GX80 vs LX100

U 're taking all upside down, friend:

FOR ME, the important is what can i have for a range of money. Nothing else.
Fisheye, extra super lens of future death... i don't give a damn...

I just want a super IQ and versability (hear normal condition, nothing fancy). Nothing else.

I'm trying very hard not to roll my eyes here, and I'm failing miserably.

What everybody in this thread has been telling you from the start is that if you have no need for other lenses the LX100 is a fine camera, and among the best of its kind. Nobody's forcing you to sell it and get a GX80.

The rest of us are interested in the GX80 because it allows us to use lots of different lenses and do lots of different things. If you have no interest in those features, then the camera probably isn't for you.

Kinsi said:

Nope sorry i don't get it at all.
We had this conversation and im totally lost.

GX80 in kit => 12-33 f3.5 - 5.6 = no match for LX100 (cause of f1.8 => more noise for gx80 with f3.5).

Click to expand...

True. But in good light, I think the 12-32 & GX80 might actually be better due to the soft edges of the LX100. The GX80 will also provide better image stabilization.

If you want one of those two options (LX100 vs GX80 + kit lens) to photograph things in poor light, the LX100 will probably be the better choice. For landscapes in decent light, I suspect the GX80+kit lens will be better.

Kinsi said:

SO

If i want a match => i need a 12-35 f2.8 => and it's not totally true cause of lx100 f1.8.
In this case : GX80 = 600 euros nude + Lens 12-35 f2.8 = 700 euros = 1500 euros for a device that can just match lx100.

Click to expand...

It'll probably be close at maximum ISOs so again, if you're shooting in really bad light a lot, then yeah, go for the LX100. But the GX80+12-35/2.8 will provide better results over a wider range of shooting scenarios.

Kinsi said:

So a device of 1500 euros match a device of 600 euros!!!!!

If i want in addition a zoom +> i must add a lens of 14-140 = 450 euros...

Click to expand...

Kinsi said:

GX80 + lens to match lx 100 (nearly) + versatility with zoom = 1950 euros

Versus

LX100 + FZ1000 = 1100 euros...

Im just in euro addition here for the same quality.

Click to expand...

It's not going to be the same quality. The GX80 will provide better image quality. But if your point is that as quality increases, the goes up disproportionately, then I'll agree with you. You will be paying a lot for the difference.

aliasfox said:

Kinsi said:

??? we have discussed this:
To have a IQ equal to the lx100, the gx80 need a len 2.8 12-35...
so it's super expensive to have a equivalent of lx100 !!!!
LX100 = 600 euros
GX80 = 700 + 700 euros = 1400 euros
To obtain the same IQ...
We can speculate:
If you want a better zoom...
gx80 + lens zoom : +> add 700 euros...
For 700 euros i can take the fz1000...

Click to expand...

A GX80 and:

- 12-35 f2.8 (700 EUR) will match an LX100 (600 EUR)

- 14-140 (450 EUR) will match an FZ1000 (700 EUR)

- 9-18 (350 EUR) will match a Nikon DL18-50 (700 EUR)

- 15mm/1.7 (450 EUR) will match a Ricoh GR (600 EUR)

- 17mm/1.8 (400 EUR) will match a Fujifilm X100T (700 EUR)

- 45mm/1.8 (250 EUR) will match... no point and shoot in the world will match it

- 75mm/1.8 (600 EUR) will match... no point and shoot in the world will match it

- 300mm/4 (2500 EUR) will match... no point and shoot in the world will match it

I've commented before, and I've been reading for the past few days. I'm not sure what you don't get - if you're only using a normal zoom lens (12-35mm in m4/3 terms), your LX100 can do just about as well as most options, regardless of format. HOWEVER most of us want the option to be able to use lots of different lenses, and that's when it starts making more sense to get one body and different lenses for different uses.

Click to expand...

+1.

To OP: as responded before, if you just need the focal length coverage of LX100, or if you hate to exchange lens, LX100 is the best option.

Otherwise, if you wish to have a system for most of tasks, a system camera would be the only choice (including any M43 camera or GX80). Of course, the more you need like UWA 7-14 f/2.8 or f/4, pro f/2.8 zooms, super fast primes like the f/1.2, or super long like 100-400 or 300 f/4, or mini body as small as GM1/GM5, a light weight setup like GX80 or EM10 II, mid weight body like GX8 or EM5, and the heavy machine guns for battle like EM1 or GH4... That usually would come at a price.

Kinsi said:

U 're taking all upside down, friend:
FOR ME, the important is what can i have for a range of money. Nothing else.
Fisheye, extra super lens of future death... i don't give a damn...
I just want a super IQ and versability (hear normal condition, nothing fancy). Nothing else.

Click to expand...

You're right and not 100% right.

larsbc had a good explanation on the matter of the merit of the fast speed lens of LX100.

Besides the consideration on: would you need the flexibility of a system camera, it seems you would also need to consider: would you need that fast speed?

If you always shoot in very dim light, the fast lens of LX100 of course helps in terms of higher shutter speed (more stable image) or less noise (lower ISO) comparing to the kit zoom 12-32 on a M43 camera. But, the latest generation of M43 cameras like GXs, EMs etc their noises in high ISO have been greatly improved. Like GX7 + non pro zooms (f/3.5~) I could comfortably (IMHO) shoot at ISO3200 under proper technique. One simple thing is the ISO3200 today is already miles ahead the noise level of ISO400 negative film! If I'm looking for something to replace my old film slrs, today a f/3.5 kit zoom could deliver better IQ that I originally looking for.

BTW, if you shoot in better lighting conditions, the benefit of a fast lenses is of course there still, but will even becoming not material anymore. You won't shoot f/1.7 + 1/4000" (except for the dof) under the sun....

For that reason, 12-35 f/2.8 once was high on my wishing list (attractive price recently) has completely replaced by the just announced 12-60 f/3.5-5.6(?) as "practical application of the focal length" would be more valuable to me than "faster speed". It is another reason I stay with 7-14 f/4 instead of upgrading to 7-14 f/2.8 as IMHO that faster speed doesn't good enough for the price difference (I think personally).

Speed should not be the only consideration. It also doesn't guarantee IQ. For the best value, we better take into account of many thing from would you need it, would you willingly pay for that premium etc.

As said, LX100 is best if you would need no more than its short zoom range, or you don't like lens changing (like me wife: so bought her a 14-140). End of the story.

For us who love photographing, lenses (different focal length) is what we are after. Camera body comes and goes (more pixel count, better sensor, more features etc) max <3~4 years. The lenses would be forever (in a sense). More application we do (macro, architecture, landscape, portrait, event, travelling, sports, BIF), the more different focal length of lenses we wish... If you wish to expand/enrich your photo life, you better look ahead on a bigger picture rather than today what you need.

You are the only one know exactly what you want.

Good answer.

It's a question of price too really.

For me, it's just not worth it when i can use different compacts or lens-devices systems to "liberate" me that cost me half of the money for a device with different lenses that make the same results...

We think differently, simply.

BUT "For us who love photographing" ... i love photographing too ;-)

I'm not agreee with you eventhough i see (read) what you're saying.

For me (my usage or my practical sens), i don't see why paying 2 times the price for a system that match another system that cost me the half.

Like i said, my only concern with the lx100 is (perhaps) the zoom and (perhaps) having a better iq... but for the zoom i can take another compact better for that... it's just even less pricey than a good lense!

Kinsi said:

I'm not agreee with you eventhough i see (read) what you're saying.

For me (my usage or my practical sens), i don't see why paying 2 times the price for a system that match another system that cost me the half.
Like i said, my only concern with the lx100 is (perhaps) the zoom and (perhaps) having a better iq... but for the zoom i can take another compact better for that... it's just even less pricey than a good lense!

Click to expand...

It's been explained time and time again. If you don't need specially lenses, lenses that you can't get with a fixed lens camera, there is really no reason for you to buy M43.

For other people, the systems don't match, as they don't provide the lenses that they require. This is why someone might want to pay more for an interchangeable lens camera system. If the money isn't worth it for you, don't buy the camera. There is no need to argue in circles here.

"If the money isn't worth it for you" ??? Oo

Kinsi said:

The question is open.
I know it's not the same BUT the gx80 with 14-32mm is pocketable... like the lx100
The question here is: what device have the best IQ.
When i see the review, in labo, the lx100 is better in iq than the Gx7 and gx8...
So as we know the gx80 seems to have an iq egal to the gx7-gx8 can we speculate, the lx100 stays better in terms of iq???

Click to expand...

Why did you start a post already knowing your needs & finances to begin with? It causes pointless discussion with what you already knew the answers too

It is not pointless at all! And very interesting especially for a beginner.
I know my needs but not the device that reaches them.

It's easy not to react if you don't see the interest

Kinsi said:

It is not pointless at all! And very interesting especially for a beginner.
I know my needs but not the device that reaches them.
It's easy not to react if you don't see the interest

Click to expand...

Your needs don't coincide with you finances or you wouldn't be comparing price? I want a Nissan GTR & Porsche 911 Turbo but my finances don't coincide with my finances. Your doing the same thing on a smaller scale

TheClueless said:

LMNCT said:

Sorry, I must correct a statement. The 12-32 is not a "junk lens". It is not the constant f stop 12-35, but it is very sharp and a fine optic for general use. \

Click to expand...

Oh for Pana's sake, it's a compact-first optic which is almost as bad as the Sony PZ across the focal range - only in MFT you don't have the benefit of the superior Sony APS sensor.

I don't know why you guys have to get so defensive about this and feel the need to ascribe magical properties to this compromise for size - as I've said before, even an RX100 can blow the doors off a GM1 with the kit installed. That's not a good showing.

Click to expand...

Where you're getting you info from? I have both the GM1 and the and RX100 MKI. Both have pluses and minuses, but overall I prefer the GM1. As far as IQ goes I've never done head to head tests, but the GM1 gives great results and overall I would have to say a little better than the RX100.

Kinsi said:

"If the money isn't worth it for you" ??? Oo

Click to expand...

Indeed if you go for a system camera, the cost might not 100% as expansive as you might have expected. The cost just add up if you need a better camera (top of the range), the best lenses or special lenses only.

e.g. today if I buy a new M43 system, <US$400 I could get a new GF7 + the tiny pairs of 12-32 and 35-100 covering the range from wide angle of 24mm to mid tele of 200mm. GF7 is the economy line of Panny camera (just replaced by GF8) but has the latest 16Mp Panny sensor and packed with a lot of modern features (except 4K) for most general shooting. Not to mention the discontinued GM1/GM5 could further save you setup cost. If you have some old lenses left over from film slrs, like my Nikon 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8, by a US$10 adapter I could have excellent fast prime MF lenses to play with.... On the surface you would have lost the fast speed as LX100, but indeed you open up the door for the building up of a limitless system (if you need it).

So the flexibility is not always as expensive as you claimed. Of course, going for the best glasses like f/2.8 pro zooms, f/1.2 or f/1.4 or f/1.7 primes, or the super teles plus the latest pro bodies it would cost you a lot more. But it is on total another level from LX100 or other compacts.

I also hate to pay excessive money on my toys. Normally if you buy a camera 6~9 months after its launching, you might expect something around 20~30% discount. Like the US$1,200 listed price GX8, last month I checked the market price should be >US$700 only. The GX7 was launched at US$1,000 is now >US$300 (all new)... By the end of this year the GX80 might likely be below US$400.

The same story for compact cameras. If we are talking about pro/enthusiastic model, they would also not be cheap when new. That 1" sensor ZS100 closing to US$700 is a very good example.

The final word, there is no free lunch. You pay for what you need. So just making sure it is what you need and invest wisely (like avoid new models, wait for promotion period etc). Even if certain compact is cheaper, say a US$300 LX100, if its zoom range is found insufficient, then that US$300 is just a waste. Buy more compact to back it up indeed would just mean more investment.

Just like members' opinion, buy what you needed. After selection of the type of system (compact or a system), then start to consider how to build it up. Paying a lump sum =/= end of story. There would be a thousand question after you entered the system. e.g. would you jump to another format, another brand, some lenses you might specially needed etc etc.

Kinsi said:

I'm not agreee with you eventhough i see (read) what you're saying.

For me (my usage or my practical sens), i don't see why paying 2 times the price for a system that match another system that cost me the half.
Like i said, my only concern with the lx100 is (perhaps) the zoom and (perhaps) having a better iq... but for the zoom i can take another compact better for that... it's just even less pricey than a good lense!

Click to expand...

There lies the problem; we don't know exactly what your requirements and threshold of "good enough" is. If the LX100 + some other compact gives you the same enjoyment as a more expensive micro four thirds system, then by all means spend the money on that and enjoy your savings.

But for others, it may be that the more expensive micro four thirds system produces better images and for them (myself included), we are doomed to spend more money.

I've shot with both my LX100 and GX7 in a variety of conditions and quite honesty I prefer the handling and output of the GX7. But that's my perspective. It doesn't invalidate your perspective.

But the convenience and compactness of the LX100 is way better, of course.

I will probably put the LX100 up for sale even though it's the most enjoyable compact camera I've had so far. The jittery video and smeared edges are too hard to ignore. For a compact camera I'll probably use my GX7 with 20/1.7 or perhaps a GX80 with 20/1.7.

so u didnt understand what i have said.
It's not a finance question it's a range of price question!

Why not 2 cameras. gx85 with lens selection and an lx100. Then shoot indoor event in low light with the lx100 in vest pocket and gx85 say with 35-100 f2.8 around you neck. The lx 100 is great second camera and is less money that bying the 12-35 f2.8 for your gx85.

Kinsi said:

The question is open.
I know it's not the same BUT the gx80 with 14-32mm is pocketable... like the lx100
The question here is: what device have the best IQ.
When i see the review, in labo, the lx100 is better in iq than the Gx7 and gx8...
So as we know the gx80 seems to have an iq egal to the gx7-gx8 can we speculate, the lx100 stays better in terms of iq???

Click to expand...

Since the question is open, may I reply with another question?

What does it matter, any small differences in IQ between the two?

One camera is a true, interchangeable lens MFT system camera with the capability of taking any MFT lens ever made.

The other is a very capable, fixed zoom lens, point and shoot pocket camera that the designers had to crop the image in order to get the lens small enough to make it barely pocketable, and still use the large MFT sensor.

As I understand it, if you want a larger sensor, you'll have larger lenses, and with a smaller sensor, you can have smaller lenses, and never the 'twain shall meet.

I've thought about getting an LX100 myself, and I might yet.

But as an upgrade for my LX3, not as a upgrade for my first generation 12mp sensor Oly MFT cameras.

I have all these MFT lenses, you know?.

--
Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

Pete49 said:

Why not 2 cameras. gx85 with lens selection and an lx100. Then shoot indoor event in low light with the lx100 in vest pocket and gx85 say with 35-100 f2.8 around you neck. The lx 100 is great second camera and is less money that bying the 12-35 f2.8 for your gx85.

Click to expand...

Did you know that this thread is over a year old?

The Lx100 does not have fantastic IQ. More or less as good as my Casio ZR850 in good light. In low light it is, of course, much better.

Also it is not as good as a GX80 with 12-32 kitlens.

But in low light LX100 could be as good/ better due to faster lens.

As I never use anything else than a kitlens, because I travel light & small, the LX100 is an option, but limited to low light situations to really have a small advantage.

For example I also tried the LX15. It is very good for low light, but I found its output very much below the Sony RX100III.

Yes I know, it seems everything is a compromise...