Reilly Diefenbach: The D3300 with kit lens kills this nice little camera at $350 less. Can't carry a one pound camera? Really?
Yeah, I didn't know the D3300 offered 4K video. I bet it keeps a moving subject in focus really well too! I can't wait to get one and slip it into my jacket pocket.....oh wait...the D3300 with lens is HUGE (especially depth) compared to the LX100. I guess you didn't know 156mm is bigger than 55mm (by almost 3X).http://camerasize.com/compact/#509.36,569,ha,t
SulfurousBeast: Anyone watch the video? The Panasonic guy Matt Fraser? Calls the sensor as "micro four thirds" . huh! Thought he should know better. Does not matter in getting the point across, but still an employee and spokesperson should know better and that too from the company that pioneered four thirds standards.
Actually, that's a good point.
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.
The A6000 comes with a smaller aperture lens (even in FF terms) and lesser video. The LX100 out of the box should provide better IQ and video, plus more features such as a silent shutter. You can add lenses to the A6000, but then the price and size quickly escalate. There is no way to get 4K video though.
limlh: A good compact apsc mirrorless is not much bigger than this and offers better controls, more DR and lower noise.
A6000 has no IS so video without a tripod or monopod would be near unmatchable. The LX100 offers 4K video which is significantly better than anything the Sony can offer.IMHO The LX100 is a better all around camera for the price due to the video, silent shutter and faster zoom.
tom1234567: Your post starts ( Panasonic's Lumix DMC-LX100 turned a lot of heads )NOT as many heads as the Samsung NX1 i would thinkbut that camera may not get the same headlines or praise as the you no which cameras !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it also does excellent 4k video better than GH4 from what I read, and you can copy the video straight of the S.D Card you can not do that with the Panasonic,
Tom, no. Maybe you are thinking of the A7s which needs a $2000 external recorder.
Bad news Tom you are incorrect.With the GH4 you can copy video straight from the SD card, but with the NX1 you run in to severe issues. Not much supports the Nx1 codec so you you are forced to transcode in order to see it or edit it. In the future that will change, but for now is is very frustrating.
Supply and demand. Plain and simple. There is a demand for this. A company is going to profit from providing a solution.
ProfHankD: Really a very impressive camera, especially for video -- which seems to be where u4/3 shines. However, the JPEGs don't seem to be as good as the raw would allow them to be, and even raw resolution per pixel isn't awesome... perhaps this is using a heavier anti-alias filter than most cameras? The still image IQ is definitely down a couple of notches from a much cheaper Sony A6000 (which DPReview rated 5% lower), especially for JPEGs, and the price-competitive A7 blows it away.
The A7 grip gave my hand a cramp. Too small for the big lenses. My D600 is even better.
The gh4 is not for everyone and the a7 is a good camera, but the gh4 focuses faster, has faster fps, has a nicer grip, more custom settings, better video, imho better weather sealing, silent shutter (like a7s) and on and on. It is the more capable camera for most, but as you point out, not all.
You found why the GH4 scored so much higher. The OOC jpeg and RAW output are not as good as the A7, but since there is so much more in to getting the best images and content the GH4 scores higher. It simply is a more capable camera.
sneakyracer: From all the samples posted I see that M43 still has a long way to go in terms of still image resolution and noise performance. Even at low iso the images posted from the Gh4 are still quite noisy in the shadows.
Not true.Shadow noise is mostly determined by DR, and the GH4 has more DR at low ISOs than Canon APS-C cameras. Most likely you are looking at bad examples because all these cameras (m43 and APS) are very, very good at lower ISOs.
Joe Ogiba: The stills I get from my GH4 4K videos are great looking and if I need images for 36x48" prints I use my A7r .https://vimeo.com/96644118
http://mirrorlessphototips.com/making-a-60-inch-print-from-a-lumix-gh4/GH4 4k is good enough for 60 inch prints :)
Lab D: A great review and great camera. I may have missed it, but I found the GH4 still focuses very fast in very dark situations. The -4EV claim appears to be true.
JunzInc, do you have any experience with the GH4???I started a thread a while back on this. I was shooting in near darkness and getting focus lock in less than 1/2 second. I was shooting with ISO6400 and a 1/6th second shutter speed! Still, even when switching near to far focus and back, focus lock was very quick.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53563402
If the GH4 had the Olympus 5 axis stabilization it would be the dream camera for many, many people. As Jorginho points out it is a fantastic stills camera already, and at the moment the best ILC for video in its price range.
A great review and great camera. I may have missed it, but I found the GH4 still focuses very fast in very dark situations. The -4EV claim appears to be true.
sans culotte: "Equivalence theory" pushed by some guys is absurd cause it's never used to really compare systems. Why Richard Butler uses his "equivalence" only when talking about m43? Why he doesn't use it when talking about APS-C? Why he doesn't compare FF to medium format? If you wish you could call it DOF equivalence, but not equivalent aperture. Just cause aperture is focal length divided by diameter of entrance pupil. There's much easier to understand camera+lens capabilities dealing with some real physical numbers like Aperture, Focal length, ISO, not their pseudo-"equivalent" distorted versions.Why is Pana 35-100 f/2.8 comparable to FF 70-200 f/5.6? To match the exposure I would need to push ISO 2 stops higher on FF which would result in higher noise despite all "light capture", is it somehow equivalent?
Richard, the problem I often see with people using "Equivalence" is they try to convert to FF terms when comparing APS and M43 and it can be misleading.For example, the Panasonic lens is really an F/3.5 zoom in APS-C terms when using Equivalence. The difference between M43 and APS is close to 2/3rds of a stop and the difference between APS and FF is close to 1 and 1/3rd stops. Too often I see people say things like the M43 lens is really F/5.6 which is why the F/4 APS is better...Except that APS lens is really F/6.3, but everyone misses that.
Look what Samsung did to Sony and others in the smartphone and TV sectors.Now they have their eye on APS-C ILCs.
The GM5 with that tiny 35-100mm lens (200mm in FF terms) is what makes this guy different than the LX100. Panasonic need to see the 2 in a discounted kit.
4/3rds sensor, built-in EVF, lens starting at F/1.7. I can see why this will be very popular.
email@example.com: Great AF and 10 fps - what more could a birder/sports photographer want?Nikon has nothing like this.Distinguishes the DSLRs from the mirrorless.
"Nikon has nothing like this""Distinguishes the DSLRs from the mirrorless."Right, Nikon only offers 20 fps with continuous AF and subject tracking.