mosc: Of course what this review lacks is any kind of useful information for making a purchasing decision. Specifically, how does it compare to it's direct competition? Is it bigger? Heavier? Is the sensor smaller or larger? How much faster is the lens? How much does the zoom range compare? How much more or less does it cost?
I miss the aperture equivalent chart that should be a requirement for cameras in this class with their very different sensor sizes (1/2.33", 1/1.7", 2/3", 1")
The LX7's advantage is hardly it's "super bright lens" (it's actually far less light than the RX100 at wide and very similar at tele) as the reviewer points out. This type of exaggeration frustrates me. Super bright compared to what? A $99 elf?
Do you see any F1.4-2.3 24-90mm lenses anywhere??? Super bright compared to everything. There is no way a F1.4 lets in less light vs a 1.8 lens....its impossible. The RX100 has less DOF at the wide end(4.9 vs 7.1).but it doesnt take in any more light. Dont mix up DOF with light gathering! The lx7 has a 2 and 3/4 of a stop advantage at the long end. meaning the in the same lighting. if the lx7 is at F2.3, iso800 the RX100 would be at F4.9 ISO5000. Compare the LX7 at iso800 vs the RX100 at ISO5000. Or compare ISO400 to ISO2500. thats what you would get on the long end with equal playing fields.
At the long end, the LX7 WILL give a narrower DOF VS the rx100(F11 VS F13). At the short end....are you really trying to get a narrow DOF?? You can barely get a Narrow DOF with a APS-c sensor with a 24mm (eqiv) 1.4 lens!
These cameras are 2 different beasts. One has a very sharp 24-90 1.4-2.3 lens and the other has a mediocre 28-100 1.8-4.9 lens.
The first company to release a 12-16mp 1" sensor "compact", with a sharp 24-120 F2-2.8(or 2.8 constant) lens with hybrid AF(meaning FAST), plus a good EVF, for $800 = Take my money please.
Yes...it is going to have a lens cap....Oh no!! LOL
If Fuji's X10 had 24mm instead of 28mm....i would already have it...But i'd still prefer something with hybrid AF.
Until then...i'll be shooting with my XZ-1
Richard Murdey: Something about Jeff's reviews, almost like they are written by computer software. They have this "checklist" quality about them.
Being objective is admirable, but dpreviews typically had, in addition to that, a sense that the reviewer is also a photographer who is passionate about cameras.
I'm not calling his credentials into doubt, I'm just saying that his reviews don't communicate his enthusiasm to me, and they make very dry (dare I say boring) reading as a consequence.
he might not like point and shoots ;)
Digitall: Nice review, a nice camera indeed. I'm waiting for Nikon P7700 and Olympus XZ-2 review to help me make a buying decision.
Well if you want a 24mm lens....that should help you narrow it down....the LX7 or the EX2.... If 28mm is wide enough.....hmmm Having the p7700 on your list is...weird...its a totally different beast.
Also may want to add the G15 on you list.
Vernatropius: How does the flash of LX7 compared to XZ-1? I really love the XZ-1 fill in flash even with closeups not to mention the different power outputs. My XZ-1 died recently, its only 6 months(shame olympus, crap motherboard).
Anyway, I do always use flash at night and dim light situations. I am bit worried to upgrade to LX7 with such a ridiculous low score on flash department.
1 year warranty?
Combatmedic870: Compare the LX7 vs the XZ-1.....The XZ-1 looks better in low iso and its almost draw in high iso(the XZ-1 has more color noise @ iso 800 and 1600, but retains more detail.) The LX7 output is VERY much so like the XZ-1(except in the low iso's and colors.(the oly is more punchy and saturated)) That is NOT a bad thing at all. The XZ-1's raw output is very very good(a little noisy, but very sharp).
ISO1600 does seem to be more useable vs the XZ-1 though, due to the lack of color noise. The use of iso 1600 and 1.4 would be some pretty low light.
So you can now shoot 1080p video...but since they had to switch to cmos sensors vs CCD. There is more noise in the lower iso's...Lens sharpness and speed is the only real gain(which is a REALLY good thing), unless your a video shooter
If you were just getting into buying a camera like this and wanted a wide angle shooter. This is going to be your best choice out of the bunch.
If my XZ-1 died, I would buy this. Very nice job Panny!
Yea.....but im kind of wanting a wider angle. :)They didnt really add anything to the XZ-2 to make me want it.
StevenE: how does it compare to the samsung EX2F ?
We well soon see, IF Samsung sent them a model to review.
Compare the LX7 vs the XZ-1.....The XZ-1 looks better in low iso and its almost draw in high iso(the XZ-1 has more color noise @ iso 800 and 1600, but retains more detail.) The LX7 output is VERY much so like the XZ-1(except in the low iso's and colors.(the oly is more punchy and saturated)) That is NOT a bad thing at all. The XZ-1's raw output is very very good(a little noisy, but very sharp).
jonikon: The worst of the lot by far is the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS, which does not even come close to doing an APS-C sensor justice. Only the very center is reasonably sharp and it quickly gets softer going out from there. I was surprised how much distortion the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS has, even at 50mm. I have pocket cameras that have better lenses than that!
And you got that from these pics???
People stop being so negative. Im sure the RAW output is great. We arent talking about a Fuji X camera here. These Jpegs arent the best. Atleast with this camera the RAW output will be extremely malleable, unlike the Fuji's. Pull the shadows +3EV....no problem...
The 16-50 looks good. All of the rest, the NR is too strong to really tell.
Ive seen other samples of the 16-50 though. It looks to be an EXTREMELY useful lens. Its small and has a great range with a true wide angle. Doesnt get any better then that. Its atleast as good as the 18-55.
The 16-50 with the 24 and 50 or the 35 and....hopefully coming 85mm F2/2.8 and your good to go.
This looks pretty good. considering the NR atleast.
This is a good real world pic. The DR in this pic is like 1ev. I would love to see the actual RAW file of this pic.
This shot looks pretty good considering the NR.
Why there is NR at ISO 100 makes little sense to me. Its pretty heavy though.
I think if you looked at the other shots and see how the NR is on them and then look at this one. You will find this one rather sharp.
jenbenn: Hm most of the samples are good, except for the last ones of the 16-50mm lens. The shots taken at 49 and50mm are either comletly out of focus or have been smoothed tremendously by Noise reduction ( not likley, since they were taken at ISO 100). DPReview please check, these last two pics are so soft, it cant be duie to bad lens quality. Also, most people buy a UWA lens to use it at its widest setting. I think you should at least provide a few test shots at 10mm fromthat lens. If I wanted to shoot at 16mm or longer I'd go for a cheper lens.
The last shot is with 2x clear image zoom.
pete24: Dpreview is a great site,The Nex-6 and some of the lenses just seem to be totaly lousy..The NR seems to be quite stronger then the one of the Nex-5N.
Well knowing the NR setting would be helpful. Im sure the RAW output is 10x better. It would be better to wait for the full review before making any judgements.
I do agree with the NR on these particular shots though.
viking79: I agree, looks like it is weaker at 50 mm. It looks a lot better at wide angles. Typical for most kit lenses.
This is with the 2x clear image zoom.
Can you comment on the focus bracketing feature? How does is work exactly.
I read that when shooting portraits it will make it so you have a nice shallow DOF.
Looking pretty good for a wide open kit lens. The NR is horrible in EVERY shot. It really jacks with the Bokeh and destroys it. (mostly with the 35mm)
Very strong NR