Canon G10/11 vs Ricoh GX200 vs Lumix LX3

Canon G10/11 vs Ricoh GX200 vs Lumix LX3

I just sold my Leica D-Lux 3 mostly due to lack of viewfinder and noise at IS0s over (and including) 200. I love the Leica glass and 24m+ range.

I'm looking for a smaller camera than my 5DII (and obviously 1DsIII). For this purpose, maybe I don't need RAW. The Leica wasn't exactly pocketable, except cargo shorts or my wifes bag.

LUMIX: I have a passion for Leica (and Zeiss) glass and the LX3 seems to fit this bill (is it really Leica glass?) and the added viewfinder seemed good, until I read that its only a 24mm scope. Anyone know if there are framelines for other lengths?

RICOH: I know its discontinued, but I found a good copy with the viewfinder for the same price range. Anyone know about this camera? Noise? Optics? Reviews I've seen are vague and full of caveats.

CANON: ONLY 28mm! I've read that the viewfinder is only 80% view. So whats the point of that? Superficially, I hate the look of squared-off lenses.

SO, anyone with thoughts here? Should I just say screw-it to a pocket camera and get my wife a 5D....

i'd owned all three: canon g11, ricoh gx200 and panny lx-3

canon g11 is too big for small camera and not wide enough - got rid of it as soon as i got it.

ricoh gx200 is one slick camera. i like it more than the panasonic lx-3 because of it easier to grab body. panasonic lx-3 has 2.0 at its widest aperture. i only shoot jpegs...picture wise they look the same. still have both of these cameras.

Perfect response. Thanks. I had the same thoughts of the G10/11 — had a 28-70 L lens and kept bumping the 28mm end. Also, the Ricoh has a nice screw-on tele (and wider) lenses. And the electronic VF seems best-in-class.

I'm a big guy with big hands (my wife, however, is tiny Asian) and that D-Lux3 was too small for grabbing. If the viewfinder on the Lumix is just a scope, I can take it off my list.

Any noise concerns?

Honestly, you folks that obsess about wide lenses. I guess if you are trying to catch an action or people shot then OK, there is no substitute for wide glass.
And you can always 'un-zoom' with your feet. But the G-11 has such great stitch support that allows for truly wide shots that I don't see the 28mm equivalent wide end as that much of a drawback. Anyway, that's just my opinion; what works for me. I'd rather have the G9's longer reach with the stitch feature myself.

what's nice about the ricoh is hat u can use one hand to zoom in and out then press the shutter button. the layout of buttons also is better on the ricoh than the panny too. with the panny u have to hold with two hands to use the camera, at least for me. as for noise, as long as you are shooting at iso400 or less the pictures will look as good as they come out of a dslr camera, well almost.

audiosteve, to take pictures of everyone sitting at a table in a dining room i just can't step back and into the wall; i'm not a mutant u know! this is reason why wide[r] angle comes in very handy.

haha -- can't you just use your feet to get closer?

I agree with MrLA, for landscape and groups you can't always get further back. For daily use, I like the 24mm. If I want 16 or 200mm, I'll reach for my DSLR. My favorite "daily/walking" lens for my full-frame is my Zeiss/Contax 24-85 which blows Canons 28/24-70 away for practicality.

I just scored a mint copy of the Ricoh with VF-1, which a real viewfinder. I got it for less than the G10 or 11, and pocketed $200 from the sale of my D-Lux. Thanks for your input.

that's great! now all you need is to get yourself a self-retaining lens cap, like this one, it even makes the ricoh even cooler!
http://www.amazon.com …-100-GX-200/dp/B001C4WIY4

Saturday delivery. Came with the cap. Not sure if i like it -- looks kinda gimiky and cheap. It was on and off all weekend, but is now on. And the viewfinder, which is very electronic-looking — as it is. Still much better than the $250 spotting scope on the Leica D-Lux4.

It's no Leica, and thats sad. Not the "substance" and weight. I'm one of those rare Leica guys that put a dot of black photo tape over the red logo. Ergonomically, I like the Ricoh better, easier to grab, a place for my big hand. Whenever I use my wife's camera (chuckle) now, I have a real viewfinder and don't need to hold the camera at some stupid undetermined distance. Further away the lamer, up close more awkward.

But the images have better contrast containment than the Leica, less blowout, very crisp. I still miss the Leica.