Ricoh GX100 or LX3?

[mori]

Kindly advise!

Something tells me that apart from the slight difference in minimum aperture (F2 for the LX3, F2.4 for the Ricoh) and well, price, the "obvious" choice really isn't as straight-forward as it seems.

[Die Hard]

Originally Posted by mori Kindly advise! Something tells me that apart from the slight difference in minimum aperture (F2 for the LX3, F2.4 for the Ricoh) and well, price, the "obvious" choice really isn't as straight-forward as it seems.

LX 3 are using Leica lens Ricoh are using cheapo lens And aftersale services Pana are better

[Die Hard]

You can get the review here for GX 100

http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digital...657613p,00.htm

[arsene]

The Ricoh is smaller but handles better. The controls are better for adjustments of aperture and shutter, similar to a SLR. However LX3 is cheaper than the GX200, looks better (like my old rangefinder). However the accessories for the Panasonic seem more expensive so if you intend to get flash (original), wide angle convertor etc, it is more expensive than Ricoh. The LX3 seem to be able to take Oly & Nikon flash though.

The selling point of the LX3 is the wide aperture lens. It is made in Japan compared to Ricoh (which is made in China), if this matters to you. It has a bigger LCD screen.

You should be comparing the GX200 and not the GX100, though the latter is of the same price range as LX3.

After comparing both, I ended up buying a LX3.

[mori]

Originally Posted by Die Hard LX 3 are using Leica lens Ricoh are using cheapo lens And aftersale services Pana are better

Good points there, will keep those in mind definitely! Just a little disappointed that the telephoto end only goes up to 60, unlike the Ricoh's 90. Oh well I suppose I ought to stick to my SLR for close-ups!

[mori]

Originally Posted by arsene The Ricoh is smaller but handles better. The controls are better for adjustments of aperture and shutter, similar to a SLR. However LX3 is cheaper than the GX200, looks better (like my old rangefinder). However the accessories for the Panasonic seem more expensive so if you intend to get flash (original), wide angle convertor etc, it is more expensive than Ricoh. The LX3 seem to be able to take Oly & Nikon flash though. The selling point of the LX3 is the wide aperture lens. It is made in Japan compared to Ricoh (which is made in China), if this matters to you. It has a bigger LCD screen. You should be comparing the GX200 and not the GX100, though the latter is of the same price range as LX3. After comparing both, I ended up buying a LX3.

John 3:16 stocks the GX200 at $950. . .a pretty good deal, considering, but still way over my budget. That's why I didn't even contemplate the GX200 as an alternative.

After reading all your comments/reading reviews online I'm beginning to find myself more partial to the LX3! I tried it out at Best today and I really liked how fast the lens was. Unfortunately they didn't stock the GX100 so I couldn't do a side-by-side comparison.

Thanks for your input anyway! =)

[LX3baby]

Originally Posted by arsene The Ricoh is smaller but handles better. The controls are better for adjustments of aperture and shutter, similar to a SLR. However LX3 is cheaper than the GX200, looks better (like my old rangefinder). However the accessories for the Panasonic seem more expensive so if you intend to get flash (original), wide angle convertor etc, it is more expensive than Ricoh. The LX3 seem to be able to take Oly & Nikon flash though. The selling point of the LX3 is the wide aperture lens. It is made in Japan compared to Ricoh (which is made in China), if this matters to you. It has a bigger LCD screen. You should be comparing the GX200 and not the GX100, though the latter is of the same price range as LX3. After comparing both, I ended up buying a LX3.

Exactly ! I also ended up with LX3. The closest thing to a DSLR for me .....