tbcass: There is a lot of emphasis on DOF control. Is there something wrong with me that I don't consider that of utmost importance? Overall the camera is very cleverly designed and looks quite impressive.
tbcass, physics can't be ignored. DOF is the cost of focal length and aperture size. If you want more light at a given focal length, it will come at the expense of DOF failing some other tricks (like bracketing) You can force SHALLOW depth of field by keeping the aperture open and using a short shutter but you can't maximize DOF beyond the smallest possible aperture your lens will allow, or what your sensor can handle ISO wise when stopped down.
If you're saying the FF can go higher ISO when stopped down to deliver better DOF for the same physical aperture size and equivalent focal length I'm going to have to disagree. Smaller sensors are more efficient on that front. This is BSi-CMOS and set to the equivalent aperture, say f22 stopped on that 24-70 canon f2.8 L which would be f10 here the smaller sensor won't have to use as high an ISO and will do just fine on noise apples to apples.
lacikuss: Amazing how much faster and longer this Canon lens than Sony's RX100M3.
I thought Sony was bragging about their advanced glued lens design. Well they are just an electronics company.
The G1Xm2 lens was pretty awesome too, it's sensor was just junk. They took Sony's sensor this time though so they can show off their superior lens.
I still think the RX100m3 is a better camera overall despite it's slightly inferior lens (if the specs all hold up) but the canon does put a lot of pressure on the m1 and m2 which are still being sold. Hopefully both the canon and the sony get cheaper because of competition.
mosc: I dig it but it should be called an S200 (insert X's wherever you want to taste) and cost $499 new, to go on sale for $399 at the holidays.
RX100 marks are priced on amazon right now at $500, $650, $800. Granted I think the Canon is better than the m1, has some pluses and minuses against the m2 and just lacks the VF/hot shoe/video to compete against the m3 so that points to a $650 price being about fair. I'd just hope that canon would undercut them a bit and the RX100 prices would fall a little too. They seem higher than they should be.
BeeJee: @mosc and Richard Butler:Your mentioned "light gathering advantage of the LX100 e.g. against a Canon 5D with 24-105 f4 L" is negledgible: The full-frame equivalent aperture of the LX100 is f3.74, which is a hardly noticable advantage against f4. And at longer focal lengths, it quickly gets much worse.
I think matching a $4,000 setup that weighs 3 pounds and is the better part of a foot long with a 400g compact is pretty impressive even if it's only at 24mm and the compact is not as bright, or as long, as you zoom out.
This is the single most impressive lens to come out in a long time. The sharpness of the latest generation FF Zeis and Sigma primes and the speed and clarity of the Sigma f1.8 18-35 APS-C zoom were good but I think this is even more impressive. It's tiny. It's bright. It covers a pretty damn good sized sensor.
And the body's a good throw in too with 4K video and independent dials for aperture, shutter, exposure, menus, etc.
Kedacai: I can not catch the idea "The hallmark feature of the LX100 is its Four Thirds sensor which, as we mentioned, is significantly larger than any other zoom compact save for the PowerShot G1 X II and its predecessor. If Panasonic used the entire 16 megapixel Four Thirds sensor it would be twice the size of the 1" sensors found on the likes of the Canon PowerShot G7 X and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100, but the camera's multi-aspect ratio requires a crop, so the difference is actually 1.5X"
What does muti aspect ratio mean?How does it affect the actual COMS area?
I'm all for it, but the lens is still 5% smaller than it had to be to accomplish the exact same capabilities just with a slightly smaller crop when it does it and a few more pixels of resolution. If you want to give them a pass on sizing the sensor so that you can only get the full width of it at 16:9 and the full height of it at 1:1 I can understand but lets keep in mind this lens is 5% smaller than even doing that on the 4/3rds sensor.
samfan: Heh. "Unfortunately there's no touchscreen on this camera", now that's something you don't hear from company reps often. You can really tell this guy is realistic about the camera and personally likes it. His posture completely changed when he had to repeat the stupid marketing pitch about how everybody from your grandma can use the LX100.
All the camera companies should have people like this.
Anyway I'd rather like to see them make this lens for the GM5. Well, uncropped of course. Honestly saying the camera is using a 16 MP m43 sensor is a bit of lying on their part since it only uses 12 MP. Isn't the imaging area closer to 1" then?
4:3 is closer to round than 3:2. 1:1 would technically be the biggest area rectangle you could get within the circle but few people want to deal with that aspect ratio. I also prefer working with 3:2 over 4:3 for 4"x6" printing and being a little closer to computer aspect ratios like 16:10 or even 16:9 but it's hard to blame them for wanting to get more sensor area out of their lenses than a 3:2 sensor could get.
I think a lot of people though print 8x10 and 5x7 which are both closer to 4:3 than 3:2. If you were to equally print 4x6", 5x7", and 8x10", you'd be right in the middle with a 4:3 ratio sensor.
If you love 3:2, the LX100 might be a better camera for you than you think. You can set it in 3:2 and forget it and you will actually pick up a little width compared to the people who use a LX100 only in 4:3. Not quite the width of a full 4/3rds 4:3 sensor but closer.
Philly: Well, it'll be easy for them to do mark II version of this camera: 1) add touch screen, 2) add flip mechanism to screen, 3) add built-in flash (but this may be difficult), 4) new sensor if one is ready.
For all the comparison with the Sony RX1000 III, it appears to me that the form factor makes it more of a competitor to the Fuji X100T. If this had the built-in flash, I would consider it more. But it is very similar in size to Olympus E-PM2 with 20mm f1.7 lens that I already have. So if I'm going to have to juggle-- bringing add-on accessories like clip flash--bringing add-on viewfinder for E-PM2 isn't that much different.
They could stack the shutter and exposure dials, probably put the exposure compensation dial on the bottom. The dial would look similar to the G7x dial except it'd be shutter on the top instead of a mode dial. That would give room on the top plate for a pop-up flash in the same location as the sony RX100m3
I'm with you on the touch screen, that should just be a question of cost. The articulating screen I really don't want. They add weight and take up extra room on the back of the camera that could otherwise be used for control surfaces. It has a cell phone remote which you can see what it's shooting on. Use that as your infinitely articulating and already removed rear screen. With shutter button!
mosc: Uh, I guess this wasn't a popular read but I have a small typo correction on slide 10. The Q-S1 doesn't use a 5.6x crop factor (1/2.33" sensor Q10 did) it uses a 1/1.7" sensor which has a massively smaller crop factor of a scant 4.7x
Yes, I know, nobody cares. Something is wrong in the internet and I should ignore it.
You know, it occurred to me DPR is arguing with itself on these crop ratio things. I didn't calculate 4.7x on my own, I got it from your Q7 spec sheet:http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_q7
Typo there too? 4.6x is what we're going with?
I'm noting with this lens/sensor size combination that it's very video focused. It's exactly the size to capture 16:9 8mp 3840x2160 UHD 4K video from a 12mp sensor (standard 4/3 2x crop ratio). This is a 16mp sensor so it actually has to crop a bit to get down to 8mp (26mm focal equivalent instead of 2x10.9mm).
This lens would be just big enough if down the road we have a 24mp 4/3rds sensor and you wanted to capture 6K UHD (5760x3240). Maybe that's down the line for this lens on another body in the Panasonic game plan?
spitfire31: The LX7 has been my faithful companion since it was launched and I'll be standing in line for the LX100.
For me, though, one disappointment is the lack of either an articulated monitor or a ditto viewfinder. I shelled out for the LVF2 add-on viewfinder for the LX7, which can tilt up to 90°, and it's been worth the money many times over.
In fact, I use the viewfinder most of the time. When shooting CU of, say, plants and flowers or just when you don't want people to be aware that you're pointing a camera their way, the tilt option has been irreplaceable.
It might be possible for you to use your LVF2 with the LX100. If they want the "full featured" hotshoe that supports mics and all, very well might work for you. Since you already own one, hardly seems like a bad thing to you they threw on another EVF?
I also think the cell phone remote removes a lot of the need for the pivoting screen. Set the camera up and look at it through your phone. Click the shutter from there.
piratejabez: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute... Why does the aspect ratio switch go from 3:2, 16:9, 1:1, 4:3? Compare to the top view to the LX7 ( http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100/images/vs-lx7-top.jpg ), which I own: 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9. It's like 1234, whereas the LX100 is 3412.Why put the two most common aspect ratios at opposite ends of the switch? My only guess is that this would allow the user to easily switch back and forth between them by toggling it 100% in either direction, and only force them to slow down and be more precise when using the less-common 16:9 or 1:1. In theory this could make shooting easier, but does seem counter-intuitive and may take some getting used to.What do YOU think?
I would expect them from tall to wide as well but I agree. That would lead to a lot of accidental use. 4:3 really needs to be on an end so you can slam it there and not have to look when your face is to the camera. It looks like they thought about that and laid them out in a more intelligent manor than just tall to wide or wide to tall.
It's notable in this context the LX100 lets you go to f16, or an f35 equivalence. That's a lot smaller aperture than a lot of FF lenses allow for more DOF when you want it but still more light gathering when you turn the dial to f1.7. Your choice. Canon's 24-70 F2.8 FF lens only lets you select between f2.8 and f22. The LX100's aperture does offer greater DOF as a choice if you want it though it can't quite match the aperture of canon's 805g beast at 24mm.
gmke: I am growing very tired of the repetitious and misleading reminder that there is only one equivalence to remember and one (full frame) standard that matters. That is Nikon speak. The relation between shutter speed and aperture counts for as much or more, and it is NOT different than full frame. Have you ever noticed that praise for edge to edge sharpness in a lens puts a finger in the eye of the idea that depth of field is the last word on cool? If depth of field was the only thing that mattered, nobody would care about edge or corner sharpness, nor would they be frothing to spend boku bucks on professional lenses.
Equivalence aperture, as calculated by DPREVIEW and most other places equates the physical aperture dimension of the physical lens and a 35mm sensor to calculate an "equivalent f-stop". F-stop is a ratio of aperture size and focal length. "equivalent aperture" is a ratio of aperture size and a fixed sensor size of a 35mm camera for the equivalent focal length, no matter what the actual sensor area is. It is very much just a reflection of the area. EX:A 100mm focal length f5.6 lens on a 35mm camera's lens has a physical aperture diameter of it's focal length over f-stop or 100mm/f5.6 or 17.9mm. A 17.9mm focal length f1.0 lens on a 1/2.33" camera's lens has a physical aperture diameter of it's focal length over f-stop or 17.9mm/f1.0 or 17.9mm.
17.9mm is the aperture diameter, which "The amount of light captured by a lens is proportional to the area of the aperture". saying f1.0 for 1/2.33" = f5.6 for 35mm is saying that 17.9mm aperture at 100mm equiv is a 17.9mm aperture.
yoshi1080: I really like Frazer's honesty and enthusiasm here. I love how he says “our marketing says it's …”, and how he smirks at that whole “LX7 lens scaled up” marketing stuff.
The line “unfortunately there's no touchscreen on this camera” was particularly surprising and should have been a cue for the interviewer to ask: well, why not? I guess he didn't have had enough sleep, he looks a bit tired. Too bad.
Right on. I could have clarified by UHD but I thought that was a given in this sector of things. My point is that this lens covers only 97% of the width of a 4/3rds sensor in 16:9 aspect ratio which is pretty much the exact percentage of a 12mp 4:3 ratio sensor (like the A7S or earlier 4/3rds) you'd have to cover to get 3840x2160 16:9 capture.
Miki Nemeth: This is the first time I'd seriously start thinking of buying a fix-lens camera, if it had tilting touch screen. The GX7 is definitely a much better option with its tilting touch screen and tilting EVF. If only Panasonic made a GX7m2 with IBIS 5-axis IBIS working in video and touch-magnification during video.
I'm having trouble seeing a reason to buy any 4/3rds camera after the LX100 his the market. It's lens, if it is comparably sharp etc, compares to a lot of 4/3rds primes for maximum aperture over a pretty useful range. Certainly plenty of market that wants to go telephoto but why are these people in 4/3rds? The size advantage of the bodies goes out the window when you attach a massive lens to it. Might as well use an APS-C body with a decent grip.
GX7 only appears to be in this thing's price range because of the lens involved. The 12-35 f2.8 panasonic lens alone costs more than the LX100 body AND lens. For those like me that are wide angle focused, it can be argued that the LX100's better anyway (brighter at the wide end than 4/3rds f/2.8 even with the 2.2x total crop).
If you compare the LX100 to any 4/3rds that has a zoom, the LX100 is an unbelievable value in terms of lens speed, physical dimensions, and cost. If you compare body to body, it's not that special. The lens of the LX100 is it's best feature. That said, independent aperture, shutter, exposure, zoom, and yet another dial for ISO/WB/menus/etc is pretty special even compared to a GX7 or a GH4 or an E-M1 or anything else.
It's a LITTLE better than that if you could the area you can add with other aspect ratios. For example, I find the 16:9 mode appealing as a wide angle option, adds a bit more on the sides at the cost of the top. The equivalence there is about 22mm which is pretty damn good even if it's only 16:9. Will work extremely well for a bunch of kids on a stage at a school event able to capture them from surprisingly close. If you count the little extra bits you get in 3:2 and 16:9 mode you get a 13.7 MP camera (not in any rectangular aspect ratio remember but instead an oval like overlay of three ratios) which is 195 mm^2. One step further if you ONLY shot in 16:9 from 4/3rds sensors (which are somewhat ironically all 4:3 aspect ratio), say because you're a video nut or something, The LX100's usable area is 95% of 4/3rds sensor in stills and matches it exactly if using an 8mp 4K video 16:9 crop.
So on some level yes it's 4:3 180mm^2 but in some ways it's still 225mm^2 or close to it.
Wow, apparently 4 entire people care! That's vastly more than my initial estimate. I also apologize for improperly rounding 4.64x to 4.7x. I'm clearly conspiring to sell the Q-S1 short and will flog myself accordingly.
pacnwhobbyist: Wonder what the pricing on the 16-85 will be.
Their 18-55 is $150 and their 18-135 is $375. If this lens is more than about $250 I don't get it at all. It's not faster.
Uh, I guess this wasn't a popular read but I have a small typo correction on slide 10. The Q-S1 doesn't use a 5.6x crop factor (1/2.33" sensor Q10 did) it uses a 1/1.7" sensor which has a massively smaller crop factor of a scant 4.7x