Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic announces Lumix DMC-LX7 with F1.4-2.3, 24-90mm equiv. lens

By dpreview staff on Jul 18, 2012 at 05:00 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Panasonic has announced the Lumix DMC-LX7 - the long-awaited update of its pocketable enthusiast compact camera. The LX7 features a slightly smaller sensor than the LX5, allowing it to offer the brightest lens of any compact camera with a really impressive F1.4-2.3 24-90mm equivalent range. The LX7 is based around a 10.1MP MOS sensor, rather than its predecessor's CCD, allowing it to offer 10 fps continuous shooting and 1080p60 movies (50p for European examples) in AVCHD Progressive format, or half that rate in MP4. It also gains an aperture ring around the lens, a 920k dot LCD, and finds room for stereo mics and a larger accessory port, allowing use with an optional high-res electronic viewfinder.

Jump to:


Press Release:

PANASONIC INTRODUCES THE LUMIX LX7, FEATURING A FULLY REDESIGNED LENS, IMAGING PROCESSOR AND ENGINE FOR POWERFUL PERFORMANCE AND OURSTANDING PICTURE QUALITY

LUMIX LX7 Features 24mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens with 3.8x Optical Zoom*1 and F1.4 – F2.3 Full-range Brightness

July 18, 2012 (Secaucus, NJ) - Panasonic today announced its new premium digital compact camera, the LUMIX DMC-LX7, from the world-renowned LX series which has been long acclaimed by photography enthusiasts for its high picture quality and creative descriptiveness. The new LUMIX LX7 is equipped with a fully re-designed lens, image sensor and image processing engine for superior performance and stunning image quality. 

“The Panasonic LUMIX LX-Series cameras have been extremely popular models for both professional and enthusiast photographers, who understand the value and superb image quality such a compact, affordable digital camera can offer,” said Marc Sorkin, Senior Product Manager, Imaging, Panasonic Consumer Marketing Company of North America. “We expect the same enthusiasm, if not more, for the LUMIX LX7, which features major upgrades and improvements resulting in even better image quality.”

Equipped with a newly developed 24mm ultra-wide angle LEICA DC VARIO-SUMMILUX lens with 3.8x optical zoom*1, the LUMIX LX7’s supreme lens also features F1.4 brightness at wide-end and F2.3 at tele-end.  The F1.4 brightness is approximately 400% as bright as an F2.8 lens. The extraordinarily rich amount of light allows for the use of higher shutter speed to capture stunningly clear, sharp, blur-free images in low light situations and also provides impressive expression to images by reproducing exquisite gradation and mellow defocus to elevate photography. 

The LUMIX LX7’s lens unit consists of 11 elements in 10 groups with five aspherical lenses with nine aspherical surfaces, including the dual-sided aspherical surface ED (Extra-low Dispersion) lens, which has never before been adopted by any Panasonic LUMIX digital camera or interchangeable lens. This advanced lens system makes it easy to produce beautiful photos in high resolution with minimal distortion and a pleasing, soft-focused background.  Nano Surface Coating technology dramatically minimizes light reflection at entire visual range (380nm-780nm).  The LX7’s 24mm ultra-wide-angle lens gives users a wider range of composition possibilities, capturing approximately 136% larger viewing space compared to that of a 28mm wide angle camera. Additionally, the LUMIX LX7’s lens minimizes distortion at wide end so users obtain stunning, true-to-life images with outstanding resolution and detail. 

The LUMIX LX7 adopts a new 1/1.7-inch 10.1-megapixel*2 MOS Sensor that features an improved S/N ratio by 1.5 dB compared with its predecessor, the LUMIX DMC-LX5*3 which results in high resolution images with stunning clarity in high sensitivity recording and also in low ISO, reproducing rich gradation with wide dynamic range even when the situation is highly contrasted. The LUMIX LX7’s high performance Venus Engine also boasts advanced signal processing. The Intelligent NR (Noise Reduction) system keeps resolution high by optimizing the NR process applied to each part of an image. The Multi-process NR quickly detects brightness in each portion of a picture and applies optimal noise reduction in multiple steps.  High-speed digital signal output has been integrated into the LUMIX LX7 to realize high-speed consecutive shooting at 11 fps (frames per second) in full resolution with mechanical shutter and 5 fps with continuous AF (Auto Focus). 

Creative Control Mode offers 16 filter options including Soft Focus*4, Dynamic Monochrome, Impressive Art, One Point Color, Cross Process, Low Key, Toy Effect, Star Filter, Expressive, Retro, High Key, Sepia, Hi Dynamic, Miniature Effect*5 and the new exclusive Radial Defocus and Smooth Defocus modes.  Radial Defocus adds defocus effect radially from the light source while Smooth Defocus makes defocus figuration even smoother.  Photo Style is also available to provide photos with finer expression with Standard, Vivid, Natural, Monochrome, Scenery, Portrait and Custom preset options. The Time Lapse Shot function allows users to capture a record of stationary observation for objects such as flowers coming into bloom, wild animals and moving clouds.  Additionally, full manual control is available on the LUMIX LX7 so advanced users can enjoy more creative photography.  

The LUMIX LX7 features both iA (Intelligent Auto) and iA Plus modes.  In addition to the popular functions of iA- POWER O.I.S., AF Tracking, Intelligent D-range Control, Intelligent Scene Selector, Face Recognition, Intelligent ISO Control, Intelligent HDR (High Dynamic Range), Intelligent Handheld Night Shot and Motion Deblur*6 modes- iA Plus mode allows users to adjust defocusing area in the background, exposure compensation and white balance for more flexible control

Equipped with a new 3.0-inch 920,000-dot Intelligent LCD screen with super high resolution and wide angle viewing, the LUMIX LX7’s screen brightness automatically adjusts in 11 steps as surrounding brightness levels change, ensuring easy visibility at all times. To enhance operability, the LUMIX LX7 has been equipped with an aperture ring, internal ND filter, focus lever and rear dial in order to control light source. The newly added Level Gauge detects horizontal or vertical angle of view which is helpful in keeping horizontal composition even when shooting in high or low angle. 

In addition to recording stunning still imagery, the LUMIX LX7 also records high resolution full-HD 1,920x1,080 60p videos in AVCHD Progressive (MPEG-4 / H.264) format or 30p in MP4. The LUMIX LX7 features a dedicated video record button on the top of the camera body so users can instantly start recording videos while shooting photographs without changing any settings. Along with full-HD video capabilities with 3.8x optical zoom with step zoom function and POWER O.I.S., the LUMIX LX7 also features high-quality sound, recorded with Dolby® Digital Stereo Creator to offer highly realistic sound to images. The stereo microphone comes with a zoom noise reduction system and an Auto Wind Cut function blocks out most background noise from wind.  Additionally, Creative Video mode lets users set the camera shutter speed, which can create special effects in videos, and aperture, which is convenient when there are several subjects at different distances, manually to create even more impressive videos.    

The LUMIX LX7 offers rich accessory options for camera expandability to match every shooting situation and style.  The hot shoe atop the camera body allows for the attachment of advanced accessories including the optional tilt-shift Live View Finder (DMW-LVF2) which helps monitoring even under strong daylight with high visibility.

Additional camera accessories include:

  • External Optical View Finder: DMW-VF1
  • Filter Adaptor: DMW-FA1 NEW
  • MC Protector: DMW-LMCH37
  • ND Filter: DMW-LND37
  • PL Filter: DMW-LPLA37 NEW
  • External Flash: DMW-FL220 (GN22) / DMW-FL360 (GN36) / DMW-FL500 (GN50)
  • Genuine Leather Case: DMW-CLX7 NEW
  • Battery Pack: DMW-BCJ13

Additional features of the LUMIX LX7 include:

  • RAW and RAW+JPEG data recording options
  • Aspect Bracket / White Balance Bracket
  • HDR mode
  • Panorama Shot mode
  • 3D Photo mode
  • Creative Retouch 

The LUMIX DMC-LX7 will be available in black and white.  Pricing and availability will be announced approximately 30 days prior to shipping.  For more information about Panasonic LUMIX digital cameras and lenses, please visit www.panasonic.com/lumix.

*1 35mm camera equivalent: 24-90mm
*2 Camera effective pixels
*3 Panasonic in-house comparison with the LX5
*4 For photo only
*5 Sound will not be recorded with [MINIATURE EFFECT] and approximately 1/10 of the time period is recorded. (If you record for 10 minutes, the resulting motion picture recording will be approximately 1 minute long)
*6 The picture size may be reduced.

• Maximum time to record motion pictures continuously with [AVCHD] is 29 minutes 59 seconds. (excluding when [SH] is set)
• Motion pictures in [MP4] can be recorded continuously for up to 29 minutes 59 seconds. Also, motion picture recorded continuously in [MP4] is up to 4 GB.
* Leica is a registered trademark of Leica Microsystems IR GmbH.
* The LEICA DC VARIO-SUMMILUX lenses are manufactured using measurement instruments and quality assurance systems that have been certified by Leica Camera AG based on the company's quality standards.
* "AVCHD Progressive", "AVCHD", the "AVCHD Progressive" Logo and the "AVCHD" Logo are trademarks of Panasonic Corporation and Sony Corporation.
* Dolby and the double-D symbol are trademarks of Dolby Laboratories.
* HDMI, the HDMI logo and High-Definition Multimedia Interface are trademarks or registered trademarks of HDMI Licensing LLC.
* All other company and product names are trademarks of their respective corporations.
* This unit is compatible with both SD/SDHC/SDXC Memory Cards. You can only use SDHC Memory Cards on devices that are compatible with them. You cannot use SDHC Memory Cards on devices that are only compatible with SD Memory Cards. (When using an SDHC Memory Card on another device, be sure to read the operating instructions for that device.)
* Some accessories are not available in some countries.
* The use of recorded or printed materials that are protected by copyright for any purpose other than personal enjoyment is prohibited, as it would infringe upon the rights of the copyright holder.
* Design and specifications are subject to change without notice.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 specifications

Price
MSRP£449
Body type
Body typeCompact
Sensor
Max resolution3648 x 2736
Other resolutions3968 x 2232, 3776 x 2520, 3328 x 1872, 3168 x 2112, 3072 x 2304, 2784 x 1568, 2736 x 2736, 2656 x 1768, 2560 x 1920, 2304 x 2304, 2208 x 1248, 2112 x 1408, 2048 x 1536, 2048 x 1360, 1920 x 1920, 1920 x 1080, 1600 x 1200, 1536 x 1536, 640 x 480, 480 x 480
Image ratio w:h1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
Effective pixels10 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors13 megapixels
Sensor size1/1.7" (7.44 x 5.58 mm)
Sensor typeCMOS
ProcessorVenus Engine
Color spacesRGB, Adobe RGB
Image
ISOAuto, 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, (12800 with boost)
White balance presets5
Custom white balanceYes (2)
Image stabilizationOptical
Uncompressed formatRAW
JPEG quality levelsFine, Standard
File format
  • JPEG (DCF/Exif2.3)
  • RAW
  • MPO
Optics & Focus
Focal length (equiv.)24–90 mm
Optical zoom3.8×
Maximum apertureF1.4 - F2.3
Autofocus
  • Contrast Detect (sensor)
  • Multi-area
  • Tracking
  • Single
  • Continuous
  • Live View
Autofocus assist lampYes
Digital zoomYes (up to 4.5x)
Manual focusYes
Normal focus range50 cm (19.69)
Macro focus range1 cm (0.39)
Number of focus points23
Screen / viewfinder
Articulated LCDFixed
Screen size3
Screen dots920,000
Touch screenNo
Screen typeTFT Color LCD
Live viewYes
Viewfinder typeElectronic (optional)
Photography features
Minimum shutter speed60 sec
Maximum shutter speed1/4000 sec
Exposure modes
  • Intelligent Auto
  • Program
  • Aperture Priority
  • Shutter Priority
  • Manual
  • Creative Video
  • Creative Control
  • Scene
Scene modes
  • Portrait
  • Soft Skin
  • Scenery
  • Panorama shot
  • Sports
  • Night Portrait
  • Night Scenery
  • Handheld Night Shot
  • HDR
  • Food
  • Baby1
  • Baby2
  • Pet
  • Sunset
  • Glass Through
  • 3D Photo
Built-in flashYes (Pop-up)
Flash range8.50 m
External flashYes (Hot-shoe)
Flash modesAuto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Slow Sync
Continuous drive11 fps
Self-timerYes (2 or 10 sec, 10 sec (3 images))
Metering modes
  • Multi
  • Center-weighted
  • Spot
Exposure compensation±3 (at 1/3 EV steps)
WB BracketingNo
Videography features
Resolutions1920 x 1080 (60, 50, 30, 25 fps), 1280 x 720p (60, 50, 30, 25 fps), 640 x 480 (30, 25 fps)
FormatMPEG-4, AVCHD
Videography notes1920 x 1080 pixels, 60p, 50p (PSH: 28Mbps / AVCHD) (Sensor Output is 60, 50fps) ; 1920 x 1080 pixels, 60i, 50i (FSH: 17Mbps / AVCHD) (Sensor Output is 60, 50fps) 1280 x 720 pixels, 60p, 50p (SH: 17Mbps / AVCHD) (Sensor Output is 60, 50fps); 1920 x 1080 pixels, 25 fps (FHD: 20Mbps / MP4) (Sensor Output is 25fps) 1280 x 720 pixels, 30, 25 fps (HD: 10Mbps / MP4) (Sensor Output is 30, 25fps)
MicrophoneStereo
SpeakerMono
Storage
Storage typesSD/SDHC/SDXC, Internal
Storage included70 MB Internal
Connectivity
USB USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)
HDMIYes (mini HDMI TypeC)
Remote controlNo
Physical
Environmentally sealedNo
BatteryBattery Pack
Battery descriptionLithium-Ion rechargeable battery & charger
Battery Life (CIPA)330
Weight (inc. batteries)298 g (0.66 lb / 10.51 oz)
Dimensions111 x 68 x 46 mm (4.37 x 2.68 x 1.81)
Other features
Orientation sensorYes
Timelapse recordingYes
GPSNone

Additional images

349
I own it
51
I want it
31
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Comments

Total comments: 227
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Sep 18, 2012)

Here is dpr intro sentence to LX7:

"With the launch of the 10MP DMC-LX7, Panasonic will be hoping to regain lost ground since the debut of its predecessor, the LX5, in 2010."

Well, just checked 5 mins ago, the LX5 price in Prague's largest photo store (Skoda) is holding at about $500. I know Amazon's price is considerably less but LX5 did not budge here since its introduction and continues to be a favorite despite the LX7 announcement.

0 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (Jul 27, 2012)

Some members wrote as if f value is related to sensor size (if i understand right). I think f 1.4 always gets in more light than f 1.8 independent of the sensor size. Right?

1 upvote
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Jul 29, 2012)

Wrong.

LX7 -> F(4.7)/1.4=3.357
RX100 -> F(10.4)/1.8=5.7

2 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (Jul 29, 2012)

Thanks for the reply. I always thought f-stop values are absolute values. Making the communication and thinking easier.

0 upvotes
acid592
By acid592 (Jul 29, 2012)

So with same shutter speed. Sony's RX100 will have more light on its sensor at f1,8, than Panasonic LX7's at f1.4.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 31, 2012)

Yes it is the combination of ISO and sensor area that determines the image quality, not ISO on its own. The RX100 sensor collects roughly the same amount of light at ISO 350 as the LX7's active sensor area does at ISO 100.

0 upvotes
Oddrain
By Oddrain (Sep 2, 2012)

If I remember my physics correctly, the minimum diameter for the front lens is equal to the focal length divided by the f-stop so wide aperture means bigger lenses. Also, with large sensors it is necessary to have longer actual focal lengths to get the same angle of view in 35mm terms. Putting these together means that a bigger sensor equals a bigger lens, especially if you want a wide max aperture. Keeping the sensor small has inevitably helped Panasonic have a wider max aperture by keeping real focal length down.

Now, wider aperture when taking photos = lower ISO which will keep noise down in you shots. So this small sensor wide aperture strategy from Panasonic should help to keep noise levels down in low light.

Is it as effective as a bigger sensor-narrower aperture .. who knows. Lest hope DPReview will run the tests to show us!

0 upvotes
gescolar
By gescolar (Jul 24, 2012)

I agree with the three posts above. The Sony would be a nice camera for me, but I like to take pictures with OVF or a superior class EVF. Just don't like the LCD screens for compose. No option for viewfinder, the RX100 is not the camera for me. Waiting for the XZ-2.

0 upvotes
dgeugene1
By dgeugene1 (Jul 23, 2012)

The LX7 is a big disappointment. I had hoped for a larger file size AND sensor, although the CMOS sensor is certainly an improvement.

It took three tries to get an FZ150 with the lens centered but now that I have it I feel no need for an LX7.

I kept the WA adapter from my LX5 which works not quite as well as on the LX5 but adequate for my purposes and a quantum leap over the Raynox, junk at any aperture.

0 upvotes
peacefrog33756
By peacefrog33756 (Jul 22, 2012)

I enjoyed my LX3 and currently love my LX5. I have no reason not to believe the LX7 will be a great camera, perhaps not for everybody but certainly for me. Bypassing the RX100 which is very tempting, but there is just something about it which just doesn't appeal to me.

0 upvotes
richteed
By richteed (Jul 21, 2012)

I recently bought an LX1 off fleabay for 50 quid. It's probably the best compact I've owned for usability and lens quality. A bit noisy above the minimum ISO but it takes fantastic pictures. I thought I wanted an XZ1 next, but the LX1 has hooked me into this model. If I can't afford an LX7 next, it'll be an LX5 which should be much more affordable new or s/h soon. The LX7 looks like just about the perfect compact to me knowing what I know now about how gorgeous an LX compact is to use in the field (and I take a lot of pictures). If the much derided LX1 was this good, how much better is the LX7?!
All this talk below of sensor size and aperture is a bit pointless at the end of the day. There will always be a better camera on the market or around the corner, but the relative differences some folk below seem to be fixated on seem a bit marginal to me when a camera provides so much in such a lovely little package.

3 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Nov 5, 2012)

So, if I've got your message right, bro:
Let's pack lunch, go out and have fun with the camera I can afford, look at the girls, the children, the flowers and the dogs, and come back home to gloat about my day, while the dp persnickety panel is still arguing about pixels, f apertures and sensor's performance.
Am I wrong, bro?

0 upvotes
Michael Doleman
By Michael Doleman (Jul 20, 2012)

A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.

6 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (Jul 20, 2012)

If Sony had made the RX100 12 MP and f2.8 on the long end, I'd agree with you, but 20MP and f4.9 on the long end takes it down several notches in my book. Different priorities, I guess. It would've been nice if the sensor size on the Panasonic was a little bigger, but if it can pull off ISO 1600 pretty cleanly, or at least without color blotching, I might look to pick one of these up.

4 upvotes
Michael Doleman
By Michael Doleman (Jul 20, 2012)

That's a legitimate observation, for sure, but I like to look at all the various aspects in light of what each camera is attempting to accomplish, and then discount the shortcomings that are sacrifces for realizing the primary objective. For me, the RX100's convergence of big sensor/small camera hits the sweetspot of what I want. I rarely zoom much with a small camera (and my expectations are appropriately realistic when I do), so f4.9 seems plenty fast at the long end, for me. I agree that the high pixel count gives me some pause, but I'm reading nothing but good things about IQ, with the early samples.
My main point in downplaying the LX7 is that Sony has proven it's entirely feasible to put a reasonably large-ish sensor into a truly pocketable, all-in-one camera. It's time, thus, to move on to the next phase of evolution for the compact-enthusiast niche. I would love to see Canon respond, for example, by refreshing the S-series with a ~1" sensor. And an LX9 with m4/3 sensor...

3 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

Well said.
Personally, I won't be buying any new compact camera with a sensor smaller than m4/3.

0 upvotes
Rodolfo
By Rodolfo (Aug 9, 2012)

This is a forced comparison: the RX100 lacks a hotshoe and viewfinder option. As for "f4.0 at the long end", 100mm is not very long; my now-dated Lumix ZS3 also maxes out at 4.9, but at 300mm. The Sony is also significantly slower at the wide end. These three limitations explain the smaller body. I also agree with AngelicBeaver that 20MP, along with the slower glass, neutralizes the sensor-size advantage.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
px1
By px1 (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm mystified. The Sony RX100 claims to have a 1.0" sensor, then further specifies it as "13.2mm X 8.8MM". Maybe my math is all wrong but that is nowhere near 1 inch.
In fact what I calc is a diagonal of about 16mm, which is about 2/3 inch.
In area comparison to a 1/1.7 inch square (a rough estimate of LX7's sensor size, I get the RX100's sensor area at 251 sq mm and LX7 at 223 sq mm.

Could someone else give it a try and see what you calc. I'll admit an error on my part if I'm shown it.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jul 20, 2012)

"1/1.7" is measured by the same old stick as 1", a "diameter of outer tube" bla bla bla.
To get real, the diagonal of the sensor in LX7 is also not 1/1.7", which would be 25.4/1.7=15mm. It is sqrt(7.44^2+5.58^2)=9mm.
LX7's sensor's area is 7.44*5.58=41.5 MM2.
It is 251/41.5=6 times smaller, or ln(6)/ln(2)=2.6 stops smaller.
To match the amount of light RX100 gets at f/1.8, LX7 would require 1.8/(1.41^2.6) = f/0.74 lens.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Jul 20, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

Remember the LX7 total sensor size is used for multiple aspect ratio's and only part of the sensor is used. The lens at wide angle is 4.7mm and stated as 24mm equivalent so take the 43.2666mm diagonal of full frame: 43.2666/24x4.7 and you get 8.47mm as the diagonal of the active sensor area. The diagonal of the sony sensor is 15.86mm.

So the equivalent of the LX7 lens for the rx100 sensor would be F2.6-4.3.

Or alternatively the equivalent of the rx100 lens on the LX7 active sensor diagonal would be F0.96-2.6.

0 upvotes
Sekura Drops
By Sekura Drops (Jul 19, 2012)

I just checked the sample pictures and I just did not like them. Thats the only point I wanted to add apart from all the technical discussions. RX100 samples have better contrast, color render and detail. Its not suprising considering the size of the sensor and recent focus on color rendering. I really would like to see the results from Samsung but if we add the HDR or blur reduction etc tech from sony, it would be my compact cam. Another point I am again dissapointed with the colors of panasonic and I cannot understand why. These are the people who created GF1 and recent G series had impressive colors but now again some unnatural colors. As the italians say "Boh!"

0 upvotes
Sekura Drops
By Sekura Drops (Jul 19, 2012)

And I am in love with x10 s film like images. Just some tech problems kept me away from it. If you dont want large prints and compactness is not your only matter, thats is an amazing cam.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Jul 18, 2012)

Shhhh... did anyone else hear that?

Sounded like Panasonic shooting themselves in the foot!

2 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Jul 19, 2012)

I heard nothing.

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 19, 2012)

Nor I had. It seems some find their pleasure in bashing... childish !

0 upvotes
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (Jul 18, 2012)

any words on what f/stop at 35mm? thanks

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Jul 19, 2012)

For DOF its 4.5 stops deeper than 35mm FF. So at the wide end its equivalent to 24/6.7 and at the long end its 90/11.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Jul 19, 2012)

LX7 f1.7 at 33-37mm

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7/4

1 upvote
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (Jul 19, 2012)

thanks..my bad i didnt read the page 4

0 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Jul 18, 2012)

The Fuji X10 is still the sweet spot amongst all these compacts like the RX100, LX7, S100, etc. As far as lens and sensor combinations go, it can't be beat! All cameras have their strong and weak points, but the X10 manages to be a great balance overall. Kudos to Fuji!

1 upvote
Andrew Booth
By Andrew Booth (Jul 19, 2012)

Agreed that the Fuji is impressive on specs - except for the problem that it isn't compact. I'm looking at this category of cameras at the moment, and the bulk of the Fuji rules it out for my purposes.

2 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Jul 19, 2012)

That would have been my problem too - otherwise I think it's a slightly better camera than the Olympus XZ-1. However, the X10 wasn't even available last summer when I got the XZ-1.

The XZ-1 just manages to fit inside a common Sony case, which then just fits in my front pocket. It's perfect for going to the amusement park or any place I don't want to carry my DSLR around, yet still want flexibility and good quality RAW photos.

Between the XZ-1 and the iPad2 it's possible to travel light on trips without sacrificing too much functionality.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Jul 19, 2012)

Is the X10 really that much bigger though? I usually just hang it around my neck anywhere I go. Neither the XZ or LX7 would fit comfortably in my pants pockets anyways. Maybe I wear tight pants? Haha

1 upvote
DStudio
By DStudio (Jul 18, 2012)

Whether or not the LX7 and FZ200 ultimately end up being the best in their classes, Panasonic is moving the market in the right direction by prioritizing lens speed across the zoom range. Despite little gripes here or there, we as photographers should be excited about this.

6 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 19, 2012)

Right !

0 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Jul 18, 2012)

I have LX5 & Oly's ZX1 and love both cameras. This LX7 has everything I wanted: manageable pixal size, superb built quality and ergonomic, and produce excellent images.
If priced this LX7 right, I will still buy this over Sony's RX100.

2 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

"The LX7 features a slightly smaller sensor than the LX5, allowing it to offer the brightest lens of any compact camera with a really impressive F1.4-2.3 24-90mm equivalent range."

That should read F7-11.5 24-90mm equivalent range, not quite as impressive compared to the F4.8-13 24-100mm equivalent range of the Sony rx100.

2 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

I estimated the crop factor as 4.5 at first but i noticed in the image samples that the lens is 4.7mm at the 24mm equivalent wide end giving a crop factor of 5.1.
This means that the actual active sensor size of this camera is closer to 1/1.9" rather than 1/1.7".

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

1. Don't you just love the marketing spin they put on it? As if using a tiny sensor "allows them" to use a brighter lens... as if that is a limitation!

2. You are right... Panasonic takes a crop, making the effective used sensor area even smaller!
They use a 13mp sensor, and take a 4:3 or 16:9, 10MP crop out of it. SAD.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jul 18, 2012)

You are confused with the equivalent DOF of the lens. This is a very bright lens and it should be able to take a picture with the same shutter speed as a full frame camera at set ISO. There should be a small quiz before you can make a comment.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

An F1.4 lens on 1x0.75mm sensor would also be able to capture with the same shutter speed at the same ISO, does that mean you would be satisfied with the quality it will provide? Maybe they should start selling F0.9 lens cameras on sensors this size, it seems like it will be a success.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

How can you not understand that ISO 1600 on the LX7 does not equal ISO 1600 on the RX100.
This is just so obvious...

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

@Timmbits, sorry i have to disagree with you here, i like your charts though! :)

It is the size of the equivalent aperture that determines the size optics so using a 9x6 sensor for example allows using a 7mm F/1.4 lens that is about the same size as a 28mm F/5.6 lens on 36x24mm sensor, note that i am talking about the size of the actual optics, the barrel extension would of course be different, but i do take this into account when suggesting what size sensor they should use for a given lens spec in a given camera size.

And also i actually want manufacturers to put oversized sensors in camera's to allow for multiple aspect ratio's to use the full lens image circle, i do not want this to be used to deceive people with fake specs though :)
So in the full frame camera i want i actually want a 37.71x25.96mm sensor to allow every aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 to use the full lens image circle diameter.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

The reason why oversized multi-aspect ratio sensors are good is because they do not increase the size of the camera. It is the size of the lens that is the big determining factor and i want it to be used completely for the aspect ratio i use. This doesn't necessarily mean i want to use more than one aspect ratio but different people have different preferences and you can not expect them to release the same camera in multiple versions with the various aspect ratio sensors. Plus its nice to have the choice anyways :)

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jul 18, 2012)

@malcolm82 I'm not great at educating but what you said in your original post is a half truth. This is a f1.4 lens and if it was .9 it would be even brighter (not better). Small sensors=deep DOF. If you like shallow go with a bigger sensor. Sony is still small, I would just buy a M9 since you seem to be so excited about DOF. I can not speak of its quality of the lens, but Leica does put there name on it..must be ok. Leica should also re-badge this camera soon with the red dot. As far as comparing it to the sony..it might come down to price. Image quality on the sony might be better also. I owned a LX3 and loved it, the person that bought it from me took it all over the world with great results. I expect the same from the LX7.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jul 19, 2012)

No, malcom82.
Their statement is perfectly right, because they refer to brightness and equivalent range. They do not mention "equiv. DOF".

Brightness is key for compacts to avoid high ISO.

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

How can you not understand that ISO 1600 on the LX7 does not equal ISO 1600 on the RX100.
This is just so obvious...

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

The manufacturers should really just start making 3x2mm sensor compacts with F1 lenses.
What the hell are they thinking making aps-c or even full frame camera's!?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

It is so strange that completely useless posts stating basic and to the discussion completely irrelevant facts get uprated so high.
It is as if people think that anything insightful was revealed there?

0 upvotes
manakiin
By manakiin (Jul 18, 2012)

Where is that 1" sensor with 1.4 lens that every fanboy out there was preaching about?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

It would be bigger than the Canon G1X. :)

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

Sorry, I changed the graphic. NEW LINK here:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2102709/aperture135

These are the RELATIVE APERTURE numbers, taking into account sensor size, and everything adjusted relative to 135mm.

3 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jul 19, 2012)

You're confusing "bokeh" with "DOF control".

Nice graphs, though.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

BOKEH?

See the CHART:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2102638/relative-apertures-logscalechart

OK, listen up everyone. I've taken the data found on page one of this review http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7 and put it onto a log chart.

This way we can better appreciate the combined (relative to 135mm) aperture per zoom, and better compare among the cameras in this category.

Intersects, and where the lines come close, gives us a good indication of where an advantage changes, and of where some become similar.

Too bad I can't embed the graphic in this post.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

UPDATED LINK:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1310839954/photos/2102709/aperture135
(sorry, "edit" link is gone)

Some interesting findings:
> at wide angle, RX100 is the winner, but it intersects with G1X and D3200 at around 37mm and 47mm respectively.
> the RX100 only catches up with the X10 at around 75mm
> the 2-year old XZ-1 is far better at wide angle than the LX7, which only catches up with it, to surpass it, at around 70mm

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Jul 19, 2012)

Problem with this chart is
that f-values in the cameras do not change continuously
they do it in the steps different for different products.

For example,
for RX100 there is f1.8 at 28 mm, f2.0 at 29mm, f2.8 at 34mm.
for G1X there is the same f2.8 all the way from 28-34mm.

In fulll frame DoF equivalents
28mm f4.9 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of RX100
29mm f5.4 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of G1X
34mm f7.6 vs f5.2 = G1X wins hands down
and not in the 36mm point as shown by the chart

(based on the DPReview tests
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/7
)

This chart should be corrected from scratch
to incorporate the reality,
becase in the current version it misrepresents the data.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 18, 2012)

Images look pretty good although I'm not crazy about Panasonic's somewhat cool colors as seen in the samples. X10 has superior colors, and nicer bokeh from what I've seen so far.

More samples at Lenstip.

http://www.lenstip.com/1997-news-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-LX7_-_sample_shots_and_movies.html

0 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (Jul 18, 2012)

Now that we have an f1.4 ZOOM when are we gonna have a nice, small, and super sharp fixed, say, 28mm 1.4 equiv.?

That would be pretty desirable to me. Make it super pocketable, have raw, etc. Maybe even some kind of OVF! Something akin to a pocketable, smaller sensor version of an x100. Any else think that would be great?

1 upvote
my username was already taken

If you have a 1.4 zoom, why would you downgrade to a fixed focal length 1.4? Makes no sense

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

28mm F2.8 is the lens i want most for a full frame compact interchangeable lens camera.
I am not sure what you mean by F1.4 exactly? On which sensor size? The number is meaningless on its own.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 18, 2012)

If you want a fixed focal length p&s, the Ricoh GRD IV is the one to buy. Incredible photographers camera and a street photography gem.

2 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 18, 2012)

Was going to suggest the same thing but resisted until someone else wrote this as I've already been accused of being a schill for mentioning this camera in another thread.
I guess the sigma compacts could also be an option (aps-c sensor).
Olympus epm-1 (not a compact tho) with 17mm 2.8 or Panny 12mm 2.5 combo would be smaller, about as light and comparable in price (esprciallly if lens is second-hand).
Having a fixed lens helps to previsualise shots especially useful for street photography. One sees the framing before even raising the camera as one is trained to see at that focal length

1 upvote
rbach44
By rbach44 (Jul 18, 2012)

I mean a few things.

If we have an f1.4 lens on a zoom on something this small, surely we could go smaller (and probably sharper) with a nice fixed focal length. Perhaps small enough to make the camera actually pocketable (I don't consider the LX's or the ricohs to be pocketable). And maybe a sensor similar in size to the sony RX100.

In this day and age some of the micro four thirds and other mirrorless cameras are getting pretty small. And the size advantage of cameras like the LX's are getting less and less advantageous.

Sony gets it with the RX100, it would be nice to have something like a crossover in concept between the Fuji X100 and Sony RX100. Pocketable, small, sharp fast, prime lens, decent sized sensor, no frills that make the camera huge and negate that size advantage. THAT would be cool.

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

I agree, i also would prefer a compact with a prime lens over one with a zoom lens.

A camera the size of the Sony RX100 can be made with an m43 sensor and 14mm F1.4 lens.

Of course as i said before i would much prefer a full frame sensor with 28mm F2.8 lens which would retract to about the same thickness, only the barrel extension mechanism would be larger though i estimate it would still only extend about half the length as the zoom lens on the RX100 does so i consider this insignificant, the sensor size itself is also insignificant compared to the size of the camera so it also would add very little to the total size.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

I mentioning that a full frame 28mm F2.8 would only extend half the distance of the zoom on the RX100. I wanted to add that a 45mm F4.5 lens on the standard medium format size of 56x42 would still only extend about the same amount as the zoom lens on the RX100. So it is actually possible to make a medium format compact camera with a prime lens :)
I would like that camera even more of course, though in this case the sensor itself actually will take up quite a bit of room in the camera body.
This would be like a miniature version of large format camera's which usually use F4.5 or F5.6 primes.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

I feel very disappointed.
The tiny sensor leaves it stuck in the past when we were led to believe that a 1/1.7" might be a big improvement over the tiniest of sensors. The hotshoe is way out of the league that the smaller sensor puts it in.
And the looks... they've actually managed to take an awesome retro-like design, and make it look _modest_! What's next, copying the s100 design on the next model? They are aware that all the designers at Canon had quit, and that is the only reason the canon models went to market in their pre-production test model casing, right? (because that is definitely what it looks like happened over at canon, yet everyone's stupid enough to want to imitate them)

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

Low F-number marketing is the reason for the tiny sensor.

"The LX7 features a slightly smaller sensor than the LX5, allowing it to offer the brightest lens of any compact camera with a really impressive F1.4-2.3 24-90mm equivalent range."

Next they will marketing F1-1.4 on 4x3mm sensors. Most manufacturers seem to be moving backwards. The Sony rx100 is the exception and only partially since they should've used an m43 sensor in that camera instead of going for the F1.8 marketing number.

I've been commenting about this for a while now...

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neimo
By Neimo (Jul 19, 2012)

malcolm, on a 4x3mm consumer camera, resolution isn't as important as noise to the general public. They want pictures that look good when resized to fit a screen. That means all they really need are 3MP of un-smeared, un-watercolor-looking detail. Give those people a camera that can use ISO 400 instead of 1600 and they'll be happy with the results.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

I understand what you mean but why put an F1-1.4 lens on 4x3mm sensor when you can put an F2-2.8 lens on a 8x6mm sensor in practically the same size for a negligible extra cost?

And keep in mind this discussion is about high end compact camera's not cameraphones. I intended that F1-1.4 on 4x3 sensor as the natural progression for the LX9 based on the current marketing trend.

Also consider that displays will have much higher resolutions soon enough, the ipad 3 and 'retina display' macbook pro is just the beginning, 3840x2160 or possibly 4096x2304 will be the next 'full hd' television standard and you can be sure it will also be used in all mainstream laptops, tablets and desktop monitors. So the value of higher resolution in good light will increase a lot in the near future.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mltsao
By mltsao (Jul 18, 2012)

Why doesn't the LX7 have a wide angle lens attachement? Thats the one thing I love about the LX3/5.

1 upvote
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Jul 18, 2012)

well syncronised pana and samsung are on lens range and aperture, aren't they?

1 upvote
VIPWEB
By VIPWEB (Jul 18, 2012)

Does it support zooming during video HD recording?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

The LX5 does.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 18, 2012)

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f41/ricoh-gr-digital-iv-review-field-report-6243/
Seeing as there's no review for the above camera I've left a link.
How do you think it compares?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

People are beginning to think you are a Ricoh schill. Give it a rest.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 18, 2012)

Just looked up schill.
As I own panasonic, olympus, pentax, ricoh, samsung, canon and nikon cameras and love them all I can assure you I have no allegiance to any one brand and I don't profit in any way from my posts. I'm therefore not a schill.

By people you mean you, singular, as no one else has made a negative comment, YET!

Noticed you defending the Canon 650d on a couple of threads and you own a Canon camera. Does that make you a schill or just someone with an opinion?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
MDwebpro
By MDwebpro (Jul 18, 2012)

Judging from the technology and features included in the new LX7 and the Sony RX100, I've got about 3-4 more years to wait before my ideal camera comes to market. *watches clock*

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Sure, then that's 3 or 4 years of being frustrated with the pictures you take.

1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Jul 18, 2012)

Yaa sure , using any camera before LX7 is frustrating.

0 upvotes
MDwebpro
By MDwebpro (Jul 19, 2012)

That doesn't mean I'm not making photos, Howabout - I most assuredly am. It just means I can't yet purchase the combination of features, technology and physical packaging I want, at a price I'm willing to pay.

Love your screen name, by the way.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

MDwebpro:

Never assumed you weren't making pictures. Sure for certain purposes, I feel I need a Nikon D4, but I do without.

Then of course in 4 or 5 years, when a basic $500 to $1500 dollar camera has all of the features you'd want in 2012, there will be other possibilities coming down the line that make it seem that the best camera for you is going to be available 4 o4 5 more years into the future.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

Again with a horrible F1.4 lens.
A camera this size with a normal zoom should have an aps-c sensor with a lens of around F3.5-5.6 such as the standard zooms on interchangeable lens camera's.

Just look at the size of the panasonic powerzoom lens:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6/2

Its total length looks about 32mm so it can easily collapse in a camera size much smaller than this one.

A micro four thirds sensor would be ok for a camera this size with a 5x zoom lens or for a much smaller camera with shorter zoom range but for this size with 3-4x zoom it really should be aps-c.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Not familiar with the Panasonic LXes are you?

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

Horrible lens? PLEASE, educate yourself before posting!
Learn about apertures!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

Ironically enough it has the same actual aperture size and light gathering ability as an m4/3 sensor with a f3.5-5.6 lens. So, no, I don't think it has to have a bigger sensor and smaller lens when a smaller sensor and faster lens meets the same goal.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

@tkbslc: I partially agree with you... but I suspect that in low light, or more challenging lighting situations, you can't get around physics and a larger sensor would still have an advantage, because it would have a physically larger lens opening (in absolute measurements) bringing in way more light, than the size of a lens on a smaller sensor, even if it's a faster lens. At wide angle, I much prefer Sony's configuration, in the RX100, with a f1.8 and 1" sensor. Pity the RX100 drops down to 4.9 at 3x though.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jul 18, 2012)

F1.4 requires a lower ISO to achieve the same exposure as F2.8. Now there is a law of physics.

Total Sensor size has almost nothing to do with light gathering abilities of RAW images. Pixel size and the technology used for those pixels and to read those pixels has everything to do with it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
grafli
By grafli (Jul 18, 2012)

@Timmbits: the LX7 has a physically larger lens opening than the M4/3 Kits!
You can calculate it like this:
actual Focal length/aperture nr.= actual size of aperture.
LX7: 17.7mm /F2,3 = 7.7mm
M4/3: 42mm /F5,6 = 7.5mm !

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

I did not say anything about low light noise performance did I? An F4-7 16-60mm zoom lens on 24x16mm sensor would have about the same aperture size throughout the zoom range which is exactly the point i was making.
The difference would be that the lens on aps-c would deliver at least double the resolution wide open at F4 than this crappy F1.4 lens, or in other words provide 4x the amount of pixels worth of resolution.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

I am quite confused about the lack of interest in this topic. Why do people care to buy quality lenses for interchangeable lens camera's if they dont care about the resolution the lens provides?

Sensor size is a huge factor in the optical design for a lens of a given field of view and aperture diameter since resolution limited by optical aberrations scales directly with the F number.
Combined with the effect of diffraction, tripling the sensor size for this particular lens spec will roughly double the resolution at an aperture setting somewhere between the largest of the wide and tele end.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

malcolm82:

Look up the word "resolution".

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

What is your point? I know there are two interpretations which is why i said both that it would double the resolution and added that this would be worth 4 times the amount of pixels.

Besides is that all you have to comment about after these posts? I dont see how it is relevant to the discussion.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

malcolm82:

Look up "resolution". It doesn't involve the magic you claim.

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

Care to explain what you are talking about? Are you unaware that lenses have a limited resolution? It is not only the sensor pixel resolution that matters...
You are really not making any sense at all with these arrogant replies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution
Maybe you should read this, no i was not talking about a new years resolution.
The fourth under measurement resolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Mal82:

What you may mean is that a lens will diffract light in a manor that higher density sensors can't keep up with. But that doesn't really apply here. No matter how valid the WikiMath you cite. The lens on this Panasonic will resolve really well. The the quanta of light will hit those Panasonic holes.

So in other words the resolution of the 12MP Samsung EX2 is the same as that of the 12MP Nikon D3s, independent of the lens. Now the Nikon with its lower pixel density will do high ISO and dynamic range better than the Samsung no matter what lens is mounted on the Nikon--but those qualities aren't resolution even though they do allow for bigger prints from the Nikon files. Now Nikon lenses distort reds at high ISOs and one way to get around this is to use a better Zeiss lens, but that's still not a resolution thing.

Remember you're the person who started out with the laughable claim about this LeicaPana lens being a "horrible" lens. So your claims aren't real valid.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

Have you actually compared the quality of a prime lens at F1.4 compared to that or another prime lens at F5.6? Why do you think lenses need to be stopped down? Optical aberrations are horrible at F1.4

Just look at this review:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/5

A 150mm F4.2 lens on 108x72mm sensor at F4.2 would have optical aberrations the same size as the canon 50mm at F4.2, by this i mean the size of the blur spot compared to the total image meaning 3x larger blur spot on a sensor 3x the size. Of course this 150mm F4.2 lens at F4.2 has only the same effect of diffraction on image resolution as the canon 50mm at F1.4.
What this means is that the 150mm F4.2 lens wide open would have significantly higher resolution than the canon 50mm F1.4 stopped down to F4.2. And if you put them at the same actual aperture size of 1.4 and 4.2 the difference will be huge.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

In conclusion: larger apertures: GOOD, small F-numbers: BAD
--> We need larger sensors to have larger apertures at higher F-numbers.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

malcolm82:

All you've done is explain why good sharp F1.4 lenses are more expensive than sharp F4.0 lenses--not news.

That's one reason people are willing to pay for a sharp when wide open F1.4 Fuji 35mm or Leica F1.4 50mm.

You've confused specific lens sharpness with general resolution rules.

This PanaLeica is likely to be sharp when wide open, albeit with some vignetting.

An example from full frame lenses: the 1.4 85mm manual
Zeiss is incredibly sharp wide open while the 1.4 50mm manual Zeiss is not as sharp wide open, still doesn't say much about resolution just how sharp edges will be.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

"All you've done is explain why good sharp F1.4 lenses are more expensive than sharp F4.0 lenses--not news."

This is simply the mathematics of lens design, it does not even have anything to do with manufacturing accuracy.

With two lenses of an equal level of optical design the larger F-number lens on larger sensor will always be superior to an equivalent smaller F-number lens on smaller sensor, why would you assume the lens on a smaller sensor would get a superior optical design for free? Why would you arbitrarily limit the larger sensor lens to be of an inferior design? It does not make any sense. Whatever level design you choose you will get better results on a larger sensor, it is that simple.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

"That's one reason people are willing to pay for a sharp when wide open F1.4 Fuji 35mm or Leica F1.4 50mm."

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/

These are leica's own numbers! Compare the resolution charts of the 50mm F0.95, F1.4, F2 and F2.5 lenses. You will see they get progressively better at higher F-numbers, in fact the F0.95 and F1.4 lenses stopped down to F5.6 have similar resolution as the F2 and F2.5 lenses also stopped down to F5.6 which proves that the optical design of the larger lenses is in no way superior to that of the small ones.

It is not the fact that you stop down a lens that increases its resolution but simply the fact that you are using a larger F-number which results in smaller chromatic aberrations which is why the F2.5 lens wide open will achieve similar resolution to the F0.95 lens stopped down to F2.5.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

Their 50mm F2 ASPH is a real example of a superior optical design, wide open it roughly equals the resolution of the other lenses stopped down to F5.6 but you can see it still improves a lot when stopping down and if they made a lens design of equal quality with a maximum aperture of F1.4 the resolution would drop dramatically wide open.
You can also see that this lens is significantly larger than the other F2 lens, which is a necessary trade off that comes with a superior optical design. You can see the same trade off with the 21mm F3.4 and 24mm F3.8, both are significantly sharper than the 21mm and 24mm F1.4 lenses at equal apertures while obviously being very large lenses for the maximum aperture size they offer.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

"All you've done is explain why good sharp F1.4 lenses are more expensive than sharp F4.0 lenses--not news."

Actually the main reason for the higher price of the F1.4 lenses is simply because they are much bigger, an F1.4 lens on 2.8x crop sensor would be only about the same size as the full frame F4.0 and hence should cost about the same. It is size not F-stop that determines cost.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 19, 2012)

Mal82--

Those Leica data sheets say "resolution of finer detail". That aint exactly the same as the sensor resolution in combination claims you've been posting.

I never disputed that some lens are sharper.

Stop making up claims to fit your point.

Your original point was that this LeicaPana lens is "horrible" and won't resolve thing well. This remains laughable.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

"Those Leica data sheets say "resolution of finer detail". That aint exactly the same as the sensor resolution in combination claims you've been posting."

You obviously dont understand mtf graphs, its simply how they are describing that they are plotting mtf values for different linepair frequencies. Dpreview plots the frequency at a fixed 50% mtf value instead.

What do you mean by sensor resolution in combination? I did not say anything about sensor resolution. Obviously if your lens provides more resolution then you can use a sensor with more pixels to take advantage of it, or the lens wont have to be stopped down to half its maximum aperture to take advantage of a given sensor resolution as is surely the case with this LX7.

"I never disputed that some lens are sharper.

Stop making up claims to fit your point."

How can you argue against the fact that larger sensor camera's have more resolution anyways? It is blatantly obvious. I am not making up anything.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 19, 2012)

"Your original point was that this LeicaPana lens is "horrible" and won't resolve thing well. This remains laughable."

Have you seen how F1.4 primes perform? Try to figure out what the mtf graphs mean and you might get a clue.

I said : again with a horrible F1.4 lens meaning all F1.4 lenses in general are horrible, it is simply a poor design choice based on marketing to the misguided fixation many people have on low F-numbers, marketing is the one and only reason that this camera comes with a tiny sensor and an F1.4 lens.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

malcolm82:

The F1.4 Zeiss 85mm is very sharp wide open. As is the Leica F1.4 50mm. And the new Fuji 35mm F1.4. All of those are extraordinary lenses.

You made a preposterous clam about this PanaLeica, and now you've made a preposterous claim about 1.4 lenses generally--that both very good ones and lower quality ones are sharper, say at F5.6, I don't dispute. But that's not what you said.

You most certainly did make claims about sensor resolution and what sensor size would be appropriate for this camera.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

"that both very good ones and lower quality ones are sharper, say at F5.6, I don't dispute. But that's not what you said."

This is exactly my point, the fact that lenses at F1.4 are significantly less sharp than stopped down to F5.6 is exactly the reason why a lens for a larger sensor will offer significantly higher resolution at the same aperture size.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

Compare the reviews of m43 and aps-c lenses to the full frame lenses on this site.
Also compare the mtf graphs of the leica lenses to these:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf
For example, the 150mm f/5.6 lens can be compared to the leica 35mm f/1.4 lens.
Just cut the graph to about 84mm for image height of the large format lens to compare to the 21mm image height of the leica graphs. You can see that the large format lens at F/11 has better mtf values at 20lp/mm than the leica lens F/2.8 values at 40lp/mm. This means that the large format lens has over twice the image resolution as the full frame lens has at that aperture.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

"You most certainly did make claims about sensor resolution and what sensor size would be appropriate for this camera."

That is how you interpreted what i said, i actually said nothing about sensor resolution, all i said was that the equivalent lens on a larger sensor will offer higher resolution which is especially true wide open, wether or not they should use a higher pixel count on that larger sensor to better take advantage of the higher resolution from the lens is a separate issue.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

I do know that a super quality lens on the LX7 sensor will equal or better a very low quality lens on aps-c but it will also be significantly larger and more expensive to do so which is why i cant really see the point in that. If you are going to invest in a high quality lens then why would you waste it by sabotaging it's resolution by making it for a small sensor?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

Note that the rodenstock 150mm F/5.6 lens is actually smaller and lighter than the leica 35mm F/1.4 lens.

Of course it has to be positioned much further away from the film and it is exactly that distance i use to estimate what the largest sensor size is that can be used with a sensible retractable barrel size for a given lens spec.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=42068016

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

The problem with your entire argument is summed up nicely by something you posted a few hours ago as yet another reaction to my point, quoting you:

"I do know that a super quality lens on the LX7 sensor will equal or better a very low quality lens on aps-c but it will also be significantly larger and more expensive to do so which is why i cant really see the point in that. If you are going to invest in a high quality lens then why would you waste it by sabotaging it's resolution by making it for a small sensor?"

Guess what this LX7 is likely to have a super quality lens, just like the LX5 does and the Samsung TL500 (EX1 in Europe) and now the new Samsung EX2.

You originally made a preposterous claim, and now you've made the exact point that affirms the preposterousness of the original claim.

Duh, lenses have different diffractions and imperfections. Or put differently: My LX5 pictures are clearer and sharper with better colour than what comes out of my Canon G6--printed same DPI.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

I do know that a super quality lens on the LX7 sensor will equal or better a very low quality lens on aps-c but it will also be significantly larger and more expensive to do so which is why i cant really see the point in that. If you are going to invest in a high quality lens then why would you waste it by sabotaging it's resolution by making it for a small sensor?

So you do not see the logic in this at all?
You consider it logical to use a large expensive lens design on a tiny sensor to possibly match the quality of a much more compact really cheap lens design on aps-c?

You do not see that even if this is possible that a quality lens on aps-c would be far superior? Which is the point i was making after all...

Did you even bother to compare the large format lenses to the leica's?

I think you simply still dont understand how optical quality scales with sensor size.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

"You originally made a preposterous claim, and now you've made the exact point that affirms the preposterousness of the original claim."

You keep replying as if i was referring specifically to the quality of this particular lens as being horrible as compared to other F1.4 lenses perhaps when i made it quite clear many times already that i intended that F1.4 lenses in general are horrible or inferior to higher F-number designs.

You just keep completely missing the point and keep replying based on your own wrong interpretation of what i said.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

"The problem with your entire argument is summed up nicely by something you posted a few hours ago as yet another reaction to my point"

I would really like to know what your point is exactly, you dont seem to have made any.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

Mal82:

And a second preposterous claim by you: That F1.4 lenses are horrible.

Just try to familiarize yourself with actual lenses instead of paper claims and data sheets before making less than informed claims.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

What exactly is your point? Do you just want to argue? I actually have something meaningful to say... Apparently you didnt notice, you were too busy protecting your ego.

Both the canon 50mm F/1.4 review i linked to and the leica F/1.4 data sheets show that these lenses have over twice the resolution stopped down to f/5.6-8 than at F/1.4. And i should add: before you go claim that they have this high resolution stopped down is because of their ultra high quality, let me remind you that the F/2.5 lenses have the same resolution stopped down to F/5.6-8 so there is absolutely nothing superior about the quality of the F/1.4 lenses.

How can you still seriously claim that F/1.4 is not a horrible compromise for resolution?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

"And a second preposterous claim by you: That F1.4 lenses are horrible."

What exactly was my first preposterous claim again? The one that you imagined i made?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 21, 2012)

Ill quote professor999:

"HowaboutRAW,

In fact, each time someone disagrees with you you move the goalposts. I throw cold water on your hypothesis and you scramble to find another which will hold water."

0 upvotes
MMehresUSA
By MMehresUSA (Jul 18, 2012)

This has some nice features, but it is not to conclude that the Sony RX-100 is the superior product. The Sony offers a sensor 3-4x the size but at dimensions and weight that are about 33% smaller.

Also, although I do love the concept of aperture rings on film and larger sensored cameras, the concept of aperture control over small sensored cameras is a gimmick because these cameras get no depth of field anyway and diffraction sets in very very early, at f4 or f5.6. In this respect, the Rx100 and S100 have a better approach to the ring in that they are programmable to perform many different functions such as zoom.

1 upvote
jorg14
By jorg14 (Jul 18, 2012)

I shoot a lot of macro and am looking for a broad depth of field in an easy to carry camera with low light capability... so this camera would be perfect.
A lot of people who run a camera down on it's specs. may not consider what others are using the camera for.

1 upvote
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Jul 18, 2012)

No doubt that Sony did a great job in slotting a relatively large sensor in a very compact body. But when you do a comparison with the Panasonic, you have to put that in perspective: In terms of shutter speeds / total light gathering the Sony only has a 1 stop advantage at the wideangle setting and actually a disadvantage at the tele end. Plus there is the Sony's rather pointless high pixel count, which, however deep your faith in pixel dimension dependence of an image's noise may be, could limit the Sony even more.

And while the Leica lenses' wideangle is considerably wider than the Zeiss' (even more so if you like to shoot 16x9, which would necessitate cropping of the Sony files), tele is more or less the same.

1 upvote
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Jul 18, 2012)

Regarding size, for me the borderline is the Canon S100. Thicker than that and, to my taste, it doesn't matter anymore in terms of pocketability. And yes, while the Panasonic may be 1cm thicker from display back to lens front, it as at least some sort of grip to hold on to while the Sony needs one retrofitted.

Dimensions even level out more as soon as you add the mandatory viewfinders to both the Panasonic and the Sony ... uups, can't do that with the Sony ... so how am I actually supposed to shoot with it?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Oh, look the Panasonic takes an EVF or a hotshoe flash--two possibilities missing from the Sony RX100.

Sure at ISOs below 1000, and in well illuminated situations, the Sony is likely to best the Panasonic LX7 and the Samsung EX2--however pocket cameras are sometimes used in say social situations in dark restaurants. Looks like both the Samsung and the Panasonic may do better than the more expensive Sony in those situations. Too bad Sony crammed so many pixels into its sensor and too bad Sony didn't include the possibility of an EVF.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 18, 2012)

Having no EVF and external flash keeps down the size and weight.
In a dark restaurant neither would be necessary anyway. Simply use the onboard flash.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Professor999--

Let's see: A hotshoe and the electronics to support it don't add much weight.

Then one big reason people use EVFs is shooting outdoors in bright light. So Sony failed to account for daylight shooting. Kinda of dumb for a camera limited to ISO 1600.

Note well: Built in flashes rarely do bonce and aren't real powerful beyond about 5 feet anyhow.

So in a dark restaurant with someone signing on stage high ISO capacity is much more important than Sony's stupid 20MP count. Or if you can use flash, then a built in one simply will not do. And then things sure look better with the flash bounced off the ceiling.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 18, 2012)

HowaboutRAW,

Let's see,

Hotshoe doesn't weigh much but a halfway decent flash does, even Panny's own Panasonic DMW-FL220 is bigger than the camera and weighs almost as much and NOTE WELL, doesn't bounce!

No EVF, again you're right but the panny's are expensive and if you're going to shoot in bright sunlight it's not insurmountable. We're not doing a Pro shoot with it are we?

Finally your first post says a social situation in a dark restaurant, (I'm thinking dinner with friends), so a large flash and EVF aren't necessary.

In your reply to my post suddenly it's become a signing on a stage in a dark restaurant. You're kidding, me, right!

A guy on a stage in a dark restaraunt and you want his picture while he's signing and you take your compact with flash on top! Why not take a small DSLR.

Or you can shoot at high ISO, good luck with that!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Pro999--

Nope I'm allowed to change the conditions in the hypothetical restaurant.

Still not getting this point are you? The hotshoe itself doesn't weigh much and it was a mistake for Sony to leave it off. I wasn't commenting on the weight of an external flash, just the lack of that possibility for the Sony RX100.

Nope, EVFs make shooting in bright daylight much easier, articulated view screens can also help. The RX100 has neither.

Now about an LX7 disappointment: From the raws I've seen, and extracted, the LX7 isn't really usable at ISO 1600. Too bad with the latest firmware, the LX5 is perfectly useable up through ISO 1000.

Perhaps there'll be a fix.

$149 for an EVF isn't that much, though on the LX5 Panasonic's EVF lags too much--could have been fixed. Remember how much the EVF for the Sony Nex 5n costs when making claims about expensive EVFs.

Because few small DSLRs can do the job--it's even a stretch for a D7000.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 19, 2012)

HowaboutRAW,

In fact, each time someone disagrees with you you move the goalposts. I throw cold water on your hypothesis and you scramble to find another which will hold water.

It's you whose not getting it. You wrote 'the hotshoe AND the ELECTRONICS that support it don't add much weight' YOUR WORDS! Were you referring to weight of a flash? The weight of the electronics i.e. flash are substantial. If, by electronics you don't mean a flash then what's the point of the hotshoe in dim light in the first place.

An EVF can make shooting easier in bright light but not essential as I wrote. Are you saying it's not possible? No, you're saying it's easier. Exactly! The point I made was that an EVF is a sizeable outlay on top of an already expensive camera and not 100 per cent necessary.

In fact, in your last line you shoot yourself in the foot. You wouldn't really use ant type of compact for the hypothesis you suggested, you'd use a DSLR

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

Professor999:

If I were referring to the weight of the external flash or the external EVF, then I would have referred to that weight and those items, not simply the hotshoe and supporting electronics.

That there are internal electronics supporting the hotshoe is not news to anyone, except it seems you.

So no you've made up a "moved goalpost" claim to buttress your still invalid claim. And the propensity to make things up doesn't do much for your case.

Your last odd paragraph:

There are APSC sensored cameras that use external EVFs, for example the Samsung NX100 and the Sony Nex 5n. Those are not DSLRs.

Remaining problems with the Sony RX100:

The problem is that this compact from Sony could have been a much better camera with the possibility of an
EVF and fewer MPs would have made it much more usable in lowlight conditions--as the Nikon 1s are.

EVFs in bright light:

Never said it was absolutely necessary to use an EVF in bright light,, just easier.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 21, 2012)

HowaboutRAW,

If you reread my last post I wrote ,

"If, by electronics you don't mean a flash then what's the point of the hotshoe in dim light in the first place."

If you don't include the size and weight of the flash then the presence of a hotshoe is a moot point (in a dark restaurant). If you do include them then as I said there will be a substantial increase in size and weight due to the flash as well as a supplementary cost. Right?

I gave TWO possible definitions of the word 'electronics' i.e. that integrated within the camera to support a hotshoe OR that of the external flash.

No moved goalposts, in fact, I interpreted your post in two different ways to cover both of the above definitions.

RE my last paragraph made no reference to EVF's!

EVF's in bright light, never said you did. REREAD my post, I wrote it wasn't essential.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

Pro999:

You most certainly did not spell out internal electronics. One of the reasons Sony most assuredly did away with the hot shoe was to save weight and some of that savings would come from internal electronics.

Clearly you don't know how engineers shave weight from weight sensitive items--like small cameras, automobiles, highend bicycles, Boeing 747s, etc.

Please stop prevaricating to make your claims seem valid. You've done that twice now.

No, your last paragraph introduced what you claim is necessary, for what I'm was never sure; you started on about dslrs. So I had to think you were thinking lowlight, so then of course I'm going to point out that there are APSC mirrorless cameras that accept external EVFs. (I guess you could be espousing using a dslr in bright sunlight too.)

You seem confused about cameras and engineering, instead of attacking me, try studying up on the subject.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 21, 2012)

Howabout Raw,
I implied. Didn't think it needed spelliing out.
Your first post,"Let's see: A hotshoe and the electronics to support it don't add much weight."
Your last post, "One of the reasons Sony most assuredly did away with the hot shoe was to save weight and some of that savings would come from internal electronics."
Make up your mind.
No, You introduced DSLRs in your previous post. I wondered why myself when the dicussion is about compacts.
Your last post adds nothing to the discussion except to call into question my knowledge and intelligence.
Who's attacking who?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

No this discussing is not only about compacts.

You still appear confused.

That's "whom", and it's you.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 21, 2012)

Wow!
Another post and nothing relevant to add.
Confronted with the contradiction of your own posts and now you are reduced to point the of correcting my grammar.
You are not doing your reputation on this site any good.
Oh, and I believe you meant to write discussion not discussing.
One has to wonder if the mistakes you make are not only related to spelling.
People in glass houses...

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 22, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&message=42052267&changemode=1

0 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 18, 2012)

Smaller sensor. Forget about it. Faster lens. How often does anyone really need that? Go on, count the number of shots you've done in the last month that needed the faster lens. It isn't going to give you DOF flexibility either.

1 upvote
RayZhao
By RayZhao (Jul 18, 2012)

the wide length ratio has changed. It doesn't affect sensor square too much though.

0 upvotes
balios
By balios (Jul 18, 2012)

90% of my LX5 shots and video are in low light, where I need as fast a lens as possible. Even with the slightly smaller sensor, if the LX7 is F1.4 on the wide end, that's full ISO stop reduction which makes a far bigger difference in image quality.

I would trade my LX5 for the LX7 in a heartbeat as long as it retains the LX5's ability to record extremely high audio levels without cutting out.

3 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 18, 2012)

You are probably the exception, especially on the video front.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Tom Goodman:

Gee, I use F1.4 on an APSC sensor all the time--it's a low light thing, not simply about DOF.

Back in my 35mm film days I used F1.0 frequently.

And F2.0 was one reason I bought the LX5 instead of a later F2.8 Canon G series.

balios:

And another nice thing about video with the LX5 is full manual control including gain/ISO.

3 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 18, 2012)

We aren't discussing APSC sensors.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 18, 2012)

On compact camera's you actually need to shoot wide open or close to wide open a lot more than on larger sensor camera's with bigger aperture lenses.
The extreme example is cell phones which need to shoot wide open all the time. Hence the resolution provided by the lens wide open on compacts is crucial which means f1.4 is indeed a horrible choice for compact camera's which is based purely on marketing.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Jul 18, 2012)

As I said above: A mere 1 stop advantage for the Sony at the wide end (not including sensor resolution) and actually a disadvantage at the tele end.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Tom Goodman:

No Tom we were discussing F stops, and there was no sensor limitation to your assertion about people not using F1.4, so bringing up an APSC is just fine. And you remain wrong about how many use F1.4.

Also note I pointed out that I bought an LX5 because of the F2.0 lens. And the LX5 is not an APSC sensored camera.

So it's just that your claims about F stops may apply to you, but not to many who regularly use cameras.

4 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

Guys, which will allow me to have more defocused backgrounds -bokeh- in your opinion?
RX100 or LX7?
That is what I want it for.
My Olympus XZ-1, with f1.8 and an 1/1.63" sensor, isn't giving me any, unless I do macro, and then, only a bit. (am I answering my own question here?)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Timmbits:

The Sony RX100. But then of course an APSC sensored camera will beat that for shallow depth of field at wide apertures.

Remember too that lens focal length matters too. F2.8 at say 24mm has a shallower depth of field than F2.8 at say 80mm. So that Sony will have the best shallow depth of field with the lens at its widest and the aperture fully open, not with the lens zoomed an the aperture sort of opened.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 18, 2012)

I was particularly impressed with the "many who regularly use cameras" line, HowaboutRAW. How often do you use a camera? Twice a day? Five hundred frames a day? Do you know how often I use a camera? The internet makes those sort of throw-away insults possible.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

Tom Goodman--

I shoot maybe 50 to 100 raws a week, sometimes many more.

That's regularly enough for me to make claims about shooting.

It would be simpler if you admitted your mistakes about F stops and reasons for wide apertures being used and moved on. You made a claim that really only applies to your very blinkered world view about still cameras and extrapolated that to mean everyone one who uses a camera with any frequency.

Even if you shot something like 500 raws a day, I wouldn't take your claims about lenses too seriously because of the mistake you made.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jul 19, 2012)

Most of my shots are at max. aperture, starting from F1.8.
Why? Because I keep ISO at 100.

0 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 20, 2012)

Anyone shooting at maximum aperture most of the time is using the weaker capabilities of most lenses. Keeping ISO at 100 offers no significant advantage over bumping it up to 200 0r 250 and forces you to use apertures that are not optimal. HowaboutRAW, having set himself as the expert in these matters, can now have the floor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

Tom Goodman:

Right it's not news that lenses are sharper stopped down, but there are big reasons, both aesthetic and technical, for using wide open lenses. Yep I've used an F1.0 lens in the film past.

You simply can't claim that people don't/shouldn't use F1.4 lenses wide open, or you can make that claim, but then no one should treat your photo gear pronouncements with any seriousness.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Jul 22, 2012)

"Keeping ISO at 100 offers no significant advantage over bumping it up to 200 0r 250 and forces you to use apertures that are not optimal."

This is true for larger sensors of m43 and above but not for the sensor size of this camera so i agree with Michael_13 that being able to shoot wide open to keep iso as low as possible is crucial on compacts. Of course as you say the quality benefit is lost if the lens loses resolution wide open.

Keep in mind that this lens wide open is only F7 equivalent, it is still a very small aperture which cannot be considered the same as F1.4 on full frame.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AndersHansen
By AndersHansen (Jul 18, 2012)

Is the 1/1000th flash sync retained from it's predecessors?

The switch from CCD to MOS indicates it is not. Too bad. The LX3 is a great fun camera for shooting "sunny 16" days because of the combination of sync speed and hot shoe.

I had hoped for articulated LCD, and largely unchanged specs otherwise. LX7 looks better than LX5 for almost anyone but me, but I'll probably skip it if the insanely fun sync speed is now gone.

The search for a pocketable, articulated LCD, 1/500 or faster sync speed, large aperture camera continues ;-)

0 upvotes
AndersHansen
By AndersHansen (Jul 18, 2012)

Edit: LX3/5 x-sync is actually a whopping 1/2000th of a second.

1/1000th is the limit of the RF triggers I use.

0 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Jul 18, 2012)

60% larger and 40% heavier than the RX100.
It has some nice functions like the ND filter and time lapse and of course the lens is great but everybody will be comparing it to the new star and I think Pana was not ambitious enough.
Maybe they were caught off guard by the RX100.
As I see it they can only compete on price.
But the thing is- the RX100 is pocketable, the LX7 isn't.

10 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jul 18, 2012)

I take ND filter and ND filter as SUPER features for cameras like that. With P&S you can not close diafragm till f/22, so ND is almost "must have". Time lapse is much more important than stupid HDR or Panorama, at least at the modern state of technology.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 18, 2012)

GeorgeZ:

Does the Sony RX100 have a hotshoe that can take an EVF?

Though I do wonder if Panasonic has fixed the silly lens cap of the LX5?

0 upvotes
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (Jul 18, 2012)

LX7 has more interesting features and is likely to provide cleaner images, in spite of its smaller sensor, since the RX100 has (too) many MP and a slower lens.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 18, 2012)

Howabout RAW-
The Sony RX100 doesn't have a hotshoe for an EVF.
The LX7 does have a hotshoe but no EVF unless you want to shell out between 140-200 pounds for it.
Don't forget an external flash which can bounce and you're looking at around 800-900 pounds!

0 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (Jul 19, 2012)

But probably you cannot use the RX100 one-handedly without sticking a grip on it...
And the LX7 has a brighter lens. So ISO 800 on LX7 would have to compete with ISO 1600 on RX100 regarding low light usage :-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jul 21, 2012)

Professor999:

You're flash pricing is way incorrect.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 21, 2012)

HowaboutRaw
OK so,
800-900 pounds total
lx7 costs 449 pounds.
EVF costs 130 pounds.
So if total cost is 800-900 pounds including flash that means the flash should cost between 220 and 320 pounds which they do.
Once again in your eagerness to be rude and put down other posters you put yourself in a bad light and prove yourself to be wrong.
Look before you leap...
or maybe enquire instead of trying to be 'flashy'.

1 upvote
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Jul 18, 2012)

the samples are quite impressive, especially low light at ISO1600 and 3200. If you recall, high ISO above 200 was not LX3's strongest forte. In fact it sucked above ISO400, but because of bright F/2.0 lens, we did not have to resort to high ISO many times. This time, ISO1600 looks remarkable and ISO3200 not bad! ANd the lens is brighter! Panasonic must be doing some clever noise reduction at high isos. On the other hand they resisted increasing MPs and left it at 10MP, which maybe a blessing and a curse. A blessing because they can afford to again include a small sensor. A curse because people will be questioning this decision, in fact, are there are current DSLR or Point and Shoot in production with that low of MPs?

0 upvotes
Neimo
By Neimo (Jul 18, 2012)

The Fujifilm X10 is 12MP, but the fantastic low light mode is 6MP.

1 upvote
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Jul 18, 2012)

Looks like this will be the King of small sensor compacts!
Looks a great package. However there is a new King of compacts on the block, the RX100 (unless you shoot jpg and have yellow in your photos)

1 upvote
ybai011
By ybai011 (Jul 18, 2012)

From the spec sheet, it didn't look much different. But if you own LX5, you know the image output is way improved!

LX7 retain details much better, particularly the wide-angle landscape shot in the samples, you can see it has much better details than LX5, far less processing artifacts.

I was nervous about change from CCD to CMOS. Because CCD is known for certain look in image quality. but LX7 did a remarkable job. the new image quality is also very pleasing, and color looks natural.

LX5 was known to be a RAW camera, you need to shoot raw to get decent image . But LX7 JPEG seems very high quality and usable out of box. :-)

Though I didn't see any high ISO images, but noise from 100-400 seems way down and also showing less noise reduction artifacts. I guess the sensor is about a stop ahead of the old sensor. CMOS sensor is much more capable of handle low light situation than CCD.

That's my two cents.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

This isn't about the sensor, it's the brighter lens, that is responsible for it being the "stop ahead" that you mention.

1 upvote
Tom_A
By Tom_A (Jul 20, 2012)

Timmbits, not necessarily. The brighter lens only makes a difference when you use it at f1.4 compared to f2 of the LX5. If you set both cameras to f2, then the image quality comparison depends on (a) the respective optical quality of the lenses (not the brightness) and (b) indeed the sensor quality.
In this respect it is not unreasonable to expect that the LX7 which has the same number of pixels and only a slighlty smalle surface sensor, AND it also benefits from 2 years of further evolution of sensor technology, might indeed be a stop (or more) better for noise when used at the same aperture.
All in all, I expect that the LX7 will be 2 stops more usable than the LX5: 1 stop for the brighter lens and (at least) 1 stop for the more modern sensor. 2 stops makes a lot of difference in practical low light shooting.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jul 18, 2012)

If you are yearning for shallow DOF in a compact, you've got the wrong tool.
It's simply impossible to take meaningful shallow DOF pictures with it, unless your BF / GF is an ant.

For normal sized objects, I found that even M43 with kit lens will give a distracting half-blurred blur. I'd just wish everything was in focus.

3 upvotes
Anonymous Gerbil
By Anonymous Gerbil (Jul 18, 2012)

Thats a pretty good f-number across the range. This is arguably more useful than a 2.3x (or whatever it is) larger sensor. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I suspect LX7 can manage more than 2x the light that RX100 can at just about any comparable focal length.

I've slowly gotten wise to how these companies (often) come up with such great apertures: it seems to be free given a wide enough angle. However once they are nearer 35mm equiv, they are also much nearer f2.8 just like common pocket cameras had for ages (at 35mm equiv). Thats not progress if you don't like wide angle...

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

Without doing the actual math...
the Panasonic's lens gets about double the light, while at f1.8 the RX100 gets four times the light as it's sensor is about four times the size.
So, one relative to the other, the RX100 would have a 2 times advantage over the LX7, at wide angle. but not at full zoom.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (Jul 20, 2012)

Timmbits, there is no advantage of RX 100 at wide angle. when both cameras are set at say ISO 100 and f1.8 and then shooting the same scene, they will choose the same shutter speed. Yes the Sony's lens will capture more light but needs to distribute it over a larger surface. Another way to look at it is, if you use a separate hand light meter, that thing doesn't know about image size, yet it can inform you about f-stop/shutter speed combinations.
The fact that the LX7 opens at 1.4 it will be able at the wide angle and with the same ISO to shoot pictures at a desirable higher shutter speed than a camera with a slower lens.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jul 18, 2012)

Finally they've heard me. Super low aperture lens with good focal range on the pocket camera! I hope the sensor is not worse than in older LX3 and LX5.

2 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Jul 18, 2012)

...so who were the people saying the lx7 would have a 1" sensor when beating on the ex2?

not that it'll be a bad camera; i'm just trying to point out the stupidity of how people beat down on samsung just cause it didn't have a 1" sensor.

smaller sensor, bright lens, cheaper price, is clearly still a viable route for some.

oh yeah, and FINALLY panasonic stops advertising all over their camera bodies. why they felt the need to slap red letters on their camera bodies, i don't know. they still have white letters...which is better imo, but still unnecessary.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

I beat down on Korean companies because their government is boosting trade by resuming whaling. As long as any competitor to a Korean product has something, I'm participating in the boycott of Korean products, in the hopes our voices will be heard and help the government change their mind.

1 upvote
In hydraulis
By In hydraulis (Jul 18, 2012)

I hope you're consistent in your application of the mighty beat down. Sign of integrity.

In which case, I'm guessing Japanese goods are out, too. Whaling and all, you know.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MoltenP
By MoltenP (Jul 18, 2012)

Exciting news. I look forward to the reviews. Technology marches forward. Small sensors are getting better folks so don't put too much thought into sensor size until the reviews come out.

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

that's just myopic

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jul 18, 2012)

Well its good they retained the multi aspect sensor!

2 upvotes
Kuturgan
By Kuturgan (Jul 18, 2012)

I'd get Samsung EX2F than this one.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jul 18, 2012)

How come?

I know one thing, the EX2F has a better grip. That means a lot to the working photographer, I'll tell you that much!

C

0 upvotes
Kuturgan
By Kuturgan (Jul 18, 2012)

EX2F has a bigger BSI sensor, articulated AMOLED screen, WIFI, and I guess it will cost less than LX7. The last one is only better in tele aperture and video recording 1080p/60i vs 1080p/30i.

4 upvotes
exPanasonic fan
By exPanasonic fan (Jul 18, 2012)

dont know if i would pick the Samsung EX2F or the sony rx100.
but if i look to the lx7, I am realy disappointed with panasonic lx7, the lx7 is a minor upgrade to the lx5 that i own, 3 things are better the tele aperture, shutter speed and 60p video recording but this is not what a modern user ask.
but the down sides are:
bigger camera(are u kidding me?), still a lens cap, the photo sample from this website 3dnews.ru/, it seems it has still a yellow teint.
ok the purple ccd sensor lines are gone thats great if u own a lx5 but not enough.

Here is why i will choose a camera for a bigger sensor!
the niko j1/v1 both the same camera have 1 inch cmos sensor like the sony rx100 but it is smaller then the lx5 and maybe
smaller than the lx7 this 2 videos realy impressed my by 1 inch sensor low light performance and natural colors! remember the sony rx100 have

the same sensor like the nikon j1/v1
youtube.com/watch?v=eFgqRtrRT1w
youtube.com/watch?v=3odVW489ozM

2 upvotes
exPanasonic fan
By exPanasonic fan (Jul 18, 2012)

U forgot that new samsung camera's from last year have this cool feature: Remote Viewfinder, if u own a smartphone or android phone u can control ur camera through a app. not only just camera's but tv's too. and u can transfer ur photo from the camera to the phone. this is what i call inovation,youtube.com/watch?v=N-VhppU0LMA
sry panasonic but after i ownd the panasonic lx7 and the panasonic zx1(my first 2 cameras ever, i think i am going to another brand but wich one i dont know. waiting for nikon, fuji, olympius and the comparisions between lx7, EX2F and the sony rx100
waiting for the photokina 2012 event in september.

what i prefer are bigger sensor look at the 2 video i posted about the nikon, nice natural colors, the rx100 have the same size sensor. f1.4 or f1.8. wifi/nfc and ofcourse 24mm

take a look at this 2 sony user with great rx100 low light videos
youtube.com/user/siglo77
youtube.com/user/ja1rsi

the panasonic lx7 is disgrace compared to the tru compact rx100 and EX2F

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
exPanasonic fan
By exPanasonic fan (Jul 18, 2012)

correction:
i ownd the panasonic lx5 and the panasonic zx1

0 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes WIFI would have been cool on the LX7!

But I will probably chose the LX7 nevertheless.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

Smaller sensor, it looks like. Both have same 24-90 range but LX5 is 5.1-19.2mm and this LX7 is 4.7 to 17.7. That's a 5.1 vs 4.7x crop factor.

35mm equivalent apertures would be 7.1-11.7 vs 9.4-15.5 on the LX5.
RX100 is f4.9-13
XZ-1 is f8.5-11.8.
G1X is f5.2-10.7
m43 + kit lens is f7-11.2

Should be an interesting camera. Smaller sensor + faster lens can often be equal to slower lens on larger sensor.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jul 18, 2012)

Its a pretty impressive lens. If its sharp wide open, then it will be a winner!

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

Doh, I guess if I had read the preview before posting I would have seen they already made these calculations in a table for us on page 1.

2 upvotes
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (Jul 18, 2012)

@tkbslc

Just for the record, the LX7 is the only camera in your list with a 24mm-XX lens.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

The LX5 is 24-90, too, which is what that sentence was comparing to.

0 upvotes
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (Jul 18, 2012)

What a childish reply...

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jul 18, 2012)

All i Really wanted was a tilting flash like the GX1 for bounce. That sucks.... Everything else is nice

No WIFI also sucks....It would have been a nice to have feature.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Jul 18, 2012)

I was expecting at least F1.8 (or good old F2.0) and bigger sensor. But now it is a bit of a disappointment. At least still 24mm at the wide end.
I'd hate to pay too much for overpriced Sony RX100, but I guess it's a fate..

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

Some people are hard to please. F2.3 telephoto gives it a faster effective aperture than the Rx100 and the same physical size aperture.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

you do get "at least f1.8" !!!
you have f1.4 which is better!
you can down the aperture to f1.8 on a f1.4 if you want, but you can't do the inverse.
I agree that the sensor should have been larger, but panasonic chose to protect it's higher-profit models by not cannibalizing their marketshare prospects.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 18, 2012)

I like that Panasonic decided to stop allowing preorders until 30 days before availability. It's silly to force people to commit months in advance to a camera.I think it's reasonable for them to announce it early so they can have all their announcements on the same day.

1 upvote
Ivan Lietaert
By Ivan Lietaert (Jul 18, 2012)

I own the LX3, I still use it on family outings, when a bulky dslr is inapropriate.
Seeing this endless list of updated features on the LX7, I am really impressed. The most striking updated features to me are the dedicated video button, full hd video, stereo mike, 1:1 added to format switch and a cmos censor rather than the ccd (the ccd sensor on the lx3 suffers from terrible sensor blooming when shooting video of a strong light source).
I'm already sure the LX7 will deliver amazing stills and video, with great build quality and glass (Leica, stabilised).
For me, the two limitations of the LX3 were: 1) anything higher than iso 400 is too noisy and 2) due to the small sensor, the impossibility to blur the background when shooting portraits, like you can with an f1.4 lens on a large sensor dslr.
I'm pretty sure that the LX7 will have dealt with limitation 1, but I think limitation 2 will still be around.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

"endless list"? most of it is just updates of what was already on the LX5... but the most basic and important, a bigger sensor, is missing.

1 upvote
snowboarder
By snowboarder (Jul 18, 2012)

Seriously? So what's new again?

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

Duh, the extra stop of light!

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jul 18, 2012)

The clear thingy on the front that says f/1.4, to start.

1 upvote
snowboarder
By snowboarder (Jul 18, 2012)

Maybe it says f1.4, but with such a small sensor
it's meaningless. On RX100 it says f1.8, but with
larger sensor DOF is much shallower, image is cleaner
and way better. Hmmm, which one to choose...

6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

You don't get much DOF control with the RX100, either, especially on the wide end. 28mm f1.8 on the RX100 is like shooting 17mm f3.5 on a APS-C DSLR.

The long end of both this and the RX100 (and the XZ-1) will all have similar DOF control (And again it's like using a kit lens on a DSLR).

At least this camera has some nice touches like a hotshoe, the ability to us filters and an external viewfinder as well as a wider lens and multi-aspect sensor. If you want similar DOF control to an RX100 without using a barebones camera, this might be for you.

2 upvotes
exPanasonic fan
By exPanasonic fan (Jul 18, 2012)

@tkbslc
just look at this videos the nikon have natural colors with the same sensor size that the sony rx100 have.

youtube.com/watch?v=eFgqRtrRT1w
youtube.com/watch?v=3odVW489ozM

i prefer the rx100 over the lx7 even after i ownd 2 panasonic cameras(lx5 and zx1)

and take a look at the low light videos
youtube.com/user/siglo77
youtube.com/user/ja1rsi
another thing is the panasonic still seems to have a yellow teint in their photos, look at the post i posted about it.
http://www.dpreview.com/members/9469980250/comments

the samsung EX2F and the sony rx100 are now the king unbelievable, always though other brands were inferior but i started comparing with video and photo samples and i am realy impressed about the nikon j1/v1 sensor performance. in september/octorber i will make my decision wich camera is the best in minimum/max. aperture, connectivity, wide lens, and low light performance in video and photo and at last wich camera have the best natural colors.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jul 18, 2012)

"Maybe it says f1.4, but with such a small sensor
it's meaningless."

If you think that then buy the RX100, please. Sometimes we have to learn through experience, not listening to others or what we read.

Good luck.

C

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 18, 2012)

with a name like "exPanasonic Fan", I am sure we can trust your opinion is unbiased?

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jul 18, 2012)

hotshoe is a feature that is way out of the league of a small-sensor camera - it's just not pertinent.
all the arguments about what you will need this for, are negated by the presence of a tiny sensor.
if you are willing to accept a small sensor in the second half of 2012, then you really aren't searching for a better product in the first place.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
exPanasonic fan
By exPanasonic fan (Jul 18, 2012)

@tkbslc
how u dare to test my credibility, lets put your credibility and mine right on this site by webcaming mine and ur living! u joined since 2008 that dont means ur words weight more than mine, the fact i respond to this article, is because i am frustated about how little they innovate, what i mean to say we are living in crucial times where the smartphone are eating compact camera sales and look what the camera manufractures are doing just a little and asking a lot of money for minor upgrades, they can do alot more if they listing and research what people realy want and need, just take a look at the apps on ios and android market, they are innovating alot they are bringing change! yet the panason/samsun dont seems encourage that, wtf is samsung doing releasing 2 versions of camera one with wifi and the other doesnt support that, why not integrate wifi on all camera's and why not let people program more modes and apps for the cameras. lets take the challenge u and me go on webcam!

0 upvotes
exPanasonic fan
By exPanasonic fan (Jul 18, 2012)

@tkbslc
u liked ur own comment isnt? how is that?
u seems to forget that the most of the people that buy this camera or other compacts, nearly dont know something about the specifications and the store sellers know that. they dont nothing about DOF control and normal people that buy compact camera's never buy extras like hot shoe, viewfinder, and interchangeable lensen like u do, in fact ur opinion is meaningless. what people look for is COMPACT and NO BLUR and GOOD performance UNDER LOWLIGHT, yet with the lx7 people will put the lx7 aside because it is bulky and the competitors anticipate on that. the question is will people prefer panasonic because it is well know and popular or will they go for a great compact sony rx100 that is actualy better than the lx5? i think they will go for compact. but some people will take the samsung EX2F because the most well know specs are the 24mm and the f1.4 same like the panasonic and even better with wifi and remote control with smartphone. now u!

0 upvotes
Babya
By Babya (Jul 18, 2012)

Can the LX5'S battery be used in the LX7 or is it a new model? Excited to see F1.4 and a aperture ring.

Most other cameras of this type have a customisable ring around lens for changing aperture and multiple settings like zoom/focus instead of being focused on one setting type like aperture control

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Jul 18, 2012)

Big sensor vs. bright lens battle continues.

Nokia 808, D800 and RX100 are in my opinion the war forward.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Jul 18, 2012)

disappointing little camera, sensor is much smaller than recently launched premium compacts.

4 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jul 18, 2012)

The one?

The fuji x10 isnt really recently launched....and the sesnor isnt that much smaller then it.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jul 18, 2012)

Yeah cuz there isn't anything else to consider except sensor size. Slow down, think it through.

Rather have a faster lens than a larger sensor in this case- its simply more versatile to have a faster optic. Optical quality is likely going to run circles around the RX100 too.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Jul 18, 2012)

Faster lenses usually have worse optics. Canon 50mm F1.2 is worse than Canon's 50mm F1.4

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jul 18, 2012)

Not at 1.2! :)

5 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Jul 18, 2012)

Yeah, but wide open slower lens is usually better optically than the faster lens. Sony 50mm F1.8 blows the crap out of 50mm F1.4 when both are wide open.

0 upvotes
Ross Murphy
By Ross Murphy (Jul 18, 2012)

really....pretty funny

"Yeah, but wide open slower lens is usually better optically than the faster lens. Sony 50mm F1.8 blows the crap out of 50mm F1.4 when both are wide open"

1 upvote
Ross Murphy
By Ross Murphy (Jul 18, 2012)

even funnier

"Faster lenses usually have worse optics. Canon 50mm F1.2 is worse than Canon's 50mm F1.4"

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jul 18, 2012)

"Faster lenses usually have worse optics. Canon 50mm F1.2 is worse than Canon's 50mm F1.4"

On DSLRS with larger sensors, not compacts. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! Almost unbelievable.

Almost.

C

4 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Jul 18, 2012)

cgarrard wrote:
'Yeah cuz there isn't anything else to consider except sensor size. Slow down, think it through.'

The bigger the glass the more light passes through. The bigger the sensor the greater the optical definition that can be captured.

If we just look at maximum glass size (relative to widest focal length) between some cameras we find:

XZ1: 6.0 / 1.8 = 3.33mm
LX7: 4.7 / 1.4 = 3.35mm
X10: 7.1 / 2.0 = 3.55mm
G1X: 15.1 / 2.8 = 5.39mm
RX100: 10.4 / 1.8 = 5.77mm

Assuming all these lenses are sharp wide open, we then take into account that image quality and ISO performance falls drastically as you reduce sensor size, and we can see that Panasonic have a massive uphill battle in getting this camera to compete (in regards to image performance) with others in it's class.

Please also take into account that sensors are 2 dimensional and surface area is much more important than sensor length, and also that the Fuji sensor is an EXR.

0 upvotes
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (Jul 19, 2012)

@fmian

I disagree with you since you did't consider what follows:

1) the LX7 is the only camera in your list with a 24-XX lens

2) Here are the "maximum glass size" at max-tele focal lenght for the RX100 and the LX7:

LX7: 17,7 / 2,3 = 7,69
RX100: 37,1 / 4,9 = 7,57

3) The RX100 has got 20mp whereas the LX7 has got 10mp

Conclusion: I expect the LX7 to be as clean as the RX100 at wide end but cleaner at tele end.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
px1
By px1 (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm mystified. The Sony RX100 claims to have a 1.0" sensor, then further specifies it as "13.2mm X 8.8MM". Maybe my math is all wrong but that is nowhere near 1 inch.
In fact what I calc is a diagonal of about 16mm, which is about 2/3 inch.
In area comparison to a 1/1.7 inch square (a rough estimate of LX7's sensor size, I get the RX100's sensor area at 251 sq mm and LX7 at 223 sq mm.

Could someone else give it a try and see what you calc. I'll admit an error on my part if I'm shown it.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 227