40daystogo: If the LX100 could have fit in a normal jeans pocket, then with its m43 sensor and Leica lens it would be my dream camera.
But once it cannot fit in the pocket, I have a lot of small-ish cameras that are better with more features.
If the LX100 cannot fit in a pocket, I prefer my Sony A6000 with interchangeable lenses, and access to ultrawides.
I am REALLY hoping that Lumix can scale down the size of the LX100 in future releases to fit in a pocket.
The GM1 can just fit in a pocket, so I hope they can do the same size of scale for the next LX100.
Then you need the R not the L.
fedway: I find it interesting why Panasonic named it the LX100. Could it be that Pany thinks that it will provide stiff competition to the Sony RX100 series? The LX has a bigger sensor and on paper a better lens, manual dials that might be better ergonomically; whilst being less pocketable. I predict that test images will show an image quality advantage for the LX over the RX especially at higher iso.
It's a Little X100.
cjep1: Fuji should be afraid as well.
It's really a bummer that LX100 hasn't touch'n'tilt LCD screen. That would make it a no brainer to me.
cjep1: then to my mind it is no longer a compact all in one camera
tkblsc; Refer X100
mwstebbins: Please no NOT use the sexist 'he' when reviewing your camreas: in your article Photographer = he! Please use s/he or she/he or even he/she. Let's be inclusive. m2cw
One is not so sure that One would want all and sundry to be using the self reference of One which is usually the preserve of the royal classes. One wouldn't really. Would One?
dylanbarnhart: The comparison picture is a big lie. It should mount the 12-35mm X Vario F2.8 on the GX7 instead of that prime pancake lens. Then the size difference will be obvious.
Thomas Kachadurian: I wish there were comparison photos of the two cameras from all angles.
Given he talks about the lens comparison, they should have a photo where the GX7 has the 12-35 f2.8, which is still not as fast as the LX100 lens.
Similar size from the back but the GX7 with the 12-35 2.8 lens is about twice as deep.
And built in flash. No matter how bright your lens you often still need a fill in flash. Hold on everyone while I find and put on the flash…won't take a minute…everyone...where did they go?
SammyToronto: I can see this camera replacing all my current m4/3 gear (3 bodies and 5 lenses), which would make its price not seem that expensive (not that I'd pay the launch price for it, mind you). It has a fixed lens, but that lens is plenty fast enough and covers a zoom range I take 99% of my photos at. I'm currently waiting to try it and see how it feels in my hands and of course, for the reviews, the reviews, but it's a very promising camera indeed.
I have never had a touch screen but would want it if the screen swivel for discreet and fast shooting from the hip.
LX100II with built in flash and touch swivel screen would do it for me. An add on screw in telephoto would be good.
nerd2: Paying almost $1K for small m43 sensor? No thanks. Also this camera simply shows how overpriced m43 lenses are. They could release separate 28-75 equiv 1.7-2.8 lens for m43 system at around $600 (which will sell well) but they chose not to.
Well I paid about USD$1500 for my X100 new 3.5 years ago. So this with a 2/3 smaller sensor (actually it is about 3/4 of 4/3 = WTF?) but with the 24-75 bright lens seems like a similar but more versatile system so I would say it is a fair price. Just wish it had swivel screen and built in flash (not the add on ..Grrr!).The Sony RX100III is too expensive. Pretty hard to find anything that is a nicer than the X100 as a compact walk around camera with a viewfinder. This may be it.
RyanBoston: I'm with a lot of people here. The images I've seen from this camera posted everywhere are not impressive at all. I know it's only a pre-production model, but why would Canon put these out there knowing pictures would be published? I'm not buying the whole "it's a pre-production model". They have put years of research in this camera and have had plenty of time to get it perfect.
I've seen old Canon Jpegs that look better, let alone the competition these days. This camera has a lot going for itself at a good price, but Canon needs to improve this picture quality to be called a pro camera.
I did have this camera on my watch list, but I'm not convinced one bit. Not even close.
I am pretty happy with the IQ out of the 7D Mk1 and I believe the mkII should be a bit better as per the 70D. DPreview's images always seem a bit washed out. However Canon do lag behind in basic sensor tech despite good colours.I shot the Climate March event recently in Nelson, New Zealand with my 7D and 5D Mk1.
here are a couple from the 7D + 15-85m lenshttps://www.flickr.com/photos/dougbm/15335974122/https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougbm/15149513019/in/photostream/and the 5D with 17-40 and 70-200 f4 IShttps://www.flickr.com/photos/dougbm/15149751137/in/photostream/https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougbm/15149701808/in/photostream/Sorry don't know where the exif data went.
I always shoot RAW and PP in Photoshop.
Dougbm_2: I wonder how long it takes to extend and retract the lens because on the Lf1 it is quite slow which is a bit of a pain.
Video?Hardly use it.
autochrome: Wow. Talk about a marketing droid... the amount of bs here is just insane. This in particular is truly a gem:
"So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best on the market?
Yes. In the EOS 7D Mark II for example the sensor we’ve used is improved compared to the previous generation, especially at high ISO and in shadows. There’s less noise."
It's true that we don't know for sure yet, but i have a vague suspicion that somehow this 7Dmk.II wonder-sensor won't be quite up to the challenge against present Sony sensors at least. The arrogance is truly flabbergasting
Well you would have to compare it with Sony ASPC not FF.
Zoron: A5100 with the tiny 16-50 zoom is a better option for daily & casual snapping....
Hope so. Best wishes!
"It surely isn't since they developed a vaccine for Ebola while the kit lens…."
If only they had. Unfortunately not true. 2800 deaths so far. They are hoping to limit it to 10,000.
Davidgilmour: How are the jpegs compared to the leica version?
Good question. In fact how is the colour output in general? Panasonic's main weakness IMHO.
Mister Roboto: Should have been 20MP and f/2.0 to f/4.0 and FL of 24-135mm. That would be a real hotcake. For less than $300, I can buy a similar sized APS-C camera with kit lens and same FL.
You might be after a Canon GX1-Mk2
Dougbm_2: Looks like a very good camera. Disappointments are no tilt screen, no built in flash and no ND filter (or not fast enough shutter speeds to be able to shoot wide open in good light). Maybe the last is the most important. If it had these I would be more encouraged to 'surrender' my X100.
Note: I have discovered that you can switch from Mechanical to Electronic shutter and hence 1/4000sec to 1/16000sec. This should negate the need for an ND filter.
Pallke: Nice camera, nothing special.
But: in 5 years from 18MP to 20MP... hmmmm WOW!
Obviously I meant to say would NOT want...
Roland Karlsson: It looks nice. Maybe made a mistake when buying RX100 III ?
I agree. Looks a good size.