[JamesD]

X1 it is...

Missed the S90 reminder in JamesD's Nikon advert/post   luminous landscape was very positive at side of LX3. Or GR3.

I think in the midst of his lambasting me for the use of the word NIKON  he forgot to read the rest of the post.

If I had to choose GR3 vs LX3 I would go with the Ricoh, one of the best lenses in existence on a compact, and the Image quality is superb up to about iso800 (which is pretty impressive for a compact), although the Canon S90 offers very good image quality, I think the Ricoh is slightly sharper from sample images that I have seen, however the Canon seems to perform better at high ISO's which would be much more handy in low light conditions.

[JamesD]

Ooops just noticed you were talking about the other Ricoh, i'm all for simplicity personally, but if you're going down that route than I don't think I have much to add that hasn't been said already regarding zooms etc.

[Johnny Brown]

I wasn't taking the piss, your advice was good, its just that cofe can never be told too many times that he should have gone nikon...

[cofe]

Genius. I bought a d3 and hold it far away so it looks smaller. 

Had a look at s90 this avo and dlux4 (no lx3 in shop). Some fair differences. Both have things in their favour usability wise. Lens on lx3 noticably shorter but nicely wider. Need another look at ricohs. No hotshoe on s90 but might never use it. S90 v nice and small though with 2 control dials.

What I'd really like is a digi yashica t4. Maybe that's the gr3?

[JamesD]

I wasn't taking the piss, your advice was good, its just that canon shooting pariah's can never be told too many times that he should have gone nikon...

Indeed, oh and Cofe....I would really love a Yaschica T4 as well as a Ricoh GR digital III, I think that would be an awesome little combo to take on holiday or for casual use.
If I was using reflectors and maybe continuous lighting I think I could even use the Yashica for professional use (from what I have heard of the image quality). There is some "flash free" film stuff I have been meaning to get around to trying, but I think I need to spend more getting it dialled in during my personal time first.....what little of it I get.

[cofe]

the T4 is an awesome camera. I had numerous shots published that were taken with that. then I lost it. idiot.

so i'm looking at LX3 vs GX100. Difference is price really (LX3 is bordering on twice as much as a secondhand GX100) but I think you get a bit more camera with LX3. GX200 doesn't seem to be a significant improvement over GX100 and if anything the IQ is worse from the consensus reading I've done. Hmmmm.

[dave]

Why not settle for another T4 and a pocket crammed full of cheddar? I saw one on ffordes at £60 recently.

[cofe]

About £20 more than I paid for mine. Robbers.

Film has had it's day anyway.

[dave]

they seem to be going for £150+ on ebay!

[cofe]

Someone's probably putting their kids through college on the back of selling mine.

[JamesD]

Alternatively I might just get a Nikon F5 since they are cheap as far as SLR'S go and work with all of my existing lenses, could maybe even drag it along as a third body when at weddings etc, anyways back on topic, I would go for the GR digital 3 or the S90 and stop worrying since AFAIK they are better in low light than the others and the both offer excellent lenses, meaning they are way more versatile than the other two mentioned, plus I think Leicas compacts have always been crap so far, much like Nikons piss poor excuses for compact cameras.
GX100 looks ok but general consensus is that the GR digital offers a far superior lense.

[cofe]

GX100 looks ok but general consensus is that the GR digital offers a far superior lense.

it's a much more limited lense for what i'll use it for though. I've seen files from the GX100 and they are very sharp. You can also get a GX100 for less than half a GRD3. On reflection the S90 is too fragile for proper outdoors use, and the dials were too easy to knock, particularly the one on the back. Comparatively, the LX3 is very tough and still wide at 24mm. They're all capable at ISO400, with more money buying performance at 800. They're clearly all versatile cameras. Joe Cornish doesn't carry an LX3 cos it's shit.

Don't buy an F5 - you'll never use it. Same reason I sold my 1v. 

[JamesD]

You're probably right, i'll probably never bother, and this is all just me musing over random camera stuff i'd like to purchase, the yaschica on the other hand I definitely think i'll nab one some time since its cheap enough.
But money spent on a F5 could be put towards a D3s......which would see a lot more use.

[cofe]

if you're a pro, i can't see the point in speculatively buying gear you probably won't use. £50 on a Yashica is different though. That's just the equivalent of two pints darn in Landan.

[JamesD]

if you're a pro, i can't see the point in speculatively buying gear you probably won't use. £50 on a Yashica is different though. That's just the equivalent of two pints darn in Landan.

Yeah, you're right it is pointless.... I keep trying to convince myself that if I buy one decent film camera i'll use it, but I know deep down I am too lazy and don't really have the time to play around with film for work anyway.
For anything where I need really decent quality/high res I usually just hire out a D3x, they're really awesome and fast to use.
If the budget is there or the job requires it I get to use a hasselblad on very rare occasions, but they are bulky, heavy, and slower, so I prefer to work with the Nikon wherever possible, because unless you're printing at huge sizes/huge resolution, after some decent retouching its almost impossible to percieve much difference in the end result IMO.
I know where I have to (and should) spend my money over the next few months, it doesn't seem to stop me pontificating over silly things that I want but don't need though 

[Jim]

this thread has inspired me to dig out our yashica T5.
I'm bored of digital, going back to film for a bit I think.
Might even dig out the F80 as well