Simon Joinson
Veteran Member
I love the way you feel qualified to speak for hundreds of thousands of (mostly non vocal) readers
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
LX3 wins Enthusiast Camera Group Test
- Thread starter panini98
- Start date
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
sphexx
Leading Member
Many thanks for the fuller explanation!
It would be useful to develop this definition of "enthusiast" further. I think some of the criticism has been due to your definition, above, of an enthusiast as being "the majority of SLR owners", which is OK in some sense [eg people who spend more than the average amount of money and time] but maybe does not correspond to many dpreview readers idea of "enthusiast".
--
Richard
Agreed, I do not own a DSLR and probably never will if they continue to use current sizes and designs and yet I would call myself an enthusiast. The G1 goes a little way to pull the DSLR line back on track, but its far too little. Olympus have taunted us with a mockup that would be close to the mark, but I will believe that when I see it in shops.
Until then, I want a camera with high image quality that can be with me at all times unobtrusively. At this point in time I have chosen the F100fd for that purpose.
Brian
Prognathous
Veteran Member
Look again at the facts: One camera costs $150 camera and comes with a 36-430mm, the other costs $430 and comes with a 24-60mm lens. Do you really believe there's a single camera buyer who would narrow down the P&S field into these two as his/her final candidates?I love the way you feel qualified to speak for hundreds of thousands
of (mostly non vocal) readers
Prog.
VladimirV
Senior Member
Thanks for the explanation Simon, makes some sense now but it was overall not a very good choice of cameras.
But as Prog pointed out, you did test the R8 before. The GX200 is also only 1 month longer available than the LX3 so not an old camera by any means.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
Simon Joinson
Veteran Member
And, as I said: we should've included the GX200 and it's in the queue for a review. What else can I say?
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
VladimirV
Senior Member
This is great and I am looking forward to the review. Thanks.
--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
Prog,Look again at the facts: One camera costs $150 camera and comes withI love the way you feel qualified to speak for hundreds of thousands
of (mostly non vocal) readers
a 36-430mm, the other costs $430 and comes with a 24-60mm lens. Do
you really believe there's a single camera buyer who would narrow
down the P&S field into these two as his/her final candidates?
Prog.
I am one of those for whom price point is low on my list of priorities, although I always want excellent value for money - an important difference. So dividing the scores of camera's into artificial classes based on price serves no purpose for me.
My ideal test group would be every small compact with a lens starting at 28mm or wider(about 12 currently) regardless of cost, so that I can weigh up myself the relative merits of higher priced offerings. In other words I want to see a TZ5 compared with the LX3, GX200, R10 or F100 so that I can decide whether the extra costs are justifiable for my particular needs. If there are cameras in the grouping you are not interested in, then it is pretty easy to exclude them from your thinking.
Nick
R Stacy
Senior Member
I suppose it could, but I don't understand why the point.
========================
When told the reason for Daylight Saving time the old Indian said... 'Only a white man would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom of the blanket and have a longer blanket.'
--
========================
When told the reason for Daylight Saving time the old Indian said... 'Only a white man would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom of the blanket and have a longer blanket.'
fotogenetic
Senior Member
First of all, I wanted to express my appreciation for this website and the reviews you have done. I know how difficult it is for people to understand that you can't please everyone and that you shouldn't have to try.I love the way you feel qualified to speak for hundreds of thousands
of (mostly non vocal) readers
However, I think Prog is right and did well to speak up for the mostly non-vocal target audience. The R10 is nowhere near being an "enthusiast" camera.
I am a D-SLR user who has been on a search for an enthusiast digital camera for the past 9 years and have purchased or tested out EVERY enthusiast camera that has come out (with the exception of the latest LX3 and a couple of the uninteresting Canon G-series cameras). I started off with a Coolpix 990 and then a Canon G3. I've also owned a Sony V-3 (still one of the fastest in responsiveness) and very briefly an Olympus 5050 and a Nikon P5000. My dissatisfaction with this class of cameras in responsiveness (full-press AF speed or instantaneous MF speed) finally forced me to buy a D-SLR (Nikon D100). It wasn't until Ricoh's GRD that I finally began to see enthusiast cameras that offered enough advantages over D-SLR's (control and responsiveness of a D-SLR in a pocketable form factor, at a reasonable compromise of image quality) to be worth buying.
So, as a D-SLR user who has, for the past 9 years, been searching for a true enthusiast camera, Ricoh is bar-none the company that redefined the niche with the GRD and GX100, despite image quality issues. The GRD II and GX200 carry on that tradition, not the R10. It lacks a hotshoe, which a true enthusiast camera MUST have, IMHO. Panasonic with their LX3 probably just overtook Ricoh (with some compromise in control), and Sigma with the DP-1 would tie for third place with Canon (only due to responsiveness). Sony used to have a good thing with the DSC-V3 (still one of the fastest full-press AF responsiveness out there), but they seem to have abandoned that corner of the market. Nikon continues to have a chance at contributing to the niche, but continues to fail with their P-series cameras due to responsiveness issues which they do not seem interested in figuring out.
The R10's image quality issues alone aren't what place it outside of the enthusiast category. It's also the obvious fact that it doesn't have a hotshoe or adequate manual controls that makes it inadequate for serious amateur photography.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
D Alchemist
Well-known member
Kudos to Simon for speaking up and apologies for some less than civil comments.
Now, some problems with the DPR approach:
Simon Joinson wrote:
"We used these group tests as a way to quickly compensate for our lack
"(ii) global availability, "
A simple derivative of the above. Same problems.
"(iii) what we were personally
"(iv) what was most recent "
Assuming you don't skip over objectively obvious candidates,
"and (v) novelty/uniqueness."
Excellent criterion.
It seems to me the criteria for an enthusiast compact are not inherently controversial, its just that each user has his own ideal compromise, given conflicting realities. I would list those criteria as:
-Aperture & shutter priority and full manual controls
-Wide lens (28mm min)
-Fast lens
-Sensitivity/resolution compromise that favors the former
-More physical controls, rather than on-screen menus
-Viewfinder or optional accessory with at least mediocre accuracy/coverage
-Hot shoe/Full TTL with compact external flash
-Filter threads or accessory that adds them
-Weather sealing & high build quality
-Spot/center/matrix metering
-Physical exposure & focus lock buttons
-Reasonable size & weight (i.e. the G10 is pushing it)
-Ergonomics to support one-handed operation
-RAW & minimal processing on JPEGs.
Items I believe most enthusiasts would willingly compromise on:
-Zoom range
-Pixel count
-Superficial "complexity"
-Scene modes, face detection and any other "point & click" feature.
-Cost. If your primary SLR outfit cost $3k-$6k, it is easy to justify anything under $1k for a compact.
Put another way, if $500 will get you a G10, but $900 would get you a G10 with a 10MP sensor good to ISO1600, a faster lens that stops at 90mm (equiv.) and has some bokeh, a much better and electronic VF, weather sealing, etc (which all seem quite feasible) I know I would buy it.
Looking at the above criteria, though, it is hard to imagine how the GX200 is not the first or second camera on the list. Also, the limited distribution of that model INCREASES, rather than reduces, as Simon indicated, the need for DPR to test it.
I can get my hands on a G10 and LX3 at several local shops and draw many of my own conclusions. As far as I know, the GX200 is not available in my entire state. If I buy one, it will be completely based on professional reviews (&Photo.net opinions), and DPR's are some of the best. And I really don't believe in buying 3 cameras to keep 1- it's unfair to the retailers if you return them, IMHO.
If I had my druthers, Ricoh just would have installed the sensor from my Fuji F31fd in the GX200. That camera would make me very happy indeed.
Now, some problems with the DPR approach:
Simon Joinson wrote:
"We used these group tests as a way to quickly compensate for our lack
That is wrong-headed. All forms of journalism bear some responsibility to lead the reader (to the truth), not just provide self-reinforcing material. Beyond that, how is a small but innovative company EVER to break through and succeed if all venues were to take a similar approach?
"(ii) global availability, "
A simple derivative of the above. Same problems.
"(iii) what we were personally
Better, but "What we believe many of our users would be most interested in, if they were able to try it out themselves" would be more on target.
"(iv) what was most recent "
Assuming you don't skip over objectively obvious candidates,
"and (v) novelty/uniqueness."
Excellent criterion.
It seems to me the criteria for an enthusiast compact are not inherently controversial, its just that each user has his own ideal compromise, given conflicting realities. I would list those criteria as:
-Aperture & shutter priority and full manual controls
-Wide lens (28mm min)
-Fast lens
-Sensitivity/resolution compromise that favors the former
-More physical controls, rather than on-screen menus
-Viewfinder or optional accessory with at least mediocre accuracy/coverage
-Hot shoe/Full TTL with compact external flash
-Filter threads or accessory that adds them
-Weather sealing & high build quality
-Spot/center/matrix metering
-Physical exposure & focus lock buttons
-Reasonable size & weight (i.e. the G10 is pushing it)
-Ergonomics to support one-handed operation
-RAW & minimal processing on JPEGs.
Items I believe most enthusiasts would willingly compromise on:
-Zoom range
-Pixel count
-Superficial "complexity"
-Scene modes, face detection and any other "point & click" feature.
-Cost. If your primary SLR outfit cost $3k-$6k, it is easy to justify anything under $1k for a compact.
Put another way, if $500 will get you a G10, but $900 would get you a G10 with a 10MP sensor good to ISO1600, a faster lens that stops at 90mm (equiv.) and has some bokeh, a much better and electronic VF, weather sealing, etc (which all seem quite feasible) I know I would buy it.
Looking at the above criteria, though, it is hard to imagine how the GX200 is not the first or second camera on the list. Also, the limited distribution of that model INCREASES, rather than reduces, as Simon indicated, the need for DPR to test it.
I can get my hands on a G10 and LX3 at several local shops and draw many of my own conclusions. As far as I know, the GX200 is not available in my entire state. If I buy one, it will be completely based on professional reviews (&Photo.net opinions), and DPR's are some of the best. And I really don't believe in buying 3 cameras to keep 1- it's unfair to the retailers if you return them, IMHO.
If I had my druthers, Ricoh just would have installed the sensor from my Fuji F31fd in the GX200. That camera would make me very happy indeed.
Good point Simon.
Yes, the F100 does not have manual controls or RAW, nevertheless it's photo quality seems to be in the same league as the enthusiast cameras, and it's high ISO noise profile is significantly better. ISO 1600 on the F100 looks like ISO 800 on the LX3.
It would be interesting to see how the best premium compact camera (Fuji F100fd) which sells for $200-300 compared with the $500 enthusiast cameras. I say the Fuji would not only have easily held it's own, but been among the top.
Thanks again for doing these comparison tests. Regardless whether you review the cameras individually, comparison tests are extremely interesting and informative.
mzel
Well-known member
Simon hi,
If my humble opinion is any indication, I am with Prog and Alchemist. I'd define the group of the cameras, as the cameras for those who know why they need a DSLR, but need a pocket substitute.
I guess two side indications of that group is the knowledge that "more zoooom is better" and "more MP is better" are not really true.
Given that some of the requirements to the camera are:
1) Quality optics with wide to (minimally acceptable) portrait range. The faster the better, as long as you could maintain IQ. I am wiling (or must) sacrifice the zoom range for quality, esp. on the wide end.
2) Good matrix with MP/IQ compromise with heavy accent on IQ.
--- I guess the first two narrow the target group so much that it is going to make the camera a non-mass produced commodity, which in turn will make it more expensive. I am ready to pay the extra buck, unless it goes overboard. I guess my top limit is somewhere in $800.
3) Accessible controls! ( dedicated buttons and knobs )
4) Nice grip
5) Serious flash coupling
6) Filters usability
7), 8), 9) ....
Face detection is a misfeature to me. If I could assign that FD button to focus lock I'd drop that thing altogether any day.
Given all this, R10 was not on the radar for me, Kodak is even less so, even though I am a long time Ricoh compact user starting with GR1. I was considering R8 for my daughter, but it was not cute enough for her. She ended up ( on my advice ) with Fuji f100.
Best regards, and happy holidays.
If my humble opinion is any indication, I am with Prog and Alchemist. I'd define the group of the cameras, as the cameras for those who know why they need a DSLR, but need a pocket substitute.
I guess two side indications of that group is the knowledge that "more zoooom is better" and "more MP is better" are not really true.
Given that some of the requirements to the camera are:
1) Quality optics with wide to (minimally acceptable) portrait range. The faster the better, as long as you could maintain IQ. I am wiling (or must) sacrifice the zoom range for quality, esp. on the wide end.
2) Good matrix with MP/IQ compromise with heavy accent on IQ.
--- I guess the first two narrow the target group so much that it is going to make the camera a non-mass produced commodity, which in turn will make it more expensive. I am ready to pay the extra buck, unless it goes overboard. I guess my top limit is somewhere in $800.
3) Accessible controls! ( dedicated buttons and knobs )
4) Nice grip
5) Serious flash coupling
6) Filters usability
7), 8), 9) ....
Face detection is a misfeature to me. If I could assign that FD button to focus lock I'd drop that thing altogether any day.
Given all this, R10 was not on the radar for me, Kodak is even less so, even though I am a long time Ricoh compact user starting with GR1. I was considering R8 for my daughter, but it was not cute enough for her. She ended up ( on my advice ) with Fuji f100.
Best regards, and happy holidays.
jonrobertp
Forum Pro
n/t
Andrew Higgins
Senior Member
Phew!! It's just a camera review everyone! What's the big deal?
And the GX200 will get it's own full review (and I'm sure it'll then be compared against the LX3 and G10).
And I'm perfectly happy with my R8, but then I think I take the pictures, not the camera (whichever one, any one).
Well done to Phil and Simon and colleagues for their great work with this site.
Happy New Year
A
And the GX200 will get it's own full review (and I'm sure it'll then be compared against the LX3 and G10).
And I'm perfectly happy with my R8, but then I think I take the pictures, not the camera (whichever one, any one).
Well done to Phil and Simon and colleagues for their great work with this site.
Happy New Year
A
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
The 'Winner' did not stand out very far from the rest of the pack, I think. In fact, I think you can make a very strong case for selecting a 'lesser' camera if it had a feature you really wanted/needed. You wouldn't be sacrifcing all THAT much in IQ and you'd get a camera closer to your requirements overall.
I had been leaning towards the G10 and I think this group review confirmed my choice. However, if we get more serious rumblings of an Olympus micro 4/3s camera, I may wait a bit to actually buy a compact till I have a better idea of the course Oly will be taking. I have my E500 and my G3. I can afford to wait and a G10 will only get cheaper as time goes by.
--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington
And my non Photo blog:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Qe0Iq3g2d6ML3IynXl.Q2i5CPe6UaA--?cq=1
I had been leaning towards the G10 and I think this group review confirmed my choice. However, if we get more serious rumblings of an Olympus micro 4/3s camera, I may wait a bit to actually buy a compact till I have a better idea of the course Oly will be taking. I have my E500 and my G3. I can afford to wait and a G10 will only get cheaper as time goes by.
--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington
And my non Photo blog:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Qe0Iq3g2d6ML3IynXl.Q2i5CPe6UaA--?cq=1
MilosC
Active member
This is an extract from what I have just written to DPReviews' s Feedback:
RE: enthusiast camera testing, upcoming Ricoh GX200 review
Dear DPReview,
first of all, many thanks for your great website.
Slowly but inexorably turning into a grey (and lazy) panther, I find it increasingly bothersome to carry around my KM Dynax D7 with lenses.
I am trying to find a high-class compact now. There are three cameras on my current short list: Ricoh GX200, Canon G10 and Lumix LX3.
I almost bought the LX3, although I noticed "smudging" in its shots. Then I found the new page dxomark
where the LX3 is shown as misrepresenting its real ISO ratings (in other words, claiming ISO 800 while the real ISO at "800" setting is 400, etc.). This may distort the high-ISO performance comparisons, eg betw. the G10 and LX3, in Lumix's favor. I know next to nothing about your testing methodology but would like to be assured that you DO NOT take manufacturers' ISO data for granted.
Best regards, MilosC, Prague, Czech Republic
RE: enthusiast camera testing, upcoming Ricoh GX200 review
Dear DPReview,
first of all, many thanks for your great website.
Slowly but inexorably turning into a grey (and lazy) panther, I find it increasingly bothersome to carry around my KM Dynax D7 with lenses.
I am trying to find a high-class compact now. There are three cameras on my current short list: Ricoh GX200, Canon G10 and Lumix LX3.
I almost bought the LX3, although I noticed "smudging" in its shots. Then I found the new page dxomark
where the LX3 is shown as misrepresenting its real ISO ratings (in other words, claiming ISO 800 while the real ISO at "800" setting is 400, etc.). This may distort the high-ISO performance comparisons, eg betw. the G10 and LX3, in Lumix's favor. I know next to nothing about your testing methodology but would like to be assured that you DO NOT take manufacturers' ISO data for granted.
Best regards, MilosC, Prague, Czech Republic
John Tracy
Senior Member
Look, these comparisons have been nit picked to the point where it makes me want to puke. Read enough about anyone of them and you will find something that will make one better or worse than the rest.
Just look at this conclusion statement about the Canon G10 and tell me you want to choose it?
"-At normal print sizes the G10's output is great; but then so is the output of the majority of cameras we've tested in these group tests, and Canon's claim that it chose to up the G10's resolution to 14.7 megapixels to allow cropping or huge enlargements is somewhat difficult to believe when you look at the smearing of fine detail, fringing and visible noise. Even less forgivable is the all too prevalent highlight clipping (often caused by mild over exposure), something that will ruin even the smallest print. Low light focus isn't great, but flash exposures are uniformly reliable."
I'd think you would be far better served if you compared size, features, zoom range ,and ergonomics than wasting your time looking and nit picking sample images at full pixel sizes and comparing marginal noise differences at higher ISO's.
When the Ricoh gets reviewed it will no doubt be another new and improved pocket cam but I'm certain it won't be so much better that it is going to force me to sell off my LX3 and buy the Ricoh.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum