malcolm82: Again with a horrible F1.4 lens.A camera this size with a normal zoom should have an aps-c sensor with a lens of around F3.5-5.6 such as the standard zooms on interchangeable lens camera's.
Just look at the size of the panasonic powerzoom lens:http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6/2
Its total length looks about 32mm so it can easily collapse in a camera size much smaller than this one.
A micro four thirds sensor would be ok for a camera this size with a 5x zoom lens or for a much smaller camera with shorter zoom range but for this size with 3-4x zoom it really should be aps-c.
What exactly is your point? Do you just want to argue? I actually have something meaningful to say... Apparently you didnt notice, you were too busy protecting your ego.
Both the canon 50mm F/1.4 review i linked to and the leica F/1.4 data sheets show that these lenses have over twice the resolution stopped down to f/5.6-8 than at F/1.4. And i should add: before you go claim that they have this high resolution stopped down is because of their ultra high quality, let me remind you that the F/2.5 lenses have the same resolution stopped down to F/5.6-8 so there is absolutely nothing superior about the quality of the F/1.4 lenses.
How can you still seriously claim that F/1.4 is not a horrible compromise for resolution?
"The problem with your entire argument is summed up nicely by something you posted a few hours ago as yet another reaction to my point"
I would really like to know what your point is exactly, you dont seem to have made any.
"You originally made a preposterous claim, and now you've made the exact point that affirms the preposterousness of the original claim."
You keep replying as if i was referring specifically to the quality of this particular lens as being horrible as compared to other F1.4 lenses perhaps when i made it quite clear many times already that i intended that F1.4 lenses in general are horrible or inferior to higher F-number designs.
You just keep completely missing the point and keep replying based on your own wrong interpretation of what i said.
I do know that a super quality lens on the LX7 sensor will equal or better a very low quality lens on aps-c but it will also be significantly larger and more expensive to do so which is why i cant really see the point in that. If you are going to invest in a high quality lens then why would you waste it by sabotaging it's resolution by making it for a small sensor?
So you do not see the logic in this at all? You consider it logical to use a large expensive lens design on a tiny sensor to possibly match the quality of a much more compact really cheap lens design on aps-c?
You do not see that even if this is possible that a quality lens on aps-c would be far superior? Which is the point i was making after all...
Did you even bother to compare the large format lenses to the leica's?
I think you simply still dont understand how optical quality scales with sensor size.
Note that the rodenstock 150mm F/5.6 lens is actually smaller and lighter than the leica 35mm F/1.4 lens.
Of course it has to be positioned much further away from the film and it is exactly that distance i use to estimate what the largest sensor size is that can be used with a sensible retractable barrel size for a given lens spec.
"You most certainly did make claims about sensor resolution and what sensor size would be appropriate for this camera."
That is how you interpreted what i said, i actually said nothing about sensor resolution, all i said was that the equivalent lens on a larger sensor will offer higher resolution which is especially true wide open, wether or not they should use a higher pixel count on that larger sensor to better take advantage of the higher resolution from the lens is a separate issue.
Compare the reviews of m43 and aps-c lenses to the full frame lenses on this site.Also compare the mtf graphs of the leica lenses to these:http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdfFor example, the 150mm f/5.6 lens can be compared to the leica 35mm f/1.4 lens.Just cut the graph to about 84mm for image height of the large format lens to compare to the 21mm image height of the leica graphs. You can see that the large format lens at F/11 has better mtf values at 20lp/mm than the leica lens F/2.8 values at 40lp/mm. This means that the large format lens has over twice the image resolution as the full frame lens has at that aperture.
"that both very good ones and lower quality ones are sharper, say at F5.6, I don't dispute. But that's not what you said."
This is exactly my point, the fact that lenses at F1.4 are significantly less sharp than stopped down to F5.6 is exactly the reason why a lens for a larger sensor will offer significantly higher resolution at the same aperture size.
px1: I'm mystified. The Sony RX100 claims to have a 1.0" sensor, then further specifies it as "13.2mm X 8.8MM". Maybe my math is all wrong but that is nowhere near 1 inch.In fact what I calc is a diagonal of about 16mm, which is about 2/3 inch.In area comparison to a 1/1.7 inch square (a rough estimate of LX7's sensor size, I get the RX100's sensor area at 251 sq mm and LX7 at 223 sq mm.
Could someone else give it a try and see what you calc. I'll admit an error on my part if I'm shown it.
Remember the LX7 total sensor size is used for multiple aspect ratio's and only part of the sensor is used. The lens at wide angle is 4.7mm and stated as 24mm equivalent so take the 43.2666mm diagonal of full frame: 43.2666/24x4.7 and you get 8.47mm as the diagonal of the active sensor area. The diagonal of the sony sensor is 15.86mm.
So the equivalent of the LX7 lens for the rx100 sensor would be F2.6-4.3.
Or alternatively the equivalent of the rx100 lens on the LX7 active sensor diagonal would be F0.96-2.6.
Michael Doleman: A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.
Well said.Personally, I won't be buying any new compact camera with a sensor smaller than m4/3.
malcolm82: "The LX7 features a slightly smaller sensor than the LX5, allowing it to offer the brightest lens of any compact camera with a really impressive F1.4-2.3 24-90mm equivalent range."
That should read F7-11.5 24-90mm equivalent range, not quite as impressive compared to the F4.8-13 24-100mm equivalent range of the Sony rx100.
It is so strange that completely useless posts stating basic and to the discussion completely irrelevant facts get uprated so high.It is as if people think that anything insightful was revealed there?
The manufacturers should really just start making 3x2mm sensor compacts with F1 lenses.What the hell are they thinking making aps-c or even full frame camera's!?
How can you not understand that ISO 1600 on the LX7 does not equal ISO 1600 on the RX100.This is just so obvious...
"Your original point was that this LeicaPana lens is "horrible" and won't resolve thing well. This remains laughable."
Have you seen how F1.4 primes perform? Try to figure out what the mtf graphs mean and you might get a clue.
I said : again with a horrible F1.4 lens meaning all F1.4 lenses in general are horrible, it is simply a poor design choice based on marketing to the misguided fixation many people have on low F-numbers, marketing is the one and only reason that this camera comes with a tiny sensor and an F1.4 lens.
"Those Leica data sheets say "resolution of finer detail". That aint exactly the same as the sensor resolution in combination claims you've been posting."
You obviously dont understand mtf graphs, its simply how they are describing that they are plotting mtf values for different linepair frequencies. Dpreview plots the frequency at a fixed 50% mtf value instead.
What do you mean by sensor resolution in combination? I did not say anything about sensor resolution. Obviously if your lens provides more resolution then you can use a sensor with more pixels to take advantage of it, or the lens wont have to be stopped down to half its maximum aperture to take advantage of a given sensor resolution as is surely the case with this LX7.
"I never disputed that some lens are sharper.
Stop making up claims to fit your point."
How can you argue against the fact that larger sensor camera's have more resolution anyways? It is blatantly obvious. I am not making up anything.
MaRcIu: not sure if everything about this camera is expensive or I'm too poor.
Actually quite a bad example since its quite large but it has an 150mm lens after all which has a much bigger aperture than the rx100.
The equivalent of the rx100 on m43 would be about 14-50mm F2.4-6.5 which can easily fit in the rx100 retractable lens barrel size.
@Roland KarlssonYou assume it cannot be done but have you actually done any analysis on that? How much do you suppose an m43 sensor weighs?
Film compacts used to be full frame, just think about it :)
Here is one: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Sure-Automatic-Compact-Camera/dp/B0001NBHJ4
And dont tell me this camera has a slow lens, it is about the same as the sony rx100.
Timmbits: I feel very disappointed. The tiny sensor leaves it stuck in the past when we were led to believe that a 1/1.7" might be a big improvement over the tiniest of sensors. The hotshoe is way out of the league that the smaller sensor puts it in. And the looks... they've actually managed to take an awesome retro-like design, and make it look _modest_! What's next, copying the s100 design on the next model? They are aware that all the designers at Canon had quit, and that is the only reason the canon models went to market in their pre-production test model casing, right? (because that is definitely what it looks like happened over at canon, yet everyone's stupid enough to want to imitate them)
I understand what you mean but why put an F1-1.4 lens on 4x3mm sensor when you can put an F2-2.8 lens on a 8x6mm sensor in practically the same size for a negligible extra cost?
And keep in mind this discussion is about high end compact camera's not cameraphones. I intended that F1-1.4 on 4x3 sensor as the natural progression for the LX9 based on the current marketing trend.
Also consider that displays will have much higher resolutions soon enough, the ipad 3 and 'retina display' macbook pro is just the beginning, 3840x2160 or possibly 4096x2304 will be the next 'full hd' television standard and you can be sure it will also be used in all mainstream laptops, tablets and desktop monitors. So the value of higher resolution in good light will increase a lot in the near future.