M H S
Leading Member
I posted this over on the panasonic compact forum, but I think perhaps folks here would have a better answer.
I own the LX100, as a supplement to my Canon 6d, for times when that system is either unnecessary or inappropriate. Examples of such times include nice dinners at restaurants, trips that are mostly business, casual walks, biking, xc skiing, etc...I use the LX100 a lot - maybe one third of all my photos lately.
For times like these, I want a relatively compact camera -- though I have no need to stick the thing in a pocket -- that can take very high quality images. This set of needs is what led me to the LX100.
I have been super happy with the LX100; but obviously every camera can be better. Features like a touch screen, tilt screen, 20MP sensor, no AA filter, etc...
This inspired me to start looking at a "real" m4/3 system. I immediately fell in love with many of the cameras, their functionality, their size, ... However, it became immediately apparent that to get decently fast zoom lenses, you lose much of the portability that the m4/3 system is supposed to offer.
Yes, it's still smaller than FF, but it's far too large to be unobtrusive and portable.
What I really don't understand is why an f/2.8 normal zoom (say, 24-70ish) for a regular m4/3 body is so big, yet the same (even faster, longer) lens on the LX100 is so small.
Why is it like this? What specific design elements make a fixed lens able to be so much smaller than an interchangeable lens? Is this really a design issue, or is this some sort of business and marketing decision?
As an example, you need look no further than the kit lens that comes with the GX85 (that I am considering buying, d/t the lack of an LX100 successor). It is a 12-32 - so less range at the long end than the LX100 lens, and is f/3.5-5.6 - so a LOT LOT slower at all focal lengths. It lacks a manual focus ring (which rules it out for me), an aperture ring, and the multi aspect ratio adjuster. It is impossible to find specs that can directly compare the two, but the 12-32 does not appear to be much (if any) better than the LX100 for general IQ parameters (sharpness, etc...).
Yet the 12-32 is as big as the lens on the LX100. Of course it is a very small lens, but why is it so slow? Why no room for a focus ring? I would think that they could make this lens a 2.0, or at worst a 2.8!
Then take a look at the the 12-35 f/2.8. Admittedly, this is a phenomenal lens in terms of IQ, certainly better than the lens on the LX100...but it is a bit slower than the LX100 lens, has a shorter focal length at the long end, and is GIGANTIC.
I would absolutely love to get into a "real" m4/3 system, but it seems that my only option for fast glass is either large zooms (I don't even mind the price), or primes. I enjoy shooting primes; I have four L primes for my Canon, but this once again detracts from the notion of a compact, portable, system if I have to schlep around 3 or 4 primes.
I own the LX100, as a supplement to my Canon 6d, for times when that system is either unnecessary or inappropriate. Examples of such times include nice dinners at restaurants, trips that are mostly business, casual walks, biking, xc skiing, etc...I use the LX100 a lot - maybe one third of all my photos lately.
For times like these, I want a relatively compact camera -- though I have no need to stick the thing in a pocket -- that can take very high quality images. This set of needs is what led me to the LX100.
I have been super happy with the LX100; but obviously every camera can be better. Features like a touch screen, tilt screen, 20MP sensor, no AA filter, etc...
This inspired me to start looking at a "real" m4/3 system. I immediately fell in love with many of the cameras, their functionality, their size, ... However, it became immediately apparent that to get decently fast zoom lenses, you lose much of the portability that the m4/3 system is supposed to offer.
Yes, it's still smaller than FF, but it's far too large to be unobtrusive and portable.
What I really don't understand is why an f/2.8 normal zoom (say, 24-70ish) for a regular m4/3 body is so big, yet the same (even faster, longer) lens on the LX100 is so small.
Why is it like this? What specific design elements make a fixed lens able to be so much smaller than an interchangeable lens? Is this really a design issue, or is this some sort of business and marketing decision?
As an example, you need look no further than the kit lens that comes with the GX85 (that I am considering buying, d/t the lack of an LX100 successor). It is a 12-32 - so less range at the long end than the LX100 lens, and is f/3.5-5.6 - so a LOT LOT slower at all focal lengths. It lacks a manual focus ring (which rules it out for me), an aperture ring, and the multi aspect ratio adjuster. It is impossible to find specs that can directly compare the two, but the 12-32 does not appear to be much (if any) better than the LX100 for general IQ parameters (sharpness, etc...).
Yet the 12-32 is as big as the lens on the LX100. Of course it is a very small lens, but why is it so slow? Why no room for a focus ring? I would think that they could make this lens a 2.0, or at worst a 2.8!
Then take a look at the the 12-35 f/2.8. Admittedly, this is a phenomenal lens in terms of IQ, certainly better than the lens on the LX100...but it is a bit slower than the LX100 lens, has a shorter focal length at the long end, and is GIGANTIC.
I would absolutely love to get into a "real" m4/3 system, but it seems that my only option for fast glass is either large zooms (I don't even mind the price), or primes. I enjoy shooting primes; I have four L primes for my Canon, but this once again detracts from the notion of a compact, portable, system if I have to schlep around 3 or 4 primes.
