Point & shoot: Lack of noise...

[er1]

<p>From time to time I find myself scouting new locations without my gear. I would like a P&S I can slip into my pocket or carry bag and still capture images I could show a client. Most of the images would be in standard outdoor lighting. Landscapes, buildings etc. Blow ups of 8x10 up to 13x19 max. I know I am asking a lot for a P&S.<br>

My question: At optimum settings which P&S model produces the closest results to a decent DSLR. Zoom & ISO range is not an issue. Lack of noice and crisp imaging being primary importance. </p>

[sattler123]

<p>Canon G10 certainly fullfills your requirements. For 8x10 shots at ISO100, slmost any P&S will do just fine. My wife owns the Canon SD880IS and even that camera will print very nice 8x10 prints. If you want manual controls, pick the G10.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

I think the Panasonic LX3 would be more suitable for architectural work because it has automatic correction for distortion built into the JPEG and SilkyPix raw converter (also the latest Adobe converter). The G10 has a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle. LX3 images are better at ISO 400, while G10 images are better at ISO 100.

[john_demott]

<p>Based on the question as asked--large prints under optimum conditions disregarding zoom and ISO range--the Canon G10 is likely the best choice. The 14.7 MP sensor of the G10 can be a limitation at high ISO settings, but a properly exposed shot at ISO 80 prints beautifully at 13 by 19, with excellent detail and color. Compared to a DSLR shot of the same scene, you would probably first notice that there is greater depth of field in the G10 shot because of the small format and then notice that there is slightly less dynamic range. Noise is not noticeable in a typical print at ISO 80 unless the shot was in low light conditions or seriously under-exposed. If low light shots are important, then the Panasonic LX3 should be considered because of its lower noise characteristics. But at base ISO, the G10 noticeably out-resolves the LX3 which produces fewer megapixels. Dpreview.com has full reviews of both cameras with full size sample files, so you could compare for yourself. Overall, they gave the edge to the LX3 because of low light performance but clearly noted the better image quality of the G10 at base ISO. The G10 will shoot in RAW mode and, for a P&S, has a well thought out set of controls--particularly an exposure compensation dial on top of the camera and an LCD screen that is actually useable in daylight.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I think any decent digital P&S will produce beautiful 8'x10" prints when used properly at it's lowest ISO setting under ideal conditions. My 10 mp Canon 770 certainly as will my 5 mp Olympus 5060 (but just barely). </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I agree with Sanford in that any of the better so-called P&S cameras, better called pro-sumers IMO, will give you good to excellent 15x12 inch prints when properly handled in the field and editing using either jpgFINE or RAW prvided that you work at 100ISO or lower if it is available. I suspect that you will not want 'action' photographs in low light, that you will support the camera properly in these conditions and so the camera will give you good results so long as you maintain <100ISO. <br>

If you have real doubts you could consider the relatively new 4/3 cameras, particularly the micro4/3, which are compacting the DSLR while having a larger sensor that the pro-sumers. The lens range is limited but that shouldn't concern you for your purpose, and there are ways of expanding the range by adaptors to suit all sorts of lens. The drawback might be the x2 factor .... a 20mm lens has the angle of view of a 40mm on at 35mm 'full frame' camera. On the other hand the short 'lens mount to sensor distance' makes a very wide range of lens potentially possible for use with the camera body. The larger sensor does make it easier to get good results as anyone who have used 35mm and MF can tell you.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>I would just as soon bring my DSLR rather than a 4/3 camera. The size reduction of 4/3 is not that attractive. A small point and shoot is, so long as it's one of the better models. Though LX3 does show distortion at wide angle. G10 is better at base ISO. These are all about compromise. It's what the photographer can live with that matters.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

LX3 has 0.6% barrel distortion at 24mm

(<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/page6.asp">see dpreview test</a>),

G10 has 1.2% barrel distortion at 28mm

(<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page7.asp">see dpreview test</a>).

[lad_lueck]

<p>I am getting wonderful 13" x 19" full-bleed prints from my Canon G9. That's in comparison to a 1Ds with a 24-70 or 70-200 2.8 L IS.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>Bill, forget about the DP Review test. Because they say it, it's true? As a customer who pays good money for cameras, my viewpoint trumps any review, I don't care how highfaluting. I own the LX3 and find the distortion intolerable. I see stretched images in the outer periphery. I also owned the G10 and never noticed distortion.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Could you post examples, Savas? It is a digital camera so that should be relatively easy to do. <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/images/g10/IMG_0648-bodie.jpg">This image of Bodie</a> in Ken Rockwell's review of the G10 shows barrel distortion at wide angle, easily correctable in an image editor, at some penalty in labo(u)r.

[er1]

<p>I appreciate every reply. Thanks gang!</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Doesn't the LX3 correct for its own distortion in software (including raw processing software) so the DPreview test is for hardware+ software rather than just hardware? <br>

There was some controversy a while back about ACR applying lens correction for the LX3 without the ability to stop it.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>I'll shoot some by next week. I sent the LX3 to Panasonic to fix a focus issue and to look over all other functions while it's in their hands.</p>

[steven_mj]

<p>I have been reading reviews of the Canon G10 vs Panasonic Lumix LX3. The parts that trouble me are:<br>

1. The G10 cannot accommodate a polarizer at wide angle. A separate adapter must be purchased that comes in two pieces. With both pieces connected only the longest focal length settings will not vignette. With only one piece attached, the 24mm setting on the lens will not vignette, but the mid-point threads do not fit any available-sized filter. Thus, the 24mm focal length lens setting cannot use a polarizer. The LX3 easily accommodates a lense filter and even a lens cap, though people complain about the look of the lens cap.<br>

2. G10 has serious noise problems at any ISO setting above ISO80, which makes the settings available for up to ISO1600 useless. And the f/2.8 max aperture combined with this makes low-light photography very difficult. I tried a G10 in a store at ISO80 with the zoom extended, and the image stabilization was not sufficient to give a clear image at that ISO setting. All of this assumes that one gets a camera like this for hiking, travel, etc for use without a tripod. If you must depend on hand-holding, the importance of good images at ISO settings above ISO80 is very high. If I could carry a tripod on those occasions, I would also carry my DSLR as well and forget about a P&S. The LX3 produces good images up to ISO400 and has a maximum aperture of f/2.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>This may be getting a little far afield from the OP's question, but several points made by Steven require some clarification and/or correction.<br>

1. Canon sells a "Conversion Lens Adapter" for the G10 that is designed to mount a teleconverter. It will vignette at short focal lengths--presumably the design anticipates that users would not add a teleconverter at the widest settings. For those interested in using a circular polarizer with the G10, the better solution is to purchase a kit made by Lensmate. It consists of 3 pieces--a fitting that attaches to the camera and interchangeable parts that allow either a teleconverter or a filter to be mounted. With the Lensmate adapter, a polarizer will not vignette at 28mm, which is the widest setting on a G10.<br>

2. Image stabilization on the G10 works as well as on any camera--it adds 2 to 3 stops to the range in which you can get acceptable hand-held results. Whether that is enough in a particular situation will depend on many variables. For those interested in comparing high ISO performance of the LX3 and the G10, the review of the G10 on dpreview.com is a good place to start. Comparing the results at ISO 400, the reviewer concludes "[a]t a consistent output size, the results are likely to look identical ...." In other words, at ISO 400 the G10 doesn't have any advantage in the size and resolution of print it can produce, but neither does it suffer a practical disadvantage from a noise standpoint. At ISO 1600, the LX3 is clearly superior, but far from great. </p>

<p>Both the G10 and LX3 deserve serious consideration from anyone looking for a pocket sized camera to take along all the time. But both of them suffer from certain compromises due to their compact format and will not offer the full range of performance of a DSLR.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Noise is not a big issue for me, because I work in bright sunlight most of the time, and am accustomed to film grain, which lends a nice 3D effect. However for those obsessed with noise, it appears that the Fuji F200EXR has less at ISO 400 and 800 than the LX3, which has less than the G10. Currently the F200 boasts the largest sensor of any P&S on the market. Moreover, vendors seem to be detuning their entry-level DSLRs. I saw some results from a Nikon D40 at ISO 800 that were basically unusable, and much worse than you would expect considering the comparative size of its APS-C sensor.

[steven_mj]

<p>Many thanks to John for his very helpful response. I had the LX3 confused with the Canon when I refered to Canon's lens at 24mm. John is correct in saying that it only goes to 28mm (which is nevertheless a welcome improvement over past G series cameras). I shall check out the Lensmate adapter. As for trying the Canon at higher ISO settings, my time was limited in the store and I only was checking out what could be done at ISO80 based on what the reviewers said. Thanks again.<br>

In the past, I have looked for a great travel camera with a wide lens setting, 3 inch LCD, and image stabilization. The big rave not long ago was the Canon PowerShot SD870 IS Digital Elph. It was often compared to the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX500. I don't know if anyone out there believes that the G10 vs LX3 represents a significant improvement over these other cameras, considering that the price is higher for the newer cameras. I welcome any insights from you.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>Hi Steven,<br>

The G10 and LX3 offer RAW shooting mode and a greater degree of control than is available with cameras like the SD870IS. For me, those features are worth the extra cost, but they may not have the same value for everyone depending on their intended use. And, of course, the SD870IS is smaller than a G10, making it much more easily pocketable.<br>

Canon seems to produce consistently good compact cameras so I imagine that the SD870IS would do a fine job. With its smaller size sensor, I would expect noise to be more of an issue than with the G10, but I haven't compared it. If you're looking at a camera in the SD870IS category, it is probably worth also looking at the Fuji F100fd.</p>

[steven_mj]

<p>Thanks again to all who responded. You have been very helpful.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

The SD870 has been discontinued and replaced by the SD880, with slightly longer zoom (112 vs 105) and more megapixels. The lens on that thing is very bad in the corners, a tradeoff for small size. See <a href="http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00RXw7">Nov 20 post in this thread</a> for an example. The higher-end P&S models really are better due to larger CCDs (1/1.65" or thereabouts versus 1/2.3") and in some cases better lenses.

[holger]

<p>I thought a lot about this too, since my D300 plus 17-55mm f/2.8 is just too heavy and large for daily use. On the other hand, I don't like the small sensors infinite dof, the artifacts even in RAW-files (LX2, G10). I decided to get a used D40 or D60 and the new Voigtlaender 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar SL II, even if I would love to have something wider. This combo certainly is too large for my shirt pocket (but so are both G10 and LX3), but small enough to fit into a very small bag, which again fits perfectly in my business case.<br>

I would still love to get a LX3 for it's 24mm wide lens, but.... yet another RAW converter (I am a very happy Nikon Capture NX2 user), different handling, and with the above mentioned combination, the 20mm lens may sit on my FM2n too, or maybe one day on a D700 or whatever.<br>

Not exactly p&s, but in my opinion the nearest you can get with a DSLR (except Oly 420 with pancake, but that's 50 mm equivalent, no wide angle).</p>