kriztian: I hink that Nokia 920 is about the same as Iphone 5s, perhaps even a Little bit better
I aggree that the 920 is the best of the bunch (the 1020 is harder to compare because of the higher resolution).But in my eyes the iPhone 5s is clearly better than the 920 - especially looking at the gras and the leaves...
@dpreview:I am a NikonD300 user and sometimes a little frustrated about the missing DX lenses.So I am interested to know how the C-AF compares to the D300?
Chiemaiy: Nope, that's not the world's first constant f/1.8 zoom. Now excuse me while I go back to shooting with my Fujinon 18-85mm f/1.8 (T2.0).
Let's hope the Sigma is cheaper than $87,300.00 ;-)
Thank you Sigma - keep developing new APS-C lenses!A wide prime like a 2.0/16 DX would be nice or a small 2.8/50-135 :-)
@DPReview: why isn't there a preview for this camera?I can already order it on amazon.de...
I am not a Samsung fanboy (usually use Nikon and just bought a LX7) but my sister is interested in a WIFI capable camera and the Samsung would also offer a nicely fast lens, not like the S110...
I am looking forward to that lens! Starting with two Nikon zoom lenses I gradually changed to three 3rd party zoom lenses (and two Nikon primes) - partly because of a better relation between performance and price and one lens Nikon does not offer (Sigma 17-50 VC).I would love to have a Nikon 70-200 VR but cannot justify the price. So Tamron might be a great alternative :-)
Kuturgan: I'd get Samsung EX2F than this one.
Yes WIFI would have been cool on the LX7!
But I will probably chose the LX7 nevertheless.
GeorgeZ: 60% larger and 40% heavier than the RX100.It has some nice functions like the ND filter and time lapse and of course the lens is great but everybody will be comparing it to the new star and I think Pana was not ambitious enough.Maybe they were caught off guard by the RX100.As I see it they can only compete on price.But the thing is- the RX100 is pocketable, the LX7 isn't.
But probably you cannot use the RX100 one-handedly without sticking a grip on it...And the LX7 has a brighter lens. So ISO 800 on LX7 would have to compete with ISO 1600 on RX100 regarding low light usage :-)
Dimitri Khoz: Problem with this chart is that f-values in the cameras do not change continuously they do it in the steps different for different products.
For example, for RX100 there is f1.8 at 28 mm, f2.0 at 29mm, f2.8 at 34mm.for G1X there is the same f2.8 all the way from 28-34mm.
In fulll frame DoF equivalents 28mm f4.9 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of RX10029mm f5.4 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of G1X34mm f7.6 vs f5.2 = G1X wins hands downand not in the 36mm point as shown by the chart
(based on the DPReview testshttp://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/3http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/7)
This chart should be corrected from scratchto incorporate the reality,becase in the current version it misrepresents the data.
@Dimitri: good idea - I am looking forward to your version of the chart ;-)
Seriously - of course it is wrong in between - I find it interesting as a rough guide nevertheless!
xlynx9: "It sits above the simpler GF5 and below the top-of-the-line and enthusiast models GH2 and GX1."
How is it below the GX1? G5 has:
- digital sensor- higher output resolution- newer processor- EVF- fully articulating LCD- 100% higher resolution LCD- higher flash range- faster continuous shooting- creative effects- more physical controls- better grip- touchpad AF
In the side-by-side, the only thing the GX1 wins on is having a built-in orientation sensor.http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=panasonic_dmcgx1&products=panasonic_dmcg5
DPR, please explain or fix.
The GX-1 has a metal body.
ISO 400 looks very good for a compact!
andy bp: it would be great is you guys included the 35 equivalent focal length in the pics. I assume this is 90mm equiv?
I guess something like 80 mm, because the teleend of the LX5 is 17,7 mm physical focal length.And at the tele end the biggest aperture would be 2,3.
raiden78: What about the price?
Jefftan: I own LX5 but I have 0 interest in thisnot counting RX100 because of $650 price
The best camera of these type now is Olympus XZ-1
Why would the XZ-1 be better than the LX7?
Carlos AF Costa: LX7 with a smaller sensor than LX5? Is this an upgrade? Not for me, thanks.I expected a bigger sensor that provide better image with more resolution
to compare depth of field or specificly the lack of it, that are sought after e.g. in portraits.
Simon97: After viewing the sample images, I can see that the lens is very good. No chromatics and only a slight loss of sharpness near the edges. Seems to retain sharpness at wider apertures and at telezoom. As I recall, the LX5 lost sharpness when zoomed.
OTOH, shadow noise is higher than expected in available light shots at ISO 200 or less. To be honest, I don't mind some "grain". In fact I prefer them letting it show rather than trying to smudge the detail with aggressive noise reduction. It is a small sensor camera, so don't expect miracles.
Hopefully the street price is reasonable. This is another enthusiast compact in a crowded market and others are trying larger sensors.
B&H has it for perorder for 499$.I expect to pay 499€ in Europe but that would be ok for me as I expect to be able to use it for a couple of years.
Doug Frost: Why is Panasonic going in the wrong direction with sensor size? They should be building larger sensors into their high end compact cameras, not smaller ones.
For me it is the right direction looking at the equivalent apertures they did a great job.I hope the new MOS sensor holds up!
I quite like the sensor size. So my favored sensor size DX will receive enough attention in the future. An the CX might be an alternative to a "large sensor" compact.And I think a "good enough" exists. Otherwise more people would buy FX and not DX. And with rising image quality the CX might be enough in the future. Because how large will you print? I have a 60x90cm print from my 6MP D70, which I quite like...