mpgxsvcd: For me the LX100 is an alternative to buying the 12-35mm F2.8 lens for my GH4. I compared the LX100 to the GH4 sample test images and the LX100 looks like a great match for the GH4 and my 35-100mm F2.8 lens.
The GH4 has slightly better RAW noise characteristics but I like the color reproduction and lens of the LX100 better than the 12-35mm F2.8 m4/3s lens.
I think the LX100 is a home run. The 1 inch sensor cameras don’t look so great next to it now that we have seen some RAW files.
No, Panasonic doesn't need a higher resolution sensor for the LX100 or GX7.
Look at how many 16MP mirrorless APSC bodies there are.
Beyond about 5MB: More pixels rarely equals better image quality.
Right the ability to crop (a version of digital zooming) can be helpful.
GPW: Just like their cameras, they receive minor updates and bug fixes
Just a Photographer:
The point is that the A7S which on paper should be the high ISO king isn't even close to the Df or D4S.
And the OP was asserting that Nikon only does minor updates. So I picked this "new" Sony camera which is an improvement for Sony, but except for shooting silently and video it's not that big a deal--whereas it should be.
Higher ISO shooting is one of the areas digicams improve in. Colour 35mm film was never really usable beyond ISO 800.
Clean higher ISOs, with good colour, open up many possibilities that didn't exist as recently as 2008.
phazelag: The Sony RX100 Mark three and the Panasonic FZ1000 images look cleaner and more detailed than the LX100 and G7X at 3200 jpeg. Look at the brushes. I never put my cards on these tests, but it is interesting that Canon doesnt seem to even match Panasonic and Sony using the same sensor.
I also had higher hopes for the LX100, but this furthers my confidence in my RX100m3 and FZ1000 a great team.
Your first post doesn't have anything about the Pana FZ1000 in it.
The A5100 is part of the set of studio shots; the FZ1000 not.
The FZ1000 can't really be pushed beyond ISO 1600.
Actually from raw, at ISO 3200, the brushes are, as expected, a bit clearer from the LX100 and A5100 than the Canon or RX100III. Anyhow deep shadow is the test for high ISOs.
You seem to forget that the LX100's sensor is a known factor from the GX7. Put a good PanaLeica lens on the GX7 and it's easy enough to shoot at ISO 6400, have my own samples, however ISO 6400 is pushing things for the RX100III.
SkilakDeZoo: I cannot see anything I would say WOW e.g. based on D750-DSC_1434-ISO_100.acr picture, full size, which was taken with a prime 200mm at F2.0, I hardly can say where the AF point was hold or even notice the DoF. The pictures taken with F8 -11, a time wasting to comment. Most of the pictures are what I can get from D7100 except the size. I only perceive FF better with regards to DoF / frame size ratio over APS-C and somehow noise, is there anything else? If the AF point array is the same as D7100 then nothing to rave about.
Yeah sure, I'm annoyed.
But rubbishing cameras that don't do what you want without any adjustment to the file later is silly.
What on earth does: "but I assume you use RAW as you have no clue how to take itl" mean?
TheWhiteDog: REALLY! DPReview is doing a major disservice here. Who would buy an a5100 and use it with a $1000 prime lens in a mount that is not even native to it. I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of a5100 purchasers will only ever use the kit lens that comes with it- and that is how it should be tested. I understand you want to show what the sensor is capable of but that has no basis in the reality of how the camera will be used.So throwing that out of the mix, I like the Canon least, its lens performance has compromised the sensor, I guess getting an extra 30mm on the telephoto end compared to the RX100Mk3 has had an effect on IQ. As for the SONY vs the LX100, the SONY has more detail(expected with the extra pixels) but the LX100 has much lower noise, especially at higher ISOs(again, expected). If choosing, I like the LX100 best, it is an "all arounder". Great job, Panny but the SONY is no slouch. Love the Panny's controls far more though(no PASM dial needed)!
So would a Zeiss Otus 55mm be "silly" for studio samples from the D750? Or just something not so great like the native Nikon 85mm 1.4?
Would something like the extraordinary, but native and not $4,000, 85mm 1.4 be used for the studio samples from the Samsung NX1, the NX30 just used the not great kitzoom?
There are Fuji XT1 and Olympus EM1, and even Panasonic GX7 examples that follow the line of thinking about the Samsung NX. (In other words, who really wants to see what the bad kitzoom with the GX7 can do--put a PanaLeica 25mm lens on there.)
Actually yes you did, quoting: "but it is interesting that Canon doesnt seem to even match Panasonic and Sony using the same sensor." It's the "and" in there that causes the meaning of the sensor being the same in the Panasonic LX100 and Sony RX100III.
Now it may not be what you meant but that's a different story.
No, I didn't assume you looked at the default view. But have to suspect--meaning I can't be sure--that you only looked at jpegs.
Also, no great surprise, the LX100 is a better high ISO camera than the FZ1000.
Make sure you read what you wrote too.
The Canon doesn't have the same sensor as the Panasonic or the Sony A5100.
No great surprise, shooting raw, the Panasonic is a better high ISO camera than the Sony RX100III or Canon. And then the Sony A5100 is a bit better than the Pana LX100--not much though.
Too bad the Sony A7S can't really touch either the Df or D4s for high ISO performance.
Sidath Senanayake: I think my RX100 (version 1) does considerably better than the samples here. And that's with looking at 20MP at 100% rather than 12MP.
I was hoping that the image quality in this camera would justify it's noticeably larger size (compared to the RX100 series). Sadly it looks as though that isn't the case :(
Which cameras are you referring to? The RX100I+II+III all LX100 shoot raw. There are no 4/3rds still cameras which can't shoot raw.
If you're referring to tourists' cameras in my city, DSLRs and interchangeable mirrorless all shoot raw--though no right, I can't speak to how they're set up. Nor do I care, a jpeg out of a 5 year old Canon Rebel will be better than a jpeg of the same shot out of an iPhone.
BozillaNZ + tkbslc:
That's odd I live in a city with many tourists and I see many normal digicams daily, and most can be set to shoot raw.
Neither of you two "thinkers" have answered the question that I asked.
If the iPhone is enough of a camera for your purposes, by all means use it exclusively. If you care about more control, shooting above ISO 400 and better lenses, you'll think about something like the LX100 or RX100III.
SergeyMS: Just attempt to clone Sony RX1. But RX1 is more Leica, than Leica X...
The Leica lenses, well done ones, record better colour than good Fujis and Olympuses. And on a good day, Olympus will best Fuji. The only manufactures shipping lenses optically close to Leica are Zeiss, Samsung (Optron) and Sigma. No, I've not forgotten Schneider.
Sony compresses raws, likely tossing important colour data, so even using good Zeiss lenses, like the one on the RX1, Sony has colour problems.
The M240 and X Vario sure sell, as do M lenses. The T system is promising.
The new S2 is something to be very excited about.
You really don't know of what you write, except that yes, Olympus and Fuji do make many very good lenses, however none of the lenses really reach extraordinary.
(Also there's no real tuning a camera when shooting raw. And no one serious about image quality shoots jpeg only or makes IQ judgements based on jpegs from cameras able to shoot raw.)
munro harrap: The worst things about the D7100 are high ISO noise and no protective cover for the screen, which is a "real pain".
Here Nikon go one step further into lunacy by expecting you to scratch the screen as you wreck its delicate and poorly implemented mechanism yourself, ensuring you go out and buy the next replacement which MAY have a screen that folds into the body.
As there's nothing wrong with a D610 what exactly are they playing at? Us?
The the high ISO samples I've shot with the D600 (raw) were good. Something is wrong with your example of the D600.
Why would anybody wait to trial a new camera's ISO capacity?
I don't think one can travel for months on $3000. Though one can go some place and live cheap for a few months.
Thru ISO 6400 the D800 is good, and the D810 improves upon that performance.
No, I don’t know everything about cameras, nor do I claim to, but I don’t go around saying digital cameras are “rubbish” if 95 percent of the time the image isn’t perfect out of the camera–that’s just ignorant.
As for post processing (PP), that’s often–usually--part of photography.
In other not news, in the film era: the 1 hour processing of 35mm film to prints could often be improved upon, either later by better processing at the same photo shop, or at the end of the film era with better film scanners at home.
Records, and styli have to be cleaned, and there’s all this worry about vibration, and it’s easy to spend $5000 on a turntable, and different pressings of the same record sound different–mp3s on an iPod are so much more your style than vinyls.
Okay you had a balky D600, what does that have to do with the D610 or the D750?
(Of course I understand the D610 is a direct replacement for the D600, but the D750's ISO capacity remains much greater than the D610's. And: NB, try a firmware update for the balky D600 if there's one to be had.)
Edgar_in_Indy: What program can be used to develop the .RW2 RAW files? I have the latest versions of Adobe Photoshop/Bridge/ACR but the LX100 is not supported yet. I would love to be able to evaluate the RAW files.
Try Rawtherapee 4.1.
It works for me on a Windows 7 computer.
It has some pain in the fanny features, and doesn't do well with higher ISO photos, no matter what some claim in these comments, but it's a start.
What raws from the LX100 have you extracted, and with what software?
Have you looked at the out of camera jpegs posted at both Imaging Resource and PhotographyBlog?
rzuch: Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the sensor specifications and factors that effect picture quality. A Nikon designer commented that the 810's sensor has better dynamic range (vs. the 750). Is this measured and included in the camera's specifications? I would think that more pixels (810) in the same sensor size might give less dynamic range as the pixel noise would increase. Other than the resolution, what makes one sensor better or worse than another? Can we read into the 750's specs to know how this camera's picture quality will compare to Nikon's other cameras?
It doesn't help that DXO sensor scores use many numbers derived from theoretical light sources, not actual testing of the sensors themselves.
Jos1974: www.techradar.com - again another review shows the D750 is not a very big upgrade
Jpeg and Rawnoise and Dynamic range
For what it's worth, shooting raw, the high ISO performance of the D750 is a significant improvement over the D610, and the AF is better by a good bit. (I realize I'm repeating myself.) I've handled the cameras, and I more than suspect the OP has not.
DouglasGottlieb: I guess they think that a more Fuji X100 style model would cut into M or T sales.
This camera should have an integrated EVF.
Or be much smaller, like the Ricoh GR.
And most likely this Leica's lens is easily optically better than than anything that can be mounted on the XPro1.
"If I pay a lot of money for a camera then I expect the picture coming out exactly as I want."
So clearly you don't know anything about photography digital, Polaroid or film.
Or: Are you joking?
"If you are unable to set the camera to have 95% pictures as you want, then the camera is rubbish."
I guess not.
Enjoy those mp3s.