Why is the image quality of the FZ 1000 better than on the LX 100?

Started Mar 7, 2015 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Clubby Regular Member • Posts: 110
Why is the image quality of the FZ 1000 better than on the LX 100?

I'm a bit confused. I am currently looking for a versatile travel-camera. A small form-factor would've been nice but versatillity and image quality is more important to me. I don't mind bigger bodies and lenses as long as they are not as heavy and bulky as my main camera/lens combination (D610 + 24-70 2.8). So like everyone else I was looking into the usual suspects (RX 100 III, Fuji X, Canon, Nikon etc. enthusiast compacts) and stumbled upon the Lumix 100. This camera looks nice and feels nice, the control scheme is great and all that but when I looked for example pictures I couldn't help but find all of them a bit mushy and not very sharp which was suprising considering that the LX 100 has a mft-sensor (albeit with less effective MP) and a short-ranged normal zoom, which, in my mind, should result in better overall image quality than, say, the RX 100 or a super-zoom camera.

Then I accidentally stumbled upon the FZ 1000, a type of camera I was never even considering because in my prior experience every single super-zoom lens that goes from wide-angle all the way into high telephoto-territory just plain sucked when it comes to image quality. I thought that this was too much of a compromise I couldn't except. But when I saw the images I couldn't believe it. The amount of detail and sharpness across almost the entire focal-range is way better than anything I have ever seen from a camera with this small a sensor and way better than what the LX 100 can do, at least from what I could gather. I always found telephoto lenses appealing because of aesthetic reasons (compression) but I am not a wildlife-photographer and I really don't see myself going around cities lugging some 70-400mm full frame lens around, even 70-200 is way to heavy and obtrusive for me.

I know of course that the FZ 1000 has a tiny sensor compared to full frame but still: the images I have seen coming from the FZ 1000 are so good that I would gladly compromise. The LX 100 however (which, all things considered, should have superior image quality than the FZ 1000, because of the bigger sensor and the much smaller focal range) is so bad in comparison, that I don't know what I am missing here. Could someone enlighten me? Did I just see the wrong photos? Has the MP-count that much of an impact?

 Clubby's gear list:Clubby's gear list
Ricoh GR Nikon D610 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G Nikon 85mm F1.8G +2 more
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
VT
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow