With regret, I finally had to admit that I probably will not buy the Olympus E-P1. Between this review and the $800 tag it just does not seem like a sensible choice right now.
However, I still need to replace the old FE2. Legacy glass is not an issue for me. Rather, the most important point is to find something that I can have at hand more often than I would hump around a DSLR, but which can take memorable pics with full creative control. I’m also not going to pay anything more than $600 at the absolute extreme. As far as I can tell, given these relatively tight parameters, the field narrows down to the Panasonic LX3 versus the Canon G10. Whatever happens I will definitely buy one of these in the near future.
This is an open thread for photo nerds who read this blog to go to town. Don’t worry too much when the convo inevitably wanders; other readers will benefit from your experience even if I don’t.
In return I promise a series of posts on how to get started with your own homebrew-related program activities, maybe starting this weekend.
***Update***
This comparison tool helps a lot. As far as I can tell ISO noise is practically a non-issue between the LX3 and the G10, although the G10 seems like a major step up from the G9. The E-P1 absolutely kills them both. Lord give me strength.
General Winfield Stuck
If you wanted a small dslr for a decent price circa 400 bucks, then it’s hard to beat a Canon xt or xti. I have an XT with a 170 dollar sigma zoom that takes some decent pics..
Otherwise it’s hard to beat a Canon Powershot, though creative freedom is limited compared to a DSLR.
Doctor Gonzo
I’ve heard good things about the G10, although I’ve never used one myself.
kvenlander
Wow, General, those are amazing.
General Winfield Stuck
@kvenlander:
Thank you.
Kifaru
I have a Canon G3 (I know, it’s old). It works well and I have printed up some great 8x10s (close ups of flowers)…and it is only a 4 megapixel:) I actually bought it after the G5 came out because it had better reviews…I got it cheap:)
Pauline
Has anyone had any experience with the Canon A590IS?
I am still clinging on to my Olympus slr, but would like to get some slightly above normal entry-level d-camera. What I want is something I can take closeups with that are decent.
Tim: Sorry I’m not familiar with the Olympus E-P1. What I want is something I can at least set ppi on…not have everything be at a
set 72. I’m used to scanning film at whatever ppi I wish. Yes creative
control.
Good luck with your selection! So hard with things you have to get the feel of before you know if they are right for you…or not.
gray lensman
I can recommend the G10. I can do serious work with it and it fits in a small shoulder bag. I have a Canon 5D and now use it mostly for long lens work. The G10 feels like a real camera, much better than the G9 which I also have. The 28mm lens is very useful and great for travel.
I have taken some still life pictures (like ebay photos) using light boxes for lighting. A local camera store use these pics to sell the G10.
Tim F.
@General Winfield Stuck:
Do you sell prints? I’m not kidding. The color composition here is fantastic.
Mr Furious
You cannot go wrong with either of those cameras. All of the pro shooters I work with who have a small camera have one of those two or a G9.
The Canons allow some add-on lens accessories as well which is nice—macros, ultra-wides, and the ability to accept filters with an adapter.
The Panasonic is supposed to be better at higher ISOs.
dpreview.com breaks down the pros and cons of each camera. You should probably assess how you think you’ll want to use it and apply that to your decision….
Mr Furious
Try to find a store that has both for you to handle and try out.
General Winfield Stuck
@Tim F.:
I have an account at Imagekind, but the prices they set may be a little high, and I never took the time to figure out how to reset them a bit lower. I will do so in the next few days,
WereBear
Really gorgeous, General.
gnomedad
@General Winfield Stuck:
I’m seeing higher prices than that. Are you talking discontinued? Used? Without lens?
Gorgeous photos!
Ron Beasley
You might think about the Olympus SP590UZ. With a 26X zoom who needs a DSLR and it’s under $500.
Blurkee
I have the G9. It looks and feels like a real camera. It has a viewfinder, real dials on top to make some simple adjustments, and easy to use manual settings. It has some shortcomings, shutter lag for instance. But the fact that I can carry it with me in a pocket makes up for it. A friend has the G10 and loves it. A lot of bang for the buck in this sucker.
mcd410x
as an admitted camera snob, i don’t understood the purpose of a 15 megapixel point and shoot. seems well past the point of diminishing returns. unless you’re going to make posters. and wouldn’t you be using your dslr?
anyone want to enlighten me?
General Winfield Stuck
@gnomedad:
I bought my xt a year ago and searched a lot to find that price. That is camera body only, here is a google for BO xt.
They were replaced with the XTi and XSi that are higher pixel and cost more, but no better in image quality than 8.0 XT
arguingwithsignposts
Our photo professor swears by the G10 as a point-and-shoot alternative to the full slr kit. and he’s got an mfa, so i take his word.
[email protected]
@Pauline,
The ppi has nothing to do with printing. It is the default for jpg images, but isn’t in any way limiting to quality. I’m going to use some very simple numbers for an example so I don’t have to get out the calculator. :-)
A 1440px x 1440 px image would be 20 inches by 20 inches at 72ppi. The same image with no other changes than setting the print size would print at 10 inches by 10 inches at 144dpi. (there is a difference between pixels per inch – ppi and dots per inch – dpi depending upon the output device – monitor or printer) The only thing that matters is the overall dimensions. A 10 megapixel camera that uses a 1/2/3″ type cmos sensor records at about 3648 x 2736. An 8″ x 10″ printed from that image would be roughly 350dpi even if the exif on the image says it is a 72ppi jpg.
[email protected]
John,
If you are going to be taking lots of pictures of Lily running around then you will want something that focuses fairly quick. On the other hand, if you are going to be taking pictures of Tunch then you don’t need that focus speed.
Only a dSLR will give you really fast focusing. The problem with that is the weight and bulk of the camera. If it is too much of a nusiance then you end up leaving it at home, so that faster focusing doesn’t do you much good. If you are going to be taking many of your pictures while you are walking on the trail then a long zoom will come in handy. The G10 looks like a great camera, although I haven’t had a chance to try one out yet. The one thing I don’t like about it is that the longest focal point is the equivalent of 140mm on a 35mm camera. The Powershot SX1 IS is a 20x zoom that goes out to 560mm.
Olympus also has a good ultra zoom that goes from about 28mm to over 500mm. I’ve used one quite a bit and found that it took very good pictures. The only drawbacks are focusing speed and noise at higher ISO. But then, both of those are a problem with anything other than dSLRs.
Dan
I’ve owned a G9 and upgraded to a G10 a few months ago. Both are solid, but I much prefer the G10 for it’s diminished shutter lag time and 28mm wide angle lens setting. (The Panasonic looks great, but I have no personal experience.)
With whatever route you choose, spend time to study the manual and to take test shots. I didn’t do that when I got my G9 and I made a lot of subpar shots.
Roger Moore
@mcd410x:
I don’t think it’s fair to call something like the G10 a point and shoot. When I see “point and shoot”, I think of a dumbed down camera that has eliminated most of the photographic controls. Cameras like the G10 and LX3 are closer to what they called “bridge cameras” a few years ago: real photographers’ cameras with serious photographic controls. And megapixel mania is less of a big deal than people make you think. The extra pixels can capture some extra detail under good conditions, and you can always downsample to regain S/N under adverse conditions.
Stannate
My imaginary wallet is tempted by the Olympus EP-1, but my real wallet can’t afford it right now. The follow-up to the EP-1, and its Panasonic G1/GH1 cousins, may become a future temptation depending on how well the Micro Four Thirds format matures. So far, M43 looks to have made a major first step in offering an option in between a DSLR and a point-and-shoot that has no equivalent among the Canon/Nikon duo.
What would work for me is a camera along the lines of the Sigma DP2, though without its significant design flubs and sunshine-only performance hindrances. I’ve read rumors that a Canon G10 successor could feature its DSLR-sized sensor in a body not much larger than its current iteration. If that were to happen, I think Sigma would end up reverting to lenses only, and the M43 format could suffer a significant blow.
trollhattan
Hi Tim,
A lot hinges on how much importance you place on wide angle. If that’s key, then your choice quickly narrows to the LX3 and the Ricoh GX200—24mm vs. 28mm is a vast creative gap. As to the G10 vs. LX3, the G10 has quicker “reflexes”, a (crude) optical viewfinder versus none for the LX3, and more direct manual control access via dials (the LX3 relies on a tiny joystick). The LX3 has the much wider, faster lens but less tele range. I prefer the LX3 colors and with firmware 1.3, better white balance. Both do RAW. IMHO the G10 overreaches with the pixel count.
The Ricoh is the quirky option, but has a dazzlingly clever accessory electronic viewfinder that, frankly, the rest of the bunch should shamelessly rip off. It’s absolutely the best option for composing with a compact digicam in direct sunlight, when the LCD panel is either washed out or reflecting your own beautiful self back at you.
If video is at all important, LX3 is the clear winner. The GX200 counters with a clever intervalometer for time lapse work.
Finally, size. The Canon is about twice the volume of the other two, but has no protruding lens to snag pockets.
Faced with all these riches I chose the LX3 and don’t regret the decision. The biggest surprise was how much I use the switchable aspect ratio, which is simply brilliant. As to the Oly µ4/3 option, I’m content to wait ’til next spring when they issue the “pro” body with EVF and have a couple more lenses. It’s going to be an incredibly popular system that Canikon are scrambling to counter.
MTiffany
I despise haggling in almost every circumstance, but if this is something you really want, I say find your inner Monty Hall. You only live once. You’ll still wind up paying the full $800 anyway, but see what kind of free extras you can get out of the deal, eg extended warranty, replacement glass agreement, doo-dads and gew-gaws and other photographicy thingy-whatsits of which I know little. It’s a tough market for buyers and sellers. Commissions pay tuitions, I hear tell.
jeffreyw
I’ve been using an older Olympus C3000Z and was fairly happy with it, till the General linked to his Flicker stream of hummers.
I decided to go with a SLR, and went to Ken Rockwell’s site to see what he was recommending. He was all “get a Nikon D40 and don’t look back”. A few days bidding at Ebay got me a used one for $330 with the standard kit lens, an 18-55mm. Bought another lens, the 55-200 zoom so I can try for some of those awesome hummer shots. Alas, all we get are the Ruby Throats, and not a mountain anywhere near.
garyb50
From everything I’ve read either of those choices (G10 & LX3) are great cameras. Shutter lag is the only drawback but if you don’t use a DSLR you get used to it pretty fast. You just need to anticipate.
First time I shot a DSLR after having only a point and shoot was literally shocking. I fired off 5 shots inadvertently like a machine gun. It was incredible.
JeremyH
I have a Panasonic LX3, and I love it. Highly recommended. It’s killer feature is the lens, in my opinion. Very wide angle/wide aperture for a compact: 24mm/f2.8 equiv at the wide end, which is rare.
The other big benefits are that it can shoot RAW, and it has much better low light/high ISO performance than any other compact I’ve tried (although it can’t hold a candle to my Nikon D700 for serious high ISO work, of course). Other features like manual focus mode, external flash, etc. are icing on the cake, but I don’t really use them myself.
The only drawback to the LX3 for me is that it’s a little too bulky to easily fit in a pocket – that lens sticks out a bit. Otherwise, it’s a great camera for when lugging an SLR is not an option.
As others have said above (and which I’ll repeat): don’t pay too much attention to megapixels. The sensors of modern compacts have now gotten to the point where the sensors are so tiny that more pixels you cram into them, the more noise and interference you get.
More pixels, inferior image? Counterintuitive in some ways – but with the current state of sensor technology, it’s very true for compacts. And doubly so in lower light conditions. Full frame SLRs still have room for further megapixel bloat, but we’ll probably see the limits of that being hit within the next 5 years, if not sooner.
Anyway – with the LX3, Panasonic made a conscious choice to stop (or at least pause) the megapixel race to focus on improving the quality of the pixels. One of the ways they did this was simply to increase the sensor size to reduce noise.
All other things being equal, I dare say that a 16×20″ print from a 10MP LX3 will usually look better than one from almost any 15MP compact out there.
Serious photographers obviously concur – earlier this year, you couldn’t get an LX3 for love nor money because pros and keen amateurs scooped them all up and Panasonic was left scrambling to ramp up production. I think they’re easy to find again now, though.
JeremyH
@ jeffreyw: I would take most of what Ken Rockwell says with a pinch of salt. Not that he’s wrong about the D40, it’s a perfectly decent camera. But he certainly has his biases and his blind spots and his hobbyhorses and his flavors of the week, and… you get the picture.
Oh, and he kinda sucks as a photographer. Which would be fine – I’m no Ansel Adams either – except that he does pontificate so…
Another site worth reading for good Nikon-centric equipment reviews is Thom Hogan’s site. (www.bythom.com) He’s worth taking much more seriously than Rockwell, in my opinion. He doesn’t play to the galleries as much. But Rockwell is entertaining, I’ll give him that.
Spiny Norman
I have a G9. It simply stopped working one sunny day and Canon told me to pay $170 to fix the thing or f$^# off. A postdoc in my lab, meanwhile, has an LX3 and it’s a nicer camera all around, between the wider aspect ratio and the wider lens.
I’d get the LX3.
Nash
Funny, it takes this post to transform me from lurker to poster at this wonderful blog.
G10, G10, G10.
Cannot go wrong with this thing.
jhaygood
if you tend to the wide angle side of the scale – go LX3. also, between the f2 lens and the image stabilization, you can shoot in crazy low light with really decent quality with no flash – invaluable for me.
if you can’t live without telephoto, then go G10. but the LX3 is really great if you are a wide to normal shooter.
warning, they both still have shutter lag that makes you want to scream – but the smaller cameras are all that way…
Glocksman
@Pauline:
I do, and it’s a nice little inexpensive camera with options for aperture priority, shutter priority, fully automatic, or full manual controls, though there is one minor caveat.
Due to the small size of the battery contacts on the door, the camera gives off a lot of false ‘low battery’ warnings.
The ‘fix’ is to just slide the cover back and forth rapidly about 10 times to clear away the corrosion buildup.
Crashman06
Not camera related, I know, but since you mentioned homebrew….
Tried to make my first tonight. A Belgian style Dubbel. Was a bit harder than I thought it would be. I tried to sanitize as best as I could, but I’m afraid I exposed it to too many variables. I hope it comes out OK, though I suppose I won’t know for about a month.
Fingers crossed.
shoutingattherain
@jeffreyw:
Yeah. I love my D-40.
Since 1978 I have had nothing but Olympus cams (OM-1, OM-2, C3030, C740, C745?). They all took very acceptable pictures. I travel a bit and they NEVER let me down. Loved ’em, but the D-40 is a real step up.
Here are some of my pix
taken at my winter home, Koh Jum – Thailand.
And my other site, as well.
** Atanarjuat **
Tim, I’ve already recommended the Panny LX3 in your prior camera thread vis-a-vis the Olympus E-P1, for all the reasons listed by others above.
I agree that the Canon G10 is a very good camera, but the LX3 does better in low light in comparison due to the uniquely designed 16:9 sensor that features less noise with 10MP vs. the 15MP of the G10.
But that’s only part of what makes the LX3 so nice (and hard to find — the black model is constantly sold out or sold at list price, as you’ve likely seen). However, rather than laud the special “3D” look of the LX3 imagery and praise what’s already been praised above, I think that Mr. Furious’ advice in comment #10 is the most sensible route of all, if you can manage it.
You wouldn’t buy a car without test-driving it first, and I think the same is just as valid for high-end compact cameras like the G10 or the LX3 (or the Ricoh GX200, for that matter, as long as you’re comparing).
-A
bob h
The Nikon D40 seems to represent extraordinary value to me.
superking
I have a G9 and I like it a lot. It goes everywhere with me–constantly in my bag. That doesn’t mean I use it everyday, but it’s definitely portable. It has an adapter that will allow you to put lenses on it, and I don’t know how that works. My one complaint is that you can’t really get large aperture close-ups. With the small attached lense, you will lose some control since it doesn’t let in enough light under many circumstances. If you’re cool with that, then it is truly a great camera. I assume the G10 isn’t changed that much.
BretH
Good review of the G10 here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm
HeartlandLiberal
Might as well mention I have a Pentax K100D digital SLR, which I use primarily for macro photography. I then bought the K10D SLR when it came out. It is a 10.2 megapixel. Pentax now is out with the K20D, at about 16 mexagixels.
I have found the options and controls on the Pentax to be very logical and well laid-out, and you put the camera in ‘point and shoot’ mode and let it do all the thinking, or select from a variety of settings allowing override capability at various levels all the way to total manual control. There are three auto-focus options to choose from easily accessible on the upper left top corner of the cameras, which helps as shooting situations change and require.
You can flip from auto-focus to manual with an easily available switch, yet while in manual focus ask for audible feedback of whether the camera thinks you are focused. The camera allows selection easily from a wide range of light environments, all the way from auto white balance to choosing based on current lighting, to setting white balance by having the camera read the current light. This has worked will in my macro photography using a gray card and a muli-color strip to reset auto white balance as needed.
I use an expensive Pentax macro lens for close up work, but made the mistaking of trying to ‘save’ a few bucks by going with a SIGMA zoom telephoto, and have been incredibly disappointed with it. Within the next six months I am going to purchase two new zooms that Pentax has come out with since the camera bodies were purchases, and just pay the extra few hundred dollars for the quality.
If you are doing super fast sports photography, the Pentax might not be the camera for you, it has a reputation for being a little slower in such shooting situations than the competition, but supposedly the K20D improves, and the next generation should be even better.
When I started to go digital SLS, I read reviews, and although I had had an early Nikon CoolPix 900, which was OK, but slow, a point and shooter, the reviews of the Nikon digital SLRs were devastating across the board in terms of how poorly they performed in environments that were the least bit humid. There were multiple tales online by people reporting having their vacation ruined by their spanking new Nikon just locking up and refusing to work while on their cruise, or in warm and humid climes, and Nikon refused to warrant any responsibility for the problem.
Whatever you buy, read all the reviews and commentary in forums you can find first. That is the best advice anyone can give.
Oh, and be aware that Samsung and Pentax digital SLRs are designed as a cooperative venture for past several years, although there are rumors that may be breaking up, don’t know for sure yet.
mistermix
I may be in a similar spot as you, Tim, if you like to do a lot of available light indoor photography.
I bought a G5 years ago and sold it in a few months for two reasons: poor low light performance and shutter lag. I replaced it with a Rebel: loved the low light performance and shutter performance, hated the weight. Since then, I’ve been looking for a carry-around camera that has decent low-light performance.
I was hoping that some camera manufacturer would put a decent-sized sensor along with a f2 or f1.4 lens in a small body. This seems like such a no-brainer, because the physics of a small sensor makes it almost impossible for it to be any good in low light with the usual f2.8 or f3.5 lens that they put in these little cameras.
The LX3 and E-P1 are promising, but they’re either hard to get and therefore overpriced (LX3) or a first model that needs improvement (E-P1). So the search continues. I hope you post your experience with whatever camera you buy.
Awklib
Anyone have a link to reviews (good or bad) on the Canon T1i? Or personal experience? I just bought one of these and it is in the mail, but I’m a total n00b when it comes to photography.
Emma
I have the D-40. Chose it primarily because I have great glass from my 6006, but has turned out to be fantastic. Went on a photo shoot in Scotland with it, and even with three lenses and a tripod the kit was manageable. You can get great deals on them these days because Nikon just released new models.
dmsilev
One problem with the LX3 is that Panasonic seems to have mis-estimated the demand, and they’re consequently hard to find. If you need a camera quickly, that’s something to be aware of.
Other than that, the choice between the LX3 and the G10 really comes down to whether wide angle or tele is more important to you.
-dms
Bernie
Go for the G10. I’ve had one for about six months now and I’m very happy with it and the images it shoots. One of our neighbors was so impressed with it she bought one on the spur of the moment a few weeks ago just before she left for a hiking trip in Nova Scotia. My partner shoots with a Nikon D80 and he’s duly impressed with the G10.
Graeme
Get the Canon.
Thomas Levenson
I’ve said this here before, but if you want to go real quirky, take a look at a used Leica Digilux 2/Panasonic LC 1. They were both discontinued in 2006, and sold for well over $1K when you could get them new. They now go for $600 or so for the Leica badged camera (which I have) and a bit less for the Panny.
The two are nearly identical under the skin; it is said that the Panny has a different processing algorithm for its jpegs, but they are very similar.
My Leica is the most fun I’ve had with a camera since I started shooting for two reasons. The first is a truly first class lens, 28mm-90mm equivalent Vario Summicron — f2-f2.8. It’s just wonderful, and is better than what you get on either the G10 or the LX3 in pure optical terms. It’s mated to a sensor that is somewhat larger than the two compacts mentioned, and which has a lower pixel count — 5MP. The result is a very low noise image.
I haven’t found the low pixel count to be a problem up to 11-14 at least. (I haven’t pushed further.)
The second reason the camera has been such fun is that it is laid out and feels like a real, old fashioned camera. It has fabulous controls, real aperture and focus rings, along with a traditional shutter speed dial on the top of the camera, a tolerable (just) LCD and a very useful electronic viewfinder. It will go from completely manual to completely automatic in its controls, and I find myself mostly shooting in aperture priority to take as much advantage of the lens’ bokeh and depth of field playgrounds. It’s just fun (and very familiar feeling) to use.
It has drawbacks: it is bulkier than both the cameras you are looking at, and the ep-1, for that matter. It has no RAW buffer, so while its RAW images are fabulous, you have to wait 6 seconds for the image to write before you can shoot again. (It has a very good jpeg engine in it, so I mostly shoot at the highest quality jpeg setting, which is perfectly fine for write and reshoot times.) It’s not as all-round fast or flexible as much cheaper newer point and shoots. It’s lens range is what it is — not as wide as the LX3 (or if you want the warm fuzzies of the red dot, the Leica d-4, costing 2-300 bucks more for a virtually identical camera)…and not as long as the G-10. It’s used.
But its a really nice camera to hold in the hand. I’ve got a couple of pictures from it up on my “bees of brookline” blog post (real estate hell) that are completely unpost-processed: http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/the-bees-of-brookline-real-estate-schadenfreude-post/
More better — take a look at the work of perhaps the most serious digilux 2 user working today, Danish photographer/writer Thorsten Overgaard: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_digilux2.html.
Other slightly cool features of the camera? It has a two position flash which, while not that strong, does let you use a bounced flash — which I find very useful. Oh, and it has an almost perfectly silent shutter.
It would be an odd choice, and it really isn’t a pocket camera: you carry this on your shoulder or around your neck. (It’s not heavy, but it’s not small). So it isn’t in my backpack all the time (I’ve a Canon A-series with a six x zoom and very good image quality for the price for that). But it makes taking pictures a real pleasure.
(One last note: should you actually choose to follow this very eccentric advice: make sure you get a camera that has had the sensor replaced by Leica. There was a bad batch of sensors int he original production run and both Leica and Panasonic replace them free (still do — well after all warranties have run). I got my used version from PopFlash in CA, fresh from Leica, complete with a one year warranty. Most of the used ones you see on Ebay and the like specify whether or not the sensor has been fixed.)
David
Sorry for the length of this, but as someone who’s looking at the EP-1, and who has quite a lot of experience with the other cameras being discussed here (as well as large-format, medium format, and 35mm film), I thought I’d put in my 2 cents.
I have a Panasonic LX3 — which competes with the G10 in bright daylight, but really does far better than the G10 in any kind of lower light than this. I.e., it swayed me over the G10 because I don’t shoot constantly in bright daylight, and I dislike the deer-in-the-headlights look of flash (unless there’s no choice). To anyone who’s used both cameras for any period of time (and I have), this becomes clear. Read the dpreview.com review of the LX3 (and while you’re at it, that of the G10). They also have a comparison review of 5 or 6 cameras on that site, all within a similar high-end bracket. You’ll get a sense of the cameras — the tests are pretty exhaustive as far as these things go. I like dpreview because, though they don’t pull punches, they review cameras curved toward their intended market. The market for the LX3 and the G10 is pretty demanding and critical.
The LX3 — as has been suggested already — was designed for people who already have a DSLR but would like something small to carry around. Like the G10 audience, but Panasonic wisely cut the megapixel count (10 vs. Canon’s 15 I think off-hand), and used a relatively large sensor as well, so noise would be kept down. This is a big distinction between the two cameras. The result is sharper images in low light, that can produce prints that are surprisingly big compared to those cameras with larger megapixel counts. The LX3 is the best low-light shooter right now in cameras with this sort of tiny sensor. Having said that, the LX3 has its own shortcomings — it drives me crazy sometimes, which is why I’m looking hard at the EP1 — and as great as the image quality is for a small camera, it’s still lousy compared to DSLRs.
Seems to me the EP-1 addresses the most problematic technological aspect of small cameras: image quality. It would be unfair to compare its images to the G10 or the LX3, because it’s a different kind of small camera. It’s meant to go head to head with DSLRs, though because it is so small, it will have its own shortcomings. These don’t really surprise me, considering everything it does accomplish for the money.
I think it’s interesting to note that Ken Tanaka’s review (the one John references) uses primarily a Leica M8 for comparison (!!) Look up the cost of an M8, then look up the cost of a Leica Summicron. I think the combination retails at over $5000.00. This is a pretty lopsided comparison. I think it says something about the EP-1 — And for all the EP-1’s faults, there appear to be many workarounds for those interested in finally having a small camera that doesn’t produce photographs that look like bad watercolors in low light.
Okay, again, sorry for the length of this. Like I said, just my 2 cents. I’m considering the EP-1 and thought I’d share my reasons. For what it’s worth, buying a small camera is an exercise in trading-off (which is to say, disappointment, regardless of what you pick). If it’s between the G10 and the LX3 — both excel in certain, though different, ways. I’d leave the EP-1 to it’s own category, perhaps comparing it with the much larger Panasonic G1 (or GH1). Of course, in the end it’s what you capture, I guess, not so much what you use for the purpose. Considering you have a model like Lily — you’re already 99% of the way to extraordinary!
Thomas Levenson
Re: ISO performance and the search for strength. Lighten up, Tim. All of these are fine cameras. They will all make the best pictures that your eye is capable of finding. They’re all fun to use from what I hear.
I would say, though, that I had thought I would buy an EP 1 as soon as they became available and I backed off too because of the AF concerns and the lack of viewfinder. The fact that it does not happily take legacy lenses, at least by some reports also weighs on me. I’m waiting for the promised semi-pro version of this camera.
If you want the optical/imaging performance of the micro 4/3 system in your price range, though, you could do much, much worse than a Panny G1. Again, not pocketable, but a very, very capable camera — and every lens you buy would work on a next gen. digital Pen.
But above all relax. All of these tools will make fabulous images. The best advice I was ever given was to pick the camera that fits best in your hands, and stop worrying about anything else.
** Atanarjuat **
Tim, that dkamera.de comparison site seems to be targeted toward pixel-peepers perfectionists, not photographers who actually use the tools to capture a particular subject.
That being said, I did my own side-by-side comparisons last fall, and, contrary to what dkamera.de indicates with their high ISO analysis, the LX3 did perform better in low light in terms of image quality and noise (which, at ISO 1600 in the “Dynamic B&W” mode, looks like Kodak Tri-X grain, which is rather pleasing in a retro way). If I had the money, I would have kept both the G10 and the LX3, as they both have their own strengths that others above have pointed out rather accurately. But since I could only settle on one high-end compact camera (and my wife would have killed me if I kept two!), I stayed with the LX3 and haven’t regretted it since. Practically every photo has been a keeper.
Besides, when I need speedy performance and great high ISO quality, that’s what my Canon 1D MkIII is for. *wink*
To the guy who recommended the Panny G1. You’re a real mofo. I want that camera badly, but I just can’t justify it. Too many toys!
-A
P.S. I absolutely agree with comment #48, especially the last sentence.
P.P.S. Real-world use of the models under consideration:
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/panasonic/dmc-lx3/
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/powershot_g10/
Tim O
I was a loyal Nikon 35mm SLR user and still kept my N80 up until a few weeks ago. But for work and play, I’ve had a steady stream of Canon Powershots and have been very happy. I’ve had a S1is, which took great pics and excellent underwater shots AND video with an underwater housing.
I have an S3is for work I have a bakery and I take all my wedding cake shots with it. I’ve had professional photographers ask me who does my camera work. Believe me, I give all the credit to the camera.
I bought my daughter the SX110 and she loves it. She’s had nikon point and shoots and really didn’t like them and they didn’t last.
I wouldn’t be afraid to jump into the G-10. I’ve played with a friend’s G-10 and was impressed with the flexibility and the Canon system is easy to navigate.
Here’s another couple of reviews:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/g10.htm
there are sample pics from yosemite on that review
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/canon_g10.html
This one has sample pics of the same scenes on all the reviews so you can compare directly.
in the $500 to $600 range Nikon d-40 it’s compact and light and the canon SX1-is, nice with lot’s of zoom and manual control options
Good luck!
mcd410x
@Roger Moore: I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t see the point of “bridge” cameras. Sensor size (and type) is more important than pure megapixels and the main point is either way you’re limited by the quality of the lens.
The price of a digital camera is based mainly on sensor, LCD screen size, software, autofocus complexity and lens. The differences between the $500 Canon G10 and $150 A1000 are, as far as I can tell: longer focal length on the long end (30.5 (f4.5) vs. 24.8 (f5.6)), megapixels (15 vs. 10; both are CCD sensors — canon doesn’t list the size of either sensor), the ability to use more manipulative shooting modes Av Tv & M on the G10, a larger LCD (3.0 vs. 2.5in).
Only the buyer can determine whether the extra $350 is money well spent. To me, no.
@JeremyH: Great post.
Tom Fitz
I have gotten good/great pix with my Rebel, but take many, many more with my compact just because it’s so much easier to have with me. If you can find a “new old stock” Powershot A630 you should give it a try. When I bought mine, I liked its feel better than the G9. YMMV.
mary t
I have absolutely no idea what caliber of camera you need, but we have a sony cyber-shot 13.6 mpx with a carl zeiss/ vario-tessar lens and we love, love, love, love, love this thing. Fits in your pocket, takes amazing photos.
Pauline
John: Sure, the ppi has to do with printing. If you are printing a jpeg with 72 res as opposed to a jpeg with a 400 res, then you are BOUND to get a finer line with the 400 res.
But… most of my use of a camera is not for printing images, but for posting to websites, and I want a higher quality image with a better definition. 72 just doesn’t do it for me, personally. Regardless of the image size.
Glocksman: THANK YOU! for your comments re your little Canon.
I’ve read everything posted in every forum I can find, but your comments were not duplicated anywhere.
MIke Ryan
The Canon G-10 is all you need! Set it at ‘P’ and low ISO and ‘Super Fine’ and get great images.
Mike
Tim O
Go to the comparison site and plug in the Nikon D5000 with any other camera and compare . . .if you can!
Clear photos with great detail!
I know what I’m getting!
Uh no I don’t work for Nikon.
JR in WV
Hi:
I’m kind of a Nikon guy, even tho they’re tricky to use some of the – how to put it – tricky features. I started with a Coolpix 995, even though the twisty two-part body was hard for me to see the benefits of until I used it.
Then I finally got tired of pushing the shutter button and waiting and waiting and … finally it takes a picture that wasn’t the one I wanted. So I bought a Nikon D70, and a Micro and a long zoom and, love love love it. But it’s big.
A friend came by my office one day, and he had a new Lumix. Japanese innards with Leica glass!!! Perfect!
Any time you fit into a category where you can get Leica lenses (or Ziess, as mentioned above with Sony electronics, except then you have to wonder if Sony will decide the pictures belong to them for some DMR reason) you owe it to yourself to do it.
Get the Leica -uh, I mean the Panasonic. You won’t be sorry. The lens quality can’t be beat, even by my Nikkor Micro, which is a VERY good lens. And the Leica focuses down to 1 cm, too!!! For flower innards, or crystals on a rock, or a pretty tree toad…
Have fun. I love needing a new camera!
JR
Glocksman
@Pauline:
I’m surprised you didn’t find the battery contact bit mentioned because I found it when searching for the reason why I’d only get a few dozen pics in before the batteries ‘died’.
That said, when I run the CHDK* firmware addon, the camera indicates I have 80% battery left when the standard firmware is flashing ‘low battery’ warnings.
I suspect it’s a bug in the Canon firmware for that particular camera that hopefully has been fixed in newer versions.
*the main thing I use CHDK for is the ability to shoot RAW images and then apply processing in Photoshop.
It’s a wonderful tool for Canon cameras, especially those that don’t come ‘stock’ with the added features.
GusThePrimate
I have a Ricoh GX200. It’s a fine camera. Some folks take issue with its performance above ISO 400, but I seldom shoot above 400. Also have the viewfinder, which I think is far easier than using the infernal LCD on the back.
If you aren’t wedded to digital, you can pick up a Olympus OM body, 2-3 lenses, and have it overhauled, all for less than you’d pay for an EP-1. That’s what I did. Got an OM-2N, and 35/2, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 lenses. About the same size as a Leica M body (perhaps not so tall) with one of the biggest and brightest viewfinder images known to Man.
Mr Furious
Tim, based on that comparison tool, it’s not even a contest—the Olympus blows the other two cameras away. At that level of pixel-peeping, it compares well with DSLRs.
My advice? Hold out for the upcoming model which may add a viewfinder and improved AF.
If you cannot wait, in the meantime go to ebay and find yourself a used G9 or D40 for $350 and you can sell it for the same when it’s time to buy the new Olympus.
Reviews and pixel-level analysis are only worth so much though… Go to Flickr and view some photos based on camera used and see the results people are actually getting.
For the hell of it, here’s my Flickr page. Everything shot with a Nikon D80.
timmuggs
I have a Panasonic FX100 (12 MP) and a Panasonic FZ150 (14MP and I like them a lot.
They both have a Leica zoom lens, 28mm to 100mm equivalent, which is perfect for my purposes. The FX150 has ability to capture in RAW format, but I do not use it.
Both suck in low light, the images are noisy. But in bright light they are superb, considering this is a P&S — although they are sophisticated point & shoots.
Here is why I love them: I can carry them in my pocket. And they have macro lens capability. And the fotos in bright light can be blown up to 12×16 and look terrific — they look great at 16×20 also.
I’m an old fart who spent a the 1970s carrying a Leica M4, Nikon & later a Leica CL around with me. I eventually settled on the Leica CL with a 28mm Summicron lens as the setup for me — palmable, 28mm lens gives a lot of leeway in terms of focus. I eventually got to the point where I could get a shot without looking in the viewfinder; I knew about what the lens would capture if I held it at hip level, and depth of field was enough so focus could be estimated.
Then I got involved in career etc, and gave up my B&W darkroom and eventually all photography for about 20 years.
When I gained more time, I got the Panasonic FX100 mostly because of the Leica lens and the in-built macro capability. Plus, I love the wide angle views I get from 28mm, and 100mm is perfect for portraits.
I love these cameras. I know that technically, SLR digitals are better. I know that the tiny sensor gives lots of noise in low light situations, and it is even present in sunlight in some situations.
But the essence of taking good fotos for me is having the camera there when the foto is there. These cameras I can carry in my pocket, or unobtrusively in my hand. One is always with me. It is liberating. I can take as many shots as I want, rather than trying to see the perfect one cuz I have only 36 shots on a roll, and then I’d have to develop rolls and print contact sheets to see what works. I see what works on the screen, and delete bad ones at no cost in time or $$.
So for me, I like P&S, I like having the camera with me always, I like not sticking a machine in peoples faces to get a shot. And in macro, I like being able to reach into a cactus, for example, to get shots you would not get with a SLR because the camera body is just too big to capture the angle.
So that is my perspective. I am agnostic as to which camera to buy, I know Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, even Fuji, make good P&S cameras. Panasonic with the Leica lenses has an advantage in the wide angle to telephoto zoom lenses they have that also have macro capability — it is all about carrying less stuff with me.
I would rather be there with a camera than have a foto pass me by because the camera is at home or in the backpack. The interesting thing is that the more I carry the P&S, and the more shots I take, mostly wasted shots or experiments, the more good fotos I see. It develops my eye to take a lot of shots and experiment.
Not everyone will agree, but that is what works for me.
Good luck, and don’t spend too much money. You get more good fotos from taking lots of them than from spending $$ on professional equipment.
.
Mr Furious
Excellent point timmuggs.
It’s a decided disadvantage carrying around my SLR kit…Even on an outing, there’s always the “which lens do I bring?” moment…
I stick DSLR because professionally I have too, but there are plenty of times, even for work, that a really nice P&S would suffice.
John B.
I endorse the ep-1. Speaking as a long-time slr shooter, I can understand some of the issues raised by the TOP review. However, I got one for my wife, because she wanted to move up from the P&S world, and it is stellar. The autofocus issues are relative: sure, it’s slower than my SLR, but it’s a hell of a lot faster than my wife’s old Canon SD whatever. The picture quality is a huge leap forward for her, and she’s just having a blast.
[email protected]
@Pauline,
I guess I didn’t explain it very well. Yes, it makes a difference what the dpi setting is when you print your image, but it makes no difference what that is set to when it is captured by a camera sensor or opened in photoshop on a computer. The sensor in a Nikon D2x is only 1″ wide. It can capture an image that is 4288 pixels wide, so you could say it has 4288ppi. But if you open that image in Photoshop or look at the exif for that image it might say it is a 72ppi jpg. I’ll say it again, that does not matter unless you try to print it at 72dpi. The reason I keep switching from ppi to dpi is that monitors use square or rectangular pixels and printers use dots. If you had a monitor large enough to display that image and the monitor’s pixel density was around 72ppi then the image would be almost 60″ wide. If you set up a print job at 300dpi then the resulting printed image would be a little over 14″ without any kind of resampling.
Now if you take an image that is 1000 pixels wide and try to print it 10″ wide then it will only print at 100dpi. If you set it to print at 200dpi without resizing or resampling then it would be 5″ wide.
Here’s a page that does a better job of explaining the irrelevance of 72ppi. http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/Tips/resolution.html
trollhattan
To flog the deceased equine, four thirds has four times the imaging area of the BEST compacts, and much more than that compared to the usual crapcam. That’s why nobody’s compact digicam will match the E-P1 or the DP1/2 or the G1 or…. That one can even discuss the LX3 et al. as a competitor is testament to how clever the engineers are at wringing out the best performance they can while keeping the camera so small and light.
As has been alluded to, the camera carried takes infinitely better pictures than the camera left at home.
David
Tim! not John! Sorry about the mistaken identity of my last post! Sheesh.
gonzone
LX3 fan here.
I have never regretted my purchase.
Great value, great pictures, rugged enough, small enough, good features.