Panasonic LX3 vs Canon G10 vs Nikon P6000

Bill: I know you like the LX3. A few thing decide the G10 for me

E-TTL flash, I have a few Canon flash which I can use seamlessly with the G10 also wirelessly if I want to. I also have a Metz 28 C which is small, takes AAA and really looks good on the G10.

140mm (equiv) on the long end vs 60mm on the LX3

Canon DPP compatible. I don't have any difference processing EOS RAW vs G10 RAW.

This is my preferences, others might not care about these.

The LX3 has a 24mm f2 equiv lens while the G10 is only 28mm f2.8

I have an LX2 (actually Leica D-Lux 3) but if I was buying today I'd get the LX3 because of the wider and faster lens.

Yes, agreed 60mm is a limitation, and Panasonic does not have a tele converter, however 140mm really isn't that long (my daughter's FZ18 goes to ~450mm) and a DSLR at high ISO would give better telephoto results and AF faster, anyway. Thanks A.Novisto for reminding me, though.

The LX3 takes accessory flash, but I haven't looked into it. I had one with my film SLR and hated it -- too much junk to carry around. As you can tell from my website, I'm a daylight photographer.

bill, i'm with you on the lx3. it seems like the closest thing to the hi-end P&S everyone's been a-clamorin' about.apparently, the g10 is great at base ISO but not so great at 400 and over. that's great for landscapists, but for candid/street stuff, 24mm and 2.0 is a lot more appealing, and 60mm isnt so bad. now why can't nikon do something just as innovative? i think thom got it right when he said the p6000 would be better if it had a better lens. being able to use a nikon speedlite seems like the only reason to get that one.

Here's a pic of G10 with the Metz flash

I sold my G10 after two weeks to buy the LX-3. Not that the G10 is not good. It's a great camera. It's strong, its ergonomics and menus are superb, and it delivers good images. But it's a bit big, while the LX-3 is pocketabl (though the protruding lens and the removable cap are a bit bulky in this regard.) But mostly I couldn't resist f:2-2.8, 24 mm and «Leica glass». As fas as noise is concerned, I think the LX-3 is at least one stop better than the G10, ie 640 ISO is acceptable, while the G10 is acceptable at 400. And since you have f:2 at 24 mm) and 2.8 at 60 mm, you don't need high ISO quite as often. So, it's kind of a double bonus.

Bill,

You really are starting to sound like a Panasonic salesman. There is no over riding reason to get either, they are both similar IQ etc etc, it comes down to the finer points, size, gear integration, software, lens range etc. It all comes down to a personal choice lets leave it at that.

Oh if you want to convert your RAW Panasonic files in Adobes DNG Converter the files will be three times their original size, so you will fill up your computer much quicker with the Panasonic but not your SD card.

Take care, Scott.

Oh forgot the reason I went to post a reply, it doesn't matter what aspect ratio you want to reproduce from the LX3, it is just a cropped image, the Panasonic sensor is a 4 x 3 aspect ratio sensor, so is the Canons.

Scott, thanks for the info on DNG. I've decided not to use it yet because neither SilkyPix nor GIMP can saveAs DNG.

Nobody rebutted that in DPreview's real world results, the wires in the blue-sky crop show jaggies in the LX3 but not in the G10 image. Canon has better anti-aliasing in the Digic than in the Venus 4.

Actually the LX3 has a new system where all three form-factors are crops; see the dpreview.com review. Do any DSLR models have this yet?