Need Digi for Wife, G10 or P6000 or what?

[mkravit]

My wife asked me to get her a new Digital P&S. She has been using a Leica D-Lux3 and hates that long slow shutter delay and the crappy high ISO noise.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. She needs a short shutter delay and fairly good high ISO IQ.

Thanks
Mike

[Ken Bennett]

Does it have to be a point and shoot? You can get a pretty small SLR nowadays. Seriously, I had my hands on an Olympus E400-something (a 4/3-system DSLR) a couple of weeks ago, and that thing is *small.* Too small for my big hairy hands, anyway. Compared to *any* of the P+S cameras, *any* SLR will be significantly quicker to shoot (no shutter lag) and have *much* better high ISO quality. There's really no comparison.

Yes, this would be larger than, say, a G-10. But my G-7 hardly fits in a pocket anyway, and I end up carrying it around on a shoulder strap.

[JohnKoerner]

My wife asked me to get her a new Digital P&S. She has been using a Leica D-Lux3 and hates that long slow shutter delay and the crappy high ISO noise.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. She needs a short shutter delay and fairly good high ISO IQ.
Thanks
Mike

There are a few oddballs who favor the Lumix/Leica, but most normal people agree the G9/G10 is the best point-n-shoot camera available.

I also owned a G7, and it is much bulkier than the G9, and nowhere near as nice. I would imaging that the G10 is even better. But there is no comparison between the excellent image quality of the G9/G10 and the (at best) mediocre image quality of the Lumix/Leica.

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

For what it is worth:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=28408

If size is a factor, then I personnally feel that the G9/G10 is too heavy and a bit too large. Its overall image quality might be better in jpg, so it might be the best option overall though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[mkravit]

For what it is worth:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=28408

If size is a factor, then I personnally feel that the G9/G10 is too heavy and a bit too large. Its overall image quality might be better in jpg, so it might be the best option overall though.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

So how do you like the P6000? The images look fine, hard to really tell anything online. How is the shutter delay and low light IQ?

[BernardLanguillier]

So how do you like the P6000? The images look fine, hard to really tell anything online. How is the shutter delay and low light IQ?

I need to spend more time with the camera, I have only had it for a few days and shot mostly outdoors.

The responsiveness is really good outdoors, and the AF is pretty fast. Since the camera I have used 98% of the time this past year is a Nikon D3 with the latest AF-S lenses, the P6000 is up against a pretty tough challenge, but even so it feels pretty fast. I am only using center AF point though, I have not even bothered trying to other AF modes.

As far as low light shooting is concened, I have only tried up to ISO 400 under neon light, and it seemed pretty noisy. But then again the images were raw files converted using ACR 4.6 RC with the settings I have tuned for ISO 64 files, meaning all noise reduction set to zero and pretty strong small radius sharpening and detail extraction. bacially the perfect settings to make ISO400 noise stand out. But either way, I don't think that the P6000 competes with the best in average to high ISO noise.

Low ISO image quality is very good though, probably in the very same ballpark as 6MP class DSLR of a few years back from what I could tell (and that seems to be including DR). Colors are also excellent, if a bit on the vivid side. The VR works very well, significantly better than on the GX100 I thought.

All in all, as I have said, I think that it is a nice little camera, and one that I have had fun using.

It really all depends on what you are looking for. For me, I will always pick up a DSLR of MF when I intend to do serious shooting, meaning that my compact digital camera has to be small and unobtrusive because I carry it with me when I don't want to carry a real camera. This pretty much rules out the G10 for me.

The LX3 is also tempting, but 60 mm on the long end is just too short for a compact that I intend to use for daily casual shooting. When I know I need really wide, I pick up the D3 and my 14-24 f2.8. For daily shooting 28 mm is wide enough and the ability to go up to 110 mm brings more real world value to me that 24 mm of one more stop of brightness.

So all in all, I find the P6000 to have the best balance of features for my needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

[mkravit]

The LX3 is also tempting, but 60 mm on the long end is just too short for a compact that I intend to use for daily casual shooting. When I know I need really wide, I pick up the D3 and my 14-24 f2.8. For daily shooting 28 mm is wide enough and the ability to go up to 110 mm brings more real world value to me that 24 mm of one more stop of brightness.

So all in all, I find the P6000 to have the best balance of features for my needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

Is the LX3 the same as the Leica D-Lux 4?

[BernardLanguillier]

Is the LX3 the same as the Leica D-Lux 4?

Sorry, don't know.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Plekto]

I'm a fan of Fuji, mostly because point and shoots tend to be used based more upon the timing of the shot and less upon the location and careful planning.  So a camera that has a good ISO range is often a nice thing to have.

I like the S5 Pro, but well, that's large.  No two ways about it.

From wiki:

In 2006 Fuji introduced the 6th generation of the Super CCD sensor (size 1/1.7", 6.3 million effective pixels, except for the F40fd which has size 1/1.6", 8.3 million effective pixels). This sensor allows for acceptable image quality even at ISO 800. It is built into the FinePix S6500fd (2006) bridge camera and the FinePix F-series F30, F20 (2006), F31fd and F40fd (2007) compact cameras, all of which are widely accredited for their class leading low-light capabilities
***
The newer designs of the sensors seem to be actually a step backwards.  So the F40fd might be the best one of the bunch, and being that it's a year old, it's likely to be quite affordable.   8MP isn't as high as some of the others, but honestly, anything larger than that and you really are getting into the need for bigger sensors and lenses, IMO.

[dalethorn]

Is the LX3 the same as the Leica D-Lux 4?

Yes, except I hear the Leica has RAW that really works, whereas with the LX3, the RW2 images are no better than the JPG's, unless you can spend a lot of time with them.

[oldcsar]

Mr.Leonard,

Michael did in fact review the LX2, but it was not a full, comprehensive review that one would expect from other sites. It can be found here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-quick06.shtml

I think that the LX3 is definitely a step up regarding the quality of the Panasonic sensor, and online reviews seem to agree on this perspective. I think that it appears to be a great step up from the LX2, especially the fast lens and increased RAW buffer. I know from past discussions that you disagree with me (and I'm okay with that), but it is my belief that *only now* with the LX3 has Panasonic given Canon and others a very competent adversary in the higher-end P&S segment. If I were shopping now for a compact camera, I would seriously consider the LX3.

[dalethorn]

I think that the LX3 is definitely a step up regarding the quality of the Panasonic sensor, and online reviews seem to agree on this perspective.....
.....it is my belief that *only now* with the LX3 has Panasonic given Canon and others a very competent adversary in the higher-end P&S segment. If I were shopping now for a compact camera, I would seriously consider the LX3.

I carry two small cameras since the LX3 just can't reach most subjects due to the 60mm maximum zoom. It's a beautiful camera, and when I get the Leica D-Lux 4 carry case for it, it will be even moreso, but you would have to be very narrowly focused on a certain type of subject range to be content with a 24-60mm focal range.

[dalethorn]

BTW, although the LX3 is small length and height wise, it's nearly two inches deep due to the large lens and lens cap, so compared to the G10, it may not be a better option in overall size.

[mrleonard]

BTW, although the LX3 is small length and height wise, it's nearly two inches deep due to the large lens and lens cap, so compared to the G10, it may not be a better option in overall size.

Well..ive got both the G9 and LX2...the LX2 is a lot smaller. Yes it is 2 inches deep...but only where the lens is. It still fits snugly in a pocket and uses a wriststrap, while the G9 (and G10) is too large for a pocket and requires the old-school,neckstrap,clamshell 'never-ready' case. That is why I prefer the Lumix's...the balance of large files in a portable body.
Usually, if i'm going to bring along the G9, i'll just  bring my 5d instead. Usually I only bring it for the portability of bringing 2 small cameras...and when I need its macro.

[dalethorn]

.....Usually I only bring it for the portability of bringing 2 small cameras...and when I need its macro.

The LX3 has an excellent macro at 24 mm (max. wide), but if your subjects are 3D, you may be fighting DOF a lot at typical light levels. I'd suggest someone to hold the flashlights while you click the shutter.

[dalethorn]

.....with its small size and minimal extendable "reach" of only 60mm, I would have to say the LX3 also the perfect camera for you.....

I shouldn't be laughing so hard (apologies in advance) at this, let along commenting, but this has to be the best comeback of the year.

[michael]

End of personal attacks please, or I'll shut this down.

Not acceptable.

Michael