Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH3 vs Ricoh PX: A Practical Dive into Two Compact Cameras from the Early 2010s

In the realm of compact cameras, the search for the perfect blend of portability, image quality, and real-world utility often feels like chasing a mirage - especially when faced with a sea of options that blur similar specs with different promises. Today, we take a deep, hands-on look at two small sensor compacts born just a year apart: the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH3 (hereafter “FH3”) and the Ricoh PX. Both arrived on the scene with fixed lenses covering similar focal lengths, targeting casual shooters who value compactness yet desire some exposure flexibility.

But specs sheets only tell part of the story. Having put both through their paces, shooting across a variety of genres and lighting conditions, I invite you to join me in dissecting their strengths, quirks, and practical relevance to different photographic disciplines. Whether you’re an enthusiast seeking a discreet around-town companion, or a professional needing a rugged secondary camera, this comparison aims to leave no stone unturned.

A Tale of Two Compacts: Size, Shape, and Handling

Let’s start where all camera relationships begin: in your hand.

At first glance, the Panasonic FH3 and Ricoh PX are nearly neck and neck in size, both sporting slim, pocket-friendly bodies with screen sizes inching up on 3 inches. The FH3 measures 98 x 55 x 24 mm and weighs just 165 grams; the PX is marginally thinner at 21 mm thick and weighs a touch lighter at 156 grams. The nuanced differences become more apparent in ergonomics and control layout.

Panasonic keeps things straightforward: a minimalist button array, dedicated zoom lever, and a shutter release well-placed for easy one-handed shooting. However, the lack of manual focus and exposure controls places the FH3 squarely in the “point-and-shoot” camp. For casual shooters, this means simplicity - but also less creative control.

Ricoh’s PX, on the other hand, packs in manual focus capability and exposure compensation control, each critical for photographers who want to micromanage their shot without bulky interfaces. The PX's buttons feel clickier and more responsive, reflecting Ricoh’s focus on blending compactness with an enthusiast’s finesse.

Both cameras feature fixed LCD screens with identical 2.7-inch, 230k-dot resolutions - a detail we’ll revisit when assessing user interface experience.

Sensor Realities: Small Size, Big Impact?

Both cameras rely on 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors - nothing groundbreaking in 2024 terms, but back in the early 2010s, these were standard for compact shooters.

The Panasonic FH3’s 14-megapixel sensor (6.08 x 4.56 mm) hovers slightly below the Ricoh PX's 16 MP sensor (6.17 x 4.55 mm). Those extra pixels on the PX theoretically translate to higher resolution images, and I did observe somewhat crisper detail under ideal lighting conditions on Ricoh’s camera. However, the intrinsic limitations of CCD technology and small sensor size meant neither camera dazzled with dynamic range or low-light prowess.

The maximum native ISO sensitivity on the FH3 is 6400, quite optimistic for a small CCD sensor which tends to introduce noise aggressively beyond ISO 400. Ricoh PX tops out at ISO 3200, realistically a better ceiling considering image quality implications. Both cameras oversell high ISO capacities - you'll want to stick to ISO 100-400 for usable results.

It’s worth noting the FH3 employs optical image stabilization, while PX uses sensor-shift stabilization - both vital for handheld shooting at telephoto settings, a reassuring feature in this segment.

Looking Through Their LCDs: UI and Live View

Both cameras offer fixed LCD displays without touch functionality. While the 2.7-inch, 230k-dot screens feel modest today, they were typical for their era. The FH3’s menu interface is clean but somewhat barebones, emphasizing quick-to-access scene modes over granular customization - again, geared toward casual users.

Ricoh PX offers a richer interface, including spot white balance metering and some white balance bracketing - nutty features in such a compact camera category. The PX also supports manual exposure modes, a rarity in compacts this size, making it a more effective learning tool for enthusiasts who want to understand exposure beyond the auto mold.

Live view performance leans slightly in Ricoh’s favor for responsiveness, but neither is what I’d call blazing fast - a nod to the inherent limitations of their CCD sensors and processors.

Zoom and Optics: Who Claims Victory at 28-140mm?

Both cameras equip fixed lenses spanning an equivalent 28-140 mm range (roughly 5x zoom), catering to wide-angle landscapes and modest telephoto portraits or street shots.

Panasonic’s aperture ranges from F2.8 at wide to F6.9 at telephoto, promising better low light at the wide end but a narrow aperture as you zoom in. Ricoh’s lens maxes out at F3.9 wide and opens slightly to F5.4 at telephoto - less light gathering overall, but marginally better depth of field control in the long range.

In practical shooting scenarios, Panasonic’s relatively brighter wide lens edges out in indoor or twilight conditions. Ricoh’s lens, while less bright, impresses with its minimum macro focusing distance of 3 cm versus Panasonic’s 5 cm - meaning the PX can get you closer to your subject for tight botanical or detail shots.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Speed, Accuracy, and Frustrations

Here’s where reality bites the marketing: neither camera boasts blazing burst rates or sophisticated AF systems you'd find in flagship models.

• Panasonic FH3 tops out at 6 fps continuous shooting - a respectable figure for the category and period, though autofocus is contrast detection-based with no tracking or face/eye detection. It relies on 9 focus points, but all static and non-selectable - a limitation felt keenly when trying to capture moving subjects.

• The Ricoh PX offers only single frame shooting at 1 fps - far from ideal for action but mitigated somewhat by its selective AF capabilities, including center-weighted and spot metering, plus face detection (uncommon in compacts then). AF tracking is present but limited by processor speed.

In wildlife or sports shooting, neither camera excels. The FH3’s shutter speed cap at 1/1600s and PX’s at 1/2000s cover basic needs but fall short for fast action or bright daylight with wide apertures.

Durability and Environmental Resistance: Adventure-Ready?

If you’re the outdoorsy type or a travel photographer who sometimes braves less forgiving conditions, this section will be critical.

Ricoh PX notably comes with an environmental sealing feature - resistant to splash and dust ingress - although not fully waterproof or shockproof. Panasonic FH3 lacks such protection, relegating it to fair-weather use.

This gives the PX a definite advantage for hikers, adventurers, or casual shooters who want a rugged secondary camera without hauling heavy gear.

Delving into Photography Disciplines: How Do They Each Fare?

Let’s break down performance across major genres that photographers commonly explore.

Portrait Photography

Portraits demand accurate skin tones, smooth bokeh, and reliable autofocus on eyes.

• The FH3’s brighter wide aperture (F2.8) provides shallower depth of field potential and more natural background separation, which helps create pleasing bokeh at the wide end. However, fixed AF points and no face/eye detection limits reliability in focus acquisition on faces or eyes.

• The PX compensates with face detection autofocus, a real boon here - allowing better tracking of subjects as they move. Unfortunately, its smaller aperture reduces that creamy background separation, resulting in more clinical shots.

Neither camera shoots RAW, so post-processing latitude is constrained; skin tone rendering is decent but not skin-perfect or nuanced compared to modern options.

Landscape Photography

Landscape enthusiasts crave broad dynamic range, high resolution, and environmental resilience.

• The PX’s slightly higher resolution sensor (16 MP) and environmental sealing make it a more logical choice for outdoor shooting. However, small sensor size curbs dynamic range – expect clipped highlights in harsh sun.

• Both cameras offer 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 aspect ratios; PX adds a 1:1 square mode, which some may find fun for creative compositions.

Neither offers manual exposure bracketing, limiting HDR workflows. Resolution-wise, Ricoh PX’s maximum output of 4608 x 3072 edges out the FH3’s 4320 x 3240, marginally better for pixel-peeping landscapes.

Wildlife Photography

For wildlife shooting, speed and zoom quality reign supreme.

• Neither the FH3 nor PX offers telephoto reach beyond 140 mm equivalent, limiting usage to large or close wildlife rather than distant birds or shy animals.

• The FH3's faster continuous shooting and relatively quicker autofocus favor flicking shots of moving subjects, but lack of tracking hurts.

• PX’s single FPS and slower AF, even with tracking, makes it unsuitable for rapid wildlife capture.

Sports Photography

Sports demand reliable AF tracking, high FPS, and fast shutter speeds.

• Neither camera is designed for this category, with Ricoh PX’s 1 fps and Panasonic’s capped shutter speeds making them more snapshooters than sports shooters.

• Panasonic’s higher burst rate and slightly faster autofocus is better but still won’t satisfy passionate sports photographers.

Street Photography

Street shooters prize discretion, portability, low light capability, and quick focus.

• Both cameras shine in portability, pocketability, and subtle aesthetics. The smaller form factors and quiet operation reduce “camera awareness” in subjects.

• Panasonic FH3’s F2.8 aperture offers a slight edge in dim lighting.

• Ricoh PX’s ruggedness and manual focus ability offer control for creative street shots, though slower AF can hamper spontaneous captures.

Macro Photography

Macro shooters want tight focusing and stabilization.

• Ricoh PX’s 3 cm minimum focus distance beats Panasonic FH3’s 5cm, enabling closer detail shots.

• Both feature image stabilization, with PX’s sensor-shift system slightly more versatile across focal lengths.

Night and Astrophotography

Low noise, high ISO performance, and long exposure modes matter here.

• Neither camera excels at high ISO; expect grainy images beyond ISO 400.

• Shutter speed ranges of 60s max for FH3 and 8s min for PX limit astrophotography use. Neither supports bulb mode.

• No RAW support or advanced exposure bracketing further limits post-processing for night scenes.

Video Capabilities

Both cameras offer HD video but with modest specs.

• Panasonic FH3 and Ricoh PX cap at 1280 x 720 resolution at 30fps, using Motion JPEG codecs - no 4K or even full HD.

• Neither has microphone or headphone jacks; video is strictly casual.

• PX offers HDMI out for external display - a plus for quick sharing or field monitoring.

Travel Photography

A jack-of-all-trades, travel-ready camera is key here.

• Ricoh PX’s environmental sealing, manual controls, rugged design, and decent optical stabilization make it a sturdy daily companion.

• Panasonic FH3 is lighter, simpler, and offers faster shooting but lacks durability.

Battery life is similar, though detailed numbers are absent; both accept standard SD and SDHC cards, with USB 2.0 connectivity.

Professional Work

Neither camera targets professional use given no RAW support, limited controls, and lack of advanced connectivity.

Summing Up Performance with Scores and Sample Galleries

Having extensively tested both cameras, I compiled performance overviews and sample shots to visualize strengths and weaknesses.

Panasonic FH3 screen back Ricoh PX front Ricoh PX screen back

In the studio, Panasonic’s richer colors and wider aperture stand out. Outdoors, Ricoh PX’s sharper detail and resilience edge ahead, especially in landscapes.

When plotted, Panasonic FH3 excels in burst shooting speed and ease of use. Ricoh PX scores higher on durability and manual control aspects.

The genre chart confirms their complementary niches: Panasonic FH3 leans toward casual portrait, street, and travel shooters; Ricoh PX suits outdoor, macro, and rugged-use cases better.

Digging Deeper: Technical Insights and Testing Notes

Having tested hundreds of cameras over 15 years, a few nuanced observations emerge:

• Sensor Performance: CCD sensors peak early before noise floods shadows; hence, both cameras produce best images at base ISO (100-200). I tested using ISO invariance techniques and found that pushing ISO digitally post-exposure yields less noise than shooting at high ISO.

• AF System: Contrast detection autofocus without phase detection produces slower locking, noticeable in low light and for dynamic subjects. Neither camera benefits from hybrid AF improvements modern cameras enjoy.

• Build Quality: Ricoh PX’s environmental sealing (splash and dust resistance) proved reassuring during light drizzle test shoots, with no performance hiccups.

• Post-processing: Lack of RAW limits dynamic range recovery and white balance tweaking; users must depend on JPEG engines for final image quality.

• Ergonomics: Ricoh’s manual controls encourage experimentation, valuable for enthusiasts learning exposure. Panasonic’s simplicity appeals to snapshooters or beginner-friendly use.

Final Recommendations: Which Camera Should You Choose?

Both cameras bring interesting, if modest, capabilities. Your choice hinges on your priorities:

• Choose Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH3 if you:

  • Want a budget-friendly, straightforward compact for casual portraits and street shooting.
  • Prefer faster continuous shooting and a brighter lens for low-light situations.
  • Value ease of use over manual control.
  • Need a light, pocketable daily shooter.
  • Can accept limitations in durability and no RAW.

• Choose Ricoh PX if you:

  • Desire a rugged, weather-sealed compact for outdoor, travel, or adventurous shooting.
  • Want manual focus, exposure compensation, and white balance bracketing to learn and experiment.
  • Need excellent macro capabilities and slightly higher resolution landscapes.
  • Are willing to pay more for those extras but can tolerate slower shooting performance.
  • Use HDMI for quick image review on external monitors.

Neither camera is a powerhouse by modern standards, but as entry-level compacts circa 2010-2011, they carve out distinct niches. Your real-world shooting style and willingness to compromise will dictate the best fit.

Wrapping Up: Practical Wisdom for Compact Camera Buyers

You may be wondering whether investing in decade-old small sensor compacts makes sense at all in 2024. My advice: these cameras serve as nostalgic entry points or lightweight backups, but for serious image quality and advanced features you want to consider newer models or mirrorless systems.

Yet, if compactness, simplicity, and budget drive your decision, knowing exactly what you get (and what you don’t) from the Panasonic FH3 and Ricoh PX prevents buyer’s remorse - knowledge only seasoned, hands-on testing delivers.

Here’s to crisp shots, happy clicking, and cameras that fit your creative vibe!