im new to the camera world, the only camera i use was the one on my phone which is stupid. i have been looking around and g10 and lx-3 is the 2 i narrowed it down to. i dont want a dslr just because im not that into pictures, but i do want to start it up as a hobby. the camera will be used for vacation and sport events, but hopefully i will fall into landscape and animals. i like the g10 because it seems to be more professional usage, but the lx3 is more simple i guess. but i would like to be serious in the photo world.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
g10 or lx-3
- Thread starter daesup45
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
From what I've read/heard the LX3 has the edge in low light.
But if you're after resolution then the G10 might be better.
Always a compromise!
But if you're after resolution then the G10 might be better.
Always a compromise!
Both are great. When you say 'sport' do you want close ups? No compact is really going to be ideal for sport photography. As has been said, the G10's zoom is a bit longer (but doesn't let as much light in, and is less wide). If I was buying one I'd get the LX3 for the wide angle, but it sounds like the G10 might be better for you. Are you certain that you don't want a longer zoom? Both canon and panasonic make compacts with longer zooms (e.g. the TZ5). The image quality tends to be a bit worse though.
I assume you don't want a big camera, as there are do-everything bridge cameras like the Fuji S100FS which can be reasonable too.
I assume you don't want a big camera, as there are do-everything bridge cameras like the Fuji S100FS which can be reasonable too.
I would suggest the LX3 for the wider faster lens. You mention interest in landscapes and vacation photos so that wide lens may prove its worth. Here are some links to a 3 part review comparing the features of the G10, LX3 and Nikon p6000 with built in gps. Entertaining and hopefully helpful.
pt.1
pt.2
pt.3
pt.1
pt.2
pt.3
Is size a problem? You can get a DSLR like the D40 or A200 for less than these two compacts cost.
You can absolutely do the same adjustments with the output of all of these cameras. I suppose, hypothetically you could have an old version of software which didn't support the RAW format of one or two of them but it should not be a problem really.
Perhaps you should pick up a basic book on digital photography? Your knowledge seems a bit thin. Once you know more your wants might change.
i was thinking about going to a dslr but i just want a camera that is a bit smaller and like i said before its mostly for vacations or pictures of some events im not into the whole hardcore photos right now but i would like my pictures to look good. and i think if i go into the dlsr world i will start to buy a lot lens and stuff. i just want something simple for my family to use and plus with good clear pictures.
For those subjects you will be better off with an SLR. Even an older used SLR. You can get a used Nikon system (system is one lens and one body) for about $300. so you'd actually save money.
The reason I say this is "shutter lag". All of the point and shoots have this. IT tis the slight delay between tripping the shutter and when the shutter snaps the image. Because of this lag time sports photography is very, hard same with shooting any kind of wildlife.
The reason to buy a smaller camera like those you listed are because you need it to be small. But you pay in terms of image quality and in price too.
I had an LX3 on order, but canceled due to endless back-order, and got a DMC-TZ5 for $250 (G10 is nice but too big, I wanted a pocket camera to complement the D90). The extra zoom is appreciated (the only flaw with the LX3 IMO).
Just got it, a bit bigger than I anticipated, looking forward to working with it. The Macro mode is quite good for the price, and next week I'll do some speed and night shots at the 12 hours of Sebring.
Just got it, a bit bigger than I anticipated, looking forward to working with it. The Macro mode is quite good for the price, and next week I'll do some speed and night shots at the 12 hours of Sebring.
I bought the LX-3 last year, then work bought me a G10 for work 
Anyway, both good but I do prefer the LX-3, I like having a proper lens cap that actually protects the lens, means you don't always need to keep it in a case. I also like the fact it fits in my jacket pocket.
But, OSX doesn't yet support the LX-3 RAW format (haven't tried the G10, use work PC) which is annoying.
Anyway, both good but I do prefer the LX-3, I like having a proper lens cap that actually protects the lens, means you don't always need to keep it in a case. I also like the fact it fits in my jacket pocket.
But, OSX doesn't yet support the LX-3 RAW format (haven't tried the G10, use work PC) which is annoying.
It seems that the G10 is about £400 with the sliding pound. You can pick up a D40 for about £250 with lens, or refurbed for £200 [ http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...d_name=Nikon D40 & 18-55mm AFS DX Refurbished ]
It's not huge, but perhaps too big to take everywhere on the off chance of shots. For a little over £300 you can get an olympus E-420 and standard zoom, or less than £400 for a twin lens kit. The E-420 is the smallest DSLR you can get. Worth checking out.
[Edit - oops, I got muddled with threads and thought the OP was in England. What I said probably broadly transfers to the US]
It's not huge, but perhaps too big to take everywhere on the off chance of shots. For a little over £300 you can get an olympus E-420 and standard zoom, or less than £400 for a twin lens kit. The E-420 is the smallest DSLR you can get. Worth checking out.
[Edit - oops, I got muddled with threads and thought the OP was in England. What I said probably broadly transfers to the US]
oh, i see what you're saying. no, that doesn't work. a G10 in low light will either be too noisy or will be too underexposed, and raising the brightness later won't fix it.
anyways, for what you want, rule out the LX3.
i just came back from ritz camera to see how g10 was but he person convinced me to go for a dslr. i have been looking at d40 and the person told me panasonic g1 is good but its expensive. since im a beginner i was thinking about d40, d60, rebel xsi, or g1 because its pretty sick
OK, you opened the door to the DSLR world, so I can't resist coaxing you over the threshold. Here is why a DSLR is so much better, in a nutshell. For starters, the sensor will be much larger, so the dynamic range and noise handling with be far superior. For example:
(Click to enlarge and see detail)
The image at the top was taken with a Canon point-and-shoot (the SD800 IS), and the image at the bottom was taken with a Canon DSLR (the XSi with an EF100mm f/2 USM lens attached).
Why the huge difference? It's the size of the sensor:
(Again, click to enlarge)
The bottom row shows common sensor sizes found in point-and-shoot cameras: tiny! Something that small with a decent number of megapixels must have really small photosites to accommodate all of the megapixels. Really small photosites result in weak signals. Weak signals have trouble being clean and strong, so they show a lot of "noise" and don't capture a nice range of lights and darks.
Then there's the whole issue of lenses. With a DSLR, you can attach the perfect lens for whatever it is you're shooting. With a point-and-shoot, you're stuck with one lens, period. So a DSLR is therefore a lot more fun, since different lenses enable different creative possibilities, and it has the potential to produce top-notch quality, if you invest in the right lenses.
The new Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR is supposed to be quite good.
DPR Article
Gallery with pre-production camera.
I'd much prefer the LX3 over the Canon G10, but this Fuji F200EXR is very impressive according to all reports and images, particularly in low light. Just look at the 1st and 2nd photos in the gallery. For a p&s...... Anyway, it may even be better than my Fuji F31fd 6 MP, which is the best I've seen so far in low light (although it handles poorly). At ISO 800, it was just a step down from my old Nikon D50 DSLR. This F200EXR appears to be as good or better.
The LX3 was decent, but this F200EXR can take images at ISO 1600 that are better than what I get with my F31fd, although I really haven't taken a lot of ISO 1600 shots with my camera, so I can't be sure.
DPR Article
Gallery with pre-production camera.
I'd much prefer the LX3 over the Canon G10, but this Fuji F200EXR is very impressive according to all reports and images, particularly in low light. Just look at the 1st and 2nd photos in the gallery. For a p&s......
Anyway, it may even be better than my Fuji F31fd 6 MP, which is the best I've seen so far in low light (although it handles poorly). At ISO 800, it was just a step down from my old Nikon D50 DSLR. This F200EXR appears to be as good or better.The LX3 was decent, but this F200EXR can take images at ISO 1600 that are better than what I get with my F31fd, although I really haven't taken a lot of ISO 1600 shots with my camera, so I can't be sure.
i'd suggest you choose between Nikon D40, Canon XS, or Olympus E420. maybe Sony a350 (or whatever the lower-end one is).
The new Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR is supposed to be quite good.
i have high hopes for this camera, too...though i'll never buy it unless it supports RAW.
Yes, of course they do. Any DSLR plus its kit lens will autofocus. There are some vintage lenses that will not autofocus on modern DSLRs, and there are some modern lenses that will not autofocus on Nikon's lower-end DSLRs, but in general, autofocus is standard.