GX200 or LX3

[mazor]

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.

Look forward to it Mark, as I am considering getting an LX3 as a point and shoot carry everywhere camera. The CA people are complaining about in the LX3, is this very noticeable compared to the GX200. Could it be because people were comparing the LX3 with aperture wide open at 2.0 or 2.8? Most lens, can perform better when stopped down. And is it possible that the "not so sharp" images form the LX3 is due to a very narrow depth of field?


MAzor

 

[mark1958]

I can see a difference in the CA with the Panasonic regardless of the aperture. It is clearly worse than the GX200 regardless of aperture but it is not problematic unless shooting with light prone to lots of CA. At the lower isos it is hard to say that the Panasonic is all around better. There were some scenarios where I thought both cameras were very close. It is hard to make a definitive statement at the lower isos due to the differences in field of view with the two cameras. If you are only going to shoot low iso shots I would say that it would be a toss up. THe real advantage comes with the high isos. I wish CS3 would take both sets of files or even if Silkypix would recognize the GX200.

 

[JDavila]

I still have yet to see some shots taken with the LX3. Would it be possible to see some? Thanks in advance.





jd

 

[mark1958]

What exactly do you want? BTW i found that when I downloaded the latest version of silkypix, the GX200 RAW are now compatible.

 

[mazor]

mark1958, it would be nice to see some LX3 samples exhibiting this CA problem. Obviously with point and shoots, quite frequently one would be taking indoor type shots, and I am a fan of capturing natural light as opposed to using flash.

So mabe if you could so a sample showing low light shots, say at ISO 400 for both LX3 and GX200, to compare would be nice thanks

MAzor

 

[mark1958]

Mazor.. Here is a shot iso 80, f3.2 to show some of the CA. The whole resized crop followed by a 100% crop of the tree area is shown.

 

[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.

Thanks for this Mark, it may help me choose without buying both. The only other functional difference of any importance is that the GX200 has over the LX3 is the EVF. How have you found the EVF on the GX?

I was not too happy with the CA on the samples you posted.

Tim

 

[mark1958]

Time.. I have the EVF and while it works fine and I thought it would be something I would really use-- I have found I do not use it at all. The EVF is too small and for those who have used a DSLR or MF camera, will be disappointed. Mark

Also should point out the GX200 has some CA as well with shots such as the one I posted just not as severe

 

[httivals]

I have the LX3 and have found that it's pretty easy to correct the chromatic aberration in RAWS in SilkyPix (though I otherwise don't like SiklyPix all that much). When I get home tonight, I'll try to remember to post the correction I'm using in the SilkyPix lens correction module. My correction is for the widest setting. There is only very minor chromatic aberration at the tele end; I haven't bothered to try to correct it yet. . . . I've found the LX3 to be generall a fun, excellent, small camera. (If anything it's too small, but I'm getting used to it. I thought not having a viewfinder would bother me, but it doesn't. It's a different style of shooting. And the grid overlay and histogram gives you a lot of information using the rear LCD.) As for high ISO shots, I love it at 80, like it a lot at ISOs 100 and 200, and think it's still good at iso 400. In other words, it's better than other compacts at higher ISO, but don't expect miracles. Also, I've found that shooting it wide open at f2 on the wide end or f2.8 on the long end does not decrease image quality vs. stopping it down. So this means that you can pretty much shoot it at iso 400 or lower, except in really low light.

 

[mark1958]

I pretty much agree with what you have said except I have not had the opportunity to try silkypix CA correction. I did try to correct the 16-bit TIFF files in CS3 with little success. Otherwise I agree with what you said about the image quality wide open. I would say this is true of the Ricoh GX200 as well. I think the folks who talk about image softness are generally not used to shooting at such a wide focal length. If the camera is tilted just a bit, you can get what appears to be one sided image softness. The Grid lines help. THe ricoh has an additional tool for leveling the camera while holding. It is a bar that goes from green to red depending on the tilt. we cannot expect DSLR quality from a PS camera but I would say these two are the best in class for serious shooters.
ONe other note, the jpg from the GX200 are not great. I probably need to set the parameters but the files are way over sharpened using default mode.

Silkypix is actually a good converter but it is not so easy to use. I guess like anything takes some practice.

I have the LX3 and have found that it's pretty easy to correct the chromatic aberration in RAWS in SilkyPix (though I otherwise don't like SiklyPix all that much). When I get home tonight, I'll try to remember to post the correction I'm using in the SilkyPix lens correction module. My correction is for the widest setting. There is only very minor chromatic aberration at the tele end; I haven't bothered to try to correct it yet. . . . I've found the LX3 to be generall a fun, excellent, small camera. (If anything it's too small, but I'm getting used to it. I thought not having a viewfinder would bother me, but it doesn't. It's a different style of shooting. And the grid overlay and histogram gives you a lot of information using the rear LCD.) As for high ISO shots, I love it at 80, like it a lot at ISOs 100 and 200, and think it's still good at iso 400. In other words, it's better than other compacts at higher ISO, but don't expect miracles. Also, I've found that shooting it wide open at f2 on the wide end or f2.8 on the long end does not decrease image quality vs. stopping it down. So this means that you can pretty much shoot it at iso 400 or lower, except in really low light.

 

[httivals]

The other thing that has pleasantly surprised me about the LX3 is that the dynamic range is much better than I expected (my last compact was a Canon G2; so it's been a while). What I really miss from Lightroom/Adobe Raw is the ability to recapture highlights and use fill light in raw. There may be a way to approach these functionalities in SilkyPix, but I haven't figured it out. That said, just using basic exposure controls and opening up shadows in the CS3, the dynamic range is quite good.

 

[mark1958]

I tried silkypix for correcting the CA. For the violet/red CA it works well but cannot get rid of the severe bluish fringing/CA

 

[httivals]

For the widest setting, I have "R Rate" set to +6.0, and "B Rate" set to +5.2. Works consistently well for my camera.

 

[mark1958]

I had slightly different settings but still cannot get rid of all of the fringing in the example shot I posted. I tried your setting as well. I think silkypix does a better job than CS3.

For the widest setting, I have "R Rate" set to +6.0, and "B Rate" set to +5.2. Works consistently well for my camera.

 

[nostatic]

reading/seeing this I'm having a tough time pulling the trigger to move from the DLux3. Just doesn't seem to be a significant improvement. The faster lens would be nice, but you lose out on the long end.

 

[mark1958]

I read something on another forum and tried it.. it worked. I used the CS3 noise filter and turned the color noise up to close to 100% and the fringing disappeared. The image becomes a tad desaturated but by using a layer you can keep the "unfringed" part of the image clean.

 

[Cindy Flood]

I just upgraded from the D-Lux3 and LX2 to the LX3. I haven't had a chance to use the camera for any situation that would show CA. It was raining and overcast and the rain just quit when I took this shot today.
I'm looking forward to using it more in the next few days.

 

[kit laughlin]

There's a shortish thread over at Fred's that might interest some folk here. I like the LX3 and I have had both siblings. The LX3 is much better than both, and the UI is very good.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/691306

cheers, KL

 

[Per Ofverbeck]

Kit, just a short question: Is the zoom setting among the parameters saved in the custom memories? I´d like to put, say, 35mm (eq) into one of them and 60 mm in the other, to be able to go there directly when powering up. Is that possible?

I´m very tempted by this camera (will probably get the Dlux4 version). I own the Dlux3, and feel quite a few things seem to be improved.

 

[kit laughlin]

Per, I am not sure, and have posted this Q on some other forums. Note that, on startup, 24mm EFOV is default. 24mm has the lens fully extended.

It takes ~ 1 second to go from full wide to full tele, if that helps. While we wait for the definitive answer, I would just say that because the 60 setting only takes a half second to reach (with no looking at screen or dials, because is it one end of the zoom) I wouldn't bother saving—quicker to have it set on whatever you want on the wide end, and press the zoom lever over to the right when you want 60.

I prefer the LX3, simply because it has the grip—the ergonomics are good. Having had the DP-1, which has no grip, I can tell you it is necessary, IMHO. cheers, kl