This article will reveal the all-impotant question to ask upon reading a camera review next time.
(Victoria Harbour with the Hong Kong Island in the background: This was taken by handholding my GX200 which I rested on a railing, enabling me to use ISO100 and effectively avoid the high ISO noise issue. I could have made the image less blurred if I had the mini-tripod that I usually carried around with.)
What matters the most to an undecided buyer after he or she read a camera review? The "highly recommended (not just really)" rating? A comparison of the length of the lists of pros and cons? As a user, what should we deduce from a review to hammer a deal?
Let's take as an example Pavel's recent review at ricohforum.com. Pavel has put together the full size JPEG photos taken with a GX200 and a LX3. In a nutshell, the results show that LX3 produces images with a better quality. Okay, photography is mostly about the end product which is the photo. But, wait, before a good photo is there, something else precedes.
PROS FOR LX3
First, let's look at the arguments for LX3:
1) a better dynamic range (whereas GX200 has some areas in the photo overexposed)
This is a sure win for LX3.
2) more details in JPEG images (GX200's are visibly less sharp)
This doesn't matter. I bet that viewers can't tell the difference when viewing the photos in normal size.
3) a higher rate of restorable details in RAW images (GX200's have a good restorable rate but not as high)
This doesn't matter. Again, I bet that viewers can't tell the difference when viewing the photos in normal size. And here it is about RAW which gives you more elbowroom to restore the details if you really need them in the photos. But I think the general users won't bother about a wee bit more details unless we are going to make large prints, which I bet we seldom do.
4) smaller and acceptable noise and noise artefacts (GX200's have more noticeable noise in dark areas)
This doesn't matter much. LX3 really performs better at a glance. But noise can be easily and effectively be prevented. And noise is not as irremediable as the wrong white balance, which is more difficult to rectify in post processing work IMO.
5) more nicely circular blurred background (GX200's look a bit patchy in the background)
This doesn't really matter. This is nice but I think the blurred background is only possible when you shoot in marco mode. Again, as compacts have an extensive depth of field, this doesn't matter to the non-marco photos.
(Looking Over the Cruise Ship: It would be nice to have a bit more dynamic range in the photo. But I would certainly choose egronomics over a bit more dynamic range. A camera with great egronmics is more intuitive and inviting to use, hence a better chance to catch the right moment.)
PROS FOR GX200
Likewise, there are some arguments for the GX200 in that it has:
6) better WB performance (vs LX3's false representation of the colours in a scene)
This matters a lot. When the WB is inaccurate, you are more obliged to tweak it at the shooting scene. Imagine how clumsy that will be when you are taking photos! Moreover, as compared with noise, the inaccurate while balance is more difficult to correct in post processing.
7) better exposure metering (LX3's tendency to underexpose)
This matters a lot. With "exposure to the right" as the rule of thumb, I wonder the benefit of LX3's tendency to underexpose (wrongly expose?) a scene. Judging from Pavel's JPEG images, especially the one of the flower market, the end of the covered passageway is pitch black (GX200's here). I doubt if there is any data to be recoverd there. But this is no big deal as the exposure combo can be easily changed on, say, M mode when the photographer shoots. But a correct exposure metering is indispensible to a camera.
8) better flash performance (LX3's whitish dead-meat skin tone)
This matters to me. I don't think you will like to correct the whitish flashed skin tone in PP work. If the ugly flash performance is so forbidding, its use is limited. Think again: a compact with a flash of limited use. That will be inconvenient.
([This is a full size photo] An Evening Wihtout Glasses: Click open this full size photo and pixel-peep. You will see the noise creep in all over the dark areas. The noise may not be pleasing. But who cares? The camera is inviting and easy to use. Making the exposure combo and the defocus was a bliss. This photo looks good to me and the noise actually adds a character to it.)
9) lower contrast in the images (LX3's more saturated colours; lower contrast can be a plus)
This is a matter of personal taste. When I look at Pavel's softtoy photos, I am glad that the GX200's image is less contrasty. The colour of LX3's softtoy image is too strong to my taste. The softtoy doesn't look as soft as in GX200's image. Again, this is no big deal because the default contrast can be easily tuned up in GX200 (and LX3?). But I like the characteristic of GX200's image with a lower default contrast because it gives a more pleasing look to portraits (especially of ladies and children) and soft topics like softtoys.
10) a better macro capability
This may matter to some, not me.
[11) This is not in the review but matter much to me: GX200 has great egronmics that feel like a DSLR!]
THE ALL-IMPORTANT QUESTION
So, before a good photo is there, this question matters much to me: DOES THE CAMERA ALLOW ME TO USE IT INTUIATIVELY FOR THE RESULTS I WANT FOR MOST OF THE TIME?
I have deduced from Pavel's review that arguments 6, 7 and 8 for GX200/ against LX3 can aptly answer my question. LX3 may produce better results but you have to mind the exposure metering, WB and flash effect more often. This is contratry to the "intuiation" of use. On the other hand, arguments 2, 3, 4 and 5 for LX3/ against GX200 have no bearing on my answer since it is not quite relevant to the end results for general use.
A BRIEF CONCUSION
Surely, the deduction is personal depending on each user's needs. Next time when you read a review, you know what question to ask.
Comments
Thank you for your information.
(First up, dear readers, if you're reading this: I did not make up several "anonymous"s and wrote the comments myself to boost the hit rate. :) They are real persons writing in anonymity and I will try to give a reply as much as I can regardless.)
"You do not need to feel that you are necessarily giving up any aspect of image quality by using the GX200, as long as you are shooting below ISO 400."
-- Great to hear this. I always doubt if LX3 takes photos which are really visually better, if they are really better. As I said before, most of the serious cameras, incl. serious compacts, are fine ones and their differences in image quality are not by much. I recommend users to go for the one which is intuitive and inviting to use.
"I guess it must be sample-to-sample variation, but I do not get the results that Pavel got--at low ISO, even in jpegs I get obviously sharper, less noisy results from the GX...at A3 size or above the GX is clearly better. From raw files, the differences in favor of the GX are even greater"
-- I'm excited to hear this. I haven't tried A3 size but I'll certainly try a A4 one when there is the right photo.
"it is possible to use ACR to process the Ricoh raw files, while at present the best raw converter for the LX3 files is RawTherapee, which is not as good at keeping noise down."
--Ricoh should be praised in implementing the DNG format for RAWs. It gives us a fuller play in PP work. But I think Ricoh should hurry up its update firmware for GX200 to kill the dataless black stripe in RAWs. It just doesn't make any sense for the photographers to bother with cropping the stripe in PP work when using certain PP programs.
"The _only_ advantages I have found for the LX3 are far better noise performance at ISO 400 and 800, and the higher resolution movie mode, which I don't use at all often anyway. I'm willing to give away some low-light ability for far better results in good light."
--I vote for what you said here with both hands (and feet!). The right camera is the one we can use it to get the results we desire in msot situations, not for just-in-case situations (like high ISO scenes). As for video function, I too haven't even seriously tried it on my GX200 since five months ago when I bought my GX2oo.
See you around soon.
I'm new to photography and want to start with a high quality compact camera with good manual controls (not a DSRL because I'm sure I'd leave it at home most of the times: I need something that I can always carry in my pocket).
My candidates were exactly the LX3 and the GX200, and though I was already leaning towards the Ricoh, I was still undecided, and your post really helped me.
Also, other things that I like about the GX200 are the non-proprietary solutions for USB cable and RAW format, and the ability to use AAA batteries, which could prove handy, especially when traveling by bike (which is something I plan to do).