Learn how to convert images to Black and White from Photo.net using a variety of tools and techniques. Harold Davis includes step-by-step instructions and example images.
Read a brief review of the Minolta CLE film rangefinder camera. Includes user comparisons to the Leica M and M3, and example photographs taken with the Minolta CLE.
Read about advice on coordinating and managing all the steps involved with a freelance photography job on Photo.net by author Tony Luna.
One photographer's review of advanced compact cameras by Josh Root
There have long been three classes of digital cameras: DSLRs, point & shoot, and what many of us call “prosumer” cameras. Prosumer cameras cover a broad range, but these are features that many models share:
If a user is coming from a point and shoot camera to a prosumer camera, they are often are looking for:
If a user is coming from a DSLR to a prosumer camera, they often are looking for:
The three cameras in this article, Panasonic LX3, Canon G10, & Ricoh GX 200, are all on the top of many people’s “current best prosumer camera” and “cameras I’m interested in” lists. Quite frankly, I heartily agree. Particularly for those DSLR and other advanced users who’s “want” list looks like the one above. Does that mean users coming from a p&s camera won’t be as well suited to these cameras? Of course not. All three of these are very good cameras for any photographer. But the fact remains that there is one glaring feature that none of these cameras have, and that is a “superzoom”. While there are many photographers who do not see this as a drawback, one of the main points of interest that I hear from photographers stepping up from p&s cameras is that they would like a 12x/14x/20x/etc zoom. They want to be able to go from wide to telephoto when shooting their child’s soccer game for example. A legitimate use of a superzoom to be sure, but none of these cameras can offer that to you. These cameras are much more suited to the photographer who wants high image quality, good low light performance, and well thought out controls in a small form factor.
Adorama has all three of these cameras available. Their prices are fair and you help to support photo.net.
These are just a few of what I feel are the most relevant specifications. For full specs, please see the manufacturer websites or Adorama’s pages above.
 Panasonic LX3 |
 Canon G10 |
 Ricoh GX200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Street Price | $500 |
$500 |
$439 |
| Size | 4.3×2.3×1.1” (109×60 x 27mm) | 4.30×3.06×1.81” (109.1×77.7×45.9mm) | 4.4×2.3×1” (111.6×58 x 25mm) |
| Weight | 9.1 oz (257g) | 12.3 oz (350g) | 7.70 oz (208 g) |
| Sensor | 1/1.63, 10MP | 1/1.7in, 14.7MP | 1/1.7in, 12MP |
| Aspect Ratios | 4:3, 3:2, & 16:9 |
4:3 & 16:9 | 4:3, 3:2 & 1:1 | Zoom Lens (35mm equiv.) | 24-60mm f/2-8 (wide) f/2.8-8 (tele) | 28-140mm f/2.8-8 (wide) f/4.5-8 (tele) | 24-72mm f/2.5-9.1 (wide) f/4.4-15.8 (tele) |
| Exposure Modes | Program AE, Aperture Priority AE, Shutter Priority AE, Manual, Program Shift(Program AE mode), scene modes |
Program AE, Shutter Speed-Priority AE, Aperture-Priority AE, i-Contrast, Manual; AE Lock, Safety Shift, Auto ISO Shift, scene modes | Auto Shooting Mode, Program Shift Mode, Aperture Priority Mode, Manual Exposure Mode, Scene Mode, scene modes |
| ISO settings | 80/100/200/400/800/1600/3200 |
80/100/200/400/800/1600 | 64/100/200/400/800/1600 |
| Image Stabilization | Yes, optical |
Yes, optical | Yes, optical |
| LCD size | 3.0in |
3.0in | 2.7in |
| Memory Media | SD, SDHC, & 50MB internal memory | SD & SDHC | SD, SDHC, & 54MB internal memory |
If you don’t count the lens barrel, the LX3 is just about an inch shorter than a pack of cigarettes and the same height and thickness. The lens barrel adds in another 3/4 of an inch on the front. Aside from a gold “lumix” badge in the lower right front, the camera is mostly black plastic with “muted chrome” accents and buttons and is fairly understated and unremarkable looking. Aside from the hot-shoe, most people would confuse it with a point and shoot if given the chance. One drawback is that the LX3’s the protruding lens barrel makes it a tight fit for any pocket other than those in baggy jeans or coats. This is slightly annoying because it’s not a camera that is really big enough to need it’s own case or bag, but it’s not small enough to be a “pocket and take everywhere” camera. However, I’d still have to say that the LX3 is a fine size/shape overall. The only real drawback is that it’s handgrip is pretty small and isn’t deep enough. Users with small hands will still be able to make use of it, but those with larger hands may find it almost useless.
With it’s built-in optical viewfinder, visible flash, knobs, and traditional shaped shutter button, the Canon G10 is the most “serious camera” looking of these three cameras. Aside from lettering on the buttons, the camera is almost all black. There is a “Canon” logo on the front in white and a small silver “G10” in the opposite corner. The G10’s knurled knobs give the camera a “tough” look that I think works well and stands out from other cameras in this price range. The G10 is a bigger and heavier camera than either of the other two and this is either a bonus or a drawback. The G10 is absolutely not a “pocket” camera. You are going to need a strap or small bag, or a pocket in a backpack to carry it around. However, it’s little bit of extra body size means that it is much easier to use for just about any size user. The extra size also means that the G10 has a larger handgrip. While it isn’t particularly deep, it is tall and wide enough for most any size hands. It is also covered with a slightly grippy textured rubber that is a definite advantage in holding them camera.
Predominately black, aside from nameplate and “GX200” badging, the GX200 is both a slightly odd and completely normal looking camera. Somewhat reminiscent of those cheap “pro camera” point and shoot giveaways you got for subscribing to a magazine back in the 80’s, it has a “prism hump” like protrusion at the top under the hotshoe where the on-camera flash is stored. This seems a bit out of place when you consider tht otherwise, the GX200 looks almost exactly like one of Ricoh’s high end “GR” line of film p&s cameras (great cameras, by the way). Thinner and shorter than either of the G10 or the LX3, the GX200 is slightly longer than both as well. The length doesn’t change the fact that the GX200 is the most pocketable of the three cameras. I didn’t have a problem carrying it around in jeans or even slacks. Though depending on the size of your pants pockets, you may look a little odd with a large lump on your thigh. The smaller size of the camera might make you think that it would be harder to hold. But Ricoh has smartly given the GX200 a well designed handgrip. Deeper and wider than even the grip on the G10, it more than makes up for the fact that the GX200 is more compact than other cameras in it’s class.
How much do looks matter for a camera? For most people, and rightly so, very little. However, for the sake of discussion, going on straight aesthetics the G10 is probably the best looking camera. It makes me think it would be used by some sort of digital age photojournalist with it’s metal knurled knobs and “all business” look. But for sheer “that camera doesn’t look like much so I’m going to not pay attention to it” stealth, the LX3 and the GX200 are better choices.
As far as size, all three cameras are completely usable. The G10 and the GX200 are easier to hold than the LX3 for people with larger fingers/hands. But that having been said, I have yet to hear of anyone who couldn’t use the LX3 due to hand size. Still, all things being equal, if you’ve got mitts the size of bear-paws, you might give the G10 a try rather than the other two. If you are looking for something that slips in and out of a pocket easily, the GX200 is the camera for you. The LX3’s lens barrel (and various switches) get caught unless your pockets are of a decent size and the G10 is simply not a pocket size camera at all.
The LX3’s handling is surprisingly good for a small camera. The mode selection dial on the top of the camera is a nice touch and makes for quick changes. The “multi function joystick” is well designed and allows for easy navigation of all of the most important camera settings. Pressing and holding the “Multi Function joystick” for about a second and a half brings up the “Q-Menu”, which I assume is short for “quick menu”. It is just thatâa quick way to access options like ISO, resolution, AF mode, white balance, and more. This works really well and the “joystick” aspect it is well designed and easy to control. I virtually never have to dig through any menus to access my most used settings. A dedicated AE/AF lock button is a nice touch. And finally, the physical switched for aspect ratio and AF mode harkens back to the days when we didn’t have to mash buttons and scroll through menus to change a camera setting.
While I stand by my praise of the mode selection dial, the fact is that it is far too easy to spin. I frequently find it rolled to another mode setting when pulling it out of a pocket or case. This could cause someone to miss a great shot by being stuck in “manual” when you really needed to be in “program”. It’s an easy enough issue to fix, just make sure you check the mode dial every time when you pull the camera out. It’s also something that should have been designed better. The same can be said for the aspect ratio and AF switches. I have to keep track of them every so often to make sure they aren’t on a setting that will cause me trouble at an inopportune time. In a similar vein, the LX3’s physical “play/record” switch means that you can’t be reviewing images, see something happening in front of you, tap the shutter button so the camera jumps back into “record”, and then take the photo. You have to remember to move the switch from “play” back to “record. This is not a huge deal, but it’s a bad move on Panasonic’s part. A vast majority of photographers have gotten used to being able to jump from “play” to “record” at the drop of a hat. I applaud Panasonic’s drive to create a more physical camera. In this instance, however, I think they went too far.
The LX3’s AF is pretty decent. Not blazingly fast, but not slow at all. Though every so often it will seem like the AF has gotten much slower and you will notice that the AF switch has gotten bumped to “macro + AF”. However, another feature of the LX3 is the options that it gives for AF settings. The standard Face Detection and Multi-Area AF options are there. Single Area “high-speed” speeds up AF significantly by giving up use of a wider AF sensor pattern. Also, AF tracking is a neat option that allows you to set focus lock on an subject (a child’s face for example) and the camera will track that subject and keep it in focus. I have only used it a little bit so far, but it appears to be accurate and useful, though one has to remember that there are limits to any small camera’s tracking ability. This isn’t a Canon EOS 1D MKIII. Finally, the LX3 makes very little noise when zooming or focusing, which is a good thing.
It’s hard to argue with the fact that many people find the G10 to be a wonderful compact camera to use in terms of handling. The main reasons for this are the excellent metal dials that change three of the most used settings on the camera ISO, exposure compensation, and shooting mode. For my shooting, the ISO dial is worth it’s weight in gold and the exposure compensation dial isn’t far behind. The are nicely knurled and are easy to adjust with one thumb. While it would be possible to have the same sort of “accidentally bumped” problem that you can have with the LX3’s dial, the fact that the G10 is not a pocket camera (and its knobs have stronger detents) probably make this a non-issue. The more traditionally shaped shutter release also lends itself to easy of handling on the G10. Its shutter button feels a lot more like a “real” camera than a compact one. And as if that weren’t enough, the G10 has a scroll dial on the back along the lines of the scroll dials on Canon’s DSLR cameras, which is a nice addition.
Downsides to the G10’s handling are few, but nothing is perfect. As good as the ISO/exp/mode dials are, there are still more than a few functions that require button presses and scrolling to access. There is a “custom shortcut” button that can be user assigned, but it’s choices are limited to 9 choices with only White Balance and ND filter being particularly valuable for most photographers. The G10 also takes a little memorization to use some of it’s manual features. As there are times (switching from aperture to shutter in manual exposure) when it isn’t clear from the screen what button you are supposed to press to make which change. The G10’s viewfinder has gotten so small, squinty, and inaccurate as to really be useless in my opinion. But if you want one of these cameras and a built in viewfinder is a requirement, then the G10 is your only choice.
AF is quick and quiet (though zooming does create slightly more noise). You get a few AF choices, with Face Detection being the one that most people will use if they aren’t using the default mode. you can move the AF point all around and also increase or decrease it’s size a bit. Nothing particularly special in any of this except for the fact that it is a solid design that works well. Canon doesn’t tend things just to change them and users of older “G” series cameras should feel right at home.
The GX200 has to be one of the most customizable compact cameras I have gotten to use. There are two different custom buttons with 19 choices each (most all of them useful functions) and 3 different custom mode dial settings. It also gives you the choice of zooming regularly or by 35mm focal length equivalents. The GX200 has a rocker joystick that functions like the LX3’s “multi function joystick” although it only operates left-right rather than in up-down-left-right. But you can choose five different settings from a list of 19 to quickly access and adjust via this method. If you can’t find a setup you like for the GX200’s buttons, you really aren’t trying very hard.
However, many custom choices does not a perfect camera make. As I said, the rocker joystick isn’t really a joystick at all, since it only operates left-right. This is really too bad. As you have to make your choice of function to change with it, then change to the four-way selector to change the setting. It would have been 100% better to have been able to do it all on one controller like the LX3. The GX200’s zoom controller is stuck in a bad spot on the back upper-right of the camera. It’s hard to reach with your thumb and is not nearly as convenient as the ring-around-the-shutter zoom controllers that the G10 and LX3 have.
While not horribly slow or hunting, I did find the GX200’s AF to be slower than the other two cameras. Perhaps more annoying, the AF also seems a bit louder. Though it’s not the kind of thing that can probably be heard by anyone other than the photographer. Far worse is the fact that the GX200 freezes the image for a second when achieving focus lock. This can cause problems if you are trying to for a specific moment or are panning along with a moving subject. It’s not a deal-killer, but when coupled with the slightly slower AF, it kind of annoyed me. The GX200 doesn’t have face-detection or tracking AF modes, but it does have a hyperfocal “snap” mode. The “snap” mode is a holdover from Ricoh’s film cameras and it is an absolutely great feature for a compact camera to have. It pre-sets the focus at about 2.5 meters (~8 ft) and this allows everything from 2 meters to infinity to be in focus. It’s a really handy setting for street photography as it speeds up camera operation significantly (and gets rid of the “freeze frame” issue).
It’s hard to find too much fault with the Canon G10 in terms of handling and use. It’s just a really well done camera in most all the important ways. But the LX3 and GX200 both bring a lot to the table as well. The LX3 has a well designed multi-function controller for quick access to camera settings and an innovative AF tracking system. The Ricoh is more of a mixed bag with the good being its significant customization options and the bad being things like its bad zoom controller location and “freeze-frame” AF performance. For the sake of crowning a winner in this area, I’ll go with the G10. But none of these cameras is badly designed and I think you will find fans of all three claiming that their favorite is the real winner for whatever reason.
The Panasonic has no less than 23 different “scene” modes. Everything from full auto to “food/party” to “baby 1” (and for your second child it has “baby 2”). Quite frankly, they are mostly useless, particular to advanced photographers. I think most users of the LX3 will just keep the camera set on the standard P/A/S/M choices.
Metering gives you three choices: Intelligent Multiple (camera looks at the whole image), center-weighted (camera looks at the center area more than the edges/corners), or spot (camera looks at the very center part of the image). All are very effective and all work well for what they are supposed to do.
Overall exposure is very good. The LX3 has ISO options of 80/100/200/400/800/1600/3200/Auto and ISO noise is really good for this class of camera. I’ve seen tests on a couple other sites that say the ISO noise is just about in line with other cameras in it’s class. But I’ve got to say, and perhaps this is personal choice, I think the LX3 does a better job than the tests give it credit for. The LX3 noise looks much more like film grain to me than the chroma (color blotches) heavy noise that you usually see out of small sensor cameras. And due to the fact that Panasonic didn’t cram as many megapixels as they could manage onto the LX3’s sensor, image detail holds up much better at higher ISO levels then with other cameras in its class. Overall, I’m very pleased with its ISO noise performance and it’s the first small sensor camera that I haven’t been afraid to shoot at higher ISO settings. White balance (WB) works well enough, though the camera had a bit of trouble when set to “auto” with the standard difficult light sources such as indoor fluorescent and incandescent. Switching to the fixed “incandescent” WB setting helps, but not as much as I would like. In what I find to be an odd choice for Panasonic, the LX3 doesn’t have a “fluorescent” white balance setting. Although, it does have two different “custom” settings. So that is kind of handy if you regularly shoot in weird lighting.
The Canon G10 has 18 scene modes. None of them are particularly out of the ordinary (sunset, snow, fireworks, etc). Is this important? No, as most advanced photographers won’t be using the scene modes very much anyway. Sure, it’s handy to have a quick way of forcing the camera to use the flash and a long shutter speed for a night portrait. But most all of these modes can be simulated by using the standard shooting modes with exposure comp and aperture/shutter priority. It is odd that Canon has hidden it’s ISO 3200 setting in the scene mode list. I am left wondering if that is because it isn’t REALLY a true ISO setting or if the quality is just so bad that they didn’t want to make it a real ISO setting on the ISO dial.
The G10 offers three metering modes: evaluative (which is linked to the face detection AF if it is active), center weighted, and spot (linked to the center AF marker or to the face detection AF). All are effective and work well for what they are supposed to do.
Overall exposure is very good. One of the hallmarks of the Canon powershot line, and the “G” series in particular, is that their auto-exposure is better than average. Sure, the cameras can be fooled by strong backlight or by a very light or dark subject, but there are few cameras out there that won’t be fooled in that situation. In general, the G10’s meter does and admirable of just working like it is supposed to and accurately reading the light in the scene.
The G10 has ISO settings of 80/100/200/400/800/1600/Auto (we’re ignoring the 3200 since Canon itself ignores it by leaving it of the ISO dial) and ISO noise is decent for this class of camera. In fact, at it’s lowest settings, one might be surprised at how smooth and detailed the G10 images are. But like many small sensor cameras, things do fall apart once you get up past 400 ISO. The 800 and 1600 (and 3200?) settings are usable…sort of. For snapshot prints or web use, you will probably be satisfied. But for crucial detail or large print work, you have to accept the limitations of a small sensor camera. White balance (WB) works well enough, though the camera had a bit of trouble when set to “auto” with the standard difficult light sources such as indoor fluorescent and incandescent. Switching to the fixed “incandescent” WB setting helps significantly for tungsten lighting. Fluorescent is always a crapshoot considering how many different fluorescent light types there are. The G10 does offer two different fixed “fluorescent” settings to help and deal with this issue. Which will be welcome for anyone who has to deal with that ugly light source on a regular basis.
The Ricoh GX 200 has eight scene modes. Half of them are the normal sports/portrait/etc and the other half are more specialized skew-correction/zoom-macro/etc modes. This is actually a shame. Because if ever a prosumer camera could have used a few more scene modes, it is the GX200. For some reason, despite all of their other great decisions, the Ricoh crew didn’t bother to include a shutter priority mode on the GX200. There is the standard P/A/M but no “S”. I find this very strange and a little annoying.
Like the other two cameras in this article, metering gives you three choices: Multi-light, center-weighted, or spot. All are fairly effective and all work well for what they are supposed to do.
The GX200 has ISO settings of 64/100/200/400/800/1600/Auto. While noise is well controlled in the 64-200 range, the GX200 really falls down in the 400-1600 range. The image noise quickly becomes unacceptable and detail is lost. This is a real shame as the overall image quality of he lens/camera is really very high. Low ISO images from the GX200 can really pop and look as wonderful. But the higher ISO images look blotchy and muddy, particularly at 800 or 1600 ISO. White balance was decent on the GX200, but I felt that it ranged to the cool side more often that I wanted. This may be a personal preference but others have commented about it as well in various forums, so I don’t think I’m the only one. However, another one of the GX200’s nifty features is that you can fine tune WB and with a little fiddling, any color cast can be adjusted for (should you wish to do so).
Overall, more than the other two cameras, the GX200 benefits from shooting in RAW. For those of you who always shoot in RAW, this won’t be a big deal. But for many photographers, a camera like this is one that gets used in JPEG mode more often than not. It’s for serious photography, yes, but for serious photography that they don’t want to have to work on as much as they work on their DSLR images. Like the cameras themselves, this kind of shooting is halfway between p&s and DSLR for many people. But using RAW with the GX200 gives you the best option to control noise and adjust white balance if needed. If you are shooting at anything higher than ISO 200 with the GX200, you might want to think about it. The camera itself is really well designed and has a few amazing features you aren’t going to see elsewhere. But it’s a shame that I have ended up talking this much about the image noise issue. Perhaps with a few less megapixles crammed onto the sensor, Ricoh could avoid this issue entirely.
I don’t like scene modes. I don’t think I’ve ever used more than just a couple of them on any camera I have used and I have a feeling that I’m not alone in that regard. Far too often camera makers seem to be thinking “Well the consumers aren’t using the scene modes because we aren’t offering them the right options. So let’s make MORE scene mode options!”. Thankfully, users of these cameras can (and will) largely ignore the scene modes. They aren’t what most advanced users care about and won’t be what they use. The Standard P/A/S/M modes will be more than enough for many of us.
At low ISO levels, image quality is about the same between the three. If I had to choose, I would probably say that the GX200 and the G10 have a slight edge over the LX3. But all three are more than acceptable. At high ISO levels the LX3 beats the G10 by a decent amount and the GX200 by a mile. If low light shooting is important to you, the LX3 is your best bet out of these three. White balance has its ups and downs across the board with these three, but overall performance is up to par with anything else out there. The G10 and the LX3 are a bit better than the GX200 in this area. Though anyone willing to fiddle with the GX200’s white balance compensation can probably negate that advantage.
As for a winner here, it kind of depends on what you find important. If low ISO is the only thing that matters, take a look at the other camera features and decide from there. If high ISO matters, I strongly suggest the LX3. If shutter-priority is something you use a lot, stick to the G10 and the LX3 for that option. There are any number of ways this list could go on. Bottom line is is that all three cameras are capable of creating some very nice images. There are a few specific situations that give each camera trouble, so you should take that into account when choosing.
Please Note: This section is my way of talking about various features in these cameras that you might not find in other cameras. While these features might get mentioned in other areas of the article as well, I thought they were important enough to mention on their own as well.
*Built in “bubble level” – A very interesting feature of the GX200 is the fact that it offers a built in indicator to let the photographer know if the camera is level or not. This works in both vertical and horizontal orientations and is one of those “well isn’t that handy!” features that doesn’t make or break a camera, but is really nifty to have.
It is hard to pick a winner here because so much will be placed on what a specific photographer is going to be shooting and therefore, what they will find interesting. But I’d have to say that while the G10 and the LX3 are impressive cameras with solid performance, I would have to say that the GX200 has them both beat in terms of interesting functions and advantages. A bubble level built into the camera, how good of an idea is that?
Panasonic offers four specific accessories for the LX3:
The wide conversion lens has a 0.75x magnification factor. Which turns the LX3’s 24mm lens into an 18mm lens. However, like many lenses of this type, it is pretty large and bulky. The wide lens requires the use of the Conversion Lens Adapter in order to be able to attach it to the LX3. The nice thing about the itis that you can also use it to attach filters to the camera. The external optical viewfinder is an interesting idea that may appeal to users who like the LX3 but can’t stand the fact that it does not have an optical viewfinder. It is a hotshoe mounted VF with brightlines for the LX3’s 24mm lens. However, it’s usefulness is lessened by the fact that you have to guess at coverage for anything other than the widest 24mm setting.
Canon offers three specific accessories for the G10:
As with the LX3 the tele lens requires the use of the conversion lens adapter in order to be able to attach it to the G10. The nice thing about it is that you can also use it to attach filters to the camera. The conversion lens adapter is a two piece design for some reason. I’m not really sure why Canon chose to do this, as more weak links are never welcome in design. The teleconverter has a 1.4x magnification factor. Though I do not know if it works through the whole zoom range. Many teleconverters like these do not. But I wasn’t able to get my hands on the TC-DC58D to test for myself.
Ricoh offers six specific accessories for the GX200:
As with both other cameras, the accessory lenses require the use of the lens adapter in order to be able to attach them to the GX200. The nice thing about it is that you can also use it to attach filters to the camera. The lens adapter comes with a hood, a nice touch not often included with adapters for this class of camera. The wide lens has an aprox. 0.8x magnification factor and turns the 24mm lens into a 19mm lens. The tele lens has an aprox. 1.87x magnification factor and turns the 72mm lens into a 135mm lens. One nice thing is that the wide lens is much smaller than other conversion lenses for prosumer cameras. It is much easier to carry around and doesn’t overweight or unbalance the camera very much.
The electronic viewfinder is a particularly interesting way of giving users the option of using a viewfinder, without having to build one into the camera or relying on optical VF’s that do not zoom. The VF-1 slides into the GX200’s hotshoe and connects with a mini data connection that is located on the back plate directly under the shoe. There is an VF/EVF button adjacent to that data connection that allows switching between the LCD and the attached EVF. In use, you get the exact same view and information in the EVF as you had set up to show on the LCD. The quality is not as good as the stellar EVF in the Panasonic G1/GH1 cameras. But it is very usable and a far cry from the low resolution EVFs of the past. one nice feature is that the VF-1 can tilt up to a vertical orientation so you can look down into it for low-angle shots. It’s not quite a waist level finder, but it’s still pretty neat.
For two things that are typically afterthoughts in camera design, the GX200 soft case and lenscap are actually quite interesting. The lenscap bayonets onto the same ring that the conversion lens adapter uses. Once on, it has a sort of “leaf petal” system on springs that allow the lens to extend through and then retract to be covered up again. It’s really quite clever and solves the annoying problem of turning the camera on for a shot, then missing the shot because you forgot to take the cap off and are getting an error message instead. The soft case is somewhat unremarkable except for the important fact that the Ricoh designers were smart enough to design it so that it could be used with the VF-1 attached (or not). It works quite well and might be worth buying if you intend to use the VF-1 regularly.
The GX200 is the obvious winner in terms of accessories. Both for the fact that it is the only one of the three cameras to have both a tele and a wide lens and for the fact that the VF-1, the automatic lenscap, and the soft case are all well designed accessories. It’s really nice when companies come up with something new that is obviously designed from a photographer’s point of view.
In many ways, you can’t make a bad choice between these three cameras. Each of them has a strong set of advantages and all show the kind of innovation and quality that comes when products are well designed. Of course, nothing in life is perfect, and considering their weak points will be equally important. Overall, like many of these conversations, your specific needs will define which camera is best for you.
A great camera for someone who needs a wide fast lens. Anyone who wants to be able to shoot in available light and high ISO levels would be wise to consider the LX3. Its handgrip isn’t the best for large fingers in addition, it’s too large for the average pocket. Not to mention the fact that even when you do put it in a pocket, you are likely to bump various switches or spin the mode dial by accident. But the proof is in the images. The LX3 handles well and has an impressively designed system for accessing common camera settings. Exposure and white balance perform well and high ISO performance is very impressive. Overall, my personal favorite of the bunch.
An all around solid camera. The G10 is one of those “can’t really go wrong” cameras. It might not be perfect for everyone, but it probably won’t be bad for anyone. Canon’s G cameras have been great performers for years now and the G10 is no exception. Easy to hold with excellent physical knobs for frequently used mode, ISO, and exposure compensation functions. Image quality is good, high ISO noise is good as well. But it’s a bit larger and heavier than the other cameras, it doesn’t have a very wide or fast lens, ISO tops out at 1600 and It doesn’t really have any features that push the envelope. But like I said, you aren’t likely to be disappointed with the G10 in a general sense. A good choice for those who need the larger size and/or don’t have any specific needs that could be filled by one of the other cameras.
The GX200 is the most innovative and feature rich of the three cameras here. It also happens to be the most pocketable. Features like the built in level, an external electronic viewfinder, and the ability to split the AE/AF points are all very clever. Add onto that the GX200’s significant customization capabilities plus its useful accessories, and you’ve got a camera that should please a lot of serious photographers. But image noise is a serious problem in the higher ISO range and white balance isn’t the greatest. Shooting in RAW can help both of these issues significantly. But a camera that requires you to increase your workflow to catch up to its competitors isn’t the best way to win fans. That having been said, at the lower ISO levels and in outdoor lighting, the camera can be stunning. I can see the GX200 being an excellent lightweight camera for a landscape or “outdoor environment” photographer.
Adorama has all three of these cameras available. Their prices are fair and you help to support photo.net.
Original text ©2009 Josh Root. Photographs ©2009 Josh Root
Article revised July 2009.
al Farrob 
, July 02, 2009; 12:45 P.M.
Jeroen Wesdorp , July 02, 2009; 01:47 P.M.
Ton Mestrom 
, July 02, 2009; 05:57 P.M.
Steve Patriquen , July 03, 2009; 03:09 A.M.
Patrick Giagnocavo , July 03, 2009; 09:05 A.M.
Mark Brigham , July 03, 2009; 11:09 A.M.
Howard Perks , July 03, 2009; 03:20 P.M.
Hadi Habib , July 04, 2009; 04:00 A.M.
Thomas Vetter , July 04, 2009; 07:13 P.M.
Josh Root 
, July 04, 2009; 09:30 P.M.
Niv Drory , July 05, 2009; 04:34 A.M.
Martin Tai 
, July 05, 2009; 06:49 A.M.
Curt Degler , July 05, 2009; 12:39 P.M.
Juha Haataja , July 06, 2009; 05:43 A.M.
John Lynch , July 09, 2009; 12:27 P.M.
Paul Marbs , July 15, 2009; 09:21 A.M.
joe faust , July 20, 2009; 01:30 A.M.
Joe Walsh , July 20, 2009; 10:01 P.M.
Howard Vrankin 
, August 06, 2009; 08:57 A.M.
Thakurdalip Singh , August 12, 2009; 03:09 A.M.
J. D. Griggs , September 02, 2009; 07:58 P.M.
I'm always checking out compacts that can produce RAW files. One just out looks very interesting, though expensive. That's the Canon Powershot S90. Haven't seen one in person yet, but it looks a bit like an Elph with RAW output! Would love to see you check this out.
Joshua S. Freeman , December 24, 2009; 12:06 A.M.
WK Soh , January 27, 2010; 09:19 A.M.
