LX3 vs G9

[diane_schrader2]

Thanks to all who replied to my post yesterday, it was a big help. I'm now looking for further advice. Between

the LX3 vs G9.... there's a big difference when it comes to comparing the wide angles, zoom and rangefinders of

the two.

I've also read that the G9 is bigger and heavier, but that's not a huge deal. Both shoot in manual and both

shoot RAW (and besides portability and image quality [within the confines of the P&S line] those are my two main

priorities). When it comes to comparing the lenses, what's the how big of an impact does the glass make when it

comes to image quality.... after taking into consideration all the other factors that effect the final image?

The lowest price I've found for each camera still leaves a gap of about $150 between the two. I'm just wondering if

someone can help me out with justifying that price difference. I would be grateful for some posts! :) Thanks!

[ed_ci]

Diane,

I am looking these two cameras myself. Not rushing to make a decision. This would be a second camera to my D80.

 

Size is also not a major determining factor for me. But low light image quality will be.

 

There is is a tradeoff of the geometries of each lens:

 

The LX3 has a F2.0 - F2.8 lens - a nice fast lens for P&S, @ 24-60mm (35mm equivalent)

Good: larger aperture allows faster shutter speeds which is good for low light

Bad: the Zoom range is not typical of current P&S cams--but actually cover the traditional rangefinder lenses*

 

The G9 has a F2.8 - F4.8 lens @ 35-210mm (35mm equiv)

Good: Has a much more versatile zoom range up to 210mm

Bad: one stop slower (or more) than the LX2, does not go as wide as the LX3's 24mm

 

Size/Weight is close enough for me:

LX3: 4.3L x 2.3 x 1.1 in @ 265g

G9: 4.2L x 2.8 x 1.7 in @ 320g

 

I am still investigating the noise issue since I am not a PostProcessing noise smoother. I can accept noise as depending on the pattern, size, etc. Also I am researching both lens designs for distortion and sharpness. I see good and bad examples from both, so it's a difficult call. Ideally buy both and compare - but.... I am not waiting for any pixel increases from Photokina just better noise handling (which is difficult because it is inherent to sensor size)

 

*Rangefinders are manual focus and neither of these are soley MF, but do have rangefinder type bodies.

 

 

We'll see what others have to say.

[fred_c1]

See if there's a G10 coming out some time this year (i.e. after Photokina.) If yes, the G9 would be further

discounted. By that time there will also be formal tests/reviews on the LX3. You can then make an informed

decision.

[bill_tuthill]

Sources say the G9 was only $450 when it came out.

Maybe due to shortages during model transition,

Am*zon lists it for $690 today. It's not worth that much!

Dcresource.com promises an LX3 review in October.

That's the site I trust most for P&S reviews.

 

Instead of a G9 I would prefer to own a Panasonic TZ5 or FZ28.

Both are around $300 currently.

[eric_arnold]

kinda depends on low-light usage. g9 is hard to beat at ISO 100-200. lx3 should be able to do clean 800/usable 1600. if IQ isnt half bad, that's a big plus -- but so is the 9's range, then there's that f/2.0 lens, which will let you stop down and still be at 2.8. g9 is more proven, but LX3 could set a new standard. i'd wait for more reviews, though.

[erick_k]

The G9 is now discontinued and unavailable.<p>

 

The G10 was just <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp">announced</a> and has an

impressive list of features. Yet the LX3 is still competitive, depending on your needs.<p>

 

I too am weighing a decision between the LX3 and G10. Until I read a hands-on review of the G10, the LX3 will remain

my favored candidate. It has less megapixels, but what pixels it delivers are clean at high-ISO (400) while, if the G9 is

any indicator, the Canon P&S has great ISO 80 quality yet poor ISO 400. Adding more MPs to the G10 probably will not

improve its low-light performance. The other tick against the G10 is that it is now larger and heavier. 350g compared to

the LX3's 265g and the G9's 320g.<p>

Dimensions are:<p>

G10: 109 x 78 x 46 mm<p>

G9 : 106.4 x 71.9 x 42.5 mm<p>

LX3: 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm<p>

 

The Panasonic and Canon each has its own compromises. Since I have a 5D with a full set of lenses, I'll use the P&S

when I need something small, light, and good for low-light. For telephoto, out comes the D-SLR, or zooming with my

feet. I value the faster lens and cleaner high-ISO of the LX3, but if the G10 is substantially improved, I may yet

consider it. Too bad the Canon is fatter and heavier. It's nearing a D-SLR replacement not just in features but alas in

dimensions. The controls on the Canon seem superior to the LX3's. I handled the LX3 in store (it's available now) and it

felt sturdy + comfortable. Already it's a little heavier than I would've liked. <p>

 

Click here for a <a href="http://www.lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2008/08/panasonic-lx3-review.html">hands-on review</a>

of the Panasonic LX3. Hope that helps.

[oofoto]

My primary advice here is to make sure you handle them both (G10 as well if it's hit the stores) as they are wildly different both to physically handle and also how you control them. Then consider the focal range that is important to you - again they are very different. When you have these sorted then you have to decide if the price difference matters again very comparable IQ performance.

LX3 prices are apparently going up due to favourable reviews by Amateur Photographer magazine, G9 prices are not going down either as it's discontinued. G10 prices likely to be comparable to LX3.

[kari v]

I don't know how G10 will perform but for me G9 vs LX3 is 24/2 vs. 35/2.8 - no contest.

[eric_arnold]

i'm very interested in the LX3, which does seem to be at least a partial answer to the prayers of many.

i agree with you on the f/2.0, kari, but i think i read that the G10 is 28/2.8. still would rather have the wider aperture

over the longer lens, though in a perfect world, you'd get both.

[ed_ci]

While the image samples in the <a href=http://www.lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2008/08/panasonic-lx3-review.html>

link posted by Erick K</a> are very favorable, others online are not. Especially discouraging is the user

reviews/thread on the Leica forums which discuss the LX3. In fact the lawrence ripsher was the only real positive

review I could find. Anyone else find any other "good" LX3 image samples-especially low light images?

<br>

<br>

And yes the LX3's f2.0 24mm is a huge draw but if the the processing engine screws up what the lens exposes then

its all for naught.

[michael s.]

Wide angle @ 24mm vs. 35mm is indeed a significant difference. Between 24 and 28mm (offered on the new Canon

G10) there's still a difference -- not as dramatic, perhaps, but still appreciable. Same holds true of the

difference in reach between the cameras.

 

However, I would not agree that f/2.0 vs. f/2.8 max aperture would *necessarily* result in any significant

difference in actual practice. At wide angle the small sensor cameras, unlike the Hasselblad and digital back

you're accustomed to, have extensive depth of field -- and that's true even at the larger apertures.

 

Take a look here, using *actual* focal length rather than the so-called 35mm "equivalent."

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[Note: Neither the G10 nor the LX3 are included yet. Too new. But you can still plug in cameras that will give

you a hint as to d.o.f. On the small sensor cameras, it is, in a word, huge.]

 

Key parts of the comparison of the G10 and the LX3 would turn on the responsiveness and photo quality under

actual circumstances -- for me, street shooting -- and how well each does at higher iso. I'll be much less

concerned about f/2.0 vs. f/2.8, because if it turns out that Canon handles high iso situations better, then the

max aperture of the lenses won't matter at all to me.

 

In short, I'm hoping a couple of my fellow street snappers will try these cameras and let me know what happens. :-)

[berg_na]

Digitalcamerareview.com includes a number of <a href="http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsId=3580">full-size sample images</a> in their review of the LX3. The image quality in terms of fine details, low noise and dynamic range is way superior to what I'm getting with my Canon SD800. I'm very impressed.

[erick_k]

Interesting points Michael. I've spent a few hours reading up on the LX3 and haven't been able to find any hands-on

reviews that don't hold it in high esteem for its image quality. Most of them have been preliminary reviews -- perhaps

DPReview will soon give us a low-light complete test. But it's worth taking a look at the photos <a

href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=29058591/">posted here</a>. I see plenty of

noise in the sky portion of these photos (something Noise Ninja would improve), but otherwise it looks promising. I

found a more thorough review at the <a

href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3.php">Photography blog</a> On page 3 there

are sample images. The ISO 400 shots look decent, not great in my opinion. I consider it acceptable quality, not

terribly impressive. Yet if Canon's G9/10 are worse at ISO 400 then that would make them unacceptably noisy at high speed.

<p>

You make a useful point about f/2.0 DOF. So we can't expect to have pleasing bokeh on an LX3's f/2.0? How

disappointing.

<p>

If you have any links to more critical reviews, please share them. Thanks.

[erick_k]

Sorry, I meant to provide <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?

forum=1033&message=29058591">this</a> link in the post above.

[bill_tuthill]

I'm replying to Berg Na's post, not Erick's posts.

I agree that detail is amazingly high,

although colors seem dull at first glance.

 

As I asked before, and John McCormack replied,

YES the LX3 has Vivid mode. Looking at

histograms of posted full-size images on

digitalcamerareview, it appears that Panasonic

gives the entire color range, rather than

auto-leveling it as do Canon amateur P&S models.

Here's the bridge image after a bit of editing.

I suspect the LX3 is primarily a RAW mode camera.<div></div>