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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

carlnor,

right.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

@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 :-)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 :^)

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.

'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 :^)

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.

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 :^|