Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 96

Thread: GX200 or LX3

  1. #1
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm looking at a new zoom compact, the GX200 appeals a bit more because of size and the stepped zoom. Both do RAW. Which do you think? and why?

    Tim
    Last edited by Tim; 1st August 2008 at 17:05. Reason: GX200 or LX3

  2. #2
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    No one want to weigh in?

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    I'm waiting till I can see RAW's from both and also until the G10 is announced for Photokina. I was really unimpressed with the DNG RAW's from the D200 but we'll see if there is anything better.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  4. #4
    Prognathous
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    The GX200 has its strengths (user-interface, better macro, longer tele, built-in lens cap option, control dial, time-lapse mode etc...), and the LX3 has its strengths (faster lens, TTL hot-shoe, better JPEG's, stabilized movie mode etc...). There's no universally clear winner between these two. It all depends on one's needs and preferences. What are yours?

    Prog.

  5. #5
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    To me it comes down to two things: UI and aspect ratio.

    Some people vastly prefer the Ricoh UI. I've used both and I find the Panny to be fine - it rarely gets in my way, and the new user presets on the LX3 appear to improve things. But UI is a personal thing.

    If you want native 16x9 then the LX3 is a no-brainer. Native 4x3, then GX200.

    Otherwise they seem to be pretty comparable cameras.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Tough choice,
    I would wait till there is more out on the LX3
    Barring more data; I very much love Ricoh UI though
    Panny's I've not tried
    Yet

  7. #7
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Lilli,was that a poem?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    There is no help comparing sizes either

    LX3 is 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm
    GX200 111.6 × 58.0 × 25.0 mm

    so they are about the same portability wise!
    Last edited by Tim; 7th August 2008 at 01:27.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Near London
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    I know that some people have had problems with dust getting behind the lens on their Ricoh but I don't know what reputation Panasonic have for that? So if you like to carry a camera around in your pocket it might be a factor to investigate further.

  10. #10
    focale_32
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    The key elements of a camera are as always the lens, the sensor (film in the old days) and processing (lab in the old days).

    Lens :
    Panasonic as a completly new lens design which should be first class as Leica endorse it.
    Ricoh stayed with the well-known GX100 lens

    Sensor :
    Panasonic stayed at 10MP and improved its actual design.
    Ricoh had to take what was on the shelf. The jump from 10 to 12MP puts more constraints on the lens in term of resolving power, the smaller pixels size renders the camera more prone to diffraction losses.

    Processor :
    Both Panasonic and Ricoh improved their processing units.

    We still have to wait to see results from both cameras for a final comparion as stated before.

    However, according to the precedings from Canon (G7-> G9) and Nikon (P5000 -> P5100), I do not think we will see a huge progress in term of IQ going from the GX100 to the GX200, the contrary may be true...

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Sean Reid reviewed the GX 200.
    He was very favorable to it except for hi ISO (800-1600) performance.
    Having more pixels than the LX3 it is likely the Panny will do a bit better at these ISO's.
    I am torn as well.
    I LOVE the Ricoh UI.
    But that fast zoom, at both ends....Le Sigh.....

  12. #12
    Member pjphoto59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cleveland UK
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    There is no help comparing sizes either

    LX3 is 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm
    GX200 111.6 × 58.0 × 25.0 mm
    These GX200 dimensions look like those often quoted for the GX100, and they are simply wrong, unless my GX100 is an especially fat version.

    length and breadth at 112 x 58 are about right, but the thickness, with the lens cap on is 40mm. The lens cap is, of course, essential due the risk of dust. Without the lens cap, the thickness is 35mm, not 25mm. The thickness makes a big difference to the pocketability of the camera.

    Peter

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by nei1 View Post
    Lilli,was that a poem?
    Not so far as I know

  14. #14
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by nei1 View Post
    Lilli,was that a poem?
    , I think so!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    I think this is going to be an interesting comparison. I too have been considering getting one or the other. The reason i am favoring the LX-3 is the f2.0-2.8 lens whereas the Gx200 has a 2.8 to 4.4 lens. The other issue is that the LX-3 is less expensive as well. Like every camera there are tradeoffs. Ultimately i would like to see some image comparisons at low and high isos. This is likely going to be the most important variable at this point.

  16. #16
    SimonL
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    I think whether the LX3 had the equivalent of the MY1 and MY2 settings combined with the snap focus mode would be the deal breaker for me

  17. #17
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    I am considering buying both and run with one then the other for a few months. I might then part with one or keep both?

    Probably go with this plan if there is nothing else interesting show up at Photokina.

    Tim

  18. #18
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    If leica built in pre-set focal lengths a la ricoh,square format raw plus lightning fast tracking autofocus in say a 2 foot range on an easily selected face Id be a very happy camper and pay the leica premium and maybe leave a tip.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    I have downloaded some high iso raw images from the GX200 posted on dpreview.com and I am not at all impressed with the iso 400 and 800 images. The GX200 looks like more noise compared to the GX100. Sean Reid said from his memory he thought the noise was about the same but never did side by side comparisons in his review. AS much as I was hoping this would be better or as good as the Panasonic in terms of IQ, and without seeing side by sides at the moment, I am guessing the Panasonic is going to outperform the GX 200. However, the advantages like user controls etc need to be placed into the equation. Moreover, have not seen IQ comparisons at lower isos and if one is primarily going to use at lower isos then not an issue. So at this point, I am favoring the panasonic.

  20. #20
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Just to put another camera in,Ive really liked some of the image quality thats come out of the sony w300,if the same chip is in the nikon p6000 it could be nice although its a slower lens.Id still be tempted if sigma put a 40mmf2 on the dp1,both these companies seem to have issues with raw processors at the moment.
    If I had to choose between these two cameras it would be the gx200 and sod the IQ.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    The other problem i am seeing is that the panasonic wide angle --- bad edge softness in some examples. Do not know if this is going to be copy to copy variation

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    DP? with 40/f2 would be absolutely cool.
    Add a real buffer and that would be very close to a Digital Hexar Af....

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

  25. #25
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Lilli,if they bring it out lets hope they call it the DPcool,it would be so....cool.regards,Neil.

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by nei1 View Post
    Lilli,if they bring it out lets hope they call it the DPcool,it would be so....cool.regards,Neil.
    DPCOOL...I like that

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by nei1 View Post
    Lilli,if they bring it out lets hope they call it the DPcool,it would be so....cool.regards,Neil.
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  28. #28
    Senior Member simonclivehughes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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,

  29. #29
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    I so nearly bought an LX3 today . . . . but resisted at the last moment. Such GAS control has never been seen.
    You've been in too much sun, Jono !
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  30. #30
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by simonclivehughes View Post

    Having said all the above, I'm anxiously awaiting what Sigma might announce at Photokina.

    Cheers,
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    You've been in too much sun, 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)

    Just this guy you know

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by nei1 View Post
    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.
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  34. #34
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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)
    Jono,

    this is fantastic place , I wish I was there now - relaxing! :sleep006:

    Tim

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    Jono,

    this is fantastic place , I wish I was there now - relaxing! :sleep006:

    Tim
    Hi Tim, I wish I was there now too!
    Incidentally, that was a busy day - there's one boat there per day - or you can walk along the cliff path (45 hot minutes from the nearest village).

    Just this guy you know

  36. #36
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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)
    Lucky you; we have nothing but rain [in both countries]
    Enjoy!
    And don't have a GAS attack in the duty-free!
    Last edited by Robert Campbell; 5th September 2008 at 02:43.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  37. #37
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    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.
    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,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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,

  39. #39
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    Anyway, I am getting an LX-3 and will compare directly with the GX 200 and sell one.
    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

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    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

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

  43. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    22

    Re: GX200 or LX3

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





    jd

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

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

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.
    Last edited by mark1958; 15th March 2011 at 14:49.

  47. #47
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    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

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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

  49. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    111
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GX200 or LX3

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by httivals View Post
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •