Many of us own the G9 and have been waiting for the G10 announcement. I have a Panasonic LX3 on order ... but, might change it to a G10 order if that camera looks good. I found this comparison of the LX3 to the G9. Thought others might be interested.

Comparison: CLICK HERE

Check out the noise comparison chart.

Edited by UCSB on Sep 11, 2008 at 08:59 AM GMT

The G10 was announced accidentally and then the info was removed - it's another depressing update, more pixels, still super slow lens, still ugly and still undesirable.

Pixel ... I know about the limited G10 announcement, I started the thread. What makes you think that the G10 will have a super slow lens? AFAIK, all we know is that it will be a 28-140 (down from 35-210 on G9). I was hoping that it might be an f/2 lens. Anyway, I don't really think that IQ will be any better than the G9 overall, but I will wait to see.

Does anyone reviewing the performance data in the link above, read the noise comparison between the LX3 and G9 as giving the LX3 a one to two stop noise advantage over the G9? This plus the f/2 lens seems like a big difference in between the two.

Very interesting. Thank you.

I found this really comprehensive comparison of the G9 and LX3. I thought other G9 owners might find it interesting.

Review: CLICK HERE

His review confirms a 1-stop improvement in ISO performance over the G9. That combined with a 1-stop plus improvement in aperture means that in actual use the LX3 could yield a 2 to 3 stop improvement in ISO/noise performance. Anyway, my LX3 is backordered so I don't know when I will get it.

It's great that the noise is reduced but that particular review does nothing to indicate how much of the noise reduction is in the raw capture and how much is in the post-capture in-camera jpeg processing. It also does not clearly spell out the extent to which fine detail is trashed in order to reduce the noise.

- Alan

Pixel Perfect wrote:
The G10 was announced accidentally and then the info was removed - it's another depressing update, more pixels, still super slow lens, still ugly and still undesirable.

It's an opinion for both of us, but you're the first Person i've seen to say the g7/g9 is ugly.

Alan321 wrote:
It's great that the noise is reduced but that particular review does nothing to indicate how much of the noise reduction is in the raw capture and how much is in the post-capture in-camera jpeg processing. It also does not clearly spell out the extent to which fine detail is trashed in order to reduce the noise.

- Alan

True, the review is only on jpg images. I use only RAW ... but, most current owners report that RAW is much better than jpg for the camera. I got a great deal on my LX3 ($339), but it is backordered. It may take until Oct before I get it ... I'll post some RAW comparisons with the G9 when it arrives.

excellent

trentchau wrote:

It's an opinion for both of us, but you're the first Person i've seen to say the g7/g9 is ugly.

Even the A900 looks better

Of course others may find it pretty and they are entitled to their opinion even though their wrong

Even more important to me than the improvement in noise is the measured improvement in dynamic range. The LX3 has about a full stop more dynamic range than the g9 at base isos, and it maintains the DR advantange throughout. . . . Dislosure of bias: I pre-ordered an LX3 from J&R for $399; it has shipped and I should have it by Monday. It will be the first compact I've used since I started with digital with a G2 (which was a fantastic camera at the time, and which my sister-in-law still uses).

Here is a great collection of LX3 images (plus some direct comparisons to Canon 5D): CLICK HERE.

5D images are several pages into gallery and consist of four images of two manequins in a store window.

Digic 4, Digic 4,Digic 4, did I mention Digic 4,?

G10 image quality (Digic4) for comparison: CLICK HERE ... seems similar to G9.

all shots there were done at iso 80 i would expect no less the equivelent to the 9

trentchau wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The G10 was announced accidentally and then the info was removed - it's another depressing update, more pixels, still super slow lens, still ugly and still undesirable.

It's an opinion for both of us, but you're the first Person i've seen to say the g7/g9 is ugly.

Agreed. The G9 can turn in some spectacular results for a P&S without a lot of trouble. Describing it as ugly is very odd and highly inaccurate in my view.

I've gotten quite a few outstanding results from my G9 especially if I use RAW. I'm not a fan of the jpg conversion the camera does. But, the reason I bought it was for RAW so I don't shoot it in jpg anyhow.

That said, I'd expect the G10 do have a better jpg conversion and to have better noise management.

J.

there better be. as i said so far any images that have been shown off of it were at iso 80. i would like them to add a 0 at the end and then display the results. at 400 or higher the G9 got spotty IQ (and i am being kind). giving a camera the ability to go to 1600 or better yet 3200 is easy. making those shots usable is yet another more challenging task.

Right.

I bought the G9 because it had raw and and an underwater enclosure. I used it to shoot underwater and RAW was the way to go for correcting the WB. For that, the G9 was spectacular. Images shot in good light were also spectacular. ISO 400 ok, but not great. Could be salvaged with Noise Ninja. Beyond ISO400, not so good.

ISO 800 to 1600 is not particularly good on the LX3 either. Either way, all three of these (G9, G10 and LX3) area all still P&S cameras. The pixel density needs to go lower (larger pixel sites) to get better performance. Increasing the sensor size by much will make it not a P&S any longer due to physical size of the camera - which is the whole reason you buy one of these.


J.

you and i both. i found using the 35 UW with the mag factor real constraining. the fact that they are demonstrating images at only iso 80 does not exactly give me the warm and fuzzies that it can to any better above 400.

You mean the 35mm (effective) focal length? True. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a 28mm effective lens in a P&S that was worth much. The distortion typically is pretty bad.

I was ok with the 35mm FL. I was pretty much snorkeling with it. What I will do next time though is get a better external flash. That would have made a huge difference. Either way though, I was pretty pleased with the G9's performance in that application.

J.

The G10 samples above are all at ISO 80, but they look good to me for ISO80. Once the G10 starts to ship, we will get more of an idea of what it can do. I hope there is a little improvement in ISO 400 and dynamic range.

My LX3 arrived. It has better color, lower noise and better dynamic range than the G9. I like the size, build, interface and handling. The f/2 lens opens up a whole new world because it is sharp at f/2. f/2 is just enough of an improvement to really change your shooting indoors. But, after only a few hours of testing/use I have hit an issue. I am processing my G9 RAW files in ACR and my LX3 RAW files in Silkypics. ACR produces very highly detailed images with the G9 (for a P&S). Silkypics seems to not be doing anywhere near as good a job with the LX3 images and therefore the G9 is noticably out resolving the LX3. Since there is no ACR support for the LX3 yet, I need to stop my testing for a second and try to understand what I can do to resolve this issue. This is a common problem with RAW converters and one reason that I use ACR/LR. The stats I posted to start this thread indicate that resolution differences should be small or negligable. I think that the LX3 camera is producing files that contain better data than I am getting out of Silkypics (even the jpg's from the camera show better detail).

One other plus for the LX3 is that the wider lens allows you to shoot closer and since these smaller flashes have a limited range this turns out to be a big plus. That with the f/2 gives you the ability to better balance room lighting and flash.

Those samples are similar to what I am able to achieve with my G9 at ISO80/100. I don't think they are uncharacteristic at all.

J.

I've put a few more hours into the LX3 and G9 comparison. I updated the SilkyPics RAW conversion software and carefully reshoot my tests at ISO80 and ISO400. On the issue I mentioned above (G9 out resolving LX3 at ISO80), at ISO80 images are very close in term of detail with the 12MP files of the G9 showing a little more detail than the 10MP files of the LX3. Both would be considered excellent for a P&S. By ISO400 the enhanced noise performance of the LX3 allows it to pull easily ahead in noise and detail. ACR/LR2 support for the LX3 could further help the LX3 when and if it is released.

I really hate to say this, but when it comes to buying P&S cameras, it is really a case of looking at features. The small sensors are just not that much differentiated from one another. It is really a case of pretty much insignificant differences when the final image is compared. At any rate, the comparison would be between cameras of equal technology. I would think the comparison you would want would be the G10 vs the LX3. I'm not sure why you would compare the G9 to it.

J.

John ... I would agree that comparing the LX3 to the G10 when it is released makes sense.

For those interested in the LX3, here is a nice review of the LX3 I noticed today: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LX3/index.shtml