I’ve been eyeing the Canon Powershot S90 and it’s finally out in stores. Retails for about 690SGD. Ouch! With that sort of price, I’m tempted to buy the Panasonic Lumix LX3 – again. I owned an LX3 before, but sold it to buy my current camera, a Nikon D90. Now, I’m beginning to consider having a compact camera, in addition to the SLR. Which, if any, will it be?
The LX3 is a great street photographer’s camera, with a wide 24mm-equivalent starting point for its zoom. The maximum aperture is f/2 at that point, and only reduces to f/2.8 at the longest end, which is a 60mm equivalent – a bit short for me. Personally I’d prefer a 28-105mm or 28-90mm-equivalent range, but I don’t know if Panasonic could maintain an f/2.8 maximum aperture for those ranges for a camera of that size?
The S90 is similar, with give-and-take: it has that useful 28-105mm range, but the maximum aperture goes from a macho f/2 to a rather nondescript f/4.9 at the long end.
Both these cameras have something that I’d like to have in one; unfortunately, each has some things I like and some I don’t like as much. Here are pros and cons from my experience and/or point of view:
LX3
- Large maximum aperture throughout zoom range (f/2 at widest, f/2.8 at longest end – great for low-light shooting)
- Hotshoe (though I bet I’d seldom use it, being able to use bounced flash is way better than being limited to a direct blast)
- High ISOs sharp and detailed but ’scratchy’ looking and over-sharpened at default (I would definitely reduce the sharpening parameter)
- Useful Multi-Film mode: you can record up to 3 jpegs nearly simultaneously (e.g in colour and black-and-white) – and add a raw file too if you want! I noticed that the Multi-Film images are not identical, so it’s not processing the same raw data multiple times.
- Weird histogram behaviour: I found that the live/record-mode histogram was different from the review histogram! That defeats the purpose of the live histogram! I no longer have the camera, so I’m unable to check if the updated firmware resolves that.
- Not exactly pocketable, and not possible to screw on a protective filter (I don’t like using the lens cap – too fiddly!)
S90
- Smoother, more compact size and form, with inbuilt lens cover. Definitely easier to draw, use and store.
- High ISO sample shots seen online have a more pleasant film-like grain, similar to images from my D90; they seem soft, though, and need sharpening turned up in-camera, or post-capture sharpening (which brings out more noise but is necessary for prints)
- Better zoom range for my shooting (I often use a 75-105mm equivalent on my SLR), and you can set up the click-stopped front control ring to step between traditional focal lengths: 28, 35, 50 etc. (equivalents). Nice touch, Canon.
- Slightly smaller maximum aperture when zoomed in, however. From online reports, the S90 approximately matches the LX3 in maximum aperture from 28-35mm equivalents, after which it trails the LX3. At 60mm equivalent the S90 starts at f/3.5, slightly behind the LX3’s f/2.8. Not a deal-breaker, but it depends how you shoot and how dim your lighting is. If you shoot at the classic 28 and 35mm settings, the cameras are equally ‘fast’ aperture-wise.
- Some have found the rear control dial to be too loose (and it lacks detents/click-stops) resulting in accidental settings changes (but note the LX3’s top mode dial is also too easily turned); this might be a deal-breaker for me if it’s as bad as the ones on the SX1 and SX10 IS (tried those in the store and really found their dials frustrating).
The jury’s still out… These are two photographer-friendly designs (albeit with their imperfections) with class-leading high-ISO image quality. Right now I’m slightly biased towards the S90 for its longer zoom range and being a camera my family could pick up and use more intuitively (though they might also accidentally change settings such as exposure compensation!) But the LX3 also has great image quality (esp for prints) and ‘power-user’ features.
Latest: I downloaded some images provided by reviewers, and had them printed. As mentioned on The Imaging Resource, S90 images can be similarly sharp as the LX3’s if they are strongly sharpened. For my comparison, I applied moderate sharpening, and found that the S90 prints still looked soft. The LX3’s images looked ugly at 100% on screen, but printed nice and sharp. But I conclude that both cameras are pretty evenly matched at ISOs 800 and 1600 with required sharpening. For me, it probably comes down to ergonomics and handling.
If you’re deciding between these two, or perhaps between more (e.g. the Lumix GF1), I’d suggest you look at the test shots available on the Net, at the ISOs you’re likely to use most. You really should also have a hands-on in the store, as you’ll want to know if the controls and layout suit you, and if the cameras are responsive enough to the way you’ll use them.
Updated 7 Jan 2010 – new observation about the LX3’s Multi-Film mode
