"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.
bicycle snap shooter: I shoot stills but a few of my friends are into video and they are ga-ga over 4K in such a tiny package. For them this is a Huge difference.
I think it is interesting that neither the Panasonic LX100 nor Canon G1X Mk2 use their entire sensor.
And even more interesting is that the area of the Mk2's 1.5" sensor that's used is virtually the same size as MFT.....but none of the reviewers note this.
G1Xmk2: sensor - yes, a f/2.0-3.9 lens - not so much, the slow camera itself - is even less.
Canon significantly undercut my interest in the G1X series (as an enthusiast cameras) with the initial camera, which was just too slow.
Yes, G1Xmk2 is faster than G1Xmk1 - but the rest of the market for several years now is even faster.
ThePhilips: The LX100 made me realize what's missing.
No matter how hard I look at it, I see LX100 as nothing else but a m43 camera with a premium 12-35 zoom glued to it. There is no point for me to buy the LX100 as a camera - (if I decide to buy it) I would be buying it as a "lens" for my m43 collection.
And that made me realize: the missing are an LX101 with 100-300mm eq lens and an LX102 with 7-20mm eq lens. If Pana engineers have managed to cram the 12-35 into such dimensions, I'm pretty sure they can also do some magic with the longer and the wider lenses. LX100 is targeted at pro/semi-pro/enthusiasts. But to cover the market better, they also have to differentiate with the lenses: some users like it wider, some users like it longer. I'd definitely buy the LX102. And very likely the LX101. But LX100? I have already two lenses covering the "standard" range...
@BarnET: "A 100-300mm on the other hand is impossible."
Everybody said the same about the 2.8/24-70 eq lenses. OTOH, I do not expect a miracle: even if LX with 100-300 would be "only" twice smaller than the m43's 100-300mm, it would be already a win.
zakaria: why buy a fixed lens camera at a 800$ or more when I could buy PENTAX K3 AT this price.
You mean the K-3 is sold with a 2.8/16-55mm as a kit lens!? Where?? I'm sold!
The LX100 made me realize what's missing.
One of the best sample galleries I've seen here recently. Kudos, DPR. Go on vacations more often! ;)
Wow. The IQ is almost on par with my 1yo Pana GX7. Now I see why people complain about the Canon sensor tech...
Michael Piziak: I get the feeling that an entire industry is slowly dying before our eyes.
Stagnation is not a bad thing, per se.
It is what happens when stuff "just works" and is "good enough".
Does DPR has a film scanner in the office?
It would be interesting to have a film camera or two in the studio comparison test.
fmian: 'Dual lens system for optimised film (6400dpi)'
Highly inaccurate and misleading.I don't know why companies can't list the true resolution...
@csvd: "I just read that the 6400 dpi are just rubbuish. The scanner was tested and real 2300 dpi were accomplished ;("
Let me guess - this was the first scanner review you have read?
All scanner manufacturers (regardless of the scanner type) always state the max peak resolution which isn't really achievable in the real life.
But just like a RAW from digital camera, the higher resolution simply gives you more bits to work with in PP.
Average User: It is nice to see Sony will finally have some fast lenses to go with the A7 cameras. But it's a shame they have elected to produce only f4 zooms; whole reason to buy a full frame is better low light...but then Sony handicaps the cameras with F-4 zooms instead of industry standard F 2.8 and your better off in low light with a Nikon D7100 (or even a d3300) and a Sigma f 1.8 18-35, or a Tamron 24-70 f2.8.
It's either handicap the cameras with the f/4 lenses - or handicap the users with the f/2.8 monster lenses.
IMO, f/4 for real world purposes is enough. For brighter apertures, there would be likely specialist glass produced.
And if you really need the FF f/2.8 zooms, there is always CaNikon.
jenbenn: I dont really understand why people are complaining.
For the last months I have been shooting a 5D III and a sony A7. After testing Sony's "innovative" camera I am utterly disapponted and decided to stick entirely with my 5Ds despite their higher weight. Reasons?:
1. Optical Viewfinder. If you shoot more than the casual amateur, you need an optical viewfinder. Staring through a Mini-TV- Viewfinder for hours a day is not an option, no matter how good the TV is. EVF may have an advantage in near to total darkrness but the lag of the EVF in darkness also makes you miss shots.
2. Operability. Canon handles much better and quicker. Sony takes ages to power on or zoom into a pic for checking focus.
In view of this the 7D II is another solid, camera, with specs you need to get the shot. Sure I would love a Foveson Sensor with 36 Mp and no noise up to iso 102,400. But I happily take the cam as is because I know it will let me get the shots easier than its predecessor.
@jenbenn: "I think mirrorless are not really a replacment of a DSLR and lack the universailty of usages."
They are not replacement for YOUR gear. So much is clear. :)
But they are replacement for 95% of the other DSLRs, with which, believe me, you would have even more problems than with the A7.
Or you want me to believe that a Rebel with a kit lens and tiny, tunnel-like OVF, would do better job for you needs? Somehow I doubt it. Doubt it very much.
DSLR (and now mirrorless) are very mature these days and have lots of different cameras to offer. Blank statement like "mirrorless doesn't work for me, only DSLR does" doesn't make any sense for many years now. Because you can't extrapolate and generalize it like that - even for the DSLRs themselves.
@kangoo1707, actually, yes. Handling is quite important to me. And no, you can't get used to the camera reacting only eventually to your commands. I'm spoiled by fast cameras and fast AF. Panasonic FTW.
APS-C lives on. Take that.
@jenbenn, You basically picked the worst of mirrorless to compare against handling of the 5D3. A7 cameras are way to immature at this point of time. Unless you need the IQ right now, then wait for the mk2. And if you do not need the IQ, then there are other (non-FF) mirrorless which handle better and have better lens selection.
Dimit: I can hardly find something bad or even mediocre in this little thing.Bet it will be the Photokina spot of attention,more than anything else.I am not a Pana fan but this camera will eventually be a huge success,better in every respect than the rx100 m3 which I own.
@Cane: "Once it needs a bag, might as well just take a dslr at that point."
Not really. There is a huge, huge difference in size between dedicated DSLR holster case (to fit DLSR with a kit let) and neoprene pouch (to fit the mirrorless with a pancake).
Gabor Takacs: A few more toughts on this from Middle-Europe.
Anyone who ever tried to shoot basketball or dance competitions knows that the 50-70mm range is essential.
FF body and lens are too expensive (The average monthly income here, in Hungary is $455/Euro354/GBP278!) and thank planned obsolescence (search youtube) you should not expect much more lifespan from FF body than APS-C.
We like the feeling of a DSLR body, so obviously we buy APS-C, but then what to choose for telephoto?
The Sigma without OS does not shine in terms of picture quality and AF. The Tokina quite soft from 100-135mm and is not so fast for fast action. Many Pentax users wish to switch to Canon or Nikon, they claim the AF system is not so good. The Sigma with OS (anyone knows why discontinued?) is superb in IQ and speed, but mine was repaired 3 times (OS module fault).
As you can see now, more users desperately waiting for the ultimate telephoto solution for APS-C, so I am truly happy reading this article.
> because you can adapt older lenses to it.
AF generally doesn't work with the adapted lenses.
wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.
So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.
"The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses."
Obviously the article about APS-C lenses is written for the APS-C shooters. For APS-C shooters, they are not "equivalent", but normal f/2.8 lenses.
The "equivalency" in the article most of the time relates to the FOV, because the 135 format FL is a de facto standard to measure the FOV.
Thoughts: To compete with FF, they should try to make f1.8 zoom lenses like Sigma did.
> To compete with FF [...]
Why anybody would compete with a niche product? FF are small niche. APS-C market is much much larger and the manufacturers are competing for the piece of the large pie.
> Image stabilisation No> Autofocus No
When it comes to Zeiss, I'm certainly missing the appeal.
Griffo 155: Has a Fuji X series look about it?
No. It has the look of Panasonic LC1 from 2004. Almost precisely same look, btw.