art99: Where is the 4K in this camera? a new model without the 4K? You gotta be kidding'
You have to be kidding. Even the Fuji X-cameras (great cameras) do not have 4K.
AKH: IQ is not very good for such an expensive camera. Made me think of the images presented in a resent review here on Dpreview of the Fuji 16-55mm with the Fuji X-Pro1. Those images were in a completely different league.
The IQ is actually very good for such a reasonably priced camera. You have obviously never used an OM-D camera.
Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.
Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.
Raist3d - That is not true about Pentax having multi-axis IBIS long before Oly. Prove it.
Canon is just too paranoid about their dSLR sales in the US. Heaven forbid if this camera were launched in the US and actually sold well enough, thus affecting their dSLR sales volume. Now, we can't have that, can we?
Hmmm...let's see, I can buy an SUV for that amount of money. Sheesh!
It's out now. The Illum camera.
cgarrard: On the first day of Christmas, Fuji gave to me.......
A kick ace firmware updaaaaaaaate.
Spot on, Carl! My X-T1 and X-E1 are in bliss right now.
ThePhilips: I understand position of the DPR and yet....
The list makes no sense, because the best entry-level mirrorless camera is a discounted 1yo mid-/top-level model.
And what's wrong with that? What does being 1 year old have to do with anything? It's price point now is a bargain. It's (X-M1) still being sold by Fuji, and it is to their credit that it still stands up so well against the competition. It makes PERFECT sense. Have you ever used an X-M1? The IQ is exceptional.
gunkan: Nikon 1? really???
Fuji X-A1 is just amazing.
And the Fuji X-M1 is even better!
And to think I could've had this "luxury" camera instead of my modest Sony RX100 II for 1/4 the price (I paid $500 for it several months ago).
Richard Franiec: I think that the review is well balanced and fair.85% rating is maybe on the high side but LX100 seems to be the most complete and advanced enthusiast fixed zoom lens compact to date.Gold award well deserved.
Richard - are you working on any accessories for the LX100?
Souciantmag: I'm absolutely in agreement that the LX100 looks like a great camera. But the praise lavished on it in this review is irritating, particularly the best of the best rhetoric. The 12MP sensor issue is a big problem. Not that we need megapixels, but for such a costly camera, with a great lense, it's a huge drawback. A Sony A6000 would be a better bargain. I say this being a big fan of Lumix cameras.
Is the 12mp sensor in the Sony A7s full frame camera a big problem? Nope. It's only a drawback in your eyes.
Stephen Scharf: I really don't understand the comment about the E-M5 appearing dated. It was and is a terrific camera, and still has a higher engineering specification than the E-M10, so I don't get where the "dated" view comes from.
I have nothing whatever against companies upgrading their model lineups, but I think back to the original and legendary OM-1, and that camera was in production unchanged for the better part of a decade. It still superbly fulfilled it's design specification.
What you need to also understand is that some of us still have the excellent 43 lenses which work great on the E-M1 (with PDAF on the sensor). The E-M5 struggled with these lenses as it is only CDAF. And, yes, I own both cameras.
JohnFredC: That Seattle view is ISO 200? No better than my little Sony TX-30 at 200. The shape and distribution of the noise granules may be different, but the LX100 shows just as much noise as that tiny camera does at 200 (meaning entirely too much for such an expensive camera). Sorry, not impressed.
Also, I must have been spoiled by my X-A1, which was substantially less expensive than the LX100.
nerd2: Actually I think RX 100 III can be better than this. LX100 has larger sensor but it is not BSI - so noise per ISO can be actually better with RX, and RX has much higher MP too. Lens spec is almost equivalent (if we ignore equivalence, just like panasonic does for marketing)
And RX is more compact and has flip LCD too (which should matter a lot for the target audience of these cams)
That's fine. You can keep the RX100 III (no Hot Shoe, poorer EVF, smaller 1" sensor). I'll go with the better camera - the LX100.
HeyItsJoel: G7X > GX7.
And while we're at it, E=MC2.
You are clearly no physicist, nor a photographer.
The larger sensor GX7 >>> G7X
raztec: Fabulous camera. Almost perfect, but not quite there yet.
I'll keep my LX7 for now and wait for the LX200 with a better EVF, 24-90mm lens, and tilting LCD which in this era is critical for video.
Okay, you do that. Wait another year or more.
Dimac: too big and too ugly and missing things, deleted from my wish list
Goodbye. We definitely won't miss you.
luiseg: Neglected and dirty fingernails......
Are you talking about yourself?
5-axis image stabilization? Once again, Olympus leads the way on innovation and the big boys follow.