.....Wow......Thats it one ugly camera...very 2002-2004 ish
Who in the hell are designing these cameras nowadays?!?!!? I just dont get it anymore!!
EvanRavitz: I'd like the Panasonic LX7 with a REAL timelapse feature in movie mode. It would be easy to implement in firmware, but instead they crippled movies with a 30 min time limit. They do this because they want us to buy their camcorders too. I'm a wilderness guide in a treacherous area where weight must be kept to a minimum, so I want ONE still/movie camera.
If video mode can record more then 30 minutes. Then its classified as a video camera. If its classified as a video camera, then the taxes will be higher. If the taxes are higher, then the price would be higher.
If you want a video camera buy a video camera.
i think this would create more a of problem then a solution.
"review appears to suggest the adapter can act as something of a bottleneck, meaning you may not get the full speed of the MicroSD card you use."
Theres also no 45mps+ sd micro cards. For 10-18mp point and shoots this may be ok. But not for a 16+ mp dSLR shooting raw plus jpeg.
I think it would be smart if they did this with a CF card and had it take SD cards. They could use a larger transmitter in the CF card, also you could use 95+ mbps SD cards. It would be a tad more future proof.
jhinkey: Now all they have to do is put in an EVF and a 24-XX lens and they'd have a clear winner . . . like my beloved old CP8400.
Nikon just does not seem to be able to make a convincing high end/enthusiast small sensor camera.
My old 8400 (which I still have, but never use due to being way way too pokey ans slow) had everything I ever wanted in an enthusiast small sensor camera.
- EVF- Fold out LCD - Build-in flash - 24-XXmm FF equivalent lens (and decently fast) - Shoots RAW - Video - Compact size - Magnesium body
Why oh why can't they have these features in their current CoolPix offerings? If they did they'd be getting my $$ instead of Panasonic (LX-7).
You might argue that the V1 is for me, but it just is not a compelling option because it lacks so many of the above features.
Nikon isnt even taking their 1 series serious. They should easily have a 24mm equiv lens out right now. Let alone some fast zooms. The 1 series could be something if Nikon wanted it to be.
27mm is a far cry away from 24mm. Around 4-5 steps back.
ClaSch: HELP DPR... I am trying to do a camera comparison LX7 vs Sony RX100 after Conclusion at the end of this Review but it appears to not be possible despite having selected "Include All Categories" Is it just me doing something wrong? THX ;)
They are not in the same category. Therefor the comparison chart would not be a valid comparison...
Combatmedic870: 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
It doesnt have to be that small. Plus it doesnt need to have a tilt screen! :)
If fuji where to make that camera with the 2/3" sensor id be happy as well.
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 its all we got to compare. :)
Yes, we can only hope the improved the skin tones(that was my reason for not getting the LX5). If its using the same processor as the GX1, then the skin tones should be very very much so improved. Not up to olympus standards but much much better then what they were. .it looks like they did manage to atleast take care of the color blotchiness. :)
wootpile: Thanks for the review. Seems no better than Nikon 7100, will be interesting to see how it holds up against the Nikon 7700 and the new samsung.
Im with Paul... They are 2 different beasts. one has a 28-200(very useful FL) and the other has a 24-90(very useful wide angle and fast lens).
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?
To you second point.....The LX7 has a larger sensor then an elf....which is what you compared it too....Im REALLY not understanding any sort of point you making here...
i dont even understand what your comparing it too now? A FF sensor for DOF? What kind of sense does that make?? comparing 10 feet away to 35 ft away?
My XZ-1 shoot an equiv of about F12.5 on the long end...it gives me a pretty nice shallow DOF for head and shoulder pics. More shallow then what an RX100 can give due to it not going to 112mm and the lack of a faster lens....
You have yet to really make a point when it comes to you downing this camera...You seem like you somewhat know what your talking about....but you mixing up DOF with light gathering was....yea...
You say its total light of an area that matters.....THATS WHAT THE SUPER FAST LENS IS FOR!!!!
Rachotilko: Regarding review: LX7 is obviously a concept based on optical performance of the lens, inviting user to choose low ISO even in low light situations. That's why some quantitative testing of the lens performance (edge-to-edge sharpness with aperture wide open) would be very wellcome. The image stabilization efficiency test is missing as well.
I agree with this...
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.
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?
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.