaurant)
this is fantastic place :bugeyes:, I wish I was there now - relaxing! :sleep006:
Tim
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Lucky you; we have nothing but rain [in both countries]That's Next Week Robert . . .
We're off here:
On Tuesday morning (and yes, that ramshackle building with the wooden plank is a GOOD (if basic) restaurant)
Enjoy!
And don't have a GAS attack in the duty-free!
Last edited:
Mark:
this jives with what I found when I compared the GX100 to my D-Lux2, especially in the in-camera jpeg renderings. While I *much* prefer the GX UI, the D-Lux/LX IQ seems superior which makes this a very tough decision for me. In the end, I don't particularly care for 16:9, definitely prefer 4:3 and *love* my GRD2 for its UI and shot-speed, so those factors probably make the GX200 the better choice for me. Plus, I rarely (almost never!) even bothered to use the D-Lux2 --- of course then again, I rarely used my GX100 after I traded my D-Lux2 for it...
Cheers,
I sold my LUX 2 on ebay. SOld in 2 hours.. probably listed it too low. Anyway, I am getting an LX-3 and will compare directly with the GX 200 and sell one. I did some 16x20 prints from the GX-200 iso 200 and 400. The noise was barely detectable on the prints even at iso 400. There was a bit of a color artifact in a low light shot that included a gray couch-- some purple blotching which I could not get rid of it completely. It was worse on the DLUX-2. The other thing I am seeing from example shots is the LX-3 seems to be worse with CA and fringing. Anyway, overall pleased with the GX200 except it is horrible at straight out of the camera jpgs.
Mark:
this jives with what I found when I compared the GX100 to my D-Lux2, especially in the in-camera jpeg renderings. While I *much* prefer the GX UI, the D-Lux/LX IQ seems superior which makes this a very tough decision for me. In the end, I don't particularly care for 16:9, definitely prefer 4:3 and *love* my GRD2 for its UI and shot-speed, so those factors probably make the GX200 the better choice for me. Plus, I rarely (almost never!) even bothered to use the D-Lux2 --- of course then again, I rarely used my GX100 after I traded my D-Lux2 for it...
Cheers,
Tim
Active member
Mark,
I am considering doing exactly this also, I suspect though that I may end up keeping both. Perhaps we can compare notes if I go through with this?. The only thing I am waiting on right now is Photokina, just in case something amazing shows.
Just lately the compact camera has become important to me, its been difficult to tote my DSLR.
Tim
Tim.. I have both cameras now. I really find the IQ to be better with the LX3. The one caveat is that I have to use different raw converters since the LX3 files are not yet converted in CS3. The difference in IQ is really most apparent in the high iso images. The LX3 RAW files are really less noisy. I like noise ninja but to get the noise levels equal, you really do loose some of the detail. The CA and fringing is a bit better on the GX200. In real life use and normal sized prints, I doubt there is going to be a huge or any real difference. THe controls and use of the GX200 is better. I am going to try a few more comparisons but these are my early impressions.