Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.
@Cain24 "Sure, for those who like to carry cameras in pockets. But there are those of us who will use pouches or small camera bags regardless, which does in fact put all those cameras under the same umbrella of consideration."
If you want to carry a small bag as opposed to have a pocketable camera then why limit yourself to the LX100? There are several m43 cameras of similar size that let you change the lens and the lens in the LX100 is not remarkable enough in my opinion to justify being fixed (and the size of the camera doesn't benefit from it either).
It may have other features such as 4K video others do not at the moment but surely it is only going to be a short time before these features are matched on interchangeable lens m43 cameras which will render the LX100 obsolete,
Zvonimir Tosic: The new LX100 has a appeal over other Panasonic m4/3 cameras because of the influence of Leica is far more prominent in it: from the new lens, to the layout of the controls.This is indeed a collaboration of the sort they once had in the DMC-LC1 era, and I am glad they have renewed the spirit of it. And considering the LC1 which employes 2/3" sensor was priced at $1599 at its delivery in 2004, today's LX100 with all its features is a bargain.
I bet the only collaboration Leica had/have with the LX100 is sticking their own badge on their version.
Glad DPR asked this question as I posted a similar one in the comments section when the camera came out.
I think they are being a bit disingenuous though in justifying the LX100 essentially on the back of its lens. A range of 24-75 mm and F2.8 at the long end is too limiting.
My standard lens is a 16-80 CZ on an A77 and it gets used a lot at focal lengths longer than 50mm (75mm equivalent).
And no you don't have to buy super fast lenses to make a case for the GX7.
Things like 4K video (if you use it) are evolutionary and I'd expect to see it on a "GX7 II" or whatever its replacement is.
The other problem I see is these cameras are not that small. So the LX100 being about the same size as the GX7 puts them both out of the "buy because they are small" category in my book when there are smaller m43 cameras from both Pana and Oly (that don't have fixed lenses either) and cameras that really are pocketable like the Sony RX100.
For me the LX100 is obsolete already.
xiox8: So three things I am interested in understanding before making the decision to buy.
1. As I understand it the spot metering does not use the actual chosen AF point? How would that work with birds?2. I have a 400mm f5.6 lens and I noticed that some of the increased AF function in the center requires an f2.8 lens to be utilized. Is this going to neutralize the AF improvements for me?3. I have read that the sensor is a derivative of the 70D which does not have stellar noise characteristics, so I want to see a DXO review. Although I saw a Matt Granger review that sounded favorable regards noise.
Any comments on the above would be appreciated.
You would never use spot metering with birds (in flight that is).
It does what it says on the tin and meters from the centre spot of the frame.
So with a bird in flight you might miss the bird with the spot and so end up exposing for the sky.
You typically use it on more static subjects in difficult lighting situations that may fool the metering. For example a back lit portrait you can spot meter the face to determine the correct exposure for the face locking the spot reading with the AEL button then recomposing.
Or you use it to take several readings from around the scene and average them out avoiding extreme lighting (some Oly camera let you do this).
There is nothing deficient here as regards the way the spot metering works. It is doing exactly as it should, metering from the centre spot always.
It could be argued with today's sophisticated exposure metering there is less need for it (and even less again if your camera has an EVF where what you see is what you get).
Canon2: I try to answer the xiox8-questions:1. As I understand it when you use spot metering, the camera focus firstly and then just before the picture is taken the light is messured around the AF point that was chosen. Either you chosed it or the camera did.2. Your 400 mm wont use the center AF point in double cross mode, but in cross mode along with many other cross type AF ponits. Double cross neads 2.8.
Spot metering means taking a meter reading from the centre of the frame. In true spot metering the "spot" will be 1% of the frame though many manufacturers who offer it have used up to say 5%. Some cameras have the spot metering circle etched into the viewfinder.
What it should never do is wander off and follow the focus point to elsewhere in the frame. That is NOT spot metering.
Wide area metering often works like that in that if you set wide area metering the camera will often link the metering to the focus point it chooses. Again, this is NOT spot metering.
If Ken Rockwell thinks it is a paradox the spot metering is only from the center sensor and "AF-point linked spot metering isn't there" just means he doesn't know what he is talking about or at the very least has his terminology totally screwed up.
If he means the metering is not linked to the focus point when wide area metering is selected then he describes this very poorly confusing it with spot metering.
Dave Oddie: Aren't these lenses a throwback to a former era? Just because in the days of film 70-200 F2.8's were kind of state of the art in terms of fast tele zooms why on smaller sensors do we want to replicate that particular focal length range on a 50-150 or whatever?
I don't consider F2.8 fast for focal length on 150 even in a zoom and you can get 50-200 lenses that are a stop slower at 150 (i.e. F4) so given the superior high ISO capabilities of modern sensors that in my opinion reduced the need even further. The 50-200's are cheap to buy and a lot lighter and weight seems to be a factor in the article.
Depth of field, F2.8 v F4? There is virtually nothing in it at 50mm or 150mm.
Don't see the point myself.
I think in the days of film a 70-200 F2.8 was also a valid concept because if it let you shoot at ISO 200 in stead of 400 that was a genuine advantage much more so than applies today
The 50-150 F2.8s are not particularly light weight and so if you want to carry a lens of around 1kg or less what the article does for me is make a case for the 70-200 F4 zooms which are even lighter , not 50-150 F2.8s.
If speed is a requirement then something like the Oly 35-100 F2 makes more sense to me but then you are back to the weight issue which is 1.65kg
So to get a fisheye or a 21mm lens on E mount I'd have to buy two converters and a 28mm lens!!!
I thought converter lenses were what you attached to cheaper fixed lens cameras not D-SLR prime lenses.
What is more 28mm is a focal length I have never been keen on since back in the days of film preferring 24mm and 35mm lenses so it wouldn't see much use without one of the converters.
Sony need to bite the bullet and make a range of lenses such as 16mm fisheye, 17mm (or 18mm), 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm.
I know they do some of these already but with the 35mm it's either a huge and expensive 1.4 or the small and slow F2.8. One of THE most popular lenses in the old Minolta stable was a 35mm F2. I suppose Zeiss do an MF version but come on, apply some logic to the lens line up and do not leave gaps served by converters.
I think when asked about dynamic range the comment about having the best image quality (note not DR specifically) from to low to high ISO is about as close as you are going to get to an admission they don't have the best DR.
Optimizing image quality across all ISO's is their excuse for lower DR.
Aren't these lenses a throwback to a former era? Just because in the days of film 70-200 F2.8's were kind of state of the art in terms of fast tele zooms why on smaller sensors do we want to replicate that particular focal length range on a 50-150 or whatever?
clochesfeuilles: I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like to see Panasonic release this lens for m4/3 sometime in the near future?
Happy to see perhaps the closest successor to the LC1 yet.
If they did that wouldn't this make the LX100 obsolete?
I must admit I don't really get the idea of a fixed lens m43 or APS-C "rangefinder" style camera when you can get interchangeable lens cameras of a similar style (dials on camera and aperture rings on lens) from Pana and Fuji to name two.
On the other hand I do get the 1 inch sensor fixed lens cameras because with a short range zoom on they are smaller and genuinely pocketable like the Sony RX100 (whereas the aps-c / m43 cameras are not) or they allow a super zoom camera with a larger sensor such as the Pana FZ1000 or Sony RX10
hrt: The spec of this camera is impressive indeed. With 4/3 sensor + 24mm equivalent zoom + low light capability + control dials + EVF + light weight portability, this camera potentially could replace my APS-C DSLR.With an integrated EVF, there is no need for a tilting screen.Exterior looks of the camera doesn't matter, so long as it has a good grip, sufficient dials for control, and no sloppy covers that can easily be bent.Can't wait to see some test results.By the way, do you know whether it's weather sealed ?
@hrt "With an integrated EVF, there is no need for a tilting screen."
How do you work that one out?
I own an A77 which has an EVF and a tilting screen and I can assure you the tilting screen sees use for overhead shots in crowds and low level shots also. It is very useful to have it.
I simply cannot fathom why by now all digital cameras, particularly those devoid of an optical viewfinder, don't have at least a tilting rear LCD if not an articulated one.
It seems mind-numbingly stupid omission these days and excuses like "it might break" are just that, excuses.
Blackdog68: Wow, the 800 pound gorilla in the electronics field has spoken and every other camera company should be nervous. This camera checks lots of boxes: 1/8000 shutter, 1/250 flash sync, more phase detect sensors than the competition, 15FPS. It's an impressive spec sheet. Actual performance from this back sided APS-C sensor is yet to be seen, and the AF as well is untested, but if I'm Nikon or Canon and I've been waiting to really get into the mirrorless market, you may have waited too long.
Yes, it looks a very nice camera spec-wise ticking many boxes.
The key will be what sort of image quality comes off that 28mp sensor. The fact they upped the pixels to that level will raise eyebrows re-noise despite the high tech sensor.
Using this technology with a 20mp sensor could, if it offers inherently improved noise performance over normal sensors, possibly have delivered killer camera better than other aps-c 20 or 24 megapixel cameras noise-wise. Going to 28 means it's going to have to work harder to match them.
Samsung remind me of Fuji. Coming out with some very interesting cameras and also lenses right now.
DVT80111: Regardless of all the technology inside them, all Sony cameras are just toys because there is no ergonomic nor usability consideration in their design.
Well you have never used a Sony A77 if you think that. Ergonomics-wise one of the best cameras I have ever used.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: If the "Sport" version is geared at the professionals which do not care that much about weight, why isn't it at least f/5.6? As f/6.3 they are missing the limit of the focusing systems - and since that is a physical limit the focusing on almost all DSLR will be compromized and not function as advertised and guaranteed by the manufacturers!
"Sigma lenses (like the 50-500) bypass this problem by telling the camera that the maximum aperture is 5.6 and the actual aperture is 6.3. "
If the camera thinks its got an F5.6 lens on the front when it fact it is f6.3 how doesn't that screw up the metering in shutter priority mode?
It's taken Nikon how long to realise a tilting LCD screen is a good idea?
At least they got there in the end.
Lanski: I just feel that right now we could ask for so much more. 128GB of flash memory is getting pretty small and pretty cheap. So are card readers, and it can't take a supercomputer to run a simple backup. I'd like to see a genuinely small automatic backup drive that takes CF and SD and doesn't cost the Earth. Is that not possible? Until then, I'll stick with my 10in Windows device.
"if 128 GB is all you need, you don't need an external on site backup solution."
Yes you do. It's called a backup for a reason. You back it up in case you lose the images on the primary device.
Black Box: This is the first time I hear that autofocus makes lenses less compact. Zeiss just can't make a good autofocus system.
"Rub your two brain cells together and think about it for a minute."
I think that is what you need to do.
If you look at the size of say Canon's 35mm F2 that is not only AF but has OS it is actually lighter than the CZ 35mm F2 and only 3mm longer and Canon's 50mm AF 1.8 is both shorter and far lighter (130g v 340g).
Nikon's 35mm F2 AF is both smaller and lighter and uses the same 52mm filter thread.
These CZ lenses do NOT represent particularly compact designs and the notion AF equals larger lenses is demonstrably false.
They look a nice pair of lenses.
In fact in terms of specification being F2 and 35 and 50 they are what Sony should have brought out themselves instead of the slow (by modern standards) 35mm F2.8 and the too-long 55mm F1.8.
I don't buy this idea that had they (or CZ) come out with AF versions of the 35/F2 and 50/F2 they would have to be larger lenses.
The Canon 35mm F2 which has both AF and Optical image stabilization is 335g in weight whereas the CZ 35mm F4 is 5g heavier at 340g. The Canon has 67mm filters v 52mm but it is only just over 3mm longer. Nothing in it.
StevenMajor: Nothing creative here. Would be nice to be able to zoom in very close and even circle an object to view it from different angles. I think current technology permits that...I've seen it used in advertising.I'm surprised the thirst for war cannot be quenched by looking at the front page of any newspaper. Most people who have participated in war (and survive) spend the rest of their lives trying to forget it. Some of these images will trigger unpleasantness in many people.
Madaboutpix, I can see where you are coming from. Don't know where you live but here in the UK at the moment there are a lot of TV programs about World War 1 given the fact it started 100 years ago. Some of the best I have seen are based on 1st hand accounts, not a Historians view or interpretation of what the soldiers went through.
If you view the laying out of the equipment in the same light you can empathise with those ho had to carry it.
Unfortunately I do have one criticism of the WW1 shot and that is the lack of a tin helmet. That may be one down the bottom right with a canvass cover on it but that is not how they were worn. Just the bare metal for the most part.
The same can be said for the WWII one as the helmet there looks like a paras has not an infantry soldiers helmet which was virtually identical to the WWI helmet.
If you are going to do shots like this you need then perfectly accurate and in my opinion these are not in that respect.
JDThomas: Oh, the Leica haters are out again. Leica cameras are ALWAYS going to be expensive. Why are you surprised? Get over it.
This is the same thing they did with the M9. They put out an M9-P and it cost $1000 more. Even used they are going for about $1000 more than a regular M9. This M-P isn't a shocking release. I was actually wondering what took them so long to release it.
If you want a cheap (but fake) rangefinder go buy a Fuji. If you want a real rangefinder save up and buy a Leica.
"I'm just pointing out how stupid and useless it is to complain about the price of a premium piece of gear. "
It doesn't matter if the gear is premium or not. If it is overpriced for it is, it is overpriced. There is nothing stupid in pointing out something is overpriced. And Leica gear is overpriced.
You want to pay the price? Fine. That is up to you but remember, you really are not getting value for money.