Micro 4/3 Panasonic LX100!!!! Money is flying from my credit card!

Yep, the more I think about I conclude that it's a deal-breaker for me. I'd happily pre-order the LX100 to replace my E-P5 kit, but that goofy little flash is going to stop me. I feel kind of stupid saying that. I'm not a big flash guy, but having it for fill flash, or when you just need it to get a shot is important to me. And I'm not giving up the benefits of interchangeable lenses to gain convenience and then give it right back by having to keep track of a little flash unit.

Oh well. Maybe gen2 for me. :rolleyes:

I gave my E-PM1 and E-PM2 to my niece for that very reason. I feel the same way about optional viewfinders.
 
I've just about got the rationale worked out.

Large kit - Df with a few lenses and Coolpix A for street.

Small kit - LX100, RX1, and Coolpix A. Either fits in the Ona Bowery unless I take too many lenses with the Df, in which case I have to go with a Turnstyle sling bag.

Super small kit - either LX100 or Coolpix A, depending on how much street shooting factors in...

I'll have to polish it up for the judges, but I've just about got it down... :D

-Ray

Ray - that's all good and fine, but you can't fool us. You know you want it, and you know you are going to get it, regardless of any rationalization. I'm in the same boat. And I know I'm doomed no matter what I tell myself. The LX100 is in my future. That's it. Death, taxes, and the LX100.
 
Ray - that's all good and fine, but you can't fool us. You know you want it, and you know you are going to get it, regardless of any rationalization. I'm in the same boat. And I know I'm doomed no matter what I tell myself. The LX100 is in my future. That's it. Death, taxes, and the LX100.

Note that the rationalization was all ways of rationalizing GETTING the camera, not trying to talk myself OUT of it... I'm guessing you're probably right, which is why I have to come up with a good rationale for myself. Then again, I often react this way to announcements but I actually end up NOT getting quite a few of the things I initially feel this way about. So I wouldn't say it's a done deal, but there's a pretty good likelihood, so I have to have my story together... :cool:

It's still a ways away from being available. Maybe Nikon or Olympus will do something with the 1" chip with something more like 24-120 and still with a pretty fast lens. I've got a couple of months to cogitate on this. But you're probably right...

-Ray
 
Ray, while I'm most likely going to get the LX100, I can think of one reason why you might not be satisfied with it: Image Quality. Even if the LX100 uses the sensor of the GM1, which is a fine sensor and IMO better than that of the Oly EM-5, current m43 cameras simply don't have full frame or even aps-c image quality. They just lack something in the subtle gradations of colour, and have 'grittier' files. You have the Nikon Df and you've had the EM-5, so you know what I'm talking about. If you're comparing it with the Pana LX7, then there's no doubt that the LX100 will produce better files. But compared with the Df or even the Nikon A?

The LX100 looks like a fine, fine camera, but even so, the image quality will be determined by the sensor, the processor, and the lens. We have no idea what the lens quality will be like, and we can only assume that it will use the GH4 or GM1 sensor and processor. In the best case scenario, it will slightly improve on the GM1, and have a lens equal to the LX7. We're still talking about m43 image quality. That is fine for me in daily work, but not when I want the quality that only full frame can give at this time.
 
It looks pretty similar in size to the Canon G12..

camera_comparison2.JPG


camera_comparison.JPG


Cheers, Jock

Well noted. And like the Canon G series it can no longer be considered an Advanced "Compact". As good as it may sound on paper the fact it has now become so big has completely removed it from my shopping list. I am now almost certain to look towards Sony, Ricoh and even Nikon to replace my LX-5.
 
Jeepers, the LX100 looks crazy-thick compared with the G12. Oddly, if you look at the camerasize comparison with the Fuji X10, it's a little thicker in the body, and much of the bulk comes from the lens. I'm guessing that the size will make this a primary camera for many people, rather than a pocket backup.

The body is about the same size as the LX7 with a Gariz half-case, although the EVF and lens protrudes a lot more. If you think of this as a small m43 camera, rather than a pocket camera with a big sensor, the size becomes more acceptable. Heck, it's the same size as the Fuji X30 and yet has a much bigger sensor.
 
Even if the LX100 uses the sensor of the GM1, which is a fine sensor and IMO better than that of the Oly EM-5, current m43 cameras simply don't have full frame or even aps-c image quality. They just lack something in the subtle gradations of colour, and have 'grittier' files.

As I have read it, it's using the GX7 sensor, and the phoblographer said

"Image Quality

Despite the fact that the camera houses the same sensor as the GX7, we were not allowed to put an SD card in the camera at all. Still, we are told that it more or less has the same image quality. Beyond that, we collectively think that that camera had the best color rendition of nearly any Micro Four Thirds offering out there."

Read more at First Impressions: Panasonic LX100

Though m43 color could be considered behind full frame, but not likely the EM5, based on the above, and what I've seen from the GX7 samples on line.
 
It just occurred to me that the LX100 at 16:9 ratio could be the widest and fastest lens combination you could get on a 4/3 sensor. The LX7 in 16:9 ratio is more like 21.5mm, rather than 24mm, thanks to the multi-aspect ratio sensor. It is the widest and fastest lens on a small sensor camera at 21.5/1.4. The LX100 has a 4/3 multi-aspect ratio sensor, and at 24mm is likely to be more like 21.5mm! And f1.7 to boot!

No other wide angle lens for m43 is this wide and fast. The Pana 7-14 is f4 all the way. The equivalent Oly is f2.8. And there are no wide, fast primes for m43. The LX100 could be a revelation to people (meaning me) who want a fast lens at 22mm or wider.
 
The GX7 EVF is at 16:9 aspect ratio so when you shoot in 4:3, you get black borders on each side.

I do hope that is not the case for the LX100 and probably one of the most annoying things that I find because it make the image in the EVF smaller when you can see unused space
 
Another interesting size comparison

Camerasize3.JPG


The G12 is my everyday "concealed carry" camera. I hang it around my neck, stash it beneath a jacket or shirt, and pull it out when needed. Yeah, I look a little lumpy and weird but I do anyway! The LX100 looks just a bit thicker.

I was at an event recently when a fellow pulled out a Sony RX100. The first thing that struck me is "Wow, that is just too small; it's the size of a phone." I like to shoot with both hands -- on cradling the camera, the other pushing the buttons. I don't see anyway to do that with a camera as small as the RX100.

The Sony A6000 seems just a bit bigger than the LX100, but I have two problems with it. First, I can't seem to raise any enthusiasm in myself for changing lenses (Lord knows I have tried; I can't count the number of times I have loaded an on-line shopping cart with a system camera and lenses. I think I would rather carry two cameras than change lenses), and none of the controls that I would like to use are as readily available as I would prefer.

In fact, lack of straightforward accessibility to controls is kind of a universal problem with all the cameras I own, with the exception of the Olympus D550 which basically has no controls except for the shutter button.

The LX100 strikes me as -- dare I say it? -- Leica lite. Aperture and shutter speed are right there. So is exposure compensation. If the manual focus is decent, we're in Fat City.

As I look at what I have written above, I have revealed myself to be an Old School retro-crank: "Why when I was a boy (and men were men, etc.), everybody walked around with their aperture rings and shutter speed wheels hanging out for all the world to see . . ."

BTW, I am not dissing anyone's favorite rig, just expressing my personal preferences for how I work. You probably take better pictures than I do anyway.

Cheers, Jock
 
Ray, while I'm most likely going to get the LX100, I can think of one reason why you might not be satisfied with it: Image Quality. Even if the LX100 uses the sensor of the GM1, which is a fine sensor and IMO better than that of the Oly EM-5, current m43 cameras simply don't have full frame or even aps-c image quality. They just lack something in the subtle gradations of colour, and have 'grittier' files. You have the Nikon Df and you've had the EM-5, so you know what I'm talking about. If you're comparing it with the Pana LX7, then there's no doubt that the LX100 will produce better files. But compared with the Df or even the Nikon A?

The LX100 looks like a fine, fine camera, but even so, the image quality will be determined by the sensor, the processor, and the lens. We have no idea what the lens quality will be like, and we can only assume that it will use the GH4 or GM1 sensor and processor. In the best case scenario, it will slightly improve on the GM1, and have a lens equal to the LX7. We're still talking about m43 image quality. That is fine for me in daily work, but not when I want the quality that only full frame can give at this time.

Oh yeah, I'm well aware it's not gonna touch my full frame gear. I've had a longer history with m43 than anything else and I'm pretty familiar with what it can and can't do. But honestly, I've always liked m43 as much as APS except for one thing that doesn't seem like that big a deal to a lot of people - I really don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio much at all! I'm fine with it for street shooting because I often crop my street shots down to a square, so 4:3 is actually a great starting point. And I just rarely need the full wide sweep of a 3:2 image for street work. And for portrait orientation shots (which I don't do much) I prefer it. But for a large majority of my non-street shooting, I just prefer 3:2. By a lot. So the multi-aspect sensors of the LX series has always been a big deal to me. I always loved shooting with those cameras and that aspect ratio switch on the lens is no small part of that. I tried to love the GH2 because of that feature but just never bonded with the camera in any other way.

As far as IQ, I know it won't come close to replacing any full frame gear I've got, but I was always pretty happy with m43 as a secondary system. There's a side of me that wishes I still had an EM5 or EM10 plus the 75mm and 35-100 f2.8 because it's the most user friendly (small!) telephoto gear I've ever shot with. The 75mm is the best longer portrait lens I can even imagine and that's the one funciton I doubt I'll replace to my satisfaction with full frame gear. Same with really long reach (like the Oly 75-300, which has twice the reach of anything I'll ever buy for Nikon in a package much smaller than half the reach on the Nikon).

But, yeah, I know I won't get anwhere close to the DR out of those files and can't manipulate them nearly as effectively in post processing. But they surely surpass any kind of minimum standard for highly useable shots. I shot with nothing but m43 during a short vacation around this past New Years and I was very happy with what I came back with. The thing I have to get really honest with myself about is how much I'd actually use a camera like this. I've had cameras like this before (with much more limited IQ) and they always ended up gathering dust. If I can't convince myself I'll actually put this to use, I won't buy it. And I'll have doubts for sure. But there's a bigger size discrepancy between my Nikon gear and this camera than there ever was between a small m43 kit and something like an LX5 or X-10. And this IQ will be so much higher than either of those, so there's more size benefit and less IQ penalty. I could easily see going out with this, the RX1, and Nikon A in a very small bag, use the RX1 and Nikon A when the situation called for it, but have the LX100 for other stuff where the shooting is less challenging and where I want a wider range of focal lengths. WIth the 16:9 at 24 coming in almost as wide as 21 I wouldn't feel too bad about leaving that focal length behind with the Nikon and I don't shoot longer very often anyway. I would miss a good portrait length, though, and that's a real consideration. The 80-120 range available in the Canon G1X mkII is honestly really tempting for a camera to fill the role I see this one filling, and it's got 3:2 available in a multi-aspect setup also (but not 16-9). But I'm really not sure I'd be happy with the files from that older sensor, either a 1" or 4/3 sensor has loads more DR and are as good or better in low light. And it doesn't have a built in EVF or a couple other detail that bug me about it. But it's got a REALLY useful all-in one zoom range. I've been spending some time with a Nikon 24-120 zoom and having that whole range of portrait lengths available in a zoom seems to make them vastly more useful to me than something that tops out at 70 or even 90mm.

So despite my initial excitement with this camera when the details first emerged yesterday - because I'm honestly REALLY impressed with almost everything I see with it - I'm sobering up already and honestly have no idea if I'll buy one. I have two small cameras already and am usually happy just taking those out when I want a small kit. I'd probably be better served to get something like an EPM2 with a 12mm and 45mm lens to go along with it to fill in a mini-kit when I don't want to take the Nikon. Except for that damn aspect ratio! Or even a used XE1 with a14 and 60mm lens, but that's a whole lot less "mini" - I've done that one and the Nikon with a 20 and 85 really isn't that much more to carry. And I really don't want to get into a second "system" again...

So I don't know what I'll do. I'm always enticed by cameras like this, have owned a few, and never end up using them as much as I should. But every once in a while it's kind of liberating to just go out with a small camera and see what you come back with. One of my best days of shooting on a European trip more than four years ago when I took a full m43 kit (when there were waaaaay fewer options than today - I think I had two zooms, two primes, two bodies) was a day I ONLY took a Canon S90 out of the room. I came back with more keepers that day than almost any other on that trip. So, I'm always tempted, but also wary based on past experience. So I don't know what I'll do, but it's in the mix and under consideration, for sure... Maybe I'll just wait a while and see what if anything Olynpus or Nikon come out with around a 1" sensor, if anything... I don't need to be in a hurry for a camera like this, if I end up getting one at all...

-Ray
 
I think most serious photographers who have chosen know that it will not give the same output as FF - while it hardly lags behind APS from samples I've seen. And APS is likely to die soon as neither C or N are seriously producing lenses for that imaging circle.

People can rave about equivalence about shallow DOF with FF but any skilled photographer can get shallow dof by any number of techniques with a smaller format.

Nope, for me the ultimate advantage to M43 is something FF has no equivalence to hide behind: physical size and weight.
 
After a night's sleep, here's where I'm at: I want to love this camera. I really do. I'm totally fine with the LX100's size, control interface and sensor. But the whole idea of buying a camera like this is to have everything I need in one modestly-sized package with no need to bring extra lenses or other bits. A separate flash unit means that I would have to bring a another piece with me, which partially mitigates the need for this camera - at least for me. I was prepared to "pre-order" this camera upon its formal introduction. But now, I'll have to wait and learn more about it... with the Fuji X100T a possible alternative. I know to many this sounds like a dumb reason to not buy a camera but little things like this count a whole lot when it comes to the overall shooting experience. And when spending $900, I don't feel I need to tolerate such an omission.
 
After a night's sleep, here's where I'm at: I want to love this camera. I really do. I'm totally fine with the LX100's size, control interface and sensor. But the whole idea of buying a camera like this is to have everything I need in one modestly-sized package with no need to bring extra lenses or other bits. A separate flash unit means that I would have to bring a another piece with me, which partially mitigates the need for this camera - at least for me. I was prepared to "pre-order" this camera upon its formal introduction. But now, I'll have to wait and learn more about it... with the Fuji X100T a possible alternative. I know to many this sounds like a dumb reason to not buy a camera like this but little things like this count a whole lot when it comes to the overall shooting experience. And when spending $900, I don't feel I need to tolerate something like this.

Biro, you are speaking for me 100% as well (except about the Fuji as a second choice :)) No flash; no deal. I wanted flip and touch screen, but they are negotiable. Flash is not.
 
Agree with the both of you. Although to be honest if it had been weathersealed, I would've been able to overlook the absence of a flash. I don't use flash often but a compact camera should simply work as an all in one solution, at least for the basic photographic functionality, which some form of flash definitely belongs to.
 
Back
Top