Tuesday, 4 November 2008

GX200 vs LX3 vs G10 vs DP1 vs P6000

Wow, this comparison or review of the photos by GX200, LX3, G10, DP1 AND P6000 will be of interest to many of us. The following are photos taken for the same scene by a photographer with various serious compacts (click to see): GX200 LX3 G10 DP1 P6000 What say you? Shed light (also see: the nightshots comparison):
Your Market Research Here


Anonymous said...

nice test, but not 100% comparable IMO as all were shot at different focal lenghts. also all offer raw, but probably only DP1 was shot as raw, not fair.

Nevin said...

Thank you and well said, Anonymous. The photos give me some idea of how the cameras fare in everyday's general use.

The DP1 is in fact in another class I think regardless of the file formats.

Anonymous said...

I think default JPEGs make a useful test for those times when one wants shots straight out of the camera.

The strong saturation on the DP1 and P6000 looks strange and unrealistic. The G10 color on the other hand looks real to the point of being enhanced (not a bad thing). Color aside, the DP1 clearly has the most subtleties owing to its higher dynamic range and lower noise sensor, even if the G10 and P6000 have more pixels. The LX3 looks very sharp and natural all in all. Interestingly, the GX200, the least sharp overall, is sharp on the far left -- lens defect?

If I was picking a camera by these photos alone, I'd take the G10. However, size, weight, and ergonomics are also important so I'm leaning toward the LX3. I would consider a GX200 but there is nowhere to try one out in Canada.

Thanks for the links!

Nevin said...

Hi, Anonymous from Canada,

The JPEG of GX200 is notorious I think for its slight washy look. On the contrary, Canon's photos give me a general impression that they are (too?) enhanced and sharpened. I personally don't like the photo to be too saturated (I found the sky colour too saturated in some areas; too blue). The LX3's is nice even though some local users here commented that some JPEGs taken with LX3 give a plastic sort of colours. That doesn't really show in the photo here. P6000 seems to be a loser on every front in the serious compact race.

As a GX200 user, I can point out that in general use, I haven't found any noticeable len defection. The photos I have taken with it so far provide good details. Yes, the straight-out JPEGs are sometimes a wee bit washy and need some simple PP twisting to correct it. But then I admire the portraits taken with GX200 cos' the colour is mild and nice for skin tone, really flattering esp to babies and girls. GX200 users are able to tune the default contrast and colour depth up to rectify the issue too. But don't tune up the default sharpness (rather tune to -1 in fact) cos' it is known that GX200 straight-out photos are sharpened more than GX100's.

Shooting RAWs may be a better choice for GX200 if you bother to do PP work.


Anonymous said...

I would like to see the P6000 shot with colour set to normal ( not saturated as shown in the exif).