GX200 vs. LX3 - comparisons and comments

[BlackRicoh]

If you look at LCD screen (image from sensor) in LX3, can you then see that barrel distortion or is it also post processed?

[Wok]

Hello:

Congratulations for the forum!!!. I've come here looking for information on choosing between the GX200 and LX3.

I've not had the opportunity to test both cameras and would like to know if you can help me. The use that I'am going to give is normally at low light and can be without a flash. I would like to know:

- Which of them focus better in low light? Does any of the two is very slow or has a vague focus?

- Which of these is faster if I want to make a picture in low light without flash and RAW?

- Someone has compared the pictures in RAW format with PhotoShop CS 4.0 and Adobe Raw 5.2?

- Which of the two has a greater dynamic range?

- Has anyone been able to access the firmware 1.10 for the LX3 which will publish the December 15?

- Which of these is more silent?

Thank you very much and I 'm sorry for my poor level of English.


Wok

[blue_quartz]

Hello:

Congratulations for the forum!!!. I've come here looking for information on choosing between the GX200 and LX3.

I've not had the opportunity to test both cameras and would like to know if you can help me. The use that I'am going to give is normally at low light and can be without a flash. I would like to know:

- Which of these is faster if I want to make a picture in low light without flash and RAW?
- Which of the two has a greater dynamic range?

I can only answer these two... the LX3 will have technical superiority over these two areas, no doubt.

[Wok]

I can only answer these two... the LX3 will have technical superiority over these two areas, no doubt.

Thanks for your reply. I love the Ricoh cameras but those two points are very important to me. I still have doubts.

Greetings,

[odklizec]

Hi Wok and welcome here!

If you mean "faster" in terms of lens speed, then LX3 with its f2.0 lens is slightly faster. In terms of AF speed, both cameras are more or less the same. In many cases, GX200 can properly lock where LX3 cannot and vice versa. LX3, in addition, uses a small trick. If it cannot lock the focus up, it simply sets the focus to a predefined distance (I believe it's about 2m). So you may get an impression that LX3 successfully locks all the time, but it just uses this small trick.

I would say that in low light (above ISO400) RAW is a must for both cameras. I don't like high ISO JPEG from both cameras. So if you are about to shot in low light frequently, be ready to use RAW.

As for dynamic range, LX3 is clearly a winner here. The same can be said about ISO performance.

[Wok]

Thanks for all the information.

Yesterday I had my hands on the LX3. It had no battery and can not be tested. I do not seem very comfortable in handling. The GX was not at that store. Let's see if today's meeting in another shop.

I have noticed that now the GX100 is a price very interesting and has some less noise than the GX200. But the raw speed is very slow. How much you have to wait between picture and picture on the GX100 when shooting in Raw?

I have also read that has a different AF to the GX200. Does the GX100 focus in low light and at the same speed as the GX200/LX3?

Thank you very much,

Wok

[odklizec]

Yes, GX100 is currently a very good option. The price is low and it still performs great. RAW is not as fast as GX200 or GRDII, but it's acceptable. And GX100 JPEG is still very good up to ISO400 due to very low NR done over it. So RAW is good mainly for difficult lightning conditions and high ISO. There is not much need to use it for low ISO shots.

For GX100 RAW writing speeds (with various cards) see this post:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4

As for GX100 AF, it uses dual AF system. The primary AF is fast Phase Detection and only if camera decides that the given lightning conditions are too bad for Phase Detection AF, it uses the slower (but more accurate) contrast detection AF. Both GX200 and LX3 uses only contrast detection AF. The truth is, that contrast detection speed improved over the time. GX200 contrast detection AF is definitely faster than GX100 contrast detection AF. However, in many cases, it's still not as fast as Phase Detection AF incorporated in GX100 and GRDI.

I don't use AF much, because I found manual focus more reliable and although it may sound strange, also faster than AF. Thanks to huge DoF in small sensor cameras, you can easily live with just one or two focus positions (let's say 2m and Infinity). And only in case of macro to use AF.

[Wok]

Thanks again for your prompt response, odkizec:

I have one more question: what resolution is the viewfinder VF-1? I have a Minolta Dimage 7i with EVF and I would be able to compare the quality and resolution.

I would like to know if someone has some files on the GX100 and LX3 identical with very low light and high-iso in raw form to see if there is much difference between the GX100 and LX3.

Thank you very much,

Wok

[archpop]

From design standpoint, i'd go for Gx200. (but have to accept the noise problem though...)

[thelps]

I have recently bought a LX3 but I think the GRD II/GX200 are much better ergonomically and handling wise. I seem to feel I have no where to put my fingers when holding the LX3. Is there any interval mode on the LX3? I know the GX200 has this for time lapse images but can't see if the LX3 does?