naththo: Its clear that this Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 is the best quality in lens I can see in the sample. I can't understand why Canon shows it poorly since they make decent lens? Wonder why? Hrm?
I would not judge lens quality based on those test shots. Those are zoom lenses, the performance varies at different focal lengths and apertures. Some cameras might perform better on wide end than others, while at the tele end, the situation might be reversed.
Sdaniella: most small sensor systems lenses have considerable lens aberration correction, especially if going very wide fov, so it starts to get harder to tell how much of the distortion is from variation in optics, or from the standardized correction of those expected distortions as designed.
the Canon G7X RAW (seen shown elsewhere, shared on DPR, from a French test comparison webdite, forgot which) at 24mm eq, looks extremely distorted, its a wonder how it can possibly be corrected fully 'rectilinear' in JPEGs without plenty of evident softness in the corners (and at the edges of the frame).
most of it, would not be of great concern, knowing such massive correction is going on, on corner details where most are likely to ignore, and not notice unless specifically looked for, or typically removed during 'creative cropping' for final work presentation.
anyone choosing from compacts Canon S120 to Canon G7X will cheer 'yay'!
ditto: LX7 to LX100 (a bigger sensor size jump; yields bigger IQ gains)
Our opinions differ because you seem to cherry pick which pictures you are looking at, but whatever.
If you can properly evaluate performance of a zoom lens based on one shot at one specific focal length and one specific aperture value, then good for you. I like to evaluate that kind of stuff based on more data points. And while lab shots at IR give me more info, it's still not enough for full evaluation. But you just need one photo to know everything, that's some impressive extrapolation skill.
There's nothing left for me here than to wish you luck on your quest, whatever it is.
You're welcome :)
Aren't you just cherry-picking? I don't need to check my facts again, it's all there in the open, just look at RAW files. The facts are that at the wide end, the performance of G7X is poor. And the reasons for that are obvious (huge distortion and lens not covering the sensor).
And obviously, performance at different focal lengths will vary. G7X seems to be doing a pretty good job on the tele end, while on LX100 for example, it's a bit softer on the tele end than in the middle (again, something I would expect, since the sweet spot is usually in the middle of the zoom range).
And using DPR samples for evaluating lens performance is quite silly. Those comparisions are great for evaluating image quality from sensor performance point of view (noise, dynamic range, color rendition, etc.). And possibly they give you some idea for best case scenario for lens performance, but not much more.
I think Sdaniella is referring to test shots from imaging-resource. You can download both RAW and JPG for G7X and LX100 and compare yourself.
Both Lx100 and G7X have significant distortion at wide end. And frankly, that's pretty much what I would expect from a compact camera.
The difference is in the amount of that distortion. On G7X, the lens at the wide end does not even cover the whole sensor, and the distortion seems to be more pronounced. From the looks of it, correcting that not only requires "defishing", but also upscaling. I would expect the loss of resolution after such significant correction to be noticable. And the IQ in the corners is already not great even without software corrections.
Astrotripper: Looks promising. A bit mushy, which I guess is typical for in-camera jpegs. However, I'd say:- those look much better than jpegs from any of Samsung's mirrorless offerings (now, that is one lousy jpeg engine), including NX1- it seems to handle lens flare pretty well- CA must be pretty well controlled, since the in-camera corrections have left very little traces of it, no obvious purple fringing as well- a little bit of softness in the corners on the wide end (probably resulting from distortion corrections), totally expectable, still much better than some DSLR zooms- no extreme vignetting, but that's most likely corrected in software, so hard to tell how the lens perform in this regard- ISO 1600 looks to be perfectly usable
Can't wait for in-depth review. This looks like it may be a perfect walk-around camera for more advanced users.
You're probably right, it's hard to properly judge based on shots someone else did. Especially considering there are plenty of settings that can impact the end result (noise reduction, sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc.).
I'm generally OK with the jpeg quality on most cameras nowadays. I don't use them, as I mostly find them a bit on the heavy side of post-processing. I've singled out NX, because this is the only one that really puts me off. I know the NX cameras can deliver nice IQ when using RAW. But to me, the jpegs look like something that came out of a smartphone.
Looks promising. A bit mushy, which I guess is typical for in-camera jpegs. However, I'd say:- those look much better than jpegs from any of Samsung's mirrorless offerings (now, that is one lousy jpeg engine), including NX1- it seems to handle lens flare pretty well- CA must be pretty well controlled, since the in-camera corrections have left very little traces of it, no obvious purple fringing as well- a little bit of softness in the corners on the wide end (probably resulting from distortion corrections), totally expectable, still much better than some DSLR zooms- no extreme vignetting, but that's most likely corrected in software, so hard to tell how the lens perform in this regard- ISO 1600 looks to be perfectly usable
armandino: Canon M system:Camera + 22/2.0 $31111-22mm $40018-55mm $10922/2.0 $11955-250mm $400adapter for EF $100
The canon M is designed for basic functionality and unfortunately a non competitive focus speed. Yet you can buy a whole system for the price of a mid range mirrorless. If AF speed and EVF are not your concern this is an excellent proposition. It also underlines the most obvious of the issues with the hyped mirrorless systems: they are overpriced.
@Michael_13In case of MFT, inexpensive lenses are the exception. Despite being quite a mature system for it's age, the selection of good affordable lenses is abysmal. Sure, even the kit lenses are decent optically, but if you want something more, you need to shell out a lot of cash. Affordable constant aperture zoom? Forget it. Cheap nifty-fifty? Nope. Affordable UWA? In your dreams.
Not sure about other systems, Fuji is even more expensive I think. Maybe NX is more affordable, not sure.
Right now, if you want something cheap, you buy a DSLR. Most consumers look at price first. Hence most consumers choose DSLRs. Which means mirrorless does not get mainstream acceptance and mass market sales numbers. Which means it must be more expensive (it still bleeds money for most companies involved). And the circle closes.
Maverick_: In the future almost all consumers will be shooting pics with their phones. There will be only two types of cameras on the market pro and phones.
Will there be any interesting bridge cameras with 100X zooms, or cool range finder types, of course, but they'll sell in very limited quantities.
This is the year of OIS in phones. In about 5 years phones will shoot like premium compacts and they'll handle low light very well too.
To sum it up, in last 3 years or so of cameraphones, we saw:- large sensors (1/1.8", 2/3", 1/1.2", 1")- optical image stabilization- huge resolution sensors (41 Mpx)- low resolution sensors with large photosites (HTC's UltraPixel)- 3D cameras and displays- zoom lenses- collapsible lenses (like in CM1)- use of extra depth sensor to provide smart background blur in postprocessing
That's a real torrent of innovation, and we're just starting. There's gonna be more. It's gonna get better. And cheaper. The future of cameraphones looks bright. And once you can have a reasonable IQ with zoom lens in your phone, it's gonna be really tricky to sell large quantities of P&S cameras.
But they probably won't just disappear. Some manufacturers are winding down or bailing out alltogether, some are gonna fight for the scraps (that's still quite a large market). And we'll probably see more of the uber cheap compacts from China. It's just gonna be a niche, like film cameras are now.
The two cameras idea should be pretty straightforward to implement. I actually have a phone with 2 cameras side by side (LG P920), but those are used for shooting 3D (photo and video). And more interestingly, it also has a screen capable of displaying those images in 3D. And yes, it works (with some 3D games as well) although it's still gimmicky.
Anyway, there's another approach to zooming. It's been implemented in Nokia Lumia 1020, which has large 2/3 inch 41Mpx sensor. Normally, it produces oversampled 5 Mpix images, and allows for x3 "lossless" digital zoom. The lossless means that it does not interpolate image data (no upscaling, like in traditional digital zoom). At maximum zoom, it just gives you a 5 MPix crop of the sensor. However, since it's not oversampled anymore, there is some loss of IQ.
@Lee JayThe Galaxy Zoom series has 24-240mm eqv. lenses with OIS. Not bad for a phone.
And I bet, we're gonna see more phones like that. It's just a matter of time. Frankly, I bet that Panasonic is already working on a tiny collapsible zoom lens for smartphones.
Also, some time age there was some buzz about Apple patenting bayonet designed for mobile devices, so that;s also possible in the future.
Don't worry, if enough people want it, the manufacturers will provide. Sooner or later.
OIS has already been done in smartphones some time ago (HTC One, some Nokia Lumia models, probably few others).
You can find zoom lenses in smartphones as well (Samsung Galaxy Zoom series, with x10 super zoom in latest K model).
And of course, now you also have large sensors, with the new Panasonic CM1 being the largest.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect that more smartphones will include those features in the future. I think that within a year or two, there will be a wide selection of competent cameraphones to choose from. And they will offer capabilities and image quality on par or even better than most mass-market compact cameras.
Len_Gee: Why did they leave touch screen and built in flash off this camera?
With such amount of direct controls, missing a touchscreen is not that big of a deal. As for the lack of built-in flash, that's fairly obvious. There's no space for it. Instead, you get a proper hot-shoe, which gives you the ability to use proper flash. And with leaf shutter and high flash sync rates, that might be something that many people would like to have.
Tilting screen would be nice to have, thought. So maybe in Mk. II...
All in all, the compromises Panasonic had to make to create LX100 seem to be sensible. I'd say they did a good job of finding the right balance here, especially considering this is the first generation of this product.
princecody: Heres a quick video review I found on the LX100 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2OTl1ULR2U&list=UUL5Hf6_JIzb3HpiJQGqs8cQ
Yep, it's definitely because of lighting. I haven't seen any signs of banding on any other sample photos, regardless of ISO settings.
nevercat: The big problem with this camera phone is the same as with all camera phones: Ergonomy. cameraphones lack a good grip, they lack the right controls, so for serious photographing they lack the right way to opperate.The 1" sensor makes it a rather serious camera, in the wrong housing. Yes people will buy it, but the results will mostly be not as good as is possible with te sensor and lens combination...
Yeah, because all those small compact cameras have sooo much better ergonomics...
Come on, this is not supposed to be a competition for a DSLR. And I bet that its touchscreen based controls will be much better than what can be offered by most compact cameras, that usually have no dials and everything is done by navigating horrible menus with tiny buttons.
stevens37y: There are some disappointing feaures:- no tilt screen- no 5 axis stabilisation for video (like FZ1000)- no high speed HD video : 1080/100-120p
Oh wow, indeed, it's in the specs (OIS), haven't noticed at first. Nice.
And about the tilting screen. This is an extremely useful feature. Not sure why some people see it as some kind of stigma for a camera. When implemented well, it takes nothing away, but adds a lot in terms of handling and possibilities. But I guess for some people convenience is an opposite for professional or whatever, for some twisted reason.
Jostian: a compact without a built in flash is a waste these days... disappointed!
A compact camera without a mode dial is a waste these days... disappointed!
With that amount of direct controls, I can forgive the lack of a touchscreen.
However, tilting screen would be nice. And optical stabilisation would be even nicer.
But let's be real. You can't have everything without compromising on the size. It's already impressive how much they packed into it and did not end up with a brick like the Canon G1X.
So, pretty impressive overall.
tedolf: I have decided I will wait for the E-pm3.
Maybe it will have a 4:3 screen and buttons you can push with gloves on.
I don't think that will ever come. The marketing campaign for E-PL7 suggests that Olympus is desperate to try and find a place in the market for PEN cameras. They haven't been selling well for a while, and lets not kid ourselves, PL7 won't win with iPhone as a selfie camera. I will be very surprised if PL7 succeeds in the market.
This is probably the last PEN camera we'll see. Unless Olympus can get their act together and reinvent the line (or replace it with something else).
Johannes Zander: The video doesn't show anything you can't do with native 4/3 lenses.Adapters are always a crutch.
That's very selective of you. Meanwhile, its everyday price at online retailers is $3399 from what I see.