I’ve given in to temptation again. Damn you Jessops and your clearance sale.

Back a year ago when I was looking at what to get as a decent compact digital, the GX100 was on the shortlist (along with the Canon G9 and a couple of outsiders). In the end, the GR Digital 2 won out. And whilst I love the GRD2, there have been a couple of occasions when I’ve pondered whether the zoom on the GX would have been worth having (and others when I’ve pondered whether it was really worth lugging the K10D along with it). And now I can find out.

In the meantime, here are a few wins and fails for the GX with specific comparison to the GRD2. First the wins:

• The big one: the 24mm equivalent focal length. This is the big draw of the GX for me - yes, it’s only a bit wider than the 28 on the GR, but I think it’s a big difference. A 28mm feels like what you perceive as normal vision (50mm is the oft-cited “most like human vision” focal length but whilst it might have certain similarities, I always perceive it as a cropped version of a real view), but at 24mm there’s just enough feeling of space to let you play with bringing out big skies and making cramped spaces feel huge.
• The longer focal lengths. Whilst not enough to shoot deer with, for instance, they’re enough to reduce convergence a bit in urban shots, or pull in some detail when you can’t move closer.
• Shake reduction. I’ve yet to see how effective it is, but certainly there are times I could have used it on the GR.
• Fast AF. The GRD2’s AF is rubbish (fortunately its fixed and manual focus modes are very good and the depth of field is huge, so in all honesty I don’t find it an issue) but the GX100’s is lightning fast, since it uses an analog phase detection technique. I’m so entrenched in the habit of “pre-focus then shoot” that I almost don’t know what to do with it.

And the fails:

• It’s comparatively unwieldy. The GR is thin and you’d hardly know it’s in a coat pocket; the GX is noticeably weightier and forms a conspicuous bulge. The GR is a doddle to use one-handed, the GR much less so. The detachable lens cap adds to the handling faff, too.
• The lens is good, but it ain’t the GR. There’s more barrel distortion, more aberration and more dispersion. It’s sharper than some of my SLR lenses, but not as sharp as the GR, which really is a stunning bit of glass.
• No 1:1 raw, which I use 95% of the time on the GR. I’m not sure yet whether to habitually shoot 4:3 and crop to square or shoot 3:2 and leave it at that.
• No orientation sensor - which feels like being back in the dark ages.
• It’s heavily dependent on a fast SD card. With a Sandisk Extreme III it’s quite usable, but with a ‘vanilla’ card I have it’s painfully slow.

All in all, I absolutely made the right decision to buy the GRD2 - it’s more pocketable, more discreet, more user-friendly and it kicks out better image quality. But the GX100 probably has a home alongside it, especially as I figure out how to make the most of it.