Previous page Next page

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Hands-on Preview

July 2012 | By Andy Westlake


Preview based on a pre-production DMC-LX7

It's now four years since Panasonic almost single-handedly revived the enthusiast compact sector with the release of the Lumix DMC-LX3. With its fast wideangle zoom lens, relatively large sensor, and extensive manual control, it revitalized a moribund sector and sparked the release of a slew of competitors from the likes of Canon, Samsung and Olympus. These days every manufacturer worth its salt offers a fully-specced compact designed as a portable alternative for SLR users.

The DMC-LX5, released two years after the LX3, offered an extended zoom range and revised controls, but was always going to struggle to make quite the same impact against the increased competition. A perfectly attractive camera in its own right, it was caught in a slightly-uncomfortable middle ground between the pocketability of the Canon Powershot S95 and the versatility of the faster-lensed Olympus XZ-1, while arguably lacking a single key selling point of its own relative to its contemporaries.

With the launch of the DMC-LX7, Panasonic will be hoping to regain lost ground, and the route it has chosen is to retain the same form-factor but add the fastest lens we've yet seen on a compact camera. Its 24-90mm equivalent optic has an aperture range of F1.4-2.3, surpassing the recently-released Samsung EX2F's 24-80mm equivalent F1.4-2.7 at the long end. To make the most of the fast lens, Panasonic has added an aperture ring around the lens barrel, alongside a 3-stop neutral density filter that has its own external control point. The lens also employs Panasonic's Nano Surface Coating to reduce flare and ghosting.

The LX7 gets a new sensor, a 'High Sensitivity MOS' design that's slightly smaller than the LX5's CCD (1/1.7" type vs 1/1.63", or roughly 80% of the area). As before this offers multiple aspect ratios - 16:9, 3:2, 4:3 - that use different crops from the overall sensor area to give the same diagonal angle of view. These are easily selected using a switch on the top of the lens, which also has a 1:1 position that's effectively cropped-down from the 4:3 frame. Continuous shooting specs are impressively high; 11 fps at full resolution with focus and exposure fixed, or 5 fps with tracking AF, compared to the LX5's 2.5 fps.

The MOS sensor enables a dramatically-improved video specification, with the LX7 capable of recording Full HD video in either the AVCHD Progressive or MP4 formats. Frame rates depend on your region - the European model records AVCHD at 50 fps and MP4 at 25fps, while the US model runs at 60 fps and 30 fps respectively. The lens can zoom and refocus during recording too. Sound is provided by a stereo microphone that's squeezed onto the top plate in front of the hot-shoe; behind this on the back of the camera is a port for the DMW-LVF2 electronic viewfinder (as used by the Lumix G DMC-GX1). With a 1,440K dot-equivalent resolution, this is a far superior unit to the LX5's LVF1.

Beyond this the LX7 offers a number of additional improvements, including a dual-axis onscreen electronic level, time lapse shooting, and Panasonic's image-processing 'Creative Controls'. The screen is higher resolution, with an anti-reflective coating; surprisingly, though, it's not touch sensitive, unlike those on Panasonic's Lumix G Micro Four Thirds models and its latest TZ-series travelzooms. Overall, though, the LX7 looks like a very solid update to LX5.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 key features

  • Fast F1.4 - F2.3, 24-90mm equivalent lens
  • Built-in 3 stop neutral density filter
  • 10.1 MP multi-aspect ratio 'High Sensitivity MOS' sensor (1/1.7"-type, 12.7 MP total)
  • ISO 80-12800
  • Aperture ring around lens barrel, combined ND/manual focus control on rear
  • 11 fps continuous shooting, 5 fps with AF tracking
  • 920K dots 3" screen with Anti-Reflective coating
  • Full HD 60p/50p video, built-in stereo microphones
  • Port for DMW-LVF2 accessory electronic viewfinder

Multiple aspect ratio sensor

Like the LX5 and the Micro Four Thirds Lumix G DMC-GH2 (and the LX3 and GH1 before them), the LX7 uses a multi-aspect ratio sensor. It's slightly 'oversized', meaning that at any given aspect ratio the camera only uses a crop from the total available sensor area. It's designated as a '1/1.7" type' sensor, which means that at 4:3 the active area is about the same as a conventional 1/1.8" type.

4:3 3:2 16:9 1:1

At first sight this approach may seem strange, but the result is that the lens offers the same diagonal angle of view regardless of the selected aspect ratio (apart from 1:1), making it much easier to get a feel for the behavior of the lens. It also means you make the most of the sensor area, getting similar pixel counts in all modes.

Sensor sizes compared

To put the LX7's slightly-smaller sensor in perspective, here it is compared in size to those found in some other enthusiast compact cameras. It's substantially smaller than the 1" sensor Sony has used in its DSC-RX100, or indeed the Fujifilm X10's 2/3" EXR-CMOS. But it's only fractionally smaller than the LX5's CCD, and the difference is more-than-made-up by the LX7's stop-faster lens.

The LX7's 1/1.7"-type sensor is smaller than the LX5's 1/1.63"-type, but not by very much. (Note that the Olympus XZ-1 and the Samsung EX-2F both use a similar sensor area to the LX5's 4:3 crop.)

Enthusiast compacts: lenses, sensors and background blur

The table below compares the LX7's lens specifications and sensor size against its predecessor and a number of other enthusiast-orientated compact cameras. Along with the familiar 35mm-equivalent focal length, we've also included a 35mm-equivalent aperture range, which gives some idea of the control over depth of field offered by each camera's lens.

  Sensor area, mm2
(dimensions)
Focal length range Focal length range (equiv.) Aperture range Aperture range (equiv.)* Dimensions, mm
Panasonic DMC-LX7 34**
(6.7x5.1)
4.7-17.7mm 24-90mm F1.4-2.3 F7.1-11.7 111x76x46
Panasonic DMC-LX5 41**
(7.4x5.6)
5.1-19.2mm 24-90mm F2.0-3.3 F9.4-15.5 110x66x43
Samsung EX2F 41
(7.4x5.6)
5.2-17.2mm 24-80mm F1.4-2.7 F6.5-12.5 112x62x45
Sony
DSC-RX100
116
(13.2x8.8)
10-37mm 28-100mm F1.8-4.9 F4.9-13.4 101x58x36
Olympus
XZ-1
41***
(7.4x5.6)
6.0-24mm 28-112mm F1.8-2.5 F8.5-11.8 111x65x42
Fujifilm X10 58
(8.8x6.6)
7.1-28mm 28-112mm F2.0-2.8 F7.9-11 117x70x57
Canon S100 41
(7.4x5.6)
5.2-26mm 24-120mm F2.0-5.9 F9.3-27.4 99x60x27

* Equivalent aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account.
** Figure based on 4:3 aspect ratio mode
*** Figure takes into account that the XZ-1 uses a crop from a 1/1.63" sensor.

Photographers tend to be interested in how well a lens can blur backgrounds when shooting portraits at full telephoto, and in this regard the LX7's 17.7mm F2.3 will behave much like a 90mm F11.7 lens on a full frame camera. This places it a little behind the likes of the Olympus XZ-1 and Fujifilm X10, because these cameras offer longer telephoto ends, but noticeably ahead of the LX5. One point of interest here is that the Sony RX100's larger sensor offers no practical advantage in this respect, because of its lens's F4.9 telephoto end. Interestingly the LX7 should also behave very similarly to a typical Micro Four Thirds 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 kit zoom for its ability to blur backgrounds.

The equivalent apertures also give a rough idea of how the cameras might compare in low light; to a degree they indicate how far a larger sensor should be offset by a faster lens. Obviously this isn't the whole story; the characteristics of the individual sensors matters too, as does the quality of in-camera processing for JPEG shooters. But in principle the LX7 should compare favourably to its competitors in this regard.

Size compared to the Fujifilm X10, Olympus XZ-1 and Canon Powershot S100

Here we're showing the LX7 side-by-side with some of its most-obvious competitors, and trying to give an idea of their relative sizes with the lenses retracted for carrying. In this company the Fujifilm X10 is the biggest camera, but it does have the largest sensor, a mechanical zoom ring and an optical viewfinder. The Olympus XZ-1 is almost exactly the same size as the LX7, with the main difference being its longer but less-wide 28-112mm equivalent lens. Meanwhile the Canon Powershot S100 is the smallest of all here, but offers no hot shoe or external viewfinder option and has the slowest (but widest-range) lens.

Left to right: Fujifilm X10, Olympus XZ-1, Panasonic Lumix DMX-LX7, Canon Powershot S100.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2011 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 175
12
Bora Cyprus
By Bora Cyprus (5 months ago)

I wish a 1 inch sensor with that fast lens on next model. It would be better than sony RX1. Panasonic, please hear me. :)

2 upvotes
OnLineJones
By OnLineJones (5 months ago)

I have an LX3 that needs repairing and I could buy the LX7 for around £120 more than the cost of the repairs. I prefer the colours I get from my LX3 to the sample images here. Would people advise getting the LX3 repaired or buying a new LX7?

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (6 months ago)

I own one LX5. I love the camera + electronic viewfinder & adapter ring + filters that I bought. I was so happy to see the LX7 appear, then I disenchanted when I learned that other than the battery and the pixel count, they both had nothing else in common that could be shared. I'm talking about serious accessories such as the electronic viewfinder and the filter size adapters, which I firmly believe should be be standardized for the LX family.
I feel a bit frustrated, wouldn't you?

2 upvotes
Agradecido
By Agradecido (3 months ago)

Sure my friend! it's a shame that they can't share accesories between them! TOO BAD PANASONIC!

1 upvote
thecrowR
By thecrowR (7 months ago)

Hope to have second preview sample gallery with more professional way, F8 need to be avoid...

Dpreview you are the most famous website among the rest...

Please take good care of all previews & reviews....

Just IMHO...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (8 months ago)

Is it me, or do all of the sample images look dull?
Colors seem washed out, drab.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

Washed out? No, but they are likely OOC JPEGs with a flat default tone curve. I'm interested in this camera, so I downloaded tons of samples from the various reviews, and IQ is impressive. The lens and sensor give super crisp images and at base or low ISO, images are remarkably clean.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (8 months ago)

I currently own a Panasonic GH2, after having owned in the past an Oly C7070 and Oly E-510.

Yes, Panasonic colors are flat compared to Olympus. However, don't let that stop you from buying this camera. I'm sure you will be able to get nice images out of it. It will be just be more work in many (not all) situations.

I read somewhere that Panasonic colors are more "realistic" than Olympus colors according to color charts, etc. Maybe so, but Olympus colors are nicer! If you can expose correctly with an Olympus camera, the colors and jpeg engine are a serious reason to buy. That's been my experience, anyway.

0 upvotes
NiallM
By NiallM (8 months ago)

Timmbits - most new cameras need a +1 in saturation/contrast/sharpness. I'm always curious why the 'default' settings for cameras are usually crap?! and yes weeks later i'm back to check out the LX7 because i was holding out for the XZ-2 prognosis. Good, not great. So now it's a toss up between this, Nikon P7700 and Fujifilm X whatever..i'll just call it the Austin Powers camera..

0 upvotes
Mike Oo
By Mike Oo (8 months ago)

Like most dpreview samples, the images were taken in bad light. They have a thing for "high noon."

0 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (9 months ago)

I Love the manual controls, looks, grip, and most everything about this camera, Except the image quality!!! Looking at the samples, there seems to be a striking dullness, and a blueish/green cast to nearly every image, or perhaps a lack of contrast...what is the deal with that...default settings for the jpegs? I wish Pany would learn from Olympus or copy the jpeg engine that Oly has developed for the PEN line. This could be a fantastic camera for a lot of enthuiasts if they could just get the software right!

0 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (9 months ago)

sounds nice, hopefully Oly´snew XZ series won´t be carbon paper copy of this ...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Oddrain
By Oddrain (9 months ago)

I love the concept of this camera, keeping the pixel count low, the super fast lens, apparently great build quality and lots of manual control. However, the package only works if keeping the pixel count down really does deliver on image quality. A close look at the face of the guy in sample P1000409 seems to show a lot of noise for ISO160. Hope this is just a pre-production issue cos this could be my next camera if the full review looks good.

0 upvotes
CorruptedData
By CorruptedData (9 months ago)

I guess the MOS sensor was Pano's solution to the terrible vertical striping from the LX5's CCD (in Video mode). I had held out hope that a firmware update might fix the problem eventually. Guess that's a pipe dream now. Damn. Anyone heard different?

0 upvotes
zavart
By zavart (9 months ago)

Why can't just Panasonic -or for that matter other makers -make TRUE multi aspect sensor i.e words SQUARE ! After all we're just talking about extra 2mm (7,44x7,44) This would really allow to fully utilize the whole area of the sensor in 1:1 to 16:9 aspect. As a additional benefit You could switch to take photos in either landscape or portait mode without changing the physical position of the camera- just appropiate switch would do. This would be really something with which they could differentiate these types of cameras from DSLR where due to their use of pentaprism and the size of the sensor this kind of thing is impossible to do!

1 upvote
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (8 months ago)

A square sensor would mean a large amount of unused sensor or much larger lenses. Draw it on paper and it becomes obvious why...

0 upvotes
Oddrain
By Oddrain (9 months ago)

So far reviews have tended to focus on the noise levels at the same ISO levels, but with this camera trading chip size for a faster max aperture it would be great to see comparisons showing the recent crop of enthusiast cameras simply doing their best in the same lighting conditions. It would make an intriguing group review to see how the various strategies compare! DPReview .. any chance of a low light shoot out between the following:

Panasonic LX7
Olympus XZ-1
Canon Powershot S100
FujiFilm X10
Sony Cybershot RX100

17 upvotes
toto435
By toto435 (9 months ago)

THIS is an excellent point !

It is extremely rare to see a review where a same scene is shot under the same light by letting the camera chose the ISO, the aperture and the shutter speed. Or just by blocking the shutter speed to insure no blur at all, the other parameters being chosen to have a well balanced image.

It is the unique method to compare different cameras in real life.

OK, it seems to be too "point and shot" for an expert camera but in that case you can take and see the avantage of the F1.4.
If you can stay in ISO100-150 when you have to go to ISO400 with another camera, even if the second have better high ISO performance, can show some surprising results...

8 upvotes
Oddrain
By Oddrain (9 months ago)

We seem to be getting a few likes here. How about it Barney Britton ... could this be included? I think you are going to have a high end (raw shooting?) review in the autumn if I remember what I read in another thread.

Everyone please keep hitting "LIKE" if you would like to see DPReview to do a comparison of these cameras on the same lighting conditions.

11 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (8 months ago)

Indeed. Connected myseilf with one more positive vote.
This is what am I looking for.

1 upvote
Oddrain
By Oddrain (8 months ago)

It looks like "expertreviews" set the ball rolling with this comparison against the Sony Nex-F3 and the Panasonic GF5. With its wider aperture the LX7 shoots at ISO800 whilst the others are at ISO3200. The results speak for themselves.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/gallery/reviews/1294294/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7/173770

1 upvote
GnomeLampy
By GnomeLampy (8 months ago)

All I want is a compact I can use to shoot bands in low light where the lighting looks good and the people don't blur. I would love to see a review of this kind!

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (8 months ago)

All for it. Include neon lights. The new sensors readily pick up reflected neon lights where the eye sees none.

JPEG's plenty for me.

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (10 months ago)

I bought my LX-5 last year. I was initially going for the Canon S-100 on account of the F2 aperture, but I'm a guy with small brains and big hands, and I need an exterior flash mount for my studio shots. I don't shoot under extreme weather conditions and I don't shoot sports. Most of my work is corporate, baby pictures & model's portfolios.
Now, if a guy like Charlie Waite feels at home with the LX-5 (see his youtube videos with LX-5) Imagine....me.
I'd like to take a look at the new LX-7.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

Producing only a crop of an already small 1/1.7, I feel disappointed, that in an age when we are making sensors larger, tehy are getting closer to the cheap 1/2 size than to some format small format sensors.
For this reason, Samsung's EX2F has an "equivalent" F range that is better on the wide end and almost comparable on the tele end.
But the king here is Sony's RX100.

2 upvotes
MDGColorado
By MDGColorado (8 months ago)

Judging a camera on its sensor size is like judging a car on its engine displacement.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

I agree with MDGColorado. Until you shoot with the RX100, you might want to hold off on calling it king. Personally, I loved the RX100 for video. For photography, the slow max aperture at the telephoto end, the lack of a grip, and viewfinder made it not as nice to shoot with as the Ricoh GRD, Fuji X10, and Oly XZ1.

The LX7 has caught my eye for sure. Raw IQ looks fantastic, the lens seems extremely sharp and starts at 24mm, and for video, it has 1080p60, and some ever higher frame rates at 720p.

2 upvotes
lennyk1313
By lennyk1313 (10 months ago)

Guys this is a Preview not a full review, so lets give it some time and wait for the complete review to make any true conclusions.

0 upvotes
randyckay
By randyckay (10 months ago)

I did not see any noticeable noise in the samples provided in this article.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Even #24, at ISO 6400? Come on... you don't even have to zoom in, it is visible in the 800x600 or so screenshot. But still better than I expected for the tiny (part of the) sensor.

0 upvotes
michelesi
By michelesi (10 months ago)

i want to see image-distorsion graph.
In my LX3 the image-distorsion at 24mm is very high.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

think people are already doing their best.

these non-interchangeable-lens mirrorless cameras have a good advantage over ILCs and DSLRs in that more optimal design can be used because the lens-sensor are hard wired and considered as a whole.

if you don't like it, you can either choose narrower zoom range one or you can use software to correct it.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

@yabokkie: forgive me for disagreeing, but it seems evident that these models are designed to not cannibalize their higher-profit models, which is becoming a major design criteria.
As long as they do this, people will be compaining.
Why? Perhaps because some people are not buying a micro 4/3 and waiting for something in this format, but with better features. Sony doesn't have anything in the viscinity of the size of a u4/3, so they can offer a camera this size with a 1" sensor (RX100).
Panasonic & Olympus just don't get it do they?
Many see the u4/3 just about as bulky as a small DSLR and don't see the point of paying $1k for an interchangeable lens camera with a smaller-than-dslr sensor.
Offer customer choice = gain market share.
Restrict choice and customers WILL go tot he competition.
It's time for manufacturers to stop acting like they are the only game in town.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (10 months ago)

Maybe you confuse lens distortion with perspective distortion?
The LX3 is quite good at 24mm as long as you do not tilt the camera.
Tilting will distort the image of any lens - it is an optical law that can only be corrected in post-processing or prevented with a tilt-shift lens.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
breivogel
By breivogel (10 months ago)

Thumbwheel:

I hope they have improved it. I have had mine replaced 2 times. Probably not well sealed against dirt. Eventually it stops responding to turning. Extended warranty well worth it.

I have also had some issues about inadvertently pressing it while turning it.

0 upvotes
phlphoto
By phlphoto (10 months ago)

CONVERSION LENS ADAPTER.
I chose the LX-5 last year for the lens and the adapter, because I think a polirizer is a must in so many cases. I hope the new LX-7 has this option also, without obstructing the aperture ring.
I used this camera exclusively in Peru and the adapter also served me well to protect the lens also - yes it makes the camera seem slightly larger, but the ring does not extend beyond the limit of the lens anyway. I love this feature, so please tell me it remains...

0 upvotes
BaltoJD
By BaltoJD (10 months ago)

Panasonic Global shows an adapter & some 37mm filters:
http://www.panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/lx7/optional_accessories.html

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (6 months ago)

Brace up for bad news: Yes, they have those items for the the LX7, and the electronic viewfinder too. Both items NOT compatible with the LX5.
I also own a LX5.
I believe that they should be standardized for the LX family.

0 upvotes
David Fell
By David Fell (10 months ago)

If I missed them please tell me, where are the shots with the ND filters? And the ones of the nano coating to stop flair? Thanks

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (10 months ago)

quite clean and good looking samples for a 1/1.63" CMOS... However, my 7-yr old A620 (7Mp, 1/1.7" CCD, 300gr. w/ 4xAAs) seems actually cleaner at base ISO.

Can't blame Panasonic for not reading Sony's roadmap :-)... IMHO building a smaller sensor than 10-yr old P&S's and Nokia's phone --to make the lens feel faster? (since bokeh is minimal)-- into a premium camera seems wrong. In the age of RX100 and NEX, or 179E APS-C mirrorless (NX100), LX7 will likely be blip quickly replaced by a worthier LX9.

Premium P&S should distinguish themselves from the crowd, from phones, and also size/price-wise compete well against the smaller mirrorless. Unclear for LX7.

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (10 months ago)

I've had all off the LX cameras, love them, but this time I'm going to go with a larger sensor small camera where I can have some DOF control.

1 upvote
makofoto
By makofoto (10 months ago)

"enthusiast photographers who want to shoot in aperture priority or manual exposure modes to make best use of the depth of field control offered by the lens." ... yet the spec which show the equivalent 35 mm f/stops vis a vis depth of field, show that one won't have much control of DOF. And the sample photos show NO sample taken wide and close, Wide Open to disprove this. Also there is not portrait at the very longest end of the lens, wide open to show us fall off with that combination ...

0 upvotes
mark power
By mark power (10 months ago)

The LX3 is the best small camera -film or digital - that I have ever owned and that includes comparing it to a Leica IIIg, so I will be reluctant to go with an LX7...but that Summicron lens will probably piush me over the edge. There may not seem to be a big difference between 28mm equiv. and 24mm but for my shooting there is. Add to that neutral density filters and the speed of the lens - well, I guess I'm going to give it a try. For my money, lenses primarily make Panasonic the choice for digital work.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

definetly Pana know more about cameras and lenses than Leica but they are just another Japanese maker.

with a cheap Leica Summicron mark I hope the price will drop quickly.

0 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (10 months ago)

I´m not impressed with the samples. My old Canon S95 can do better. I´m concerned about the fact that most companies are trading image quality in their photocameras for more speed and FullHD video recording. I don´t care if the new sensor can shoot 11fps continuosly or FullHD video, I want to take good photos, not muddy CMOS pics. I would pick up a RAW-capable compact with slow CCD sensor that only shoots 1-2fps and basic video every time about these new cameras with speeeeedy sensors. For FullHD video I still take my camcorder which has external mic option and batteries with more power for longer scene takes, not only a small photocamera battery that will run out of power after around 20 minutes of video.

5 upvotes
balios
By balios (10 months ago)

Shot 40 minutes of concert video the other day with an lx5, which used half the battery. Would have been asked to stop if I had a camcorder.

0 upvotes
Bullsnapper
By Bullsnapper (10 months ago)

I have the LX-5. I can't tell from the above whether the LX-7 has a built in lens cap or not, but the LX-5 infuriates me!! I am fed up with having to remove cap and press any button. Can't put a lens protecting filter on due to protruding lens. Yeah, I know there's a spring loaded thingy but not in my town.

I like the pictures, but I'll never buy another one. Bad one, Panasonic.

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (10 months ago)

Huh ... you can just order one of those spring lens caps?! What's the big deal. The deal is thought that you can't use it with the filter adapter tube ... which I often leave on as a lens shade ... to which you can add a real 52 mm shade if needed

0 upvotes
Bullsnapper
By Bullsnapper (10 months ago)

Exactly! Yes, I know about the spring cap, that's what I just said, but it's still a nuisance. Canon does an auto retract lens cover with the G9 series, why can't Panasonic think of something clever?

OR, give us a thread on the inside edge around the lens and a screw-in tube, to which I can thread a filter. I would rather have a thicker camera than that stupid dangling lens cap.

OK, I've just solved it myself - I've got an old tube which I can attach with strong double sided tape (carefully!). I'll give it a try.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (6 months ago)

Have a look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj9zisOPxxc

0 upvotes
ddtwenty
By ddtwenty (10 months ago)

£449 ?
The webmaster may be wrong on typing.??

Very expensive... I hope the price will come down soon.

0 upvotes
tzf30
By tzf30 (10 months ago)

Looking at the fork/knife/spoon picture, I must say I'm not that impressed at all. The image looks very noise and the ISO is only 400. It doesn't look like it retained a lot of detail either. The blue flower shot (ISO 3200) looks real bad as well. But, that's my opinion.

1 upvote
John Gruffydd
By John Gruffydd (10 months ago)

Having an LX5 to complement my Nikon D300 "brick" I wish Panasonic had used this opportunity to add:

Remote control
Bulb setting

Otherwise, seems a reasonable upgrade. I use my LX5 almost exclusively in 'A' mode, shooting RAW so never use the "gimmicks".

3 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (10 months ago)

Agree, having neither IR nor wired remote option is pretty lame.

0 upvotes
Doug Frost
By Doug Frost (10 months ago)

Why is Panasonic going in the wrong direction with sensor size? They should be building larger sensors into their high end compact cameras, not smaller ones.

3 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (10 months ago)

For me it is the right direction looking at the equivalent apertures they did a great job.
I hope the new MOS sensor holds up!

1 upvote
Color Blotch
By Color Blotch (10 months ago)

Sensor size is irrelevant unless you consider it as a part of optical system as whole. Camera's performance ultimately boils down to how much light it can gather. For the size of this particular camera I'd say it does pretty well in that regard. There's no guarantee that increasing the sensor size would result in better overall light gathering for the package of same size.

3 upvotes
Zigadiboom
By Zigadiboom (10 months ago)

Remember its not the size that matters :)

0 upvotes
AllanZ
By AllanZ (10 months ago)

Sensor size and construction of the sensor , affects the image quality when in JPEG and sometimes RAW. Thus ive seen so far that the LX7 is exibiting lots of JPEG artifacts and noise even in low ISO compared to its little brother the LX5. But this is just the start im sure there will be fixtures. Compare the LX7 to the FZ150 images at ISO 100 through 800 the FZ150 takes it!!!

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (10 months ago)

The purpose of camera image samples is to show the quality of the sensor and the lens. It is not for showing off the photographer's zany artistic skills. Most of these samples are not very useful.

2 upvotes
greatzed
By greatzed (10 months ago)

You must like to photograph test charts.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (10 months ago)

Well, that's the first time I (or probably anyone) has been called 'zany' since the early 90s, but this gallery is actually pretty conventional, in intent at least.

Portraits, landscapes, low-contrast, high-contrast, wide-open, stopped down, macro/infinity focus...

1 upvote
Mike G Lee
By Mike G Lee (10 months ago)

I completely agree with maxnimo! I have to search hard to find one or two photos which would be more "typical" samples, showing me content which reflects the camera's capabilities. No two photographers have the same style, so don't try to have a style with sample photos. A reviewer should also be aware that for every one constructive criticism, ten more were unsaid.

0 upvotes
greatzed
By greatzed (10 months ago)

In fact, the perfect reviewer of an artistic tool would be an android that can time travel from the future in order to write said review of unreleased product.

0 upvotes
ConanFuji
By ConanFuji (10 months ago)

Barney, those shots are no good. They are awful. The ones with the ships, the flat looking building, even the scalpless portrait was no good. They would end up at the bottom half of a photo challenge.

You need to up your game.

0 upvotes
greatzed
By greatzed (10 months ago)

I am entitled to better pictures.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (10 months ago)

As long as you're all having fun, that's the important thing.

2 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (10 months ago)

Ha ha -- well played, Barney. :)

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (10 months ago)

Uuurgh - you get used to it. Almost a decade of writing and putting pictures on the internet, there's nothing (and no-one) new under the sun.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
David Parker
By David Parker (10 months ago)

Lol, I'm amused that anyone would consider any of these photos "zany" and somehow find them upsetting. Goes to show you why 99.9% of the photos out there are banal to the extreme. Actually, I was impressed with the quality of many of these. A definite step above the usual samples gallery. Frankly, I'm much more inclined to buy a camera when I see the magic a talented photographer can create with it. If you're just interested in pixel peeping wait for the studio shots.

1 upvote
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (10 months ago)

Panasonic Lumix did well on this camera, and the choice of 10 megapixels is good and enough, even the interchangeable lens Nikon one system as 10 megapixels

This way dynamic range and noise performance will be better and the difference in resolution from 10 to 12 megapixels is not significant

Well done Panasonic Lumix

4 upvotes
gescolar
By gescolar (10 months ago)

I've been waiting a year for this camera, but I'm a little dissapointed. 10 MP is not enough for me. Pictures seems good, not great. I think I'll wait to see the Olympus XZ-2.

0 upvotes
micdair
By micdair (10 months ago)

10MP is ok for this size of the sensor, higher resolution would be useless imho. The pictures are little noisy already.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Exactly. Actually it could go with 8 mpix fine. Its still A4 print and most ppl really dont print at all. And viewed on regular screen? Full HD is 2 mpix. :D It will take ages until ppl will have 4K screens..

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (10 months ago)

I can't wait for 8K4K screens and projectors, plus universally available 36MP sensors. Then I can enjoy slide shows the way I did in 1960.

Seriously, hi-rez sensors prepare the way for large-screen displays. It's not all about prints or cropping.

And let's not go defeatist and gripe about time. The goal is worth a wait, if not a crusade.

3 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (10 months ago)

The sample images really won me over. I'm not in the market for this type of camera, but its exactly the type of camera I would recommend to friends who want better pictures and more control while talking them out of a dslr they don't need (shooting pictures of their kids and such). The problem with so many people that I know that buy into DSLR's and mirrorless is that although they like the images, they never have it with them. Even MFT cameras are a little big to carry around, this would be perfect for the casual shooter who wants more but less.

1 upvote
Simon97
By Simon97 (10 months ago)

After viewing the sample images, I can see that the lens is very good. No chromatics and only a slight loss of sharpness near the edges. Seems to retain sharpness at wider apertures and at telezoom. As I recall, the LX5 lost sharpness when zoomed.

OTOH, shadow noise is higher than expected in available light shots at ISO 200 or less. To be honest, I don't mind some "grain". In fact I prefer them letting it show rather than trying to smudge the detail with aggressive noise reduction. It is a small sensor camera, so don't expect miracles.

Hopefully the street price is reasonable. This is another enthusiast compact in a crowded market and others are trying larger sensors.

0 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (10 months ago)

B&H has it for perorder for 499$.
I expect to pay 499€ in Europe but that would be ok for me as I expect to be able to use it for a couple of years.

0 upvotes
Marcelo Dau
By Marcelo Dau (10 months ago)

Panasonic will lose the opportunity to be at the forefront of compact and features an LX7 which is more like the LX5, are worrying about video and forget that picture is photo and video is video, think it's cool to shoot well, but expected more, pixel the range of 24 to 120mm zoom, 16MP least, a larger sensor "(13.2x8.8) ... suggestion ... I'll wait for LX9 ... hopefully not too long.

0 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (10 months ago)

in the age where sony rx100 exist along with phone cams with 1/1.2 sensors....
i am afraid...this lx7 along with other small sized sensors are just born to die..

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

I would not agree. it could be born to be cheap, or for a deep dive in price. we've seen too many Pana and Oly cameras of this kind.

the Leica brand makes it look really cheap. everyone knows those branded with Leica are fake ones.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

fake here means funny cameras with better quality than genuine. no one should buy a Leica or Zeiss as long as it's not a fake one.

0 upvotes
Andrew Higgins
By Andrew Higgins (10 months ago)

Looking forward to seeing Leica's price for their rebadged version, sure to follow soon, Photokina? And then having a little laugh...

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

Leica provides top quality cameras because they are designed and made by Japanese manufacturers.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Andrew Higgins:

A big reason the Leica versions are more expensive is that they come with really serious raw extraction software in Adobe Lightroom. Whereas Panasonic ships with the garbage Silkypix.

yabokkie:

Neither the S2 nor the M9 are made by Japanese manufacturers--though Fuji may supply the processor chip for both.

People buy Leica (or even the Leicaed Panasonics) for the really high quality lenses. The Canon G and S series lenses simply don't come close.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> Neither the S2 nor the M9 are made by Japanese manufacturers

probably that's why they cannot deliver good quality.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

yabokkie:

You have no idea what you're writing about asserting the the M9 and S2 are not made well.

That's besides the extraordinary lenses.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

whatever they simply mean garbage.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

yabokkie:

Nope, the M9 and its lenses and the S2 and its lenses are extraordinarily well made and beyond that the lenses are unmatched for optical quality.

So you still have no idea what you're writing about.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Ah, another obvious troll. :D Let him troll, it wont change fact that in optical design Leica doesnt have competition. And camera doesnt need to have clean ISO 10.000 to be good (tho actually Leica M-M does have ISO 10.000 and its usable.. if you dont mind BW image :D).

I would rather have M9 and one of their 35mm f1.4 ASPH lens than any other camera.. (with exception of S2 ofc).

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Mescalamba:

Right, but wanted to see y's attempt at a supported claim.

None to see.

0 upvotes
paul1949
By paul1949 (10 months ago)

In the pilot boat shot ( P1000353 ) it looks to me that the light sources are in a state of orbs !!! " in the water, at the entrance door and on the ship in the background "

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (10 months ago)

LX7 with a smaller sensor than LX5? Is this an upgrade? Not for me, thanks.
I expected a bigger sensor that provide better image with more resolution

5 upvotes
Ivan Lietaert
By Ivan Lietaert (10 months ago)

It is cmos, and next gen. Will be much better. Certainly so for video (no more sensor blooming).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

better do not judge on the sensor size but the lens-sensor system, the effective/equivalent f-number as listed in dpr's preview above. RX100 is the brightest, EX2F the second, and LX7 the third on the list. the sensor technology may make some difference and it's possible that LX7 will beat EX2F that we do not know yet.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

my calc is f/7.0-11.5 for LX-7, btw (a factor of 5 for f-number).

0 upvotes
aricav05
By aricav05 (10 months ago)

Why in the world would you want to calculate equivalent F-number? Are they not constant?

0 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (10 months ago)

to compare depth of field or specificly the lack of it, that are sought after e.g. in portraits.

0 upvotes
NGC
By NGC (10 months ago)

Just to be a really annoying person...
There´s no such thing as "lack of depth of field" (I think maybe that phenomenon occurs when nothing is in focus, so it has the opposite meaning than what I think you wanted to say), it's just that these cameras produce a bigger/deeper one.
Anyway, i read that the lx7 can produce a depth of field similar to a mft with kit lens. Not that these are the best cameras in that sense, but still...Appart from that, there is really no point trying to compare a compact camera in terms of depth of field control or subject isolation, the important point is the brightness of the lens; big aperture = faster shutter speed & lower iso needed

0 upvotes
aricav05
By aricav05 (10 months ago)

Oh, I see where your coming from...

But I agree with NGC, I think it's pointless comparing DOF on a compact camera, if you want shallow DOF for portrait wouldn't you normally go with a DSLR? I just don't see much logic in using "relative" F number to calculate DOF, as writing something like... f/7.0-11.5 for LX-7 while it says f/1.4-2.3 on the LX7 as it will confuse the crap out of many people (me included).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

for everything, every photographic result you get from an f-number, you can compare at level ground using the equivalent f-number.

the original f-number is pretty useless when the sensor sizes are different.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
aricav05
By aricav05 (10 months ago)

But with equivalent f-numbers you would only be comparing the depth of field for cameras with different sensor sizes. You would still set the aperture and shutter speed according to the f-number on the lens, as with the iso speed and everything else, doesn't that make the equivalent f-number useless instead? Not to mention confusing.

I just don't get it ~.~

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> only be comparing the depth of field

if you can calculate yourself, or you can compare photos from different cameras, you should be able to find out that "all the photographic output controlled by f-number are the same at the same equivalent f-number" , with no exception.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
guyfawkes
By guyfawkes (10 months ago)

I've owned the LX3 since its debut in 2008. I liked its ability to retain equivalent FOW irrespective of image ratio. LX series remain even now the only cameras to do this.

I missed out the LX5 as not being sufficiently improved for my personal needs. Despite the advances in the LX7, and I like the manual aperture ring in particular, and the much improved high ISO performance, love that 3200 ISO shot of the plate, I still don't see a major reason to upgrade, if that is the correct word to use.

Is the LX7 better? Of course it is. But sufficiently so to warrant my buying it? Probably not. Compared to its current peers, will it be worth your consideration? Definitely.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

there is no way to retain the same angle of view for different aspect ratios, only people are trying to make best approximations based on one thing or the other, for themselves only.

0 upvotes
SAinCA
By SAinCA (10 months ago)

I passed on the LX3 as it had a too-short zoom range, not that I need a long range. I've been stunned by the images from my LX5, using the lens tube with polarized filter or UV making a huge difference, and garnering some unsolicited "Wows" I'll probably skip the LX7 and wait for a higher MP count on the new MOS sensor for even greater detail.
The lens is what really makes the LX5 a stand-out IMO. I've seen images from others' comparables, SLRs and compacts and the LX5 for landscape and macro is clearly excelling, in MY experience.
If you don't have the LX3 or LX5, the LX7 is a good portable, again IMO, that produces surprising indoor and outdoor images for a reasonable price - especially when well discounted! (Keep your eye on Amazon - I snapped mine up when they did the $100 off for one day in 2011 - financed the lens tube and B&W filters). Enjoy!

1 upvote
John Koch
By John Koch (10 months ago)

The spec list that accompanies the preview appears to be a do-over of one for the LX3 or some other camera. It says the LX7 shoots video in AVCHD Lite, which was a 1280x720 60p format. It also indicates no time lapse function, whereas the preview narrative suggests that the LX7 offers that feature. If there is a time lapse, it will be curious to know whether it captures as video, or as a series of still shots, and whether the shutter time can be set to 30 seconds or longer for purposes of night time lapse.

0 upvotes
brudy
By brudy (10 months ago)

Preview says the LX7 can also record in mp4.

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (10 months ago)

I own LX5 but I have 0 interest in this
not counting RX100 because of $650 price

The best camera of these type now is Olympus XZ-1

0 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (10 months ago)

Why would the XZ-1 be better than the LX7?

0 upvotes
bartjeej
By bartjeej (10 months ago)

The sensor size that's stated in the review and in the database are inconsistent. In the table it says that the LX7's sensor is 6.7x5.1mm, which is consistent with the focal length specified on the lens. However, that's not a 1/1.7" type sensor (which is 7.4x5.6mm, like the Samsung and the Canon).

The database also says the LX7 sensor is 7.4x5.6mm, which would be a 1/1.7"type, but again, the lens suggests otherwise.

Also, the Olympus XZ-1 has, like the LX5, a 1/1.63" type sensor of 8.04x5.56mm, not a 1/1.7" type like suggested in the table in this preview.

0 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (10 months ago)

The problem is the same in both case (XZ-1 and LX7) - they dont' ever use the full area of the sensor. As such, although the sensor in the LX7 is a 1/1.7" and the one in the XZ-1 is a 1/1.63", the actually used area (and hence relationship between actual focal length and effective focal length) is not quite the one you'd expect.

Our database can't currently cope with such subtleties but the preview does its best to explain this.

6 upvotes
bartjeej
By bartjeej (10 months ago)

So if I understand you correctly, the sensor's overall size is not quite 7.4x5.6mm, but somewhat wider and lower, although the diagonal is equal to that of a 7.4x5.6mm sensor? Comparing the maximum horizontal resolution (3968) to the maximum vertical resolution ((2736) gives an overall sensor aspect ratio of 1.45/1.

0 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (10 months ago)

Too bad they didn't put a small optical viewfinder in the popup flash's support stand. Looks like there's enough space!

1 upvote
John Koch
By John Koch (10 months ago)

Is a small optical or electronic viewfinder really useful? How would it peer through the levers below the pop-up flash?

1 upvote
gsum
By gsum (10 months ago)

There's no mention in this review of whether Panasonic have fixed the problems that plagued the LX5. Whilst the image quality, lens, build and macro capabilities of the LX5 were absolutely superb, the camera was loaded with useless gimmicks such as scene selections, face recognition etc. The result was that the LX5 had too many controls for such a small body. In particular, the thumbwheel was a complete nightmare as it was too easy to accidentally press the wheel whilst rotating it, resulting in an unwanted selection.
For their 'enthusiast compacts' Panasonic really need to get down to the basics of what photography is about rather than producing techno toys. I hope that they've done that with the LX7 but somehow doubt it.
In their reviews, DPReview should mark down cameras that are laden with useless features.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Sven Felsby
By Sven Felsby (10 months ago)

having used the LX5 for a year, I find it very easy to completely skip the gimmick features. I never notice them. I bet these features are dictated by marketing - to the dismay of the engineering dpt.
I have not been able to press the thumbwheel into an unwanted selection.

4 upvotes
The_Wicker_Man
By The_Wicker_Man (10 months ago)

Used LX5 for over 2 years, and have yet to inadvertently press the thumbwheel. As for useless gimmicks, I shoot A, S or M so, yes, the other features are redundant as far as I'm concerned - but there's no way I'd think of them as getting in the way.

2 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (10 months ago)

The LX5 was a great camera in many ways but a classic example of 'less would have been more'.

Engineering v. Marketing - one of Dilbert's pet themes. Couldn't agree more.

1 upvote
John Koch
By John Koch (10 months ago)

Face recognition is not a bad thing to have in a scene with complex lighting and the faces aren't in neat symmetry. Time lapse is not a "useless gimmick" to add to the LX7.

A cynic could claim that all digital cameras are "techno toys," and that purists should be working with pinholes, daguerrotypes, and develop their own prints with home-brewed chemicals.

1 upvote
SkiHound
By SkiHound (10 months ago)

Of course, as soon as you leave any of those "features" off some folks will wail and bark at the moon about how the camera doesn't have this, that, or the other thing. I never use scene modes, but try marketing a camera that doesn't have those kinds of features.

0 upvotes
alffastar
By alffastar (10 months ago)

"I never use scene modes, but try marketing a camera that doesn't have those kinds of features"

Fuji X100 :)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

face recognition is one of the best new features of 1DX & D4.

these cameras are way better than previous models in accurate AF tracking, better exposure, and better white balance thanks to image recognition using the new imaging AE sensor.

0 upvotes
raiden78
By raiden78 (10 months ago)

What about the price?

0 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (10 months ago)

499$

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (10 months ago)

This is a very well written preview. Great job Dpreview!

10 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (10 months ago)

you mean dPREVIEW?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (10 months ago)

we're reviewing cameras at a rate of almost one per week so far in 2012.

6 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (10 months ago)

@Barney: that´s admirable and most of us appreciate this (although some would not be satisfied even if you made one review a day).

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

I want to see all those who had the knee jerk reaction on reading the Q sensor size thinking it would do worse than an LX5 bigger sensor, say the same thing about the LX7 sensor (both are wrong).

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (10 months ago)

Is there an underwater housing for this camera?

1 upvote
AngusCNH
By AngusCNH (10 months ago)

LX7 seems did not have a bulb mode also…… the other spec other then the F-Stop did not have any excited news….. Oh…

Actually I'm waiting for a compact camera with Bulb mode…… Sony's RX100 excited me that it had a Bulb mode , but lack of remote shutter (either by line and radio..) limited a lot……

so……forget it… hope Sony could provide a remote shutter solution....even a IR remote are better then none.... i want shutter release cord >M<"""

4 upvotes
quiwi
By quiwi (10 months ago)

Well if that's your main criteria, the XZ-1 has Bulb mode with the remote cable accessory.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 175
12