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):
(Grip On Reality: This photo was taken on my way to work. I was walking past trucks parking on a cul-de-sac when the ropes caught my attention. The light was right, the colour was right and the criss-crossing pattern was perfect and I held up my GX200. People passing by checked me out and wondered what could be made out of such a boring scene. To me, the fun in photography is that the photographer makes something interesting out of what is not obvious to most at the scene. The ropes tied in knots somehow reminded people I know who are in the grip of the recession) You must have also known a friend or two, or even yourself, being baffled by the spiral downturn of the economy. Bank went bankrupt and the rich was faced with a shrinking wealth. A friend of mine has just had his salary cut by over 10% and some of his colleagues started to be shed. But, wait. Was this done really for the sake of continuing the business? Or is there a factor or greed in it? I wonder whether the
Comments
The DP1 is in fact in another class I think regardless of the file formats.
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!
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.
Nevin