I would expect - 0.3 EV normally to preserve highlights. Maybe they bumped the Exposure comp dial.
Nice part of the world!
Why does this look soft? Jpeg NR? -1.00EV? Why? Does the metering overexpose a lot?
Such poor photography! You focussed on the can? Deliberately! Why?
Dougbm_2: Usual mediocre DPReview images that really tell us little about the camera's capabilities. Sorry but this is such a weak point of this site. I will wait for Steve Huff or some one to show us!
@ Markol. Above average competency in photography for all reviews is a reasonable expectation for a major camera review site.
Usual mediocre DPReview images that really tell us little about the camera's capabilities. Sorry but this is such a weak point of this site. I will wait for Steve Huff or some one to show us!
phecda: The X30 is the only camera of this type that provides certain capabilities that are important to me, notably accommodation of an external microphone for video, and interval shooting. I might wish that it had a Bulb setting for long exposures but can live without that.I have not owned a Fuji camera before--this will be the first--and will give it a shot. It's not shipping until November, and I am pre-ordering completely on spec since I have not seen one in person and probably will not until this shows up at my door.
I've been using a Canon S110 and love it to death, but I want a second high-end P&S with more capabilities and the X30 comes closest to fulfilling my requirements.
But is the video any good? Not a Fuji strong point.
I think the move to EVF is significant. Who wants an optical viewfinder that doesn't show at least 95% of the image - not to mention parallax issues.The sensor being the same size may look poor against the new offerings from Panasonic and Sony but in the end the results are what matter. Improved af is welcome. An increase in size is a bit puzzling. Personally I would rather they had put the 25-100mm zoom from the Xf1 in.
lem12: Looks like it's a serious compact with no fluff, aimed at advanced and pro users.
@Samuel Dilworth. SIgma has been producing fluffless cameras for ages. Maybe not always the best cameras. But from the SD9 to the Quattro they are pure and simple stills taking machines.
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.