GX200 vs. LX3 - comparisons and comments

[mark1958]

I agree with most of your evaluation and comments. I agree with the controls and user functions are much nicer on the GX200. I also will say the camera looks nicer and overall is more compact than the LX-3. However, taking all the points together I decided to put my GX-200 on ebay. I wanted to like the GX-200 more but I feel that many are biased on this particular web site.

1) In my opinion, the corner sharpness is better on the LX-3. I do use silkypix for RAW conversion and I never realized the distortion was being "fixed" by the software. If the fix is made such that there is no image degradation, why is this an issue? I mean even Hasselblad is using DAC software fixes to normal lens distortion on their 50 megapixel digital backs. It is possible to turn off the software correction and perhaps it would be advantageous to allow for this with the LX-3.

2) I do not see major if any differences in center sharpness between the two cameras.

3) The high iso images are much better with the LX-3 because of the noise issue. The better high iso shots in combination with a faster lens, allows me to sometimes get usable shots in much less light with the LX-3. To me, this is a big advantage. The high iso images with the GX-200 are just not fixable.

4) In high contrast light, the CA/fringing is worse with the LX-3. This is really a sore point because the severe CA is virtually impossible to eliminate if present.

So there are tradeoffs but for me -- in the end the LX-3 was the winner mostly for point 3.

[odklizec]

I just uploaded first set of full size GX200/LX3 photos:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1984
Some more will follow

[tommy]

I'm very excited about this comparison. I've felt an urge for some time to take the step to a manual control camera, and it would naturally have been the GX200, but I'm feeling more and more drawn towards the LX3.
Sweden seams to be an (one of some) odd place. For winter we need special winter tires for our cars, and we also need special winter (low-light) cameras.

About the software-corrected distortion in LX3, I say it's a 100 % a smart thing (given that it works). Noise reduction would have been too, had it worked (which it of course does to some extent, only CPUs can't tell good noise from bad noise).

The joy of my life was the snappy AF on R5; I was so proud, and showed off the camera to all my friends. I've leaned to live with R6, mostly by using preset manual or snap focus. I mean, what's the point in having a compact camera always ready to take THAT picture, if it doesn't take the picture when you press the button??

At dpreview I read that LX3 has very long shutter lag (also) in preset manual focus.
Is that true?

[odklizec]

Tommy, I'm afraid, the thing is not that simple as it may look LX3 is definitely great camera, as well as GX200. However, there are some consistent problems. At first, if you are a JPEG shooter, be prepared for a constant fight with white balance. No matter what WB settings you use, it's more or less wrong. It can be fine tuned, however, can you imagine WB fine tuning for each second shot? In this case, RAW is much better option for LX3. Of course, one doesn't need to worry about WB in B&W mode too.

Additionally, there are some more problems, or rather missing features and options, which are standard in Ricoh cameras. I really miss the step zoom but even more an option to save the zoom position in Custom settings. Missing Interval mode would be another showstopper for many people. And those used in Ricoh style of menu a workflow could the somewhat confused by LX3 menu and workflow. I'm still struggling with it.

And one more thing. Macro lovers should be warned about somewhat limited LX3 capabilities in this area. LX3 zoomed at maximum refuses to lock the focus for any distance under 25cm. GX200 zoomed at 60mm locks the focus (in macro) even at 3cm. And there is always the 135mm extension lens available for GX200, which can make the GX200 macro capabilities even more "extreme"

All in all, both cameras have their pros and cons. But if you are after perfect low light camera in pocketable form, LX3 is better option. I'm really impressed about its high ISO performance.

[tommy]

Thanks Pavel. I'm a jpeg shooter, and a step zoomer.

I finally realized I want two different things. 1) a camera to practice manual and artistic photography with, and 2) a day-to-day pocketable camera that can take nice pictures even in low light with fast shutter (i.e. a fast lens), without sacrificing too much of the 28--200 mm reach.

The LX3 is too big to replace my R6, and it has to short zoom. I think I'm gonna buy me a GX200 for Christmas this year.

[odklizec]

Hard but reasonable decision Tommy! Both GX200 and LX3 have their strengths and disadvantages. I would understand if someone would get both of them GX200 for daylight and macro shots and LX3 for high ISO and high contrast scenes.

BTW, today, when I took a series of my usual "something-on-the-table" ISO shots (LX3, GX200, Sony R1), I found one more small, but for me very annoying workflow mistake in LX3. With GX200, I can just once set the camera to self-timer mode and then each shutter press will initialize the self-timer. This can be repeated as long as the camera is turned ON or until I don't turn the self-timer OFF. In case of LX3, the self-timer is turned automatically OFF after each shutter press or even after any change of camera settings! It's small, but for me very annoying workflow glitch.

The LX3, GX200 and R1 ISO test will be published when I get some more time to crop all ISO shots I took. It's boring and very time consuming work (Hi Nevin! ). But I'm sure I will finish it "someday"...

[.ken]

thanks for all your work on posting the comparisons here.

i'm a happy owner of the GX100 and had to sent it back to Ricoh for some minor repairs in the focusing. I just hit the switch on the GRDII and i hope i didn't make a mistake since everyone seems to be raving about the LX3. One things for sure is i really like the Ricoh ergnomics and overall styling. I haven't seen much comparison in quality of the GRD2 at 28mm vs LX3 at 28mm.

[odklizec]

You are welcome Ken!

I'm planing to do some quick LX3 vs. GRDII comparisons. However, these two are completely different cameras. There is no contest between the zoom and prime lens. GRDII don't have to mask the lens barrel distortion and chromatic aberration by a clever FW. Also, GRDII is over a year old, so it does not have some of the LX3 and GX200 advanced features, like fast continuous RAW. But I guess the ISO performance will be more or less the same, with small advantage for LX3. Anyway, GRD is not about ISO performance but about perfect handling and completely different feel. If I would have to choose between GRDII and LX3 (or GX200), GRDII will still be my preferred camera. (Despite the lack of continuous RAW, which will surely be added in next generation of GRD)

[.ken]

good to hear and looking forward to the comparison!

[meolic]

All in all, both cameras have their pros and cons. But if you are after perfect low light camera in pocketable form, LX3 is better option. I'm really impressed about its high ISO performance.

Thanks for really useful answer to my question about size. I am not a pro. I have been directed from another site to the raw comparisons of different cameras ( http://www.dxomark.com/ ). Their database include LX3. I can see in their ISO Sensitivity test that LX3 is reporting much higher ISO than the real one is. For example, ISO 200 is in fact ISO 125 and ISO 800 is in fact ISO 400. I checked some other cameras and did not find any other with so big difference between the reported ISO and the real one. Does this result means something? Unfortunately, Ricoh cameras have not been tested yet. Maybe some of you who are more in the business can propose the authors of dxomark testing GX200.