nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.
I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)
What I don't get is your motive for engaging in a sophomoric and reductivist campaign against m43.
What do you gain from repeatedly making a fool of yourself with oversimplified comparisons? What makes you think you know which gear this guy should be using better than he does?
Is it possible that a photographer might have good reasons - subjective or not - for using m43? Is it possible that you might have no idea what those reasons are?
Part of growing up is learning that other people know what works for them better than you do. Put down your ego and stop acting otherwise.
Zvonimir Tosic: All right, some will call me biased, but before you do that, please re-assure me with good answers. I am looking at the gentleman's picture above, and in his hands a camera with thinner profile, yes, but with a gigantic lens on it, no smaller that equivalent DSLR lens.
So what's the point he wants to make with this engineering "feat"? That laws of optics always apply and scaling down camera size is a myth? Or that DSLRs are still better ergonomically designed and made for big lenses .. but he won't admit that?
Or that overall imbalance of his design to comfortable handling .. is the new way to enjoy photography in the 21st century? Perhaps following the same route of thinking that the most simple and dumbest of cameras world has ever seen are also called "smart" (smartphone) in this 21st century?
Is there a problem with this 21st century or something?
"Why they don't choose a body wich sits in a hand like a glove?!"
You are hilarious. The XT1 has far from "crippled ergonomy", and your and the OP's points about DSLRs only stands for large lenses; when smaller primes are used it's the DSLR that looks out of balance.
DSLRs are only "clearly better ergonomicly [sic] designed" for a small number of situations -- handheld with large lenses being the obvious one. And a lot of large-lens photography is performed on a tripod, so what does it matter?
And then maybe people like other things about mirrorless itself -- like EVFs, which offer an enormous number of advantages over OVFs, especially those on non-FF cameras. (IMO the only advantage of OVFs is that they're subjectively more pleasant to look through.)
But whatever... if you haven't figured these things out for yourself already, I doubt I've made much of an impression.
ptox: The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.
A minority, persecuted everywhere throughout history and still today in far too many societies, represented in this case in a gentle example of a medium whose participation by the viewer is about as optional as it gets - harming nobody, making the least aggressive statement possible - "we exist, here we are" - and yet here subject to scorn, ridicule, base degredation and outright hatred from members of the relatively safe, powerful, enfranchised majority.
How pathetically false are these cries of fear; nothing more noble than veiled hatred of The Other - other humans, trying like each of us to carve out a bit of peace and happiness in in lives that often (and for the subjects of this photo, in that country, far too often) seem to be nothing but anything else.
DaveClark: "Rights" are not just about legal rights -- they include the right not to be discriminated against, which judging by your point about businesses etc is not a settled matter. And then there's the right to marry, of course, which is not yet universal.
Nudism is a behavior. Homosexuality is a genetic imperative. You can disagree -- but most homosexuals wouldn't, which is the only important point.
DaveClark: Nor should there be anything neutral or passive about the promotion of rights for humans of all kinds and creeds; the doctrines of faiths are subordinate to that ethical imperative.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not an aggressive anti-homosexual; even so, your refusal to "accept" a whole class of people gives license to those extremes.
And for what cause? -- only a base, vulgar distaste for a mode of existence that has no bearing on your own life.
The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.
Jasko014: If it would be not written, that this is gay couple, I would not recognise it. Left person has a physiology of woman.
I think that says more about you than it does about the people in the photo.
67gtonr: I have been using my EOS M for over 1 1/2 years without issue, I have been following any posts about the system online and in the EOS M Forum here and have not once come across a post about needing to have an M repaired for something under warranty, no overheating when taking video, no banding, no oil or dust on the sensor, no shutter slap issues, etc. I am confident that this iteration will also have the high quality build of its predecessors.
I can see the tagline now -- "Canon EOS M: Bad cameras, well made."
obsolescence: Marvelous, but who will be left on this ravaged planet to see the pretty pictures, once we have destroyed its habitability? Is this an appropriate use of technology in the face of our planetary emergency? I must conclude that humans are extremely myopic.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but your implied conclusion - that we should not pursue sophisticated and expensive scientific endeavor until we've secured the ecological future of our planet - may not produce the change you're hoping for.
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.
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.
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.