zodiacfml: Seems very low power to me.... limited use.
Well yeah - it's limited to freezing superfast motion. That's kind of the point.
Richard Murdey: Within the criteria dpreview uses to judge cameras, they find the LX100 to be excellent.
Your criteria, my criteria ... might well be different, and in my case they are different. The days when digital cameras can be evaluated in an absolute good-better-best sense are long over. dpreview can rank it silver, gold, platinum or chocolate cream with pink sprinkles for all I care ... all that tells anyone is how much they like it, not how much you should like it.
Reading the comments, some people really need to chill. Personal attacks on the authors for liking a camera more than you do is just way out of line. Unacceptable.
Well, what else should people do with their spare time when they've got a roof over the heads, their bellies are full of food, and no militias prowl their streets?
This is why the West must bring its capitalist democracy to the rest of the world: so that they, too can be free to argue about cameras on the internet.
After all, the rest is taken care of for now and eternity...
Morten Rasmussen: Dpreview are Panasonic fanboys. You should consider this when you read their reviews.
What I mean is;
How come a camera that was launched so recently already gets a review and a very good one, when the Sony a5100, which, I may add, probably blows the LX100 out of the water, and is same size or smaller, doesn't get reviewed.
It's always the same when panasonic ships a new camera Dpreview is right there, but not so much with the other brands. One could get the impression that they benefit somehow.
There's that phrase again - "blows it out of the water".
You'd think that, considering the enormous variety of photographic endeavors and the absolute capability of pretty much every modern camera relative to the entire history of the tool, people would stop using such facile and ultimately pointless cliches.
I guess that's the internet for you - particularly the photographic internet - and extra-particularly DPreview, for whatever reason.
(Oh, and bonus "points" for implying that DPreview is paid to review Panasonic products early - very classy.)
limlh: A good compact apsc mirrorless is not much bigger than this and offers better controls, more DR and lower noise.
What is it about comparisons between the LX100 and APSC mirrorless cameras with single focal length lenses attached? What nonsense.
dwl017: Sorry my Samsung NX300 with 45mm F1.8 prime will blow this thing out of the water. Im sorry but $900 for m4/3 fixed lens is surely a joke. No way in the world with so many other options. You would be better off with a first edition Sony RX100
Any detachable lens alternative is a much better buy.
"Blow this thing out of the water" - cliche much?
The only joke here is your risible comment. Maybe that's why you keep saying "sorry".
kai liu: man, the detail is crazy good at low ISO. High ISO I can see is below average for APS-C camera. ISO 800 already a lot of noise. It is similar to my MFT camera.The 50-150 f2.8 is so goo. F2.8 so sharp.
ChuckTa: that's not a very good example - the image is cropped/downsampled to 1091x1200 and compressed to 280KB.
If there were noise in the original, you'd hardly be able to tell in this version - so whatever you think you're seeing is not a useful indicator of the EM5's performance.
gLOWx: Once again, REAL innovation don't come from Canikon, but from Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and Fuji.FZ1000 was already impressive in bridge.And now this one in compact.
I really want to see some production final samples, because those provided over the net are very inconsistent.Operator error ? Different firmware ? We will see ;)
ThatCamFan: that really chaps your hide, huh?
I mean, nevermind that the camera would have been bigger or the lens slower or otherwise not as versatile... all that matters is that it uses the entire sensor?
Kind of silly to get so worked over what in the end was a simple, pragmatic decision.
Peter Bendheim: The barrel machining and finish looks horrid. The screw area is unpainted or worn. There have always been plenty cheap and nasty optics around, ultimately you get what you pay for.
Maybe the optics are better. But lenses are an investment, bodies are not. I'd rather spend extra for lenses.
"Horrid"? Exaggerate much?
Antonio Rojilla: Or a Sony A6000. With the compact 16-50 they are almost the same size and have almost the same focal length and aperture (well, depending on how you do the calculation anyway). The Sony sensor is not only larger, the Panny is smaller than m43 (the effective area used at least). The lens may be better in the LX100, but the EVF and AF better in the A6000. You also get double the pixels, a tilt LCD, a built-in flash and last but no least a lens mount.
I only see two reasons to get the Panny: 4K, and look and feel, as it is a beautiful camera with some nice retro controls.
"On a sensor about 3 times smaller"
Do you mean the LX100's sensor is 1/3 the area of the A6000's? If so, not so - APSC is ~360 square mm; the LX100 is ~180, or roughly 1/2 the size.
JordanAT: The size advantage of the integral lens is staggering. You might suspect that the interchangeable lens teams are designing to be sold based on weight or volume given the massive size of the optics compared to the on-camera version of the compact cameras. Now, I'll grant you that the optics for the LX-100 are built for a 1.2" sensor instead of a 1.33" sensor, but that 42.5/1.2 fixed lens looks every bit as large as a Nikkor 85/1.4 built for a 2.7" full frame sensor.
For those of us who have abandoned an FX (or DX) with a gaggle of lenses for something jacket-pocket portable, a 4/3 and a lens makes very little sense. I like the idea of a 4/3 mirrorless, but every time I look at the lenses they're either half the speed or twice the size of the fixed compacts.
1.2"? 1.33"? 2.7"? That's an unusual way to refer to sensor sizes...
nerd2: Paying almost $1K for small m43 sensor? No thanks. Also this camera simply shows how overpriced m43 lenses are. They could release separate 28-75 equiv 1.7-2.8 lens for m43 system at around $600 (which will sell well) but they chose not to.
blah blah blah handwaving conjecture uneducated guess blah blah blah
hypo: "the butch high-end compacts that we enjoy today are the grandchildren of the feature-rich ambition that dropped as seeds the day the flower heads of the APS system dried up and died"
That has to be the most wonderful, baroque statement to have appeared in DPR since Phil launched the site.
Even more wonderful because the more often I read it the better it sounds (and makes me smile) and the more I realise I don't have a clue what Damien's talking about.
Well done Damien. I look forward to following your future articles.
Hah! I laughed out loud when I read that line.
eastwestphoto: What has ALWAYS kept me from buying these high end compact zoom digitals is a lack of sunshade & Polarizer ability. The lens cap design prevents practical use of mentioned devices. Personally I have been all over the world watching idiot photographers taking photo's in the most beautiful vista's you have ever seen with these technological machines and smiled ever so dis-believingly at what they were doing? Straight into the sun, WHAT? A zoom lens with floating elements, in 14 groups that doesn't get effected by flare, ghosting; shooting into the sun, or back-lighted situations? Please!, No such animal or multi-coating can overcome refraction off multiple zoom lens surfaces! 50 years ago a photographer or motion picture photographer knew darn well that a SUNSHADE is a must! A old 60 year old folding camera shooting 120 roll film can turn out a better photo, because they had three lens elements and used a sunshade.
The LX100 has filter threads, so you can use a polarizer. I guess you could use a hood, too, if you can find one that fits the threads...
cjnielsen_nz: I deliberately did *not* check the box that offers to add me to the mailing list for 'tips' however moments after beginning the download I received an email with 'Congratulations! You’re signed up to receive the latest news, promotions and tips from Olympus'
F you Olympus! NOT happy.
O wizened keeper of internet lore, thank thee for the object lesson in false equivalency - nay! non sequitur; now I also can say "I was there", when the mother of all irrelevancies was given forth unto this forum, amen.
Boxbrownie: Looks like a very interesting/nice camera......just one thing......it looks bloomin' awfull with that skinny little lens barrel extended......very embarressing :))
Embarrassing? Like it reminds you of a weenie? (Tee hee! Camera looks like weenie!)
It's unfathomable to see a childish tantrum thrown in public over a single unwanted email.
Doubly so considering the sender is a legit company like Olympus: assuming your checkbox memory isn't faulty, that egregious waste of unrenewable digital resources was most likely the result of a programming error on Oly's site; they have nothing to gain by deliberately angering their customers.
If the premise for this high dudgeon is that unsolicited email wastes your precious time, consider that it probably required treble the effort to excrete your mewling spazz as it did to click unsubscribe and then delete the offending missive.
"First world problems" is an overused cliche, but I have to call it here...
dog house riley: Masters of double talk! a two year old Australian aborigine could have said more!Oh well didn't expect much solid news anyway.
Are we to infer that a two year old "Australian aborigine" is somehow less intelligible than, say, a "regular" two year old?
What a silly, parochial worldview you have.
b craw: This camera is impressive - period. So much excellent photography has been done with cameras that look rather primative when compared to what has surfaced in the last few years. If we aren't making great stuff now, it is all about the skill of the photographer; not that this hasn't been essentially the circumstance all along.
Well, not exactly.
This has an MFT sensor, which automatically makes it a toy not worth of "serious" photography... even though it's quantifiably better in every single way than all 35mm and smaller imaging devices prior to 2006 or so.
(Irrelevant, anyway; "serious" photography was invented circa 2008.)
supeyugin1: Alison should take care of her nail polish, it's peeling off!
The things strangers feel entitled to comment on... why should Alison give a damn what you think about her nail polish?
joe6pack: Seems much better than Microsoft's hyperlapse.
I think you'd need to make a number of simultaneously-recorded videos with both technologies to see which is really "better".
I wonder how well instagram's tech would handle the rock climbing video from MS - the original had dozens of quick head movements in wildly different directions, but the processed video was still smooth and watchable.
And obviously, MS's tech is better than Instagram's for any video not made with their app.