"DPR Staff", what exactly is an "FE-mount"? (Hint: It isn't that, it is E-mount).
Peter Gurdes: sony a6000 or a5100..... who needs fixed lens compacts these days when he can get those?
i sure not.
It is kinda crazy promoting a fixed lens camera while complaining about a system that has "only" 3+ dozen lens options.
Lucas_: Quite interesting article. Anyway, I'd ask: why buy a GX7 if you could buy a Sony A6000...?
16MP is what I have on both cameras right now. I don't see a point to going back to 10-12MP for sake of reducing resolution. It simply does not make any sense. Otherwise, using Sony a7 (24mp) in crop mode (10mp) would be a benefit, not a compromise that it is today.
Nukunukoo: RX20 is rumoured to come this month. This will be interesting...
It is wrong to assume that you can improve sensor performance by dropping resolution. You're basically giving up benefit of higher resolution. RAW file size is a non-issue as well.
The choice for lower resolution is often a result of a compromise (in case of LX100, likely to provide a touch of extra crop factor so the lens could be smaller and most people won't notice it).
Babka08: How much did Panasonic pay for this article anyway?
@JosephYou're making the same point that the OP did about this opinion piece.
Ben O Connor: As a 4 lens owner, I will decide gx7. Its screen tilts and xarries flash with it !
If one values interchangeability of lenses, I can't see him/her replace that with a fixed lens camera. I can see someone using it to compliment an ILC... but only if there is significant advantage to doing so which I don't see here. LX100 does not appear to be pocketable which is a huge negative and its small lens advantage only becomes theoretical.
I don't see a point to dropping resolution. As you might end up seeing LX100, despite slightly larger sensor, significantly lower resolution, would be comparable to Sony RX100 III in just about every key measure.
Lower zoom range would also not help. In fact, the FZ1000 bandwagon overlooks slower lens in favor of longer reach, which is primarily a super-zoom mentality in this camera class. So, 24-200 would be an absolute minimum. Sony actually did this with RX100 III, when they brought down the zoom range (28-105 to 24-75 or so) and sped up the lens (1.8-2.8 now).
"Good luck with the lens..."
When you have lenses, you don't need luck, you go use them. The only appeal an FLC holds with limited zoom range is if it is pocketable. If it has to be carried like an a6000 or GX7, might as well take advantage of ILC (and in case of a6000/a5100, 2x larger sensor too).
thecameraeye: This is very nearly THE perfect advanced compact. The Achilles heel is none other than the lack of a touchscreen, IMO. You can ignore it for everything else but setting the AF point by touchscreen is so convenient and useful that it's very hard to go back.
The near perfect compact camera is the Sony RX100 III. It was designed to be as compact as possible.
"e.g., the new Samsung 16-50 2-2.8"
Interesting example from someone with lens size/weight concerns.
EinsteinsGhost: @Damien (author): Why is there no mention Sony RX100 at all? It is LX100's most direct competition (the article wasted way more space providing irrelevant history lessons).
@mosc,I'd like to hear from the author, not your assumptions of it, as to why he named only one camera (G1x) while complaining that this segment has been ignored.
But, I do get to correct you as well: G1X was announced in January 2012, and RX100 was announced in June 2012, so count five months, not 15 months. Although, LX100 has been announced 27 months since the RX100, so, may be it has been too long to remember, not having kept up with subsequent releases?
@Michael_13,LX100 is as close to RX100 as competition gets: Both are FLC, similar lens specs, both are about compact size and sensor size is similar and sensor performance should be similar.
OTOH, it is ridiculous to assume that GX7 is a more logical competition. There might be a fringe market where people buy GX7 only with its kit zoom but that is not the point of that camera to begin with. It is about flexibility.
@mosc,Except that the author mentions this: "The introduction of the big sensor compact was a great thing, and the interest around Canon’s almost-APS-C PowerShot G1 X demonstrated the existence of a demand almost all brands seemed to have been ignoring."
May be he is unaware of RX100's existence, which gained prominence as a pocketable camera primarily due to its larger sensor.
I'm assuming you read this:"The introduction of the big sensor compact was a great thing, and the interest around Canon’s almost-APS-C PowerShot G1 X demonstrated the existence of a demand almost all brands seemed to have been ignoring."
ThePhilips: "The longer I look at the Lumix LX100 the more convinced I become that the time hasn’t yet arrived when we no longer need the advanced compact."
You should look even longer at the statistics of how many people never buy a second lens and shoot exclusively with the kit lenses. Dumbfounding.
I personally think that the larger sensor premium compacts (like Sony RX100 and now, Panasonic LX100) will compete primarily with low-end ILCs where camera size plays the key role. But now, we're looking at buying a lens and a body separately (and replacing a cheaper body every 2-3 years or so) than replacing a more expensive Fixed Lens camera, as technology evolves.
ILCs sell for their IQ AND versatility. This is why I don't think the market for GX7 is the same as it would be for LX100. In the short term? May be.
It would appear that this is about comparing a specific FLC to a specific ILC, but it is also self-evident that half, if not more, of the space is dedicated to a history lesson that has little to no relevance. Did you not see mention of Canon G1X and G1?
And especially if the opinion points at....
"The introduction of the big sensor compact was a great thing, and the interest around Canon’s almost-APS-C PowerShot G1 X demonstrated the existence of a demand almost all brands seemed to have been ignoring. "
And teh internets are missing "opinion pieces" on history of fixed lens film cameras that were not FF? May be, this opinion is for those who needed it? In that case, I apologize.
@mosc, I'm not opposed to it being compared to an ILC from same company and with almost the same sensor size (GX7 sensor is about 20% larger... no direct mention of that either). It is logical to throw in that comparison. However, I'm questioning wasted space and time over something totally irrelevant (a history lesson on APS-c format, and P&S with a write up on a fixed lens camera with m43 sensor). You might have seen this:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/images/apertures.png
A few might consider an FLC as logical replacement for an ILC, which might work fine if you keep it long enough, but a typical ILC buyer buys body, replaces it, keeps lenses. With an FLC, you simply replace both. More buyers make the decision to go FLC for portability/convenience and if one lens can do it all.
In terms of sensor size and camera size, LX100 actually sits between RX100 trio and GX7. It also has similarly spec'd zoom lens as RX100 MkIII.
Camera Size: RX100 III vs LX100.
@Damien (author): Why is there no mention Sony RX100 at all? It is LX100's most direct competition (the article wasted way more space providing irrelevant history lessons).
EinsteinsGhost: The author has downplayed the compromise in sensor size (the crop factor increases from 2x to 2.2x compared to 35mm format) and only highlighted difference in resolutions as if all else is unchanged.
With reduced sensor size, LX100 actually competes as much with Sony RX100.
The RX100 III is closer in sensor size and lens specs, although significantly smaller.
mosava: I bought aSony A6000...
I would as well. Unless I wanted a pocketable camera, then RX100 III (which the LX100 appears to follow).