The truth on G10 LX3 comparison

Hello everybody,

I have been reading lots of posts about comparisons of LX3 and G10 semi-compact cameras for demanding users... And couldn't come to a conclusion for quite some time. Truth is, once you accept that the LX3 has a smaller zoom you really want to know if it performs better than G10 in dark settings ! And often times you see comparisons at high ISOs where LX3 shows JPG noise. And, fortunately, you also can find forums where they unfold that in raw format ISO 800 the noise is the same. Anyhow, let's get to the point.

After checking the actual camera technical parameters, one may immediately see that nominally LX3 has a relative aperture (f-stop, or focal ratio) of f2.0 against f2.8 of canon, therefore a nominally 2x as bright lens when the lens is at widest (24mm equivalent for LX3, 28mm for G10).

After days of comparisons I finally came to a conclusion:
1) LX3 is Brighter, but of a factor 1.48, not 2
2) LX3 gets better quality JPGs than G10 at the same shutter speed.

I speak of shutter speeds because nominal ISOs are a bit meaningless as you can read here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 240|0 (appareil2) 247|0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Panasonic (brand2) Canon

The actual ISO is the 'sensor' sensitivity, or better, the electronic gain applied to the sensor. Higher ISO means higher gain, i.e. higher signal and higher noise.

Finally I donloaded some tests images from here:
(see ISO series little bit after begin of the page)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G10/G10A7.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LX3/LX3A7.HTM

And here is my summary, where the actual ISOs are reported as well as the nominal shutter speeds used in in a testlab to get images with the same perceived brightness.

Panasonic LX3
Nominal ISO| Real ISO | ShutterTimeRef
80 | 53 | 1/15
100 | 65 | 1/20
200 | 130 | 1/40
400 | 259 | 1/80
800 | 505 | 1/160

Canon G9
Nominal ISO| Real ISO | ShutterTimeRef
80 | 93 | 1/20
100 | 117 | 1/25
200 | 240 | 1/50
400 | 464 | 1/100
800 | 955 | 1/200

Apparently the Panasonic ISO are tuned to almost match the shutter times of Canon.. actually they hit even lower, e.g. ISO 65 should have been 81 to have same shutter.

Lets calculate 2 identical ISO to compare shutter timers, i.e. speeds
LX3: RealISO=240 -> 1/74
Canon: RealISO=240 -> 1/50

Speed gain: 74/50 = 1.48 = 2^(0.57) Less than 2/3 stop advantage.

In terms of light if from 2.8 of canon this was 2.0 we'd expect 2.8/2.0 = 1.4 = sqrt(2),
i.e. it should get twice as light, i.e. twice fast shutter time.

sqrt(1.48)=1.217=2.8/x => 2.3 (i.e. the lens has f-stop 2.3, not 2.0!!)

Anywasy, comparisons of images shot at the same ISO are always a 25% in advantage of Panasonic before even watching them, because e.g. ISO 200 is 1/40, which is more time than the ISO200 shutter (1/50) of Canon..

In other words we should expect Panasonic to be at least 20% better, even without knowing about the actual amount of light collected.

A fair comparison however is between LX3 ISO-100 and G9-ISO80,

because they have same shutter time. I show this comparison here with 2 jpeg as they come out of the cameras (at least i believe so):



I think the comparison outcome is more than obvious on which image has more noise (see the light blue pillow)! Therefore I decided to go for the LX3! Not only it has a brighter lens and even a slightly bigger sensor (1/1.63' VS 1/1.7' of Canon), but it outperforms canon in terms of noise already at low ISOs!

If however you are not so peaky on noise or don't like the camera cap or really need a 5x zoom then you should go for the G10. I want to add that myself I always had Canon compacts until now, before finally making these considerations.

As far as I can tell,

the LX3 maintains about 2/3 of a stop of aperture advantage compared to the Canon -> > at the zoom lengths where they overlap.

The LX3 appears to lose about 1/3 or so stop to the Canon because of the actual ISO vs stated ISO differences of the two cams.

(I believe you made some incorrect conclusions in your post about shutter speeds and 'light advantage', BTW, ie you got it backwards. The shorter shutter speed is the one with the ISO advantage)

• up to about ISO 400, if pix from both cams are processed optimally from RAW the results are virtually identical ( many times the g10 is slightly better) after noise reduction is applied. From ISO 800 up, the LX3 files look slightly better (they suck less)

• The extra pixels of the G10 do supply more resolution than the LX3 at low ISO IF the pics are processed in RAW, and at higher ISO's the extra pixels can result in slightly lowered noise perception IF the G10 pics are downsized.

Bottom line - these cameras are quite close overall. The LX3 does a superb job with its jpg engine - better than the G10 where RAW is needed to get the best output.

At 24mm, the LX3 enjoys a full stop aperture advantage over the G10. The LX3 also has, it seems certain, somewhat better dynamic range, but I haven't seen a good numerical comparison of this in real-world shooting. It's an important benefit, though.

The LX3 gives great results with a lot less work than the G10 as far as processing. If the LX3 could somehow extend its telephoto range without too much compromise, it would be nearly perfect, IMHO. Why don't they offer a telephoto aux lens?

Gingerbaker

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries
--
Gingerbaker

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

The 2 cameras are not really for comparing.

Bottom line for me: the LX3 fits in my pocket; the G10 is a beast, and doesn't.

What do you need?

Andrew

I own and use both and find reading posts by people who don't but have strong opinions amusing. Sure you can tell some things by reading the specs and looking at samples from the internet, but the only way to form a viable comparison of the two cameras is to use both of them. There is no other way to judge the feel of each and see the IQ. I read all the posts I could find on each camera as well as every review that I found. My opinions of the cameras did change once I actually shot with each camera since my needs and experience is different from those that have posted opinions and reviews. I have nearly fifty years of shooting with experience with most brands of cameras but most of my years shooting Canon. I did own Leica and have always been interested in finding a small camera with that level of quality. The LX3 comes close.

I can make a simple statement that the images from the LX3 are sharp and have some of the Leica look that people do notice. The G10 has very noticeable higher resolution that is easy to see above 8x10 prints. It has the Canon look that isn't a bad thing. The G10 images are much closer to my 5D images but the LX3 images have there own "look". With adjustments to both cameras, the higher ISO images are very similar.

In the end, it is the size, feel of the camera, speed and focal length of the lens, HD video, and maybe even the lens cap that makes the decision. I am happy that I own both and urge eveyone to read the posts but most importantly, try them both to form an opinion. Things that I read about and thought would be a problem are not. Concerns from those who have not used the camera should not carry the same weight as those who have. Just try them! It will probably end up making you a little more poor.
Jeff

--
Jeff Peronto

Interesting comparison! DxoMark gave the LX3 sensor a slightly higher overall rating than the G10, but the difference is probably less than the margin of testing error. The two cameras are essentially the same from a sensor standpoint. For me the key differences are these.

G10: Much longer telephoto and significantly higher resolution under optimal lighting.

LX3: Significantly wider lens, faster lens, smaller size, and feature set that moves work that used to be done in post processing back to the moment of capture.

If you need the reach and resolution then, let’s be honest, the LX3 won’t do the job. I have tried, and it just doesn’t. Under ideal capture conditions you will be lucky to crop an LX3 photo to half size (turning the 10MP image into 2.5MP) and come away with a good 5x7 or HD screen shot.

With almost 3K exposures on my LX3, I am starting to “get it right” at capture fairly often. More and more, when I get back to the computer, my post processing is just resizing and the related resharpening.

Wouldn't a G9 and LX3 be a better combination? More tele.

Dear Max:

Your analysis has given me a headache.

Andrew has it right. The cams produce about the same quality images. One has tele and the other is WA. One is smaller than the other. One has a brighter lens. Pick the charecteristics you need/want and make your choice.

There is no perfect camera. Buying a cam is a matter of selecting the best feature set for my needs. Cams come and go. My needs change too. Know that given the choice between the G10 & LX3 YOU CAN NOT MAKE A BAD CHOICE.

Marty
--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Swingline said:

Wouldn't a G9 and LX3 be a better combination? More tele.

Click to expand...

On the Canon forum you can read about quite a few folks who use this combination. I think I may be joining them soon.

Cheers, Ralph
--

• -Better a small camera in the pocket than a big one on the shelf --

--
wonder about this...

Very happy with my LX3!
Cheers
Akebono

The G10 lens is sharper then the LX3 lens but not as fast. The LX3 corrects distortion and CA for jpegs. In raw you see more CA and distortion than the G10 lens but it is easy to correct in raw and already corrected in jpegs. Images straight out of each camera show that the Canon zoom produces noticeably better resolution which it needs for the 14.7 mp sensor.

The LX3 lens is faster, smaller zoom ratio, and sharp. The G10 lens is slower. has a better zoom ratio, and sharper. Both have great image stabilzation. My G2 has a very sharp F/2 lens and my G7 had a lens almost as sharp as the G10. The lens on the G10 shows a bit more CA but better contrast.

This is based on the two samples I own and use. Other samples might perform differently, but I would be surprised.
Jeff
--
Jeff Peronto

Well said, Jeff. To have a good perspective you must own both cameras. Also, it is a lot of fun and gives greater latitude.
--
Russ

Amen
--
Jeff Peronto

There is no way the LX3 fits in your pocket, Andrew. Coat pocket, maybe, but even then it is too bulky. The G10 is bulkier, yes, but the two cameras are actually much closer in bulk than folks describe here.

I think the two cameras are comparable -- they are both made for folks who won't settle for a basic consumer point and shoot.

I had the opportunity to use the G10 indoors under less than optimal conditions and I was quite disappointed. As expected, it just didn't pull in enough light to avoid noise. So why bother with a longer zoom and higher res if it gives you lower quality pix?

10mp is more than enough pixels (too much actually) for anyone who eschews a dslr. If you want to print humongous photos, there's no getting around the need for a larger and bulkier camera bag. Panasonic got that message (hooray); I wonder if anyone else will. Fuji sort of did, but they need to make a camera that matches their sensor...

Although I haven't had the LX3 for a long time, I am impressed with its dynamic range and its wider aperture. HD video is also great. And even though my LX3 is in that tacky silver color, I'm still quite happy.

Cheers,
Dan
LX3 + R1

Go here and compare.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

if the sites side-by-side comparison is to restrictive, download both pictures and look at them in something like FastStone viewer.

I have spent hours doing this in comparing cameras and how I came by my decision to buy the G1.

Now admittedly this is principally and primarily a noise comparison tests. But looking at pictures beats the heck out of reading words. I love to read what everybody has to say, but in the end it's the pictures that count.

I also agree, that the very best methodology would be to be able to use both cameras and compare them one with another. However, as everyone knows, this is totally impractical for most of us of modest financial means.

I downloaded both pictures at ISO800, as this is where most cameras began to part company with nice smooth photographs. I used FastStone viewer,adjusted the LX3 to 125% to compensate for the lower resolution size image and compared to the Canon G10 at 100%. For me at least, the LX3 wins hands down. No comparison. If you must have the reach that the Canon provides in its zoom lens, then you don't have a choice. But if wide-angle, and small pocket ability is your thing, then the LX3 with its high definition video is the clear winner, of course I must always add, in my humble opinion. And this from the proud owner of a Canon G3, which still has the fastest long zoom lens on the market. F2 through F3, articulated LCD and decent eye level viewer.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

I generally think DxO is a great resource, but their ISO sensitivity results for the LX3 are a bit puzzling as they don't reflect what others have found.

You may find this link interesting:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=29866728

Further down in that thread, he also reports on the ISO sensitivity relative to one of his DSLRs.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

dkny said:

There is no way the LX3 fits in your pocket, Andrew. Coat pocket,
maybe, but even then it is too bulky. The G10 is bulkier, yes, but
the two cameras are actually much closer in bulk than folks describe
here.

Click to expand...

The LX3 fits in my pocket perfectly.

Trouser pocket, not coat/jacket pocket.

dkny said:

I think the two cameras are comparable -- they are both made for
folks who won't settle for a basic consumer point and shoot.

I had the opportunity to use the G10 indoors under less than optimal
conditions and I was quite disappointed. As expected, it just didn't
pull in enough light to avoid noise. So why bother with a longer
zoom and higher res if it gives you lower quality pix?

10mp is more than enough pixels (too much actually) for anyone who
eschews a dslr. If you want to print humongous photos, there's no
getting around the need for a larger and bulkier camera bag.
Panasonic got that message (hooray); I wonder if anyone else will.
Fuji sort of did, but they need to make a camera that matches their
sensor...

Although I haven't had the LX3 for a long time, I am impressed with
its dynamic range and its wider aperture. HD video is also great.
And even though my LX3 is in that tacky silver color, I'm still quite
happy.

Cheers,
Dan
LX3 + R1

Click to expand...

--
Andrew (Brit expat in Taipei, Taiwan since 1985)

--
the LX3. Love both

Cheers and thanks again
Akebono

Hi Marty,

sorry for causing an headache with my story,

this is more or less how I am at my job (also done image processing in the past),
always fiddling with equations and numbers.

To reply to the others who claim G10 has same quality,

I think we should compare raw files 2 be fair. In JPG I still remain of my opinion
about image quality. Plus I like to take pictures especially at night,
even outdoors, and a 2/3 stop advantage is definitely my thing then!

It is better to try to have a good opinion I agree,
and I come from a PowerShot A95 with which I was Veeery satisfied,
though a bit bulky. But since I'm gonna spend more this time,
I gave a bit more time to my choice.

Cheers,
Massimo

--
I'd love to read someone analyzing this!

MaX

Thanks Erik!

That forum was indeed quite something to think about!
Also intersting that they consider pixel SNR as well as image SNR,
to account the advantage from the bigger MP count.

Also, I had no idea the sensor was also more sensitive, my sympathy for LX3 was only based on easy reasoning that a brighter lens requires less gain, therefore less noise amplification.

Cheers,
MaX