LX5 or GF1?

S

sara

Well-known
Local time
2:42 PM
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
553
I can't decide. I can't even remember if I asked this question before.
I was going with the LX5, then a friend said the GF1 was better or something :bang:
 
The GF1 is "better" but bigger... I had a LX3 and GF1 and upgraded the GF1 to an M8 at the time. Nearly the same size... The LX3 is still working like a dream and is only really for happy snaps and documentation for me.
 
The LX5 isn't small enough to fit in most pockets, so the difference in size between the GF1 w/ 20mm (or 14mm) pancake isn't much. Are you a zoom or prime person? To me, zoom = LX5 and prime = GF1 with the GF1 being the better camera in most ways.
 
Gf1

Gf1

Hi, the lx5 has a tiny sensor the Gf1 has a bigger one and this gives you better image quality.
The gf1 has interchangable lenses so you can even use M lenses on it.
The 20mm f1.7 pancake is a nice lens and the large aperture lets you isolater subject from background.

I´ve tested a gf1 froma friend and the results are fine, in the other hand i had an lx3 and is very much like the lx5.

I would go for the GF1 and 20mm pancake lens.

Bye and luck!
 
I would not only thing about the size, but in the actual purpose of the camera in the first place. If you want a camera for a vacation or snaps that you will mostly view on your screen or upload, than I would probably choose the LX5. If you want a bit more control over the DOF and want to do more printing beyond A4 and/or you want to shoot in low light (= high ISO) than the GF1 with the 20?1.7 would be a better choice.

I have to admit that I am in a somewhat similar situation actually ...
 
GF1 with the 20mm pancake, all the way. Not much smaller in physical size yet has a way larger sensor (which means "better" technical quality).
 
Thanks for the input.

Well in terms of what I'll use it for, it's kinda hard to say really. Thing is, obviously I have my Leica M camera which I use most of the time, and I have a Canon 450D - I guess I just wanted a "smaller Canon 450D like camera" to carry around.

I think I want the features of the GF1 but not necessarily to change lenses. If I was picky about lenses, I would just use my Leica and 450D.

jsrokit - not a zoom person.
 
Hi Sara,
I have the GF-1 (with zoom) and my daughter has the LX3 (the LX5 is very similar).
I'm probably repeating some information from others above, but here goes.

Given that both cameras come with an LCD screen but can accept the same EVF if you want to use one, they're equal in that respect.
There are three crunchy decisions to make and they are about size and how you'll use the camera.

The LX5 is way smaller than the GF1, especially if you like to have a zoom lens. The zoom for the GF-1 is quite OK but turns it into a much bigger camera that won't fit in a coat pocket - you'll need a shoulder bag of some kind. The LX5 is much easier to carry and is less obtrusive.

Which brings us to the question of zoom or fixed focal length lens. The LX5 lens is a zoom with a useful range. If you like to shoot in many different situations without having to move yourself closer or further away from the scene to frame it, then a zoom is a great convenience. You CAN get a zoom lens for the GF-1 but as I noted above it increases the size and bulk appreciably. You may not want that. But if you're going to be satisfied with a fixed focal length lens then maybe you should also consider the new Fuji X100 as an alternative to a GF-1 with fixed lens.

The other thing, also related to how you want to use the camera, is what you intend to do with the photographs. If you don't intend to print larger than A4 size, or will mainly post your photos on Flickr or some other internet gallery for people to see then you don't need a larger sensor than the LX5 has. You will not be able to see any difference in quality between the cameras at that level of enlargement. In fact, you could probably print LX5 images larger than A4 - up to A3 - without a problem unless you're a perfectionist and want to enter competitions at a camera club or something like that. For family and friends viewing the LX5 will be adequate. So the question for you here is, what are your photographic ambitions and would the LX5 meet them or do you think you'll want to be able to use different lenses from time to time?

There's one final element to consider. My daughter has the LX3 as I mentioned and is delighted with the images she gets from it. But she also has a Fuji S9600 DSLR that's about the same size and weight as a GF-1. She still uses that and likes it when doing "serious" photography as opposed to "casual" photography.
Why? Well, yes, the image quality is better on big enlargements, the zoom range is greater than the LX3 and it has a "proper" viewfinder built in. It also relates to how the camera feels in the hand. Best advice here is to see if you can find an opportunity to at least fondle each camera for 10 or 15 minutes but better still, if you know people with the cameras you're considering, ask if you can have a "play" with them for an hour or two. You might find that in the end it comes down to the feel in the hand rather than the technical specifications. If it feels "right" then you'll use it more than if it feels a bit big or awkward.
---------------------------
After all that I just read your last message which changes things a bit. If you have a DSLR and a Leica already, and you're not a zoom person then maybe the choice is between the LX5 and the Fuji X100. If it were my decision I'd go with the Fuji for the viewfinder alone.
------------------------
 
Last edited:
Get the GF1 over the LX5. The lx5 is just a point and shoot - a good one, but still a point and shoot. The GF1 is near-point and shoot size, but a much better camera.
 
The LX5 has an improved sensor over the older LX3 model, other than appearance, the LX5 is quite a bit improved. In comparison to the GF1, the LX5 focuses more quickly.

For me, the quicker fosusing was the main selling point, in action shots the subject won't wait. If you have pets or children, the LX5 is fast enough to catch the action.

Now that the GF2 and GF3 are out, I really wouldn't bother with the GF1. Here in Japan you can get a used GF1 and a lens for about 25% less than a new LX5, and a used GF2 can be had for about the same price as a new LX5.
 
I had the gf1 but the EVF attachment frustrated me and I found the quality above Iso 800 to be a little too noisy for my liking. I regularly shoot at 3200 with my nikon d7000 but would never do that with the gf1 cause I just simply disliked the results. No probs if you don't plan to use an evf or push the iso way up but if you do or at least want the option I'd throw two more cameras into the mix. As stated above, the x100 or the panny G3 (for it's size vs performance). There is a high ISO review of the G3 at cameralabs. It's seems (from the review) significantly better than what I could get from the gf1 and comparable to my d7000 although I have not owned the g3. The inbuilt EVF is also said to be far superior to the external EVF of the gf1.
 
Paolo Bonello said:
I had the gf1 but the EVF attachment frustrated me and I found the quality above Iso 800 to be a little too noisy for my liking. I regularly shoot at 3200 with my nikon d7000 but would never do that with the gf1 cause I just simply disliked the results. No probs if you don't plan to use an evf or push the iso way up but if you do or at least want the option I'd throw two more cameras into the mix. As stated above, the x100 or the panny G3 (for it's size vs performance). There is a high ISO review of the G3 at cameralabs. It's seems (from the review) significantly better than what I could get from the gf1 and comparable to my d7000 although I have not owned the g3. The inbuilt EVF is also said to be far superior to the external EVF of the gf1.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this. I personally think the GF-2/3 are ugly designs but that's not the point. The comments about high ISO on the GF-1 are right, and the EVF is a compromise for those (like me) who can't abide framing on an LCD but it's nothing to write home about and it is (and looks like) a bolt-on solution.

No zoom wanted? Then go for the Fuji X100. Better on all counts.
 
My LX5 has not disappointed. Ten clean megapixels in a convenient size. I use the "step" zoom which gives fast and positive focal lengths of 24-28-35-50-70-90 (35mm equivient). I use the add-on electronic viewfinder full time. We need to constantly revise our ideas of how small sensors perform. They just keep getting better. Of course, if you routinely make giant prints, then all bets are off.
 
I just went thru that agonizing decision myself and ended up purchasing the lx5. I travel around the world (I'm a freight pilot) 20 days a month. I wanted something small but good quality, something I could hide in a coat pocket in less than desirable locations.

Now if I could just get home to use the thing.....
 
Not sure if you are flexible about a P&S, but I recently bought a Canon S95 for a trip, and I am more than pleased. It is very well designed, and has great IQ. Any reason to believe that the LX5 is better in that regard ?
I have a bunch of pictures from the trip,up on a site, and would be happy to send you a link, if you want to see how well the camera performs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom