GRDIII, LX3 or S90 for my pockets

I have a reverse quandry to most of you fora people. I have a super SLR set up to take to Europe for some work for 3 months but I want to get a quality Shirt pocket camera before I go.

It will be winter and cold in Austria. (I must be mad going there when it's summer at home in Adelaide, South Australia).

a)So the LX3 worries me only in relation to the miniscule controls. the lens is magnificent from all reports.

The S90 looks Ok except that it's really only a 28 mm to 35mm camera with a fast depreciating f value after those focal lengths.

Which brings me to the GRDIII. I love the logica, free thinking l quirkyness of the GRDIII design and the fact that although it is point and shoot capeable as all 3 are it's also likely to be somewhat challenging too. (In a good way). Just like a quirky and intelligent woman I guess).

My question is, and money aside, Is the f1.9 and beautifully designed 28 mm fixed focal length going to bug me?

I should add that I have never had a Digicam just SLR's, so I really don't know this area of photography. All I know is that a true point and shoot would bug me.

For what you want and need, if i where you, i would buy the GX200.
--
nemo66...

nemo6666 said:

For what you want and need, if i where you, i would buy the GX200.

Click to expand...

Yeap. Controls almost identical to the GRD3. Lens range is better than the LX3 and wider than the S90. The only catch is the noisy sensor. Use low ISO and you'll get excellent image quality. In low light, either use a mini tripod, or a small flash that supports bounce lighting (e.g. Metz 20 C-2).

Prog.

Roger:

The GRD3 is a great camera and the lens quality is much better than of the zoom lenses on P&S cameras. Indeed, you cannot really call the GRD3 and point and shoot. For street photography I have found that the best is to use SNAP focus — at 1m or 2.5m depending how close up you're shooting — and to use manual exposure with the SPOT meter mode: in this mode when you press the "rocker" button, the one use for enlarged view in playback, the exposure meter centers on the recommended exposure, depending where you have pointed the spot meter, and by moving the ADJ lever yoiu can increase or decrease the exposure slightly (pp 44-45 of the User Guide). All this is very fast and allows you to get, and see on the LCD, the exact exposure that you want. Using this method and shooting at f/1.9 I find that in dark light I can use ISO 400 much more than I thought I could and need to go to ISO 800 and 1600 only rarely.

The LX3 "joy stick" is much fussier to use than the GRD3 controls.

Here are a couple of pictures shot at ISO 400 and f/1.9:





And here is on at ISO 1600 and f/1.9:



BTW, Roger: "fora'? Are you kidding". That's as bad as writing "datum" as the singulalr of "date", as long as you're not writing Latin. (Coundn't resist that.)

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Sorry for the typo: that should be "data" rather than "date", above,

Hope you don´t mean "Data" from StarTrek
--
nemo66...

Thanks Mitchel, I think you did get my drift and have been able to help me in your assesment of a pocket camera with a fast lens.
I think I shall indeed buy a GR D III.

Um.... about the use of the word Fora. There is no such word as forums. The correct word for the plural of the word forum is fora. It is a widely misunderstood quirk of the English language which we also use here in Australia. (I notice that DPReview use the word Forums so I guess it's so widely missunderstood that the non word forums is in general, if for the time being incorrect use). I'm sure that the English language dictionary's of the World will come around to recognising it before too long and the old word fora will be cast aside as so many under used words are.

Yeah mate I looked really hard at the GX200 but the lens is way too slow for my needs, which is why it's not in my short list.

The GX200 is a lovelly camera but it's not suitable for me because the lens is too slow and the slow and not so effective processor would freak me out I think.
Really, f:1.9 compared to f:2.5 or 1 full stop is huge!

I don't have room in my button down shirt pockets for a tripod or a flash so I guess I'm going to have to rely on burning shoe leather for a zoom device! (After all that's what I used for years with my SLR's and prime lenses). The GRDIII is far more sophisticated than those oldies though what with auto focus, huge effective viewfinder and such stuff.

As I already have a great camera set up for serious industrial photography, the last thing I need for a pocket camera is gadgets. A fast lens, built in flash with good ISO performance are fine for my needs. My quandry has been regarding telephoto or no telephoto and the importance of that. I have made my mind up now on the GRDIII. It's the usability of the controls that made up my mind as much as anything. I'm a sucker for good ergonomics.

Actually I have a distinct suspicion that the Ricoh macro facility will be good for my work needs too in certain circumstances.

I don't think you will be sorry with the GRDlll

Roger Knight said:

The GX200 is a lovelly camera but it's not suitable for me because the lens is too slow and the slow and not so effective processor would freak me out I think.

Click to expand...

The JPEG processing of the GRD3 and GX200 is very similar. In both cases, you'll be much better off converting the RAW files yourself.

Roger Knight said:

Really, f:1.9 compared to f:2.5 or 1 full stop is huge!

Click to expand...

This is actually more like 2/3 of a stop. The main difference in low-light ability between these cameras comes from the sensor performance. The GRD3 is much better here. On the other hand, it doesn't have IS, so at least for stationary subjects the difference isn't necessarily that big.

Roger Knight said:

I don't have room in my button down shirt pockets for a tripod or a flash so I guess I'm going to have to rely on burning shoe leather for a zoom device! (After all that's what I used for years with my SLR's and prime lenses).

Click to expand...

If you don't mind compromising (a lot) on perspective and composition, then "zooming with you feet" should work. Personally, I find it too limiting.

Roger Knight said:

The GRDIII is far more sophisticated than those oldies though what with auto focus, huge effective viewfinder and such stuff.

Click to expand...

Are you sure it's still pocketable with the optical viewfinder attached?

Roger Knight said:

As I already have a great camera set up for serious industrial photography, the last thing I need for a pocket camera is gadgets. A fast lens, built in flash with good ISO performance are fine for my needs.

Click to expand...

If you're not going to use an external flash, and if you do care about out-of-the-camera JPEG, then likely the camera that you need is not a Ricoh. The S90, LX3 or even a Fuji F200 would all fare better.

Roger Knight said:

My quandry has been regarding telephoto or no telephoto and the importance of that. I have made my mind up now on the GRDIII. It's the usability of the controls that made up my mind as much as anything. I'm a sucker for good ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Well, that rules out the F200, which otherwise may be have been perfect for your needs.

Roger Knight said:

Actually I have a distinct suspicion that the Ricoh macro facility will be good for my work needs too in certain circumstances.

Click to expand...

Shooting macro using a wide angle lens is very problematic due to the camera casting a shadow on the subject and issues with distortion and corner sharpness. The GX200 72mm lens is way better here. In fact, it's better than any other small-sensor camera, capturing an object 2cm wide at this focal length (compared to about 5~6cm in the best competitors).

Prog.

Prognathous said:

...The main difference in low-light ability between these cameras comes from the sensor performance. The GRD3 is much better here. On the other hand, it doesn't have IS, so at least for stationary subjects the difference isn't necessarily that big.

Click to expand...

I had the D-Lux-3 (same as LX2) and the GX100, both of which had IS. I must say that the IS wasn't particularly effective: for most shots one couldn't see much of a difference using it — not at all like the VR on my Nikkor 70-200/F2.8 VR, with which you can often shoot at 1/60 sec even at the 200m end of the zoom.

The GX100 has the same lens as the GX200 and there is no comparison, as you would expect, between this zoom lens and the GRD3 prime lens. The files of the latter camera are also much more robust and can be manipulated with much heavier contrast moves in post-processing, which is what I find compelling. Also, at the 72mm end of the range, the GX100/200 lens is quite soft.

Prognathous said:

Are you sure it's still pocketable with the optical viewfinder attached?

Click to expand...

Roger:

Before you get an optical finder you should try using just the LCD, which is very good on the GRD3, and with which I haven't had a problem in terms of visibility in the bright light of Thailand. Indeed, I have a couple of Zeiiss 28mm and 21mm finders, which are the best ones around, and don't use them with the GRD3 because, for street photography I prefer the "looser" and more fluid style that using the LCD encourages: what I do is to establish the edges of the frame by looking at the LCD and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. This also has the advantage that on the LCD you see the line and "arrow" for manual exposure and the SNAP focus distance. For more careful work, I think that the LCD is better because, unlike with an external viewfinder the framing is exact.

On forum/fora and datum/data: if course that is the correct Latin, but in English colloquial, and even official, usage, "forums" for the plural instead "fora" and "data" instead of "datum" for the singular, are now accepted. It's like answering the question "who it is" when knocking on a door: you wouldn't say the gramatically correct "it is I"; you would say "it's me".

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Mitch,

Are you saying an optical viewfinder with the GRD III is superfluous?

I was thinking that using one with the GRD III would make you less conspicuous on the street, as opposed to standing with the camera at arms length.

As someone who is highly budget conscious, would I do better to save my money and do without the optical viewfinder?

Yes Mitch I agree completly with you in all that you say on the GRDIII especially the ability to quickly get a shot that would otherwise be missed which is something that irks me with SLR's. unless one is ready. But the ability to whip the camera out of the pocket with one hand and get a shot off whilst holding on to something with the other to stop from falling off a yacht or the like is very attractive to me.

I doubt if I shall get any accessories but I may find that I do when I have used the camera for a while. 900,000 odd pixels should be good enough reason to try not to use a viewfinder.

And as for the it's me or it is I; well I often do say it is I probably when I'm speaking to an audience or to some lady I am wooing, or if I know the person well. Also when I write some of the stuff that I write for an audience, mainly educated women, I use turn of the 20th century language because it is so very discriptive and mathematically correct.

The fact is that I also find it hard to understand Americans when they speak. I was educated in England so that probably accounts for the quaint use of my mother tongue.

As an Australian I obviously speak Australian too and it's very understandable to me. Although a very cute though mature age Thai, English teacher I know in Thailand says we are not so easy to understand even though she understands my body language completely. I must say that she is very fluent in body language too!

Calvin Palmer said:

...
Are you saying an optical viewfinder with the GRD III is superfluous?

I was thinking that using one with the GRD III would make you less conspicuous on the street, as opposed to standing with the camera at arms length.

Click to expand...

Yes, for me the optical viewfinder is, indeed, superfluous in that I find using the LCD vastly better. The few times I put an external viewfinder on my original GRD I found that I simply did not use it.

In terms of conspicuousness my experience is the opposite of what you assume above: when you are sighting through a viewfinder people who see you know that you're taking a picture, but if you simply hold a camera a bit in front of you they don't know whether you're looking at pictures that you've taking earlier — which is what they usually assume — or whether you're taking new pictures. This is much more discreet. But of course a lot depends on your body language as well: if you try to make believe that you're not really there, people always look at you as being sneaky.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Roger Knight said:

...

The fact is that I also find it hard to understand Americans when they speak. I was educated in England so that probably accounts for the quaint use of my mother tongue.

Click to expand...

Nah, y'all never understand septics mate — although some Amercan dialects are straight out of various regions 17th century England.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Yep. I'm going for it. I was thinking about a future GX 300 but there will not be one aparently. Ricoh are going for a system camera in it's place, so there you have it. And I need one very soon. The Ricoh is more expensive than the other two by a very sizeable amount but you only seem to get what you pay for.

Roger Knight said:

Yep. I'm going for it. I was thinking about a future GX 300 but there will not be one aparently. Ricoh are going for a system camera in it's place, so there you have it. And I need one very soon. The Ricoh is more expensive than the other two by a very sizeable amount but you only seem to get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Where will you buy it? If it's in Oz it's awfully expensive; perhaps the UK is cheaper. But if you're in the UK you could order from a dealer in Paris, who gives a good price and is a great GRDx enthusiast that I can highly recommend. If you contact him tell him I recommended him. His name is Marcel.

L'INSTANTANE
40, Bd Beaumarchais
75011 PARIS

Métro Chemin Vert
Téléphone : +33 (0) 1.43.55.02.32

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

mitchall said:

I had the D-Lux-3 (same as LX2) and the GX100, both of which had IS. I must say that the IS wasn't particularly effective: for most shots one couldn't see much of a difference using it — not at all like the VR on my Nikkor 70-200/F2.8 VR, with which you can often shoot at 1/60 sec even at the 200m end of the zoom.

Click to expand...

My experience with stabilized small-sensor cameras (KM A2, Ricoh R5) is different, but I'll test the GX200 IS and report back. Anything less than 1.5 stop gain would be very disappointing.

mitchall said:

The GX100 has the same lens as the GX200 and there is no comparison, as you would expect, between this zoom lens and the GRD3 prime lens.

Click to expand...

Actually, I wouldn't expect that much of a difference (other than in the amount of distortion, which is anyway easy to fix). I only see people claim there's a difference, but I've never seen anyone bother doing an actual test under controlled conditions. I think some part of it is a kind of "placebo effect", where users expect a prime to outperform a zoom. It's not a given. Here's one extreme example:

(click picture to expand)



The Olympus 12-60 zoom at 25/3.5 simply kills the Olympus 25/2.8 prime at the same aperture.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=11,13&fullscreen=true&av=3.667,3.667&fl=25,25&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

Now, I'm not saying that the GX lens fares the same against the GR lens, but I'd like to see a serious test before I'm convinced that the opposite is true.

mitchall said:

The files of the latter camera are also much more robust and can be manipulated with much heavier contrast moves in post-processing, which is what I find compelling.

Click to expand...

With the noisier sensor of the GX200, this is indeed expected.

mitchall said:

Also, at the 72mm end of the range, the GX100/200 lens is quite soft.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, (1) it's still very usable, (2) it's much better than anything you would ever get cropping a wide angle lens to the same field of view, -and- (3) the 50mm position is extremely sharp, so you still get a significant focal length range with excellent optical quality.

Prog.

Roger Knight said:

Um.... about the use of the word Fora. There is no such word as forums. The correct word for the plural of the word forum is fora.

Click to expand...

Heh, heh. Stuck in Latin eh? The use of 'forums' is accepted by all even though it irks a minority. English language is a living thing and always moving on (ever downwards!).

Maybe it just like the plural of computer 'mouse' is 'mouses' and not 'mice'. Mice being reserved for the warm and furry variety.

Anyway, while I'm here. I agonised over the choice between GX200 and LX3 and settled on LX3 and totally enjoy it. That f/2.0 to f/2.8 lens makes a difference and allows me to keep to ISO 200 and below. It works so well that I have now abandoned using my Olympus DSLR for all trips.

For travel I seem to use 16:9 ratio all the time and no verticals (even though the latest LX3 update now allows 1:1 aspect ratio shots). That way the slide shows on wide monitors and TVs look better. Frame a bit sloppy and printing to any size/aspect ratio also works out fine.

Regards......... Guy