Rich, not gaudy.
This is more bizarre than the Hasselblad converts. In fact, this treatment only reinforces how poor the original design was an overabundance of dials, buttons, gitzmos, IMHO.
Nice lens. Nice focal length. Isn't $500 enough for a lens.
Also check out the work of Herbert Ponting.http://www.ponting-portfolio.com/
Karl Summers: Truly amazing, the first recorded selfie?
Photographers have been doing these selfies way before digital and the New Kids on the Block.
peevee1: $359 for fully manual lens. Or you can get Pentax or Minolta 55/1.8 for $20 plus $90 focal reducer which can be used with many other lenses too.Even Canon FD58/1.2 or Minolta 58/1.2 with the focal reducer would be cheaper, and a whole stop faster.Now, quality is a different issue. Who knows what quality wide open this 42.5/1.2 lens has?
What is a focal reducer?
jonnie burtoft: Hi, I shoot film and digital and enjoy both immensely. The colour shifting is not my thing but I'm glad to see more support from companies with regard to film, lomo, cinestill and ferrania coming up with new film a great for photography. Film can be expensive but I love using the old cameras. Cheers, Jon
That's the spirit. Digital imagery is obviously incredible, but it is good to embrace what happens "by accident."
Sir Nick of High Point: Most all color negative film has a red mask layer, so isn't it already color shifted in a way? If I tried scanning these negatives, how would I know how to properly adjust the color curves for the mask layer?
Programs like VueScan will have profiles for different C-41 emulsions. But in practice it works out fine. If I go back to film, it will likely be 4x5, 5x7. Scans of sheet film can be outstanding,
Pentax may be on to something. This was the only thing holding back DSLR sales.
Great thoughts. I agree about focus choice, shutter noise and being able to record an audio note seems almost a NEEDED for photojournalists.
Good start, Jeff.
What happened to ratings like Class 10?Interesting, Delkin one of the first names in digital accessories, i.e. eFilm. I use Delkin LCD hoods.
Just another Canon shooter: Many photos are processed with somewhat extreme LR settings (white = -100%, etc.). Hard to say much about the sensor that way. There is too much noise at some low ISO and almost the same noise at much higher ISO?
Nice work. Real photography.
lacikuss: I just noted from a comparison between the RX100III and the G7x that the G7X appears to be wider @24mmm than the RX100III by a good 5%.
See the Temple pictures and count the number of lamps in the frame in this site:
I would like DPReview to compare both cameras to se if 24mm, 70mm and 100mm are actually accurate or just marketing bs
Thanks to @bernardly for this link.
Adorable. Yes, the menus are a bit different for each OEM, but these cameras really to seem to come off of the same workbench-dials, buttons, casing, stalk flash, lens housing, etc,. etc. etc.
Bring it in at $500, then you might have something.
Brilliant stuff. DPReview regulars are the best.
Zeisschen: The fact that Panasonic uses the same sensor size as in their other cameras is a bit strange. I think they just wanted to surpass the Sony RX100 in sensor size again after their LX series fell back behind and for sure the sales dropped due to the Sony. Now it's a big ugly transformer monster camera that is not really compact anymore, somewhat missing the point imho. I'd also go with a M43 camera with interchangeable lenses instead of I can't fit it in my jeans pocket, the RX100 can. Canon GX series has the same problem.If course the LX100 will be great camera, it just doesn't make much sense for me. As the one and only camera beside a smartphone it would make sense, but not for M43 owners. At Sony the difference between a A7 and the RX100 is much bigger so it makes senses to own both cameras.
It's about a Leica lens and a more thoughtful approach to photography. It has its niche. Not every one is out to hide his or her camera or use a smartphone. For many of us, this may be the closest we can get to a Leica lens. I expect it to sell extremely well.
Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?
majicmoments: I have handled the Lx100 and the 24mm end @1.7 is sublime.. with a dreamy shallow DOF.. it is such a quality camera that covers my most used focal lengths.. but like Damien, i am astonished that Panny have left out their tried & tested beautifull touchscreens.. and in this day'n age no tiltscreen.. which is a godsend for street/landscape & family photography.. Thank you Damien for such an interesting article.. more of the same please!
And Panasonic does such great touch screens, where you can still do everything by buttons, dials.
Death89: In my opinion you will need advanced compacts until the price of the lenses with interchangeable cameras comes down to a similar (more sensible price). If I could buy an ILC with a directly equivalent features for only a reasonable amount (maybe 10-20% more given the advantages) more than the LX100 then I would.
As it stands I can get good enough performance from LX100 for £799, why would I pay 2-4 times that to get similar performance from an ILC version? I maybe an amateur enthusiast only, but I also have to be budget concious. 1 months wages or 4? Hmm...
Being honest I won't be able to afford either any time soon, but I may be able to get an LX7 which it seems will give me similar result to any ILC I may be able to afford with a kit lens.
I agree in that lenses for most ILC systems, even the mirrorless, are way too expensive. Smaller cameras, smaller lenses, smaller prices Olympus-NOT.