UPDATED: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 real-world samples gallery posted

What raws from the LX100 have you extracted, and with what software?

Have you looked at the out of camera jpegs posted at both Imaging Resource and PhotographyBlog?

Oct 14, 2014permalink

tkbslc

HowaboutJPEG since that's what many people like shooting on holiday?

Oct 14, 2014permalink

Well HowaboutIPhone since that's what people take with them on holiday? Then what's your purpose here?

Oct 14, 2014permalink

BozillaNZ + tkbslc:

That's odd I live in a city with many tourists and I see many normal digicams daily, and most can be set to shoot raw.

Neither of you two "thinkers" have answered the question that I asked.

If the iPhone is enough of a camera for your purposes, by all means use it exclusively. If you care about more control, shooting above ISO 400 and better lenses, you'll think about something like the LX100 or RX100III.

Oct 14, 2014permalink

tkbslc

Have you checked all those cameras to see if they are set to raw?

Oct 14, 2014permalink

tkbslc:

Which cameras are you referring to? The RX100I+II+III all LX100 shoot raw. There are no 4/3rds still cameras which can't shoot raw.

If you're referring to tourists' cameras in my city, DSLRs and interchangeable mirrorless all shoot raw--though no right, I can't speak to how they're set up. Nor do I care, a jpeg out of a 5 year old Canon Rebel will be better than a jpeg of the same shot out of an iPhone.

Oct 14, 2014*permalink

tkbslc

"Nor do I care, a jpeg out of a 5 year old Canon Rebel will be better than a jpeg of the same shot out of an iPhone."

Exactly my point, so why vilify JPEGs from nice cameras? And I never mentioned iphones.

Oct 15, 2014permalink

tkbslc:

I don't vilify jpegs from cameras with good jpeg engines, like many Canons.

But raws are of course much more adjustable.

Having raw samples from reviewed cameras gives me a much better idea of the overall image quality and high ISO capacity of the camera under review--and jpegs above base ISO often add artifacts that I prefer to do without.

Right about the iPhone, that was a different string of comments about this LX100, there someone had gone on about how it was best to compare the LX100 to the iPhone, and couldn't accept that some would only ever shoot raw only with the LX100. I didn't review the comments thoroughly enough.

Oct 15, 2014permalink

Sidath Senanayake

@HowaboutRAW: Some of the samples above are converted from RAW. Read the second line in green at the top.

Oct 15, 2014permalink

Sidath Senanayake:

Yeah, so? Jpegs aren't raws. Also not news to me that some of the files are derived from raws.

Anyhow, extract to tiff if you care about image quality.

So, you've not answered the questions:

"What raws from the LX100 have you extracted, and with what software?"

"Have you looked at the out of camera jpegs posted at both Imaging Resource and PhotographyBlog?"

Oct 16, 2014permalink

thejohnnerparty

No question, this camera does a very decent job. I don't know if it is tungsten or florescent but one of the lighting conditions leave a little bit to be desired, but then most cameras struggle with artificial light.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

Edgar_in_Indy

What program can be used to develop the .RW2 RAW files? I have the latest versions of Adobe Photoshop/Bridge/ACR but the LX100 is not supported yet. I would love to be able to evaluate the RAW files.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Try Rawtherapee 4.1.

It works for me on a Windows 7 computer.

It has some pain in the fanny features, and doesn't do well with higher ISO photos, no matter what some claim in these comments, but it's a start.

Oct 14, 2014*permalink

minzaw

My Kind of Camera LX100 ordered yesterday

Oct 12, 2014permalink

delastro

Why landscape photos? Is this a camera for landscape or for street? And the prize? For landscape an old E-PM1 or E-Pl1 is enough - or better.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Why carry two cameras when you can carry one.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

LaFonte

I wanted to say impressive for the price, then I saw $899 tag. What?
So the $900 now became the norm for premium compacts? Only few years ago, this category was barely touching $500

Oct 12, 2014permalink

The LX7 was sold for 500 two years ago. This is a different camera. The Fujifilm X100 is also categorized as a compact. It's a big category.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

LaFonte:

The LX7 has a significantly smaller sensor, and therefore uses less glass in the lens, meaning that less glass needs to be nearly perfectly shaped and polished to Leica standards for the LX7.

My 2001 purchased Canon G2 cost nearly 700usd.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Which is why a used the LX7 as comparison...

Oct 12, 2014permalink

carlnor,

right.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Roy LaFaver

It fits a coat pocket, has a 4/3 sensor, has a fast normal zoom, and it does 4K video (reportedly pretty well). That's a pretty big jump for the "compact" category.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Fiduratur

Don't get me wrong, this will be the best LX to date.
BUT : from everything I saw until now (here, imaging resource, ephotozine and more...), I'm really concerned about optical quality.
Edges and especially the whole right part of almost every picture are really softer than expected, at least for the rather low megapixel count.
The RX100 III, even at 20MP, looks sharper even in RAW without overprocessing.
Maybe the Panasonic will have better dynamic range and high ISO performance, but giving the already amazing 1" sensor of the Sony (12.4 EVs against maybe half an EV more on the 4/3 LX sensor), I don't think the difference will be enough to clearly outperform.
However, the LX100 will operate faster for sure, but to me the RX100 III still wins overall. Not the mention the pocketable form factor...

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

maxnimo

At the widest focal length the edges seem blurry, but gets much sharper at around 30mm equiv. Anyone else notice that?

Oct 11, 2014permalink

orion1983

Thanks dpdeview for the new JPEG vs. RAW comparisons! Those are the VERY most important samples for me! And, they look very promising to me!

Oct 11, 2014permalink

When did DPReview post raws?

PhotographyBlog has actual raws for download.

Oct 11, 2014permalink

orion1983

1 day ago I think ... Processed RAWs, but nice to see the difference to the OOC JPEG next to it.

Oct 11, 2014permalink

orion1983:

Right, raws processed to jpeg with ACR something, but of course raws can be processed to the lossless tiff format too. And that's better for these purposes.

Then in a month or so the serious raw extraction programs will allow us to process the raws themselves. Rawtherapee works already--but not well past ISO 1600.

PhotographyBlog also has many out of camera jpegs for download--better, on average, than the examples here.

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

Anyone think "made in china" LX100 is a dampener or even a deal breaker? Sort of this premium compact losing its cachet? Wonder where the Typ109 is made, dont want a made in China Leica, that's me though... But guess a lot of you out there thnking along the same lines...?

Oct 10, 2014permalink

No. Here's a previous rant of mine on that topic if you can be bothered reading it: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54456233

Oct 10, 2014permalink

I did read the rant.... But would like to clarify my point was not implying or debating China made is inferior quality, but rather if perception of the buyer is the reality, will this impact LX100 sales or even if it did not, it is like the back of mind feeling 'made in china' that one might have. Personally I am looking at the Leica version and it is a no go if it is made in China.

Oct 11, 2014permalink

"Personally I am looking at the Leica version and it is a no go if it is made in China."

I wont argue with you. If it was a matter of logic and evidence I might. But underlying "feelings" can't usually be extinguished in any sort of reasonable time frame no matter how much rational discussion is thrown their way...

Heh.

Oct 11, 2014permalink

SulfurousBeast:

Olympus makes bodies in China--the very good ones.

Samsung/Optron makes optically extraordinary lenses in China.

And before I read it: No Foxconn does NOT really make iPhones, and laptops for Dell, HP etc in China. Foxconn assembles parts made all over the world.

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

lacikuss

I personally switched away from Nikon gear due to quality issues I had with newer gelded lenses that stopped working (made in china) . That Nikon service is just bad and expensive...

Oct 12, 2014permalink

lacikuss:

Only low end lenses made by Nikon in China--like the optically good 50mm lens on the Df.

Generally, there aren't a lot of lens failures reported with Nikon lenses.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

minzaw

Nowadays one could not stay away from Made in China products and as long as the ISO Quality control is there with bench marking China products are NO problems IMHO

Oct 12, 2014permalink

lacikuss

When i buy a japanese automobil it doesn't matter if it is the entry level vehicle its quality is impecable. When i bought the Nikon D600 for $2,000 it came with a manufacturing problem that Nikon denied for almost 2 years. Before than i had a d90 dx camera., i bought a 35mm f/1.8 dx lens that aftet a couple of years of barely using it the spring that control the diaphragm broke. This is a gelded lens which is difficult to repair. Nikon wanted to charge me $180 for its repair. At the time that was the lens price (new).

Unfortunately chinese manufacture is not close in quality to japanese QC.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Japanese made cars are not always made without defects.

Look up the engine blocks of the 2006 Honda Civics.

By your "logic" you'd avoid Hondas.

Oct 12, 2014*permalink

MichaelKJ

@lackikuss Product quality depends on the standards set by the parent company. Essentially all of Apple's products are made in China and Apple's products consistently have very low defect rates. You should be attributing the problem with your D600 to Nikon, rather than blaming it on where it was made.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

lacikuss

Acording to your logic please avoid buying Nikon and Hondas then because their Management is just incompetent and chinese labor is at par with the swiss.... lol

Oct 13, 2014permalink

MichaelKJ:

Apple products are made all over the world, they are assembled in China.

lacikuss:

I've see crappy Bosch tools (belt sander) made in Switzerland.

A dozen years ago or so, VW had huge problems with German made ignition coils in Golfs and Jetta cars, VW compounded the problems by lying about them.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Last time I checked, wages in China were just slightly lower than in Japan. So that explains why manufacturers are eager to build in China. What it doesn't explain is why these cost savings aren't passed along to the consumer.

There is also the politically incorrect assumption that Japanese culture embraces perfection in a way the Chinese don't. That's a bit of a stretch but if you had a choice between equivalent Japanese and Chinese cars, which would you take?

Oct 13, 2014permalink

Cainn24, that's precisely my point, my disclaimer was made in China is or need not be inferior quality. There are too many stuff at home that is made in China. But if you believe buying decisions are as much about 'feelings' (emotional) as much as it is logical, would the potential buyers of the Leica version of this camera be turned off if it was made in China?. I certain is one. That's all I was asking. That's how people 'attach' value to things. To throw in another example would be Swiss watch say TAG, made in China :-) , with Leica I see it that way than with Panasonic even if every single component was the same inside,

Oct 14, 2014*permalink

SHood

Which images are converted from RAW?

Oct 9, 2014permalink

JPG version: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3040807/iso200-trail?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-samples-gallery

They have 'ACR' in the title of the image.
'ACR' because developed in Adobe Camera RAW

For example

ACR version: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3041424/?inAlbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-samples-gallery

Oct 10, 2014permalink

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx100_review/

Photography Blog review.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

piratejabez

"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 is the most capable compact camera that we've ever reviewed..." High praise...

Oct 9, 2014permalink

It is indeed. In sharp contrast to all the critics trashing it before even reading a complete review. Some wanting more zoom and a tilt screen before complaining it's not compact enough. Some complaining about softness 5cm from the lens on a landscape photo where the focus sits 5 km away...

Oct 9, 2014permalink

About comments about landscape images and other cameras doing as well:

I have looked at 3 lenses on Pentax SLR. Expensive Pentax 50-135/2.8, cheap Tamron 70-300 Di, Pentax 135/2.8

With Tamron at 135mm, the Pentax zoom spanked it for pictures of trees in the far distance. The leaves were more visible. Better contrast... The Pentax 135/2.8 looked pretty good as well.

Still, the Tamron is great for closer subjects. It really does a good job for the few animals I run across. Some lenses like working with distant stuff, some do better with closer stuff.

I also decided to not use 'hyperfocal' method for good foliage. I decided to focus at infinity for good foliage.. let DOF make the foreground.

With a range to 24, it would be nice for the LX100 to have great looking distance performance. However, without knowing focus strategy, hard to know if foliage can be better.

But doesn't mean the lens won't shine for other stuff.
A thought for people concerned about results with foliage.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

ramsys

I hope the photographer who used this LX100, is not to the height of the camera .... I waited a long time for a worthy successor of the LX5 .... this time to see these pictures ... I was cold !!! not want to think that is a step behind Panasonic ... or has exhausted the inteligenência and creativity of its engineers .... I'm sad .... very sad !.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

The pictures don't do much for me, either. Those little cascades or Olympics or whatever are no good. I prefer Colorado Rockies and if we can't have that may as well drive the cameras down to red rock country.

And if we can't have that...
A pool party is always nice :^)

PS - as some others have noted, they are snapshot kind of pictures and I think they are fine for representing most of the pictures these cameras will take.

P/S or fancy SLR, there are always times more care or deliberation make a difference.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

I have the GM1. As everyone knows it is a small camera and the kit lens is not fast but I would think it would do just as good a job on the landscape shots posted here and maybe better. I get the advantages of 1.7 to 2.8 lens and the EVF but you could have that (EVF) with the GM5 and get to add the occasional nice prime lens. The LX100's lens would have to be really good for me to want the camera over the GM1 or 5. Just my opinion and others may feel differently.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Olymore

I suspect most people buying this will already have an ILC.
This will be for when they don't want to carry it or mess around with carrying and changing lenses.
Your GM1 may be small but add the 12-35mm F2.8 to it and it will be larger than this.
And the EVF on this is much better than the one on the GM5 which is important to people like myself who never use the back screen for taking photographs
I would argue that this camera challenges the need for the GM1/5 which is IMHO only really suitable for using with small lenses and has limited controls.
Immediately you start using it with large lenses you would be better off with a larger and more ergonomic camera.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Hi, Thanks for the comment. I can't say I agree as the the LX100 only has a size advantage when shut off. As soon as you turn on the camera the LX100 will be larger and the lens on the LX100 appears to stick out much further than the GM series. At max zoom I would bet it is no contest.
I do agree about the EVF as it sounds like they have developed a great one.
Thanks again.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

The whole point of retractable/collapsible lens design is so it can be compact when you need it to be (when it's in a camera bag/pouch, or your pocket), and bigger when it doesn't really matter (when you're actually pointing it at stuff).

In other words, the size _advantage_ is real.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

http://www.fotopolis.pl/n/19739/panasonic-lumix-gm5-i-nowe-obiektywy-pierwsze-wrazenia/

Hi cainn, I agree. I was wrong before and the GM5 is actually smaller even with the kit lens attached. As I own a GM1 which is even smaller than the GM5 I find this surprising as I could not honestly call the GM1 a pocket camera. The LX100 looks to have great ergonomics but size wise I couldn't now call it a pocket camera. Many out here have posted that the Sony RX100 series (smaller than the GM series and LX100) isn't a true pocket camera. Despite all this I love what I am seeing about the LX100. It is the last thing I need but long ago I fell under the GAS illness.

See this size link and scroll down:

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

That fact that the GM1/GM5 + 12-32 is smaller doesn't really impress me. It SHOULD be smaller because the lens is so much slower (f/3.5 - f/5.6 compared to f/1.9 - f/3.1 in MFT equivalent terms). So the LX100 has superior low light performance and superior DOF control.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Paul Rumohr

OK... what exactly happened here? These samples were soft, and now they're all sharpened up?

I saw those originals. They were NOT awesome.

What is happening here? Somehow history is getting changed here, because those crappy original samples have mysteriously disappeared.

Am I the only one here taking crazy pills?

I can use Lightroom, Photoshop, Magic Sharp, Slice Like a Ninja, or Cut Like a Razor Blade filters to help out any image to make it "look" sharper.

But you're not taking $900 bucks out of me for a mediocre lens where I have to do this to every image I take!

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

ogl

No. Me too.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Ogl does not take crazy pills.

Paul, do you have any of the images you believe were 'pre-sharp' ?

I had several tabs open with different sample but I closed them a day or so ago...

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Paul Rumohr

No the original images are totally gone. The LX100 is now the most amazing camera ever made, now that all the samples have been sharpened post process. A total farce.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

I think you've all gone bonkers.

The first set of images posted were all SOOC JPEGs (except for one) and I actually downloaded a couple. They look the same now as they did then.

The second set of images were all processed from RAW using ACR, so they are NOT examples of JPEG engine performance anyway. If dpreview processed those particular shots again with more aggressive sharpening, and I'm not saying they did (I didn't pay as much attention to them so I can't make a call either way), so what? It's all in the game if we're working with RAW.

Oct 10, 2014*permalink

gkdiamond

The original images I saw were all soft and I was not impressed at all but now these look much better.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Review at Ephotozine.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-full-review-26173

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=49920817883891967283

ePhotoZine has published more photos, the first one has raw:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-sample-photos-26312

And I've downloaded the P1050403.RW2, converted to CR2 using my project CR2Pana, and developed it using Canon RAW Image Task, the result is here:

The color and sharpness is very good! It's funny that Canon's software helped this camera to unleash it's potential but neverless it's doable and I will finish the CR2Pana's LX100 support by the time it's on the market!

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

ogl

not bad...but hard to say that it's very good.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5zqo720gxuzexpu/P1050403_PN_v1.jpg

It's easy enough to process LX100 RAW files in Photo Ninja by modifying the EXIF data with a GX7 model name using ExifTool:

It's a bit of a hassle but I haven't been able to create a working colour profile directly.

I don't mean to minimize your efforts Boz as the more options we have the better. I just personally love the results that Photo Ninja produces.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Trensamiro

.
Thanks, BozillaNZ, but your processed image isn't very good at all, because:

- The sky is quite noisy despite being shot at base ISO 200. It has typical small-sensor noise.

2) Either present in the original or produced by your process, there are dozens of *donut-shaped artifacts* like this one (shown here at 200%):

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/3043488.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWXD4UV3FXMIDQLQ/20141009/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20141009T144851Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=693556fe54f98dc86bcb38a1d6f8062159af3580b6cf317945bd41f96f17bb38

They can be seen in the sky (coord (3621, 63), (3130, 10), etc), in the wood (2851, 548), and everywhere else.

3) the image is way oversharpened, with a distinct 2-pixel white halo around every wooden beam and contrasty edge.

So your effort did not succeed in creating a good image, the result is oversharpened small-sensor quality at most.

T.
.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Those black spots are dead pixels, easy to remove if I want to. And you know what, I have a fetish on over-sharpened image. I like them and that's my style. Feel free to disagree. The image quality this camera can provide satisfies my standard and I will buy it. Noise in the sky? yes, that's typical M4/3, all M4/3 does that. and a compromise I can accept for ease of use, for the times I don't want to take the full FF system.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

Trensamiro

.
Ok, BozillaNZ, to each its own. Thanks for your reply, I hope you enjoy your LX once you buy it.

T.
.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Carbon111

Hmm...not so hot on this camera anymore. :/
Are the RAWs this soft?

Oct 8, 2014permalink

No matter which fixed-lens compact you're talking about, if you load up a RAW file and turn the sharpening right down, you'll end up with a softer image. In other words, every JPEG engine in every camera in this class does in-camera sharpening. Some more than others. And some do a better job than others

But if you're asking whether it is possible to produce a sharper more detailed result without accentuating noise by processing from RAW, the answer is most definitely yes.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

fastprime

I'd still like to know if the LX100 will allow ISO to float when in Manual Mode (selected S & A).

Oct 8, 2014permalink

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/06/panasonic-lx100-first-shots-posted-the-first-four-thirds-fixed-lens-camera

And if it will do that, will it respect auto ISO in M as well?

I did finally learn how shutter is adjusted. Full stops are set on the dedicated dial, of course. Any finer increment set on ring around 4-way controller. This ring allows +/- 2/3 stop. So, if you want a little more, have to move up to the dedicated dial again.

Retro is fine. Retro for sake of retro is disappointing. While other cameras with two modal command dials do not have controls 'dedicated' to either aperture or shutter, they actually offer more practical convenience.

Using an exposure mode dial is no slower than using the aperture ring and dedicated shutter speed dial.

With the shutter speed selection made at two control points, the camera is less suitable for use in manual mode. For all the dedicated dials, it is best suited for some program mode.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

David25

I dont know nand0

LX100 £699 (RRP down £100 BEFORE release)

G7X £580

RX100-III £699

All amazon UK pricing

Oct 8, 2014permalink

nand0

A good alternative samples of the strong competition of the canon, sony and panasonic:

and here are some lab shots..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/panasonic-lx100A7.HTM

Oct 8, 2014permalink

ddtwenty

12MP is too little pixels for nowadays cameras..

May be 20MP with 4/3 size ,it should undoubtedly outperform sony rx100 mark3 sensor (In term of resolution and Image Quality)

Oct 8, 2014*permalink

ddtwenty

Or I will not complain anything more ... if Panasonic consider lowering down the price abut 200 dollars.

Hehehe

Oct 8, 2014permalink

TEBnewyork

It depends on how you want to use the files and how you want to use the camera. Personally, If want to travel with this camera and my iPad leaving the laptop at home, I really don't want 20mp files to work with and suck up all of my storage.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

moe lem

Thats would make sense if it wasn't for ipads having too small an amount of space.
Do you really want worse pictures because apple are cheap on disk space?

Oct 8, 2014permalink

TangoR

Do you really want to get into a Megapixel battle on a Photography website. If your benchmark is megapixels then the new Canon must be a useless camera since it only has 20Megapixels compared to 36 for the Nikon.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

tipple

Go to: Photography Blog.com, to see preview pics taken with the Panasonic LX100. This is a camera capable of producing very good images.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

nand0

I like them very much as well, only the video does not really work for me to judge.. the 4K is kinda a big deal for me..

Oct 8, 2014permalink

Paul Rumohr

How on Earth does this lens get a Leica classification? Is this what a Leica branded lens now means?

Is this the new standard? Is this the quality we can expect in the future when we see the name?

Maybe Panasonic writes large enough checks to ease the shame.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

Mike FL

It seems DPR got a bad copy as it should be better than these samples.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

It's amazing how often camera makers give "bad" pre-release review copies to review sites with millions of readers.

/end sarcasm

Oct 8, 2014permalink

Mike FL

It would be (more) useful if P1010137 (the window) used FL=10.9mm (not the 13.9mm).

It will be more useful by just simply take a picture for an evenly lighted (light color or white) brick wall by using FL @10.9mm, Base ISO, and F1.7 with RAW and JPEG right off the camera without any PS.

Keep it simple please, and you will see more...

Oct 8, 2014*permalink

gldaniels

Honestly, I've not been very impressed with any of the "real world" samples I've seen on DP Review lately, from any camera. I find it hard to judge a camera's capabilities when looking at photos that I find rather poorly conceived and executed. It's as if the photographer's are struggling to find something, anything to shoot just to meet a deadline. I'd much rather look at the lame test shots, such as found on the in-depth reviews here or on the Imaging Resource site. At least then I can view and compare images with sufficient ranges of color and detail. I'm still quite interested in this LX100, and am on the list to receive one when B&H gets their first shipment.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

qwertio

Look at ephotozine's full review. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-full-review-26173

or Imaging-resource http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/06/panasonic-lx100-first-shots-posted-the-first-four-thirds-fixed-lens-camera

It looks like its not the camera that sucks, but the photographer of the sample photos in Dpreview

Oct 8, 2014permalink

triplight

This is not Bobbi Lane's camera of choice.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

terryoregon

and . . .

Oct 8, 2014*permalink

triplight

Stock options.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

LarryLatchkey

is the canon G7 X picture on the homepage linked to this page by mistake? or is that my pc...

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Richard Butler

It was a mistake, which we've now fixed. Sorry about that.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Davidgilmour

Thanks panasonic. You just saved me $900. If something sounds too good to be true....

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Biological_Viewfinder

It's funny. Every single time a new camera comes out, the samples look really quite good. It's almost like any camera from any company will do.

In real life, some cameras perform as these samples would have you believe and some don't.

I have never, ever, owned a Panasonic camera that performed like these samples show for this or any Panasonic camera. I have owned 3 Panasonic cameras, because I believed the hype, and later thought that maybe they had changed.

I would have been happier each time to go back 2 camera generations toward any other brand on the market, rather than have the junk Panasonic put out.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Olymore

Then perhaps a look in the mirror may identify the problem.
Pretty much any camera with a reasonable sensor size will produce spectacular results nowadays in the hands of a skilled photographer.
It's really down to preferences on size, ergonomics, UI etc
And, no, I'm not suggesting that I'm a skilled photographer.
But really, it is 99% down to the person behind it.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Biological_Viewfinder

That's funny, my other cameras did just fine.

Maybe I'll hold the Panasonic up to the mirror...

Oct 9, 2014permalink

affvalente

Any idea if the Leica version will produce the same IQ, or if there will be any differences? Will the jpg engine be the same? thanks

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Barney Britton

I have been told (by Leica) that IQ is unchanged between the Leica and Panasonic-branded products.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

hmm.. no secret sauce.

i think it would be fun to own the Leica-type
can't afford it, though. :^|

like the idea of the LX100 and interested in subsequent infos.

+ actually very nice that they were clear about differences between the two. could have been vague but weren't.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

affvalente

Barney, but is the firmware the same, with just a different logo?

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Leica representatives have been quoted by others saying they tweak the colors slightly, to "make them more natural looking".

Oct 7, 2014permalink

so maybe a line drawn between IQ (lens, sensor, whatever) the same and secret sauce (JPG, color) ?

Oct 7, 2014permalink

affvalente

Yeah @Tan68, that was what I was thinking. The same raw sensor capture, but the Leica version had a different jpg engine to tweak colours (hopefully also noise)

Oct 7, 2014permalink

It's supposedly the same engine as the LX 100, but with some adjustments.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Hi, I have never bought into the Leica tweaks etc. on any of the Leica - Pan dual versions. I think the only differences besides the price are the exterior appearance, longer warranty and the Lightroom download. The image output will be identical. Just my opinion based on what I have seen from earlier releases.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Barney Britton

@carlnor - my understanding (again, from asking a direct question of a Leica executive) is that the color profile tweaks that Leica used to perform on the co-branded hardware are a thing of the past.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

@Barney Britton: And I read quotes from an interview (can't find it) with a Leica representative saying that the same kind of color tweaks (as in the past) would be done to the D-LUX 109. Oh well, we'll see when they're released :-)

Oct 7, 2014permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

@Tan68. The Leica version isn't much more than the LX and it comes with Lightroom and a better warranty (IRC). Turns out there is no real premium associated with it.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2014/09/23/photokina-2014-hands-on-with-the-lx100-gm5-leica-d-lux-rebranded-lx100/

"How do the two versions differ? Well, according to a Leica representative at Photokina, there are only a few very subtle differences between the two. First of all, the Leica version lacks the grip found on the original. It is also supposed to produce more natural-looking JPGs".

Oct 8, 2014permalink

Thomas Kachadurian

I see a great lens. Great color, good dynamic range and a JPG engine that I just hate. My guess is people are blowing these 13mp images way past 1:1 and then freaking out.

I for one will not make my final decision on this camera until I get my hand on come raw files that I can play with myself.

These photos really show me enough to know I'm very interested in this camera.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

mpgxsvcd

Is this a pre-production camera?

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Richard Butler

No. This camera is considered reviewable and is running firmware 1.0.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Trensamiro

Is it perchance faulty, then ?

Oct 7, 2014permalink

OttoHG

The expectation was that the fixed lens would have allowed a better lens-to-sensor match than m4/3 cameras with interchangeable lenses. But in the outer areas of the images, the cheap Panasonic 14-42 kit lens (first version) is vastly superior, although it is admittedly not quite as wide and of course a lot larger. Even the Panasonic 14-42 PZ lens, which is closer to comparable in size, is clearly better. And I have only looked at the scenic images, where the aperture used was between 6 and 8 in most cases, which would be expected to give excellent sharpness across the frame.

While a combination of too simplistic in-camera distortion correction and bad JPEG conversion might contribute to the bad results, it seems unlikely that those factors could explain the lack of sharpness entirely. Especially since the central parts of the images are so much sharper.

It is probably a great camera for casual low-light photography and video, but not for general-purpose travel photography.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Peter Gurdes

too bad IQ for the price.

DOA for me.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

jackf00

Just look at Imaging ressource site for better results and comparison with other cams !
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/06/panasonic-lx100-first-shots-posted-the-first-four-thirds-fixed-lens-camera

Oct 7, 2014permalink

The shots from the LX100 on the Photography blog site are really good. The DPR shots are a bit of a letdown. We'll just have to see more.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

photobeans

The sensor is going to be the same, if not, or almost exactly the same as an existing sensor Panasonic uses for other cameras. Noise and color should be the same. Which means that it's a good sensor that can compete well against other APSC sensors. However, the lens and JPEG algorithm are the two varying factors here. Doubt Leica will approve of a lens on a camera which doesn't meet its standards. Therefore, it's either a bad copy of a camera or the jpeg algorithm screwing up the pictures.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx100_photos/

In all seriousness, Leica's "standards" don't mean anything to me. I love Panasonic cameras but some of the compact lenses that Leica have allowed their name to be attached to are pretty horrible in some respects. It's certainly not beneath them to be associated with a soft problematic lens (see the ZS40 for a spectacular example).

Oct 7, 2014permalink

gkdiamond

"Doubt Leica will approve of a lens on a camera which doesn't meet its standards."

They must have pretty low standards then, the Panasonic LF1 with Leica approved lens is an okay lens but not great. It is sharp in the center but soft around the edges.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

David25

Let me try again!

Compare

With

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx7_review/sample_images/

Wide and at all ISO speeds.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Boss of Sony

The Nikon D4S with 24-70mm f2.8 probably takes better photos.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

You are comparing a FF setup that cost and weight at least 8 time more.... OMG

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Like the intended pun here lol.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Boss of Sony

My friend says the Nikon D4S with 24-70 is relatively pocketable.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

Olymore

It is but your trousers will keep on falling down.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

The high ISO doesn't look too bad......but consider the X-trans can do just as good or even better. I am not so sure.

Best to wait for the DPR proper review and compare under the noise SD chart.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

I was intrigued by your claim and did some Imaging Resource comparisons.

See my message earlier, may be hidden in the reply list to BozillaNZ. The comparometers are quite easy to use.

Anyway, the LX100 absolutely blows away the Fuji X20 2/3" at ISO 6400, not close at all. Basically the LX100 is quite usable at 6400 and you won't regret the shot; with the X20 (same as X30 in my understanding) you should definitely stay away from 6400.

OTOH, the Fuji X100 APS-C does somewhat better than LX100 at 6400.

Every comparison I have done on the IR site shows basically expected results in rank order, predictably by sensor size first, expected lens quality sort of second (complex issue) and sensor resolution last. LX100 is impressive and better than the cameras it should beat, not as good as larger sensors w/prime lenses that should beat it in this objective evaluation.

However, I can believe that the JPEG algorithm needs work especially when evening out sun/shadow lighting variations.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

More on the Fuji: compared to LX7 with its smaller sensor than X20, the ISO 6400 shots clearly have more detail on the LX7, which I didn't expect. I think it's clear that the Fuji is using heavier NR; you can see the calculator looks "plastic clean" and the scales are unreadable in the X20 shot, readable scales but somewhat grainy surface in the LX7 shot. So, I conclude that Fuji sweetens the X-Trans magic with heavier default NR - one would have to compare RAW and/or play with both (X20 & LX7) cameras' settings to reveal true differences. LX100 is way better.

N.B. I am not claiming that the controversial LX100 sample shots here don't have any JPEG problems (honestly haven't decided), just that various sweeping claims about lens, sensor, noise etc. being "awful", "worse than my phone" are demonstrably over-the-top. Even "soft lens" is not supportable.

If I had pre-ordered (I didn't) I wouldn't be cancelling just yet. Objective tests look very good, full-iAuto _may_ be problematic.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

ajoerg

You should compare the LX100 with an APS-C Fuji, not with the smaller ones!

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Peter Gurdes

yeah why not compare it to a 1/1.7 inch so it MAYBE looks good for the LX100? LOL

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Haha you guys beat me to reply Joel....

There are many things that we can start arguing that affects IQ, JPEG engine, lens, sensor size...... I do have two thing to say without going into multiple arguments.

1 This thing is asking for A$1100 in Australia. Crazy!! No way I pay that much money for this. An X-E2 kit cost the same and you can do much more and a GX7 kit can do exactly what this camera do at almost A$400 cheaper.

2 My comment refer to a proper DPR review is because they have the tools for a less subjective comparison, its not perfect but its the best we have. Looking at image samples is really not a very scientific was of comparing cameras.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

ajberg: I certainly did compare it to both. Sam's message didn't specify which Fuji, so most of my comments compared it to a camera that is more of a competitor in size & zoom setup. However, I did write that the APS-C Fuji is somewhat better, as I would expect from APS-C + prime lens.

Sam, I'm not defending nor commenting on the price, I'was genuinely interested in whether the LX100 is as much a failure as people were saying. I discovered it's not, but the jury is still out about the JPEG issues until we understand what is happening with the settings and the camera's attempts to deal with dynamic range - are we looking at over-ambitious iAuto processing?

And Peter - you might LOL but others here have done exactly that (compared it to 1/1.7") and claimed the LX100 is worse. So I've looked and posted about 1/1.7" LX7, 2/3" Fuji, 1" RX100, "sub-MFT" LX100, APS-C Fuji and FF Sony. Guess what, the results come in the expected order despite bashing comments. LOL doesn't change it.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

d3xmeister

I'm not sure the EX-2 can do much more. It lacks 4K video (Iwant 4K) but more importantly the 1080p video is a joke on the EX-2. You also get a f/1.7 lens, and it is also a zoom, covering from classic landscape to classic portraiture. You also get a much better AF system. I won't comment about iq based on a one camera jpegs. I hope it will be good.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Let me rephrase my opinion.

At A$1100 there are many choice in the market and from what I've seen this is not the best if you spend that much money on a camera, unless yo must have 4K. ( I always wonder how many people know what is 4K and what you need to process it and playback...)

It is just me/my opinion that one should not spend more than us$500 on a pro P&S. when you get pass this price point, it is better to go interchangeable, for the casual shots, I just pull out my iphone.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

cheetah43

It is no fun looking at wide-angle photographs where there may be just one true vertical, all other 'should-be-vertical' lines converging with the true one somewhere high up in heavens. Why do they bother with extreme wide-angle lenses? Is an equivalent 35mm-105mm feasable on such a camera?

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Boss of Sony

Wide-angle lenses enable interesting photos, which wouldn't otherwise be possible. E.g. closeup of a cow's head, with wide mountain scenery in the background. You don't have to include objects with straight vertical edges if the distortion is annoying.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

ShatteredSky

If you keep the UWA level, there are no converging lines. This is not always possible composition-wise, but for landscapes it is normally not bothersome, and some architectural shots profit from the phenomenon.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

For documentary/precise shots, keeping the camera level to avoid converging vertical is important with longer lenses as well. Not as noticeable as with wide angle, but there.

Compare 70mm corrected for vertical perspective distortion with one not corrected and it is there to see :^)

As noted, use of wide angle lenses is a preference/style. Shooting anything with wide angle is a way to do it. Using it for broader background for same subject size in the image is another.

With a fixed lens, they have to pick a range that is most suitable for everyone. I do think some is market driven and '24mm' or etc. is a noticeable 'metric' :^)

I don't mean 24mm is useless...
But, I would expect to use the lens zoomed in a bit for better quality just as I might stop down just a bit. The way things are... The extremes of any range are usually only bases tagged. Only exceptional product give 95% at the extremes. I wouldn't expect this product to give me 95% performance at 24/1.7 :^)

Oct 7, 2014permalink

As far as 35-105 v. 24-70

The difference between 24 & 35 is greater than between 70 & 105.

The 105 does give you more reach and can be important when you can get no closer...

However, when it comes to the different equivalent focal lengths allowing you to take /different kinds of pictures/, I argue the 24 will offer the opportunity for more difference than the 105...

Setting aside the greater reach of the 105, it isn't very much different from 70... The 24 is different enough to allow the artistic use of wide angle.. to some extent :^)

For horizontal field of view on APS-C,
24>35= 15 degrees
70>105 = 10 degrees

No, not the same FOV in degrees as you would see with this camera, but illustrates the point.

I don't remember the exact range of the LX100, but the point remains the same.

+ and this is coming from someone that loves 105 equivalent (77 on APS-C)... still, the 24-70 is a good choice for fixed lens.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Androole

Nothing wrong with converging verticals. That's how perspective works. It's how I learned to be an industrial designer...

Oct 7, 2014permalink

'Vanishing point' is how I was taught to draw. Sometimes the convergence is nice and sometimes it can be distracting.

As with anything, it depends :^)

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Androole

Yeah, of course.

Vanishing point only applies to 1-pt perspective. 2-pt perspective has the convergence points way off the page, and is probably the most common. 3-pt perspective adds in converging verticals. 4+ point perspective is where it starts to get weird...

With respect to photography though, I find that if there are only a few verticals that are converging - particularly near the edges of the frame - straightening them can be nice. But if there are a lot of verticals, correcting that often ends up making the image look unnatural and overly static. As you say, it depends.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

jpeg
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0NqktTgc54sa1JCWGhWNXM1dWc/view?usp=sharing
Settings
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0NqktTgc54sYmxmU2ZKbEh1Um8/view?usp=sharing

Of course, I wasn't comparing 'industrial designer' to my experience making drawings... ;^)

I think trying to correct vertical is a problem when you have objects at different points on an arc. They are not similar distances.. a picture of a facade versus group of buildings. A window instead of several items in the room.

There is a more accurate way to describe that but I don't know it :^|

Oct 7, 2014permalink

cheetah43

Thanks to all for informative replies.

Oct 8, 2014permalink

dethis2

RAW conversion with Rawtherapee ..
Looks like LX100's sensor is very much alike GH4's regarding color filters and raw white level.
You need to add the following paragraph in RT's camconst.json file

{ // Quality X, preliminary support
"make_model": "Panasonic DMC-LX100",
"dcraw_matrix": [ 7122,-2108,-512,-3155,11201,2231,-541,1423,5045 ],
"ranges": {
"black": 16, // 16 is BL offstet calculated from exif data.
"white": [
{ "iso": 100, "levels": 2700 },
{ "iso": 125, "levels": 3100 }, // gh4 data
{ "iso": [ 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200, 4000, 5000, 6400, 12800, 25600 ], "levels": 4080 }
]
}
},

Oct 7, 2014permalink

From my experience the LX-100 sensor more resembles GX7's sensor than GH4's. As I've tried color matrix of both and the GX7's looked better.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

dethis2

Maybe GX7 matches better .. I didn't try it
Do you find the colors in my conversion wrong ?.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

There are other jpeg samples at PhotographyBlog dot com.

No raws though.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

I've got a developed raw image of the studio shot from Image Resources. This file is converted to Canon CR2 format using my own developed tool and then converted to JPG using, hold on to your seat, the Canon RAW Image Task. The color rendition is a lot more Canon-like and the sharpness is very good.

LX-100 SOOC:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/LX100hSLI00200NR1.HTM

LX-100 to Canon CR2, developed in RAW Image Task:
http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/y3rkp5ZGXXBY

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Is this software you're sharing?

Does it run on Windows?

Did you try any high ISO examples from ImagingResource?

I tried extracting the IR ISO 1600 raw to 8 bit tiff in Rawtherapee 4.1--looks good; the ISO 6400 example extracted to tiff didn't look great, and I tried 4 different runs.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Yes but currently it is still under heavy development... I will create a more descriptive website and share it very soon. Current result looks really promising as it gives Canon rendition to all Panasonic M4/3 models!

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

piratejabez

That's amazing—thanks for sharing!

Oct 7, 2014permalink

http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/bmcF0dulR752l

Without noise reduction, ISO 3200 actually doesn't look half bad. Yes there is noise, but the detail is also good. IMO it is better than in camera JPG's watercolor painting.

Keep in mind this is without NR (because RIT doesn't support and NR): A dash of chroma NR and it will look even better. ISO 3200:

Another I find is the complete lack of distortion and CA in the tele end of the lens. I don't have any wide end raw shots so don't know whether the lens is good at the wide end too.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

This IR sample is f/8 right?

And well the wide angle will be more challenging.

Would be nice if DPR shared some raws for download.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Thanks very much for doing this work. I gave in to the pixel-peeping and compared your conversion of the Imaging Resource shot to the same scene from Sony RX100-III and for a reference standard, Sony A7R with (apparently) 35/2.8 Sonnar. With the white yarn near the upper-right The LX100 appears a little sharper and reveals slightly more texture than the RX100-III, despite the claims here of lens softness and despite the resolution advantage of the little Sony. They are both more than satisfying. As expected, the A7R with prime is rock solid and unquestionably sharper.

Also checked LX7 based on claims here that it out-performs the LX100 (sorry but quite the opposite) and GX7.

So, no surprises:
1. Sony A7R + 35 Sonnar
2. Lumix GX7 + Oly Ft 50mm
3. Lumix LX100
4. Sony RX100-III (not massively below LX100)
5. Lumix LX7

Center results are in the same order though a bit better than the near-corner region (the IR scene does not have any content in the extreme corners). All ISO 200.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Joel, seems to me like a classic case of seeing what one wants to see (not implying you're a Pana fan boy, maybe just a fan of logic, i.e. cameras should perform according to their essential specs-sensor size combined with lens quality).

But, you compared a dedicated RAW conversion of someone who obviously did his best to showcase his project (interesting exercise by the way) to the RX100III OOC jpeg? Sounds fair, not! But even so, you just saw what you wanted to see. I can easily read the small letter in the RX100III ISO200 OOC jpeg (circular scale) but I cannot in the LX100 RAW conversion. That's partly because it's a tad oversharpened (which makes it look sharper as you noted), I can read the text a bit better in the LX100 jpeg actually. But in the latter the napkins texture is smudged away. It's give and take but I'm pretty sure that if you compared a good RAW conversion of the RX100III file with a good RAW conversion of the LX100, you'd find that the RX100III wins on resolution.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54520823

Been there, done that:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54521484

Oct 7, 2014permalink

You're a star:) As I expected, the RX100III has indeed a slight resolution advantage, though they are close. The RX100 shot does seem a bit "washed out" in comparison, exposure is still not identical but close enough. Thanks for that. As you correctly stated, it's only a particular studio comparison but if that proves to be representative of real world performance, then I see no reason to prefer the LX100 over the RX100III. Have you by any chance tried to convert and compare the equivalent high ISO shots, say ISO3200? Does the LX100 have a clear advantage there maybe?

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

To my eyes it is the LX100 that has the slight advantage there. And the exposure is actually the same in the ISO 200 shots (f/5.6 1/50s vs f/8 1/25s). But being that we're at f/8 it's of questionable relevance anyway. I'd much prefer to have some RAWs to play with that were shot at lower fnumbers which is where I think most people are going to want to stay most of the time. I fear that the LX100 will be significantly softer there.

As for high ISO, I did in fact play with some ISO 3200 samples and after downsampling the Sony output to 12MP there was little difference between them surprisingly enough. But that studio scene isn't a good low light test, so I'll reserve judgment for now.

Hungry for further samples :)

Oct 7, 2014permalink

Well if you look at the yellow napkins below, you can see the fabric pattern in the RX100III shot and not in the LX100 shot. Equally you can see more lines in the Proportional scale bit with the RX100III (you can't distinguish lines after 80 with the LX100, with the RX100 you can). The nominal exposure parameters might be the same but you know that those things are not exactly normalised across different cameras, for example the real ISO might be 220 with one and 180 with another. I am talking real exposure here and I see the LX100 grey (and the rest of the colours) as slightly darker.

Oct 7, 2014permalink

I can likewise point to several areas in that scene that are rendered more crisply by the LX100, including the labels on the bottles and basically every piece of fabric. But I didn't post to play the game of declaring a winner and then arguing about why. Both shots are so close that I really don't care.

As for the exposure I don't think you can do a comparison that is more fair than one that involves parameters that should result in the same amount of light per unit of sensor area (in other words, to concentrate on equalizing the only two elements in the exposure triangle that actually have anything to do with exposure). If a resulting difference in brightness bugs you from a performance evaluation standpoint you can always correct for it and then examine things again ;)

Oct 7, 2014*permalink

Labels are the same and every piece of fabric (read all but one-blue- napkin) has finer pattern detail in the RX100III shot. It's just that the LX100 shot seems a bit more (local?) contrasty, but partly that might be because the RX100 shot is slightly lighter. That doesn't bug me at all and I don't disagree with you if you prove to me that ISO200 is indeed ISO200 exactly in both cameras:) But that's fine my friend, I'm not trying to declare a winner overall, I trust my eyes and you can trust your, no problem.

Oct 7, 2014*permalink