Panasonic LX3 vs Ricoh CX1

[feppe]

I'm looking for a pocketable camera with good quality optics, and LX3 and CX1 seem to be the best of breed. While Canon G10 is often in the same category, it's way too big and heavy for me: the Canon weighs 400g vs Ricoh's 180g and Panasonic's 265g.

Both appear to be very complete compacts, but both have a few game-breaking shortcomings for me:

Panasonic LX3's shortcomings

• Short 60mm max focal length
• RAW not readable by LR

Ricoh CX1's shortcomings

• No RAW
• 8 second maximum exposure

So I'd have to choose which are less of a deal breaker. The LX3's short zoom is such a major shortcoming that Ricoh's otherwise inexcusable lack of RAW and long exposures make it attractive. In any case, LX3's RAW appears to be proprietary, so it's almost as pointless as lack of it. Ricoh is also smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Anyone have experience with the Ricoh? As an all-RAW shooter with dSLRs, I might be spoiled. Is the lack of RAW as big of an issue as I think it is?

[budjames]

I'm looking for a pocketable camera with good quality optics, and LX3 and CX1 seem to be the best of breed. While Canon G10 is often in the same category, it's way too big and heavy for me: the Canon weighs 400g vs Ricoh's 180g and Panasonic's 265g.

Both appear to be very complete compacts, but both have a few game-breaking shortcomings for me:

Panasonic LX3's shortcomings

• Short 60mm max focal length
• RAW not readable by LR

Ricoh CX1's shortcomings

• No RAW
• 8 second maximum exposure

So I'd have to choose which are less of a deal breaker. The LX3's short zoom is such a major shortcoming that Ricoh's otherwise inexcusable lack of RAW and long exposures make it attractive. In any case, LX3's RAW appears to be proprietary, so it's almost as pointless as lack of it. Ricoh is also smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Anyone have experience with the Ricoh? As an all-RAW shooter with dSLRs, I might be spoiled. Is the lack of RAW as big of an issue as I think it is?

I have the Lumix LX-3. It's an awesome P&S, however, the lens protrusion makes it a little less "pocketable" than I like.

The image quality is very good as long as you have good light as the files get a little noisy at ISO > 400.  Contrary to what you state in your post, LX-3 RAW files are readable in the latest version of LR (2.3). Thank goodness for that because the Silky Pix software that comes with the camera is typical Japanese (dread awful).

I cannot comment on the Ricoh because I have never used it, but as a Canon 1Ds MkIII and 40D owner, I'm very pleased with the LX-3 as long as you understand its limitations. That said, in P&S terms, it's a great camera.

Cheers.
Bud James

[feppe]

Thanks for correcting me on the RAW - the reviews I read said LR doesn´t read the RAWs.

The short lens is still a major disadvantage. I can´t imagine taking portraits with a 60mm lens when I usually shoot them at 135mm.

[MarkKay]

I think a better comparison is the Ricoh GX 200 and Panasonic LX-3.  I bought both and eventually sold the GX-200.  These two cameras are very similar in what they do.  I loved the camera controls on the GX-200 ---- much more intuitive to DSLR users.  It also looked a lot nicer too. THe problem is that iso 200 and above the noise was really problematic.  I am talking in RAW to RAW comparisons.  I used several noise reduction programs and I could not remove the noise in a satisfactory manner compared to the LX-3-- which cleaned up very nicely.  The GX-200 if I remember had a bit better CA but overall, but in the end the LX-3 is probably the best point and shoot if one is willing to process the RAW files.