Well I am glad because if these cams were introduced some 3 or 4 years ago their sensors would count 24 Megapixels at least...The Megapixel battle seemed it stopped in cams and continues in smartphones with new victims the ignorant numbers lovers who usually don't use their phones as phones...The same old story/pattern of accessible break-throughs from the masses...
viex: here are some pics taken with this fabulous camera. I had a LX3 and after that a RX100 but very happy to find again a panasonic expert compact camera !
Very good pp...And good pp needs a good original photo.
Pavlos_Y: Here is the question for me. Knowing the specs of each camera, which has better image quality? LX100 or RICOH GR?
Take a look at both cams gallery and have your own conclusions.
moe lem: Why can't the camera give a full 16mb Four thirds sensor read out?
Do they think it won't be used or desirable? I didn't yet finish the review but I don't think this got mentioned.
Could it be added to a firmware update?I'm confused as a16mb camera sounds much better and more desirable than a12mb one to me.
More Mp means crammed up Mp i.e noise due to a lot of reasons.I think that a lot of people don't really need more than 8Mp for casual use. The rest is marketing.
mpgxsvcd: Everyone complains that the LX100 has too low of a resolution and that its lens is a compromise. I am looking at the RAW indoor test scene images and I honestly see that the LX100 has more detail than the Sony RX100 MKIII across the entire frame for all ISO values.
The difference in noise for the cameras is not huge but the LX100 is better. I don't get why everyone says that the Sony has more detail. It doesn't show in the pictures. Just because the resolution is more doesn't mean that it actually has more detail.
Now, this is a proper comment...!
I am sure that Pana gathers some bitter comments because as a company entered the market producing cams from a blank sheet of paper, formed new tensions and niche market as well as new categories of interest and established a fruitful cooperation with Leica to mention just a few.Furthermore its products are well built overall to my knowledge.Pana "somehow" managed to attract a lot of serious enthusiasts i.e mainly guys not wearing Canikon glasses, who turned to produce a more than welcomed word of mouth for its products. The same guys that criticize Pana's products quite harshly if those products have nothing special to offer.Real photography enthusiasts and not just fans who in some cases behave like hooligans.
That is a typically rude comment...But I saw your ...uploaded pics and I see what you mean...
Photard: I'd like to know the image quality compared to the Fuji x1oot.
That is top of my wishlist right now. How does the LX100 compare as far as stills and overall image quality?
It depends on what you can really see and on what you can really use.
I always liked the IQ of the big Pentax back from the days I had seen its performance with a Phase 1 back plate (some few pieces).I also like its shape.It would be nice to see how it compares to Leica S1 just for the shake of the comparison.These cams are aimed for high quality works and only few pros have the opportunity to enjoy their performance where it really counts.
aris14: Ι hate proprietary flash shoes...
Hey guys, what I mean is that is unacceptable for me to exist various types hot shoes. As a consumer I don't like to be a test bed for what is going to prevail in the future (example VHS vs Beta videos) or not having the ability to use whatever I want, even in base/standard configurations/performance no matter if I lack the additional options of each brand.It's a matter of industrial standardization.Allow me to return all the "smart" comments, to whom it may concern.
Ι hate proprietary flash shoes...
Sabatia: Its obvious from many of the comments below that too many commenters are comparing this to the or their GX7, EM1/5/10, etc. What makes this camera special is not its image quality--which is right up there--not its evf, not its flash or lack thereof, not its .... No, it is its weight and its size, both of which are groundbreaking in an interchangeable lens camera with a decent size sensor and any sort of evf. I know from having a GM1 that the image quality of the GM5 will allow me to make 17x22 professional-quality prints on my Epson 3880.
Combined with the 12-32 lens, which is the lightest zoom lens for any camera I am aware of and which is capable of taking excellent quality shots and which goes meaningfully wider than 14-xx zooms, you have a superlight highly capable kit perfect for mountain climbing, skiing and discreet travel and street shooting alike.
For me this is all about my back, and my shoulders, and my feet--and my eyes!
.... Equipment is just the facilitator of photography, it is not an end in itself, no matter if we all are more or less geeks or fetishists with our equipment.I personally feel pity for all those geeks of photography who ignore anything but their cams and glasses and devices et all... I call them energy wasters...
ΟΚ guys... Here what I am saying...Who forgot negatives and slides..? No one I guess...A slide was just fine to view it in a show or something, photography in its scientific/technological form allowed that, and made it available for some occasions.Negatives were just the most convenient form to "write down" the captured image. Positives followed just for another use/occasion.Whatever the mean to write down your captured image, paper or whatsoever was and I guess it will remain, no matter the amount of use, the mean to show and expose it. Of course u can see and enjoy your pix in a monitor or a TV screen more or less (color fidelity is in stake, appearance also), but photography is a 2d view and needs to be shown in a proper 2d way.And yes, a photograph has to tell a story sometimes in a better way sometimes in a usual way, otherwise is just for evaluating equipment whatever that may be...
forpetessake: Color reproduction has been always problematic for Panasonic and it still is.
Color reproduction suffers what all cameras' s color reproduction suffer to the eyes of the beholders depending on their cam's brand preferences, their monitor and their understanding of colour as such...
It seems that there are only few of us that understand that photography is what we finally print on paper...Cheers!
Danger!It seems that the current and future generations of rich people tend to be more far more idiots than its predecessors.
Andrew Higgins: I'm curious why Panasonic's m43rds range, and the m43 system, has not caught the imagination of photographers like Fuji's X series. Even Olympus seem to have promoted their m43rds cameras a bit better, overall excellent though the m43rds system is, Fuji seem to be winning the format 'war'.
A lot of photogs are fetishists with the looks of their gear...
Ease at ISO 5000. Nice!
aris14: M43 is just fine. M43's cams can cover up at least the 98% of the needs a full frame SLR can deliver, the same way an SLR can cover up the 98% of the needs larger sensors cams deliver (ppi's and special needs for DOF).It's MHO that if m43 cams were produced in the same numbers as DSLRs the cost of a decent m43 cam system would be the 60-80% of that of DSLRs.So any addition to the range of glasses available is more than welcomed.Oly has a long tradition of producing top glasses.
All those answers I guess that justify my point of view, that M43 and Four Third as well can cover up the majority of photography needs to my perception. Perception that is having to do with hat you print (how many guys print in larger than A2 size, even for exhibition purposes?) and the vast majority of pix printed in mags. Viewing pics in monitors is not photography. Photography is what is printed on paper.