Simon97: Despite its lower pixel count, at ISO 1600 the LX100's images don't turn to mush. Look at the text on the grey background. The LX100 stays legible while the Canon and Sony have become mushy. Megapixel race anyone?
I don't care for Canon's soft approach with very strong sharpening halos. The LX100 has more "snap".
Except that the LX100 also bests the G1X Mk II, in my opinion. I'm surprised how much better the LX100 looks in this studio scene (which is not necessarily indicative of how it will fare in real scenes with more DR, AF, etc.) than the G1X, RX100 and so on, especially at higher ISOs. The RAW files are a lot closer, but still...Panasonic is doing something right with its out of camera jpgs these days when it comes to NR.
buybuybuy: What an absurd presentation of images!
I would imagine that any reasonable person would look to such a gallery for information on how a particular camera performs. Yet, is this possible here (or for that matter, in any of your camera review galleries)?
ISO? F-stop? No way to select/sort...If I want to browse images at leisure, I'd visit Flickr. Here, however, I expect the presentation to better reflect its context--a review of a camera--a technical item--on a gear-oriented site. And, in this regard, it performs quite dismally.
note: translated from German by my assistant Carsten.
Did you try the slideshow option? It presents an easy way to browse images with the EXIF info overlay and an option to download the full res image. Saying nothing about the quality or artistic merit of the images, I can agree that the gallery used by DPReview is frustrating to use. The EXIF Info below cannot be seen (on my laptop) at the same time as the image without scrolling, and I can't go from image to image without repositioning my mouse. But the slideshow option improves things a lot, so try that if you haven't...
"you have to go to the $1600/£1200 Nocticron to find clicky apertures on an AF lens " - doesn't the 17mm Panny f/1.7 prime have this as well, for a much lower price?
I think you have touched on a very interesting point - and it is the difference between when one *might* do with a camera and how one actually uses it in practice. A lot of people purchase a dSLR with kit lens and never buy another lens. The LX100 is the kind of camera they should really buy - since they get the benefit of the much faster lens and the creative options that offers with a smaller size to boot.
Personally I find the LX100 to be an attractive option as a second body, as well. I own an EM-1 and recently purchased a GX1 as a small carry anywhere option. The reality is that I'll never take the GX1 with a 12-40mm or 50-200mm lens. As soon as I start taking more than one lens I have 'room' for my EM-1. So practically, a fixed lens on the LX100 would make no difference (other than having a faster lens!).
There is a reason these aren't made for Canon/Nikon, and conversely why they exist for Fuji/Samsung/MFT (natively) - Canon and Nikon support a larger sensor size. When you get into a telephoto lens, how many people want to spend $1600+ for less reach? And by going with a crop specific model you give up the option to use the lens on a full frame body later (with full coverage). Whether people upgrade not not I think most people think they will at some point. When I used to shoot with a 70-200mm F/4 Canon on APS-C it was a wonderful lens, and I don't recall wishing I had a bit more range on the wide end - that end has plenty of choices that overlap. But I frequently wanted more range on the telephoto end.
Now, with an MFT system I use a 50-200mm zoom - so in many ways I've gone the other way, taking advantage of the smaller system to get MORE reach in a similar size, rather than matching the reach on a full frame sensor in a smaller package.
Hmmm. Not impressed by this sequence if we are talking about state of the art PD-AF!
Poweruser: 1.1kg... are you kidding Tamron?
What's not to love? Get a good workout while you pursue your hobby!
bcalkins: "the on-board FAST AF system"
I'm trying to imagine an AF system that isn't "on-board" :)
Well there you go, I knew about the T80 system, but the 35-70mm was before my time. I have to say it is a bit larger than I imagined :) It makes me think of other AF systems of the 80s, like the Trap Autofocus idea on the Yashica 230-AF!
"the on-board FAST AF system"
You have to watch this hilarious take on the Lastolite Urban backgrounds:
Royal1: kinda of a poorly exposed grainy picture. No wonder the Iwo Jima picture was more popular. It looks like one of those plastic Kodak lens pictures.
Don't judge a photo by its low res jpg ;)
JamesD28: I think far too many people are forgetting that this camera's aimed at beginners.Yes, the sensor is tiny.Yes, the viewfinder is under par in terms of resolution.No, the pictures aren't going to be brilliant above ISO 400.
But are beginners really going to care about this?
If there is one thing I've learned from different size cameras, it is that there isn't a whole lot of difference going to a 'slightly' larger sensor. MFT to APS-C, 1" to MFT, 1/1.7" to 2/3", etc. All fine for sharing with family and friends on facebook and prints as long as you don't get into low light situations. And then, if you do, you need a fast lens, too - that adds up to a higher priced camera!
That said, the zoom range is definitely the draw for this camera...
schawo: Any tests of the new FW with legacy 4/3 lenses like the 50-200 SWD?
Seems better with the 50mm macro as well. Seems to avoid hunting, and favors small steps towards finding focus... Combined with the shutter shock 0 setting it is quite a powerhouse for sharp photos!
I'm impressed too - just tried with the 50-200mm and it seems to know which way to go now, with much lens hunting than I've seen in some situations. Looking forward to the next kids soccer game, or other opportunities to try out tracking...
ystein Bach: This proves the fact that the patent agency doesn't do their jobs. I simply don't understand how it is possible to get such a patent. I just wonder what the next will be.
I agree - there is little that is novel or non-obvious about this patent to anyone who has spent some time on it. I think if you asked any professional product photographer how to get an object on a white background without photoshop or a green screen they would describe a lit backdrop with a semi reflective base for the object to sit on. One of many tutorials on setting this up, this one from 2008: https://zackarias.com/for-photographers/photo-resources/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/
ThePhilips: Why there are no TCs for mirrorless, which go between the camera and the lens? Only the ones to screw on the lens?
You can use the Olympus 1.4x and 2.0x along with an MFT adapter and presumably still get AF with a four thirds lens...
Given that they tend to work better with longer focal lengths and reduce light, I can see why the MILC companies need to focus on the longer, fast lenses first, before bringing out a tele-converter. All f/2.8 or faster MFT lenses so far are 100mm or less, if I'm not mistaken.
Given that a smaller kit is one of the strengths of a MILC system, you'd think a 1.4x TC would be a desirable thing - but fast teles aren't going to be small or cheap, so they don't seem to focus on them...
Mark Smiles: Suppose a guy went to an hardware store to purchase a tool, say a hammer. The clerk would then run a credit check to see how much he could afford and quiz him about his intended use of the hammer including if he was going to make any money using the hammer. Then the clerk could then decide on what would be a fair price to charge for the hammer.
Suppose a gal had a sore throat and went to the drugstore to get some cough drops. The clerk would then check how much she could afford to pay, and determine how important her voice was to her earning a living. The clerk could then determine what he could then charge the gal.
In both of these examples the selling price of the product was not based upon the cost of production, but rather the intended use of the product.
I can hear the hammer manufacturer saying he used my hammer to build a million dollar house, of course I deserve a cut of the action, for I made him a tool. Likewise for the gate at the gal's concert ...
Ferling - you have just summed up exactly why there are always two side to these debates. $175 is a lot or a little, depending on the image!
Valentinian: Questions (waiting for Jan 28 for answers):is AF better than E M-5 ?is EVF better than E M-5 ?is shutter up to 1/8000 ?is as reliable as the E M-5 ?
If the answers are "yes", if more lenses will come up, and Olympus does not upgrade the E M-5 within 12 months (forget the E M1 -that's for 4/3 lenses), then I will switch to Fuji
Why reject the em-1 as being for 4/3 lenses?
This is the way a camera should be controlled.
Shutterspeed, aperture ... and ISO.
The three primary parameters of exposure.
Why did it take this long for camera makers to ditch PASM, and place ISO alongside shutter speed and aperture? This is much simpler and straight forward.
Thank you Fujifilm!This will be my next camera.
Like any user interface, different needs will mean that there is no one way that works best for everyone. I used to be very familiar with older SLR style controls with a shutter speed dial and aperture ring on the lens and thought I'd like going back to that type of interface. But it didn't take long trying it out to realize that I've adapted and find features of PASM to be more useful. For example, I can setup my SCN and ART slots on my E-M1 to quickly set ISO, shutter and aperture to some known values, along with other mode settings like drive mode. I can quickly switch between studio (low ISO, sync flash speed, mid range aperture, single frame with shutter delay) and low light (auto ISO, hand hold shutter speed, wide aperture) and so on with one click. While dials expose the interface in a 'better' way visually (assuming you don't have your eye to the camera), you potentially have four dials to change to switch 'modes'. Both have their pluses and minuses.