My two most trusted review sites, dcresource.com and dpreview.com, have reviewed the two serious contenders. Frankly I was surprised by dpreview's mere Recommended rating for the G10, after its quality was likened to medium format. Additionally two professional photographers, a Nikon partisan and a Canon partisan wrote interesting comparisons of these three cameras. The P6000 seems to be the P&S of choice only for somebody who wants GPS. For me the choice is clear: LX3. I'm sick of shooting 4:3 and missing the sides of every scene, and having images too tall for my widescreen monitor. On the LX3 I can set 3:2 and switch to 4:3 if need be, or (more likely) 16:9 for panoramas. Moreover the difference in performance is striking. Shot to shot times for RAW are 1.7 seconds for the LX3, 2.5 for the G10. In continuous mode the LX3 can shoot 3 frames of RAW at 1.89 fps, 2.4 times faster than the G10. Autofocus speed is a consistent full-press .7 second on the LX3, but varies from .5 to 1.2 second on the G10 (longer at telephoto, when it hunts). The LX3 can take HD movies, the G10 cannot. The principal downside is that power-on takes over 2 seconds on the LX3. DPreview's real world results are perhaps the most compelling argument, especially insofar as 10 Mp images won't fill my SD card or computer as rapidly as 14 Mp. The G10 is great in the lab, but apparently not so much on the street. So am I missing anything important?