Your assistance would be greatly appreciated

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
7 months ago

I have been shooting primarily with my LX7 for the past 2 years, before that mostly Canon, S95 ,etc., and years ago a 3 lens Canon SLR setup. After 3 trips to Europe, with too much time spent on benches carefully changing lenses and the daypack weighing far more than is comfortable, I jumped to digital P&S cameras for their weight and ease of use.

My focus (sorry) is landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, food, people, mostly during the day and mostly outside and I view my images on my current generation 27"iMac, share them with friends and have prints and calendars made up to about 10X14. I am not a pixel peeper and i shout exclusively in JPEG with minimal PP.

I now am retired and my wife and I travel very often, both across the US and 2 times per year to Europe. I really enjoy photography but not at the expense of extra weight and sitting on benches changing lenses frequently.

Recently the price of several larger sensor cameras have become ridiculously inexpensive, with the NEX 3N and Olympus E-PM2 with kit lenses in the $300 range. I posted a similar question to both of their boards and received various responses, from "all of your images will be significantly better than from you LX7 to there will be little difference at all". I clearly stated I would be using the kit lens primarily.

I strongly believe the correct response to my question is that with a normal kit lens, shooting in adequate light there will be little, if any difference between my LX7 and the Nex 3N or Olympus E-pm2 with kit lenses. I believe this is partly true because the poor kit lens quality and the reality that the LX7 is a darn good camera, and the small sensor suffers little in adequate light, and I don't plan on making 20X30 size prints.

So why am I asking here? It's because what I have read is that the kit lens for the M is quite a bit better than your standard kit lens, and of course the sensor is quite good, the size of the M is small, and it is very reasonably priced now.

So what do you think? Will i be able to appreciate a significant difference in IQ and DR in a significant number of my images viewed as I do view them? Or will i only notice a big difference in low light? Do Keep in mind the LX7 lens is quite bright, 24mm - 90mm, F1.4 - F2.3, so even in low light the LX7 is pretty good, but nowhere near as good as an APS-c size sensor camera.

Your input is greatly appreciated.

Joel

A few LX7 images are below:

Venice

Venice in fog, 6am

Varenna, Lake Como, Italy

Chianti region, Italy

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Canon PowerShot S95 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
6x9
6x9
Regular MemberPosts: 209Gear list
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

The difference in picture quality will be more than visible on the screen of your Mac, or in large prints. And this is true not only for low-light.

The kit zoom is just excellent both optically and mechanically.

Movig to EOS M/M2 you will get an option to change lenses as well. Although you say that you are only interested in the kit zoom, I think that you would enjoy both the 35 mm F/2 and the 11-22 mm lenses. If you consider buying the Canon M/M2, it makes sense to buy these lenses as well. There is actually a 3-lens M2 kit sold in Japan.

I bought the EOS M two lens kit, and I use mostly the 35 mm F/2.

From another hand, the EOS M/M2 cameras are not as versatile as some cameras of competition. Battery life is quite poor too.

-- hide signature --

- 6x9 -

 6x9's gear list:6x9's gear list
Nikon D80 Pentax K10D Pentax K-5 Olympus PEN E-P3 Pentax K-01 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to 6x9, 7 months ago

6x9 wrote:

The difference in picture quality will be more than visible on the screen of your Mac, or in large prints. And this is true not only for low-light.

The kit zoom is just excellent both optically and mechanically.

Movig to EOS M/M2 you will get an option to change lenses as well. Although you say that you are only interested in the kit zoom, I think that you would enjoy both the 35 mm F/2 and the 11-22 mm lenses. If you consider buying the Canon M/M2, it makes sense to buy these lenses as well. There is actually a 3-lens M2 kit sold in Japan.

I bought the EOS M two lens kit, and I use mostly the 35 mm F/2.

From another hand, the EOS M/M2 cameras are not as versatile as some cameras of competition. Battery life is quite poor too.

-- hide signature --

- 6x9 -

Thanks for your input. Just curious, what other small size, large sensor cameras do you think are better?

J

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Phily
New MemberPosts: 8
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

I own both the LX7 and the EOS-M with the 22mm (that was my "kit lens")

1) The LX7's autofocus is incomparably faster

2) At F 1.4, the LX7 is very sharp. At F 2, the 22mm is also very sharp.

3) I would say that the LX7's sensor at 400 is like the EOS-M's at 2000. But the LX7 at 3200 is like the EOS-M at 6400. Of course with a lower pixel count, the EOS-M would be even better. But don't forget the LX7's substantial speed advantage. In general, the EOS-M's IQ is better. But the LX7's IQ is already very good.

4) The LX7's MTF mode has no equivalent in the EOS-M. And the minimum speed feature also is brilliant in the LX7 and sorely missing in the EOS-M

5) The in-camera HDR is very usable in the LX7 because it is very fast. It is not as usable in the EOS-M which shoots 3 times in a row quite slowly

6) In operation the LX7 is much faster

7) The LX7 has a flash. Not the EOS-M

8) The battery life of the LX7 seems better.

9) The zoom range and speed of the LX7 are better than the 18-55 IS

Conclusion: For most of my uses, the LX7 is a much better camera. Unless in low light when I cannot use the flash, I miss it when carry the EOS-M. If I were to spend $300 again (what I paid for the EOS-M), I would buy instead another LX7, just to be safe. Not sure what Panasonic will replace it with. It is really an excellent package.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to Phily, 7 months ago

Phily wrote:

I own both the LX7 and the EOS-M with the 22mm (that was my "kit lens")

1) The LX7's autofocus is incomparably faster

2) At F 1.4, the LX7 is very sharp. At F 2, the 22mm is also very sharp.

3) I would say that the LX7's sensor at 400 is like the EOS-M's at 2000. But the LX7 at 3200 is like the EOS-M at 6400. Of course with a lower pixel count, the EOS-M would be even better. But don't forget the LX7's substantial speed advantage. In general, the EOS-M's IQ is better. But the LX7's IQ is already very good.

4) The LX7's MTF mode has no equivalent in the EOS-M. And the minimum speed feature also is brilliant in the LX7 and sorely missing in the EOS-M

5) The in-camera HDR is very usable in the LX7 because it is very fast. It is not as usable in the EOS-M which shoots 3 times in a row quite slowly

6) In operation the LX7 is much faster

7) The LX7 has a flash. Not the EOS-M

8) The battery life of the LX7 seems better.

9) The zoom range and speed of the LX7 are better than the 18-55 IS

Conclusion: For most of my uses, the LX7 is a much better camera. Unless in low light when I cannot use the flash, I miss it when carry the EOS-M. If I were to spend $300 again (what I paid for the EOS-M), I would buy instead another LX7, just to be safe. Not sure what Panasonic will replace it with. It is really an excellent package.

Philly,

Wonderful, clear analysis.  Confirms all my beliefs with factual comparisons.  Many thanks.

Joel

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gesture
Senior MemberPosts: 2,258Gear list
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

I would think that Olympus E-PM2 with kit lens would be worth looking at.  Many of the conveniences of the LX7 and the lens will focus quite closely.  But, yes, you can spend a lifetime and not exhaust the possibilities of the LX7.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to Gesture, 7 months ago

Gesture wrote:

I would think that Olympus E-PM2 with kit lens would be worth looking at. Many of the conveniences of the LX7 and the lens will focus quite closely. But, yes, you can spend a lifetime and not exhaust the possibilities of the LX7.

Gesture,

Two posters and very good photographers on the Panasonic board told me quite clearly that while they love their 4/3 Oly and Pana cameras (with several primes), but they find the kit lenses quite poor, and both favored the LX7 with it's sharper lens and brighter apertures.

It sure seems that to get significantly better IQ than the LX7 in a variety of circumstances you need a large sensor camera and good prime lenses, so even the best bargains in 4/3 and Nex cameras available now end up costing $1000 or more when you add just a couple of primes.

Big difference in my mind compared to the $300 for the LX7 and its ability to shoot from 22mm (in 16/9 format) up to 90mm. And it fits in a large pocket and you don't have to change lenses.

Regards,

J

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gesture
Senior MemberPosts: 2,258Gear list
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

Work work is lovely. Not quite sure then why you asked for advice?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to Gesture, 7 months ago

Gesture wrote:

Work work is lovely. Not quite sure then why you asked for advice?

Thank you.  Because I wanted to be sure that the Canon Eos M wasn't the exception.  If several responders would have stated that they have an LX5/LX7 and an Eos M with kit lens and the Eos M blows the LX camera away for IQ and DR in almost all situations, i would have certainly purchased one, even if I would soon see that this was not the case thru my comparative testing.  I then would have returned the Eos M.

But since I don't like to return purchases unless they are defective, i didn't want to go that route unless there was a good reason to do so.  I hope that makes some sense.

Best,

Joel

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Veducci
Contributing MemberPosts: 791Gear list
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

I get the feeling the OP isn`t quite satisfied with IQ from his LX7.  Neither was I .  The LX7 has just about everything anyone would ask for in a small package  , except IQ.

Sure , in good light it performs well but so doesn`t the $150 Canon Elph  with an even smaller sensor . Most any decent P&S these days produces good imagery in good light .

Ultimately ,  IQ has to be considered and the M is as good as it gets outside of a high end dslr.  The 18-55 kit lens with the M is just excellent and the probably the sharpest kit lens available with any camera in any kit. The 22mm f/2 prime is maybe even sharper if that`s possible , and it makes the M pocketable.

And you won`t be using flash too often with the M.  The much cleaner high ISO`s more than cancels out the faster lens in the LX7.

It`s all in the sensor and lens and the M doesn`t disappoint.

The LX7 AF is quicker than the M in good light but not in low light .  My M is more accurate in low light than my LX7.

 Veducci's gear list:Veducci's gear list
Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
calterg
Regular MemberPosts: 450
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to Veducci, 7 months ago

To add to others comments, the kitlenses are the sharpest I have seen on any apsc and four thirds system cameras.

I have olympus, nex 6 (my 1650 kitlens is a good copy, yet blown away by m 1855), nikon 3 and 5 series, nikon 1, all with kitlenses.

So, yes, there is no kit camera like the m for iq.

Here is pict from m 1855 at 18mm end, where its considered soft and on a hazy day.

Veducci wrote:

I get the feeling the OP isn`t quite satisfied with IQ from his LX7. Neither was I . The LX7 has just about everything anyone would ask for in a small package , except IQ.

Sure , in good light it performs well but so doesn`t the $150 Canon Elph with an even smaller sensor . Most any decent P&S these days produces good imagery in good light .

Ultimately , IQ has to be considered and the M is as good as it gets outside of a high end dslr. The 18-55 kit lens with the M is just excellent and the probably the sharpest kit lens available with any camera in any kit. The 22mm f/2 prime is maybe even sharper if that`s possible , and it makes the M pocketable.

And you won`t be using flash too often with the M. The much cleaner high ISO`s more than cancels out the faster lens in the LX7.

It`s all in the sensor and lens and the M doesn`t disappoint.

The LX7 AF is quicker than the M in good light but not in low light . My M is more accurate in low light than my LX7.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gesture
Senior MemberPosts: 2,258Gear list
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to calterg, 7 months ago

Thus, the strange positioning of the EOS-M by Canon. I do think the body lacks many features, but the build quality and lenses are superb.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Abu Mahendra
Senior MemberPosts: 2,288Gear list
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to Gesture, 7 months ago

I rather think it is the autofocus (at the sensor) which is superbly precise. This is an under-ap0reciated characteristic of the M that gets lost in the chatter about AF speed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
6x9
6x9
Regular MemberPosts: 209Gear list
Like?
Ooops - I meant the 22 mm F/2 not the 35 mm F/2 !
In reply to 6x9, 7 months ago

I meant 22 mm F/2, of course - which would be about 35 mm in FF specs

Need to switch back to APS-C!

-- hide signature --

- 6x9 -

 6x9's gear list:6x9's gear list
Nikon D80 Pentax K10D Pentax K-5 Olympus PEN E-P3 Pentax K-01 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
calterg
Regular MemberPosts: 450
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to Abu Mahendra, 7 months ago

Yes, many people confuse af speed with af accuracy. Mirrorless is the most accurate of af systems, since af accuracy is only determined on the sensor pkane, as opposed to deviations from the mirror and pentaprism plus sensor considerations for mirrored dslrs.

Where the m is concerned, becausd pd focus pixels are on the sensor surface itself, accuracy is pretty much guaranteed.

In other words, there are no back or front focus issues with the m or any camera with af pixels on the sensor.. Just af lock speed issues.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

I rather think it is the autofocus (at the sensor) which is superbly precise. This is an under-ap0reciated characteristic of the M that gets lost in the chatter about AF speed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kotmj
Regular MemberPosts: 222
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

Nice pics. If I were in your position, I'd get two M bodies. One has the kit zoom mounted, and the other your most-used focal length at the widest aperture available. So in my case, M+18-55 & M+35/1.4.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to kotmj, 7 months ago

kotmj wrote:

Nice pics. If I were in your position, I'd get two M bodies. One has the kit zoom mounted, and the other your most-used focal length at the widest aperture available. So in my case, M+18-55 & M+35/1.4.

Makes sense,  but why not get the 18-55 and the new 11-22, which gets great reviews and seem like it would be perfect for landscapes and architecture.

J

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kotmj
Regular MemberPosts: 222
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

Oh I see you are still deliberating an M and are still fond of the LX7. I used an Olympus XZ-1 for three years, two of which it was my primary camera. A similar camera to the s95 and lx7.

The M is head and shoulders above the XZ-1. It is no longer possible to go back.

I can shoot at ISO 3200 and still get nice pictures. The XZ-1 is unusable at iso800.

The huge, detail-rich files with the lovely canon colors are simply in a different league. Since getting the M, the XZ-1, though I have fond memories with it, just isn't something I can use anymore.

People say the zuiko is spectacular. It is at the wide end, but the longer side is very poor -- very low contrast and resolution.

The 22/2 otoh is a lifetime lens. Utterly incredible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to kotmj, 7 months ago

kotmj wrote:

Oh I see you are still deliberating an M and are still fond of the LX7. I used an Olympus XZ-1 for three years, two of which it was my primary camera. A similar camera to the s95 and lx7.

The M is head and shoulders above the XZ-1. It is no longer possible to go back.

I can shoot at ISO 3200 and still get nice pictures. The XZ-1 is unusable at iso800.

The huge, detail-rich files with the lovely canon colors are simply in a different league. Since getting the M, the XZ-1, though I have fond memories with it, just isn't something I can use anymore.

People say the zuiko is spectacular. It is at the wide end, but the longer side is very poor -- very low contrast and resolution.

The 22/2 otoh is a lifetime lens. Utterly incredible.

I hear what you are saying, but just concerned about giving up 24mm on the LX7 for 29mm on the 18-55.  How do i compensate for landscapes, take 2 or 3 images and stitch together or ?

S

 joel artino's gear list:joel artino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kotmj
Regular MemberPosts: 222
Like?
Re: Your assistance would be greatly appreciated
In reply to joel artino, 7 months ago

You will not think about those few degrees of view anymore when you get the M.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads