vscd: You will *never* get the same picture on the Crop as with a 200mm @f2.8 on fullframe. Yes it's bigger gear... but why do you all scream for size? If you nail a pin you use a hammer, not a spoon.
FF is more like a sledgehammer. Not everyone needs a sledgehammer. Sometimes you just need a hammer to hit that nail.
mpix345: As amazing as the LX100 seems to be, I have to say that the more time passes the less interested I am. The lack of an onboard flash really is the killer for me, which I am now almost glad about, because if not for that fact I would have been willing to overlook the lack of touch screen and flip screen, which seem like ridiculous omissions from this level of camera.
Finally, that filter button just irks the hell out of me. Dedicated button for goofy filters? Seriously Panasonic? And not even an ND. SMH. And it's not even configurable to do something else, I don't think.
You tease us with this fast lens and generous sensor, but then fail to deliver some basic elements. Is that intentional, to create an easy path to the MKII version next year? I guess I hope so, but damn, I am tired of everyone playing that game.
And at the very least, a built-in on-board flash is a very convenient way to fire an off-camera slave. Or are you guys religiously against that, too?
People who think on-camera flash is going to always result in "rabbit caught in headlights" really need to learn how to use it, that's all. Dial it in right, and it looks great. All things in moderation, as the saying goes. I think most people just don't know how to get good results, so they automatically assume that it's *impossible* to get good results, LOL.
Like I said, I often shoot one shot with flash and one shot without, so I can decide which one I like the best. Sometimes I like the one with flash, sometimes I like the one without flash. I think that's a lot better and more reasonable than having the militant notion that flash will *NEVER* produce a better result, LOL.
Just learn how to get good results with the tools on a camera. It's possible. I do it all the time. And an on-board flash is simply another tool to use at your discretion. I think it's insane to say that it's NEVER going to produce good results. That's just crazy, close-minded, extremist talk.
lem12: Any Sweep Panorama options?
I doubt it. Does Canon have sweep panorama in *any* of their cameras? I don't think so. It's very disappointing, because sweep panorama is perfect for compact cameras, and is such a nice feature to have. It's an annoying omission from all of Canon's cameras.
@HowaboutRAW - I don't think that's the best solution. I don't know anyone who likes to look head-on into an LED headlamp. That's just as bad as the annoying stroboscopic AF-assist bursts of some DSLRs.
As for your assertion that ISO 6400 or above negates the need for flash "since you can expose for a dark face against a bright background", the problem with that is that a bright background will get blown out when you're properly exposing a dark face. Furthermore, in many situations I often take one shot with flash, and one shot without, so I can decide which one I like better. Sometimes I like the non-flash shot better, sometimes I like the flash shot better. It's usually 50/50. In other words, half the time I like the flash shot better, because there's more "pop" to the image. That's super easy to do when you have an on-board flash.
Great looking camera, excellent controls, nice grip, nice specs. Panny definitely did a wonderful job with this camera. As others have said, I just think they need to now make a small bounce flash to go with it.
@olypan - ever here of fill flash? It's a very useful thing to have when shooting backlit subjects, or to add a bit of sparkle in your subject's eyes. Besides, a "super fast lens and big fat sensor" can only do so much when the light gets really low. Plus, a "super fast lens and big fat sensor" in combination with a small flash and higher ISO can really do wonders in low light.
High ISO definitely does not negate the need for flash. A burst of flash livens up dead eye socket shadows cast by unflattering indoor lighting. And it can also balance out ambient indoor lighting, which really helps with subject skin tone. I use fill flash even with high ISO FF, not because my sensor can't handle high ISO but because it allows me more control of the image by allowing me to add light to the scene as I so choose. That's the value of having a small on-board flash. It gives you an added degree of control over how your images is rendered.
jorg14: Did I miss something but with touting all the manual controls, where is the PASM.. knob?
Go to "A" on the aperture ring = Aperture priority mode. Go to "A" on the shutter dial = Shutter priority mode. Go to "A" on both the aperture and shutter dial = Program mode. Not being on "A" on either the aperture or shutter dial = Manual mode. It's a very logical system.
Sdaniella: tiny evf ... vs giant evf (tilt-flip screen, or vari-angle swivel screen, or even fixed screen)
folks have forgotten ...
when digicams first came out with LIVE VIEW on their rear screensanyone complaining about inability to see it due to overwhelming sunlight overhead/behind them ...
resolved it by buying large adaptable detachable (third party accessory mfr) diopter eye-hoods
(this is what many in the video world do, if they prefer looking at a larger rear monitering screen than a smaller evf screen)
many pro v-cams have huge eye-piece diopter tunnel hoods with 90deg reflection to a medium sized side-facing articulating screen.
by doing the same on a compact dcam with a flexible screen, one gets a ginormous flexible evf
optional: that eye-hood includes a switchable flexible opening for finger touch screen access.
A rear LCD is not an "EVF". It's just not the same thing. Nice try though, but it's really a lame argument. And buying a "large adaptable detachable diopter hood" really defeats the purpose of having a compact camera. Those things are huge.
Gesture: Hardly exciting, especially at $700, but for Canon I can see where it's "adventuresome." Where's the EVF?
@justmeMN - the problem is that if they want to go head to head with something like an RX100, they have to step it up. An RX100 II has a hotshoe, while an RX100 III has an EVF. And both the RX100 II and III have LCD screens that tilt up *and* down, while the G7X's screen only tilts up. Canon just loves to stop short of going all the way. It's like the original Canon Powershot N, which had an LCD screen that only flipped to 90 degrees. D'oh! You had to wait until the Powershot N2 for an LCD that could flip all the way up to 180 degrees. And it still only flips up, not down. They'll probably make people wait until an N3 to give you a screen that tilts down. Same with the G7X. It'll be the G7X II that has a screen that can tilt down.
photo nuts: Was all excited about the LX100 until I read this little blip:
"The original version of this article stated that the LX100 has a touchscreen, which is not the case. We are very sorry for any confusion caused." - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100
So, out of the 3 competing cameras, Sony RX100 III vs Panasonic LX100 vs Canon G7X, only the G7X has a touchscreen which is very important for changing AF in a small format camera.
You have to also keep in mind that the G7X is the only one without an EVF. Touchscreen AF point selection isn't so useful if you're using the viewfinder. So it's a trade-off of what you want: EVF, or touchscreen.
AbrasiveReducer: One thing I do love about Canon. They show the product and next thing you know...it's available! No road maps, just deliveries. Of course, retailers will need to say it's in short supply but knowing Canon, they'll actually deliver. (One reason retailers love Canon.) This efficiency comes from being big, but even Nikon has gotten much better at actually shipping their products.
How is "no road maps" a good thing? Without a roadmap, you're just left blind as to what new products are coming down the pipe, and you're just going off of random rumors! For quite a long time now, there have been rumors of a 100-400L IS update, and it was even rumored to be introduced at Photokina. Obviously, that didn't happen. Others have been wondering what the heck Canon is going to do with their EOS M line. But with no roadmap, you're just left hanging. And that's what happens when companies don't give us a roadmap: you don't know what's coming, and you're left in the dark.
In actuality, by not giving us a roadmap, it allows Canon to miss deadlines or target ship dates, and the public would never know because only Canon knows what's going on! So "no road maps" allows them to give the illusion of being able to "just deliver" or "actually deliver".
dqnielg: looks like a winner in almost all respects. i love the size, inclusion of more direct controls and an EVF, the improvement over the GX7 for video, and many other aspects of this body.
however, the rated battery life is atrocious. surely, with the improvements in power consumption seen in the mobile computing scene, we can expect some improvements in our enthusiast cameras. oddly shaped lithium polymer batteries that are engineered to maximize capacity while still fitting the constraints of a compact body would help, and i'd be willing to pay more for the extra R&D and production costs.
You'll definitely want to carry a spare battery, no matter which mirrorless camera you use. But I think that's a small price to pay for the compact size of mirrorless.
Catalin Stavaru: Increasing the size of the camera was the stupidest thing Panasonic could do. Just make a detachable EVF and bundle it with the camera for free, not necessary to ruin the camera appeal and the display size for a small EVF.
You're talking about an increase in size of a few millimeters here. The GM5 is only 4.6mm taller than the GM1. The width is unchanged (98.5mm). And the EVF makes the GM5 5.7mm thicker than the GM1 (which comes entirely from the eyepiece extension on the GM5, not from an actual increase in body thickness). So, the increase in size is hardly anything. You're clearly blowing things out of proportion. It's only a tiny increase in size.
uzevla: Seriously, what's this trend with using low-end EVFs just to satisfy some "pro" wannabees ?0.46x magnification and 1.1K dots - who needs that ?
Compact camera like this one needs good LCD. 3.3" would be good, yet they gave us 16:9 LCD which is more like 2.5". Hopefully, they didn't do what Sony is doing as their 921K 16:9 LCD on Nex6 is extremely dim - Samsung OLED w/ 230K looks better than that.
On top of this, flash sync speed stays 1/50.
Who is buying this crap ?
I use an Olympus VF-3 detachable EVF on my Oly PEN. The VF-3 works great, and I love using it. And guess what? It has a resolution of only 920K!
Every camera has its compromises. In the case of the GM5, it obviously makes compromises in EVF size in order to keep the body so small. Some people will appreciate it, some people won't.
Any it's really foolish to say that camera manufacturers are putting EVFs in their cameras "to satisfy some 'pro' wannabies" It's just something that people have been asking for for years now. And wanting to have viewfinder, even a small one on a compact camera, doesn't make you a "pro wannabe".
beavertown: Nikon 1 is definitely finished.
Your logic doesn't quite make sense. If it's okay for Canon and Sony to make fixed-lens camera using a 1" sensor, then why can't Nikon make an interchangeable-lens camera using a 1" sensor? I can certainly see the merits of both. Nikon 1 just needs to find the right price.
pdelux: Only Leica could remove essential features (LCD) and have people applaud their Bravery. Whats next, lets remove the shutter button and just have a monocular.
Take your current leicas and turn off the LCD, and you simulate the same experience of being very annoyed that you cant review your images, just like in the film days.
Technically, an LCD is not "essential", unless you're talking about a camera that has no viewfinder. But the Leica clearly has a viewfinder. Therefore, an LCD is not "essential". It just happens to be a convenience that we've all become accustomed to...just like autofocus, which Leica M's doesn't have either. Yes, there are plenty of people who would argue that autofocus is "essential", just as you are arguing that an LCD is "essential".
I would say that Leica shooters appreciate the discipline and pure, rudimentary nature of shooting with an M. No autofocus, no zoom lenses, no image stabilization...just the basics of photography. So it makes sense that Leica would also offer an M without a rear LCD. It's the ultimate "back to the basics" camera. It's clearly not for everyone, but the same can be said of all of Leica's rangefinders.
joyclick: 7D II is good example of rehash.No swivel,no connectivity,old sensor more fanfare than it deserves
And it only took them 5 years to do it.
schaki: Cool, Leica X but unfortunately that lens is just too large to make the camera pocketable.What is it with the Leica X-E that might make a real diference to the X2 ?Quite likely it is the same 16 mp sensor unless it is a new revision of the same.Same can be said about the lcd screen unless it have better light-sealing. But with that said I've never seen a X2 IRL so I dunno how that Lcd is to use in sunlight.Probably the same lens as well if not Leica made a new tweaked up revision of it.
@schaki - I think you just have to accept that these cameras weren't designed particularly with pocketability in mind. That's what cameras like the RX100 or G7 X are for. This isn't about the merits of carrying a camera in your pocket or outside your pocket. Each has its merits.
Anastigmat: If I am going to spend $1800 on an APS-C camera, I would definitely scrape together another $500 for a full frame. 10 frames per second is nice but I would take better image quality instead because 100% of my photos will benefit, whereas 10 frames per second is only needed once in a great while.
No, you're not going to see a difference in image quality in 100% of your photos. It's only in certain situations where there will be an IQ difference that you can a difference. For example, at extreme high ISOs that you'll see a difference in IQ. At other ISOs, images will look more or less indistinguishable. And at normal viewing (i.e., without high magnification scrutiny on a computer), the image quality will look even less distinguishable. So the belief that "100% of my photos will benefit" is way, way overblown (unless you shoot 100% of your images in low light at high ISO).