LX100 is not a pocket camera!

I bought my LX100 in December last year. It's my only camera (replaced LX3) and I've taken thousands of pictures with it on trips to Scotland, Wales, Spain, Portugal, and locally here in Bristol.

It's not a pocket camera. I wear it around my neck, either hanging to the front if I want to use it, or slung round to the side, where it gets tangled up with my rucksack straps, if I'm just walking along or want to keep it out of sight of people coming towards me. If it's raining and I'm wearing a waterproof jacket I'll drop it down the front of the jacket and hope it stays dry.

In not being a pocket camera it loses the right to be compared with actual pocket cameras, eg Sony RX100 or Panasonic TZ/ZS x00, and instead requires to be compared with other cameras that are also not pocket cameras.

And it loses!

For example, on the specs the Panasonic GX9, while being a few mm bigger in each dimension than the LX100 2, blows the LX100 2 out of the water:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-LX100-II-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GX9

And a GX9 is much cheaper as well! My local dealer is selling GX9 + 12-60 kit lens for $150 less than LX100 2. If you are in the market for a new Panasonic camera you can save yourself a lot of money by buying a much better product whose only real disadvantage is that it is a little bit bigger than an LX100!

I really don't know what Panasonic are thinking. Perhaps they are hoping that prospective customers will confuse 'compact' with 'pocketable' and buy it on that basis?

The LX100 lens is 2 stops faster than the GX9 kit lens. Great for low light and de-focused backgrounds. Suspect it may also be sharper.

123dy said:

I bought my LX100 in December last year. It's my only camera (replaced LX3) and I've taken thousands of pictures with it on trips to Scotland, Wales, Spain, Portugal, and locally here in Bristol.

It's not a pocket camera. I wear it around my neck, either hanging to the front if I want to use it, or slung round to the side, where it gets tangled up with my rucksack straps, if I'm just walking along or want to keep it out of sight of people coming towards me. If it's raining and I'm wearing a waterproof jacket I'll drop it down the front of the jacket and hope it stays dry.

In not being a pocket camera it loses the right to be compared with actual pocket cameras, eg Sony RX100 or Panasonic TZ/ZS x00, and instead requires to be compared with other cameras that are also not pocket cameras.

Click to expand...

Ok...so you think it shouldn't be compared to those type cameras. Some may differ...but really, the LX100/2 are unique camera's.

Member said:

And it loses!

For example, on the specs the Panasonic GX9, while being a few mm bigger in each dimension than the LX100 2, blows the LX100 2 out of the water:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-LX100-II-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GX9

And a GX9 is much cheaper as well! My local dealer is selling GX9 + 12-60 kit lens for $150 less than LX100 2.

Click to expand...

Is that lens as fast as the built in lens of the LX100/LX100 2 ?

No. It's F3.5-5.6 . Much slower lens.

If not, why compare?

Member said:

If you are in the market for a new Panasonic camera you can save yourself a lot of money by buying a much better product whose only real disadvantage is that it is a little bit bigger than an LX100!

Click to expand...

Different class of camera. Apples and Oranges.

Member said:

I really don't know what Panasonic are thinking. Perhaps they are hoping that prospective customers will confuse 'compact' with 'pocketable' and buy it on that basis?

Click to expand...

Why would they ' hope their customers will be confused 'about ANY of their products?

Makes no sense, does it?

Besides, they can see the dimensions and know it's size

Where's the mystery or confusion?

You just compared a m 4/3 Camera that has the lens separate from the Body..???

GX9 is an Interchangeable lens system camera....therefore it loses the right to be compared to an all in one, fixed lens compact camera , like the LX100.

Folk know about m 4/3...no secret. LX100/2 has a Multi Aspect Ratio Sensor...does the G9X have same type? Or is it a normal 4/3 type sensor?

Does the G9X have external controls for adjusting the Aspect ratio?

Aperture?

Those buying the LX100 know why they want that type of a camera and not a system , lens switching camera.

So does Panasonic



Hope this clarifies

If you like the GX9..go for it. seems a really nice ILC type camera.

But it's not a LX100.

ANAYV

No, the LX100 will not fit into a shirt pocket. It is a high specification compact camera with an excellent non-interchangeable, fast zoom lens, image stabilization, an an image sensor larger than some. I like the controls.

I wanted something small, light, and good. I looked at some of the highest rated pocket cameras and decided to accept the compromise regarding size.

The GX9? Not for me. With a lens, it is a good bit larger.

My first mirrorless camera was a Panasonic Micro 4/3 model. It was okay, but I soon found hat I preferred the Sony NEX-5N, with its APS-C sensor and better low light performance.

Today, I would choose an A6500 over the GX-9.

All cameras are compromises. Many of today's best crop-sensor models are almost as large as the A7 series full frame cameras, though the lenses are smaller.

I have retired my Nikon FF DSLRs in favor of the much lighter and more compact Sony FF cameras. I still use a Sony NEX-6 with excellent optics from time to time.

I bought the LX100 II for its small size and light weight and good performance.

123dy said:

I bought my LX100 in December last year. It's my only camera (replaced LX3) and I've taken thousands of pictures with it on trips to Scotland, Wales, Spain, Portugal, and locally here in Bristol.

It's not a pocket camera. ...

Click to expand...

Anyone who is knowledgeable of the LX100, or any other large sensor (i.e., 4/3rds or ASP-C sensor fixed-lens compacts) well aware these cameras are not 'pocketable"; e.g., Canon PowerShot G1 X, G1 X II, G1X III, Fujifilm X100F, Ricoh GR/ II, Sony DSC-RX1R II, etc.

THESE are the genre of cameras you should be comparing with the LX100/ II. NOT compacts with the smaller 1"-Type sensor.

Apparently by your posts can only assume you did not take the time to thoroughly read any of the LX100 Full Reviews (e.g., DPR, Imaging Resource, etc.)

The LX100 is somewhat of niche camera.

IMO the main reasons for getting the LX100 over smaller the 1"-Type sensor compacts are:
• The manual controls. (LX100 often referred in various reviews as being a camera for
'photographers'.
• 4/3rds sensor
• Multi-aspect ratio
• EVF

If all of the above are not a high priority to anyone, then they be better off with another camera.

Main reason I like the LX100 was the manual controls, similar to using a old 35mm rangefinder camera.

Member said:

... I wear it around my neck, either hanging to the front if I want to use it, or slung round to the side, where it gets tangled up with my rucksack straps, if I'm just walking along or want to keep it out of sight of people coming towards me. If it's raining and I'm wearing a waterproof jacket I'll drop it down the front of the jacket and hope it stays dry. ...

Click to expand...

I just use a small strap case (too large for belt case) just large enough to hold LX100 and spare battery. When in use just hold camera in hand with a wrist strap around wrist to prevent dropping. Been doing this for over 50 years with various film/ digital compacts.

Member said:

... In not being a pocket camera it loses the right to be compared with actual pocket cameras, eg Sony RX100 or Panasonic TZ/ZS x00, and instead requires to be compared with other cameras that are also not pocket cameras. ...

... For example, on the specs the Panasonic GX9, while being a few mm bigger in each dimension than the LX100 2, blows the LX100 2 out of the water:

Click to expand...

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-LX100-II-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GX9

Member said:

And a GX9 is much cheaper as well! My local dealer is selling GX9 + 12-60 kit lens for $150 less than LX100 2. If you are in the market for a new Panasonic camera you can save yourself a lot of money by buying a much better product whose only real disadvantage is that it is a little bit bigger than an LX100!...

Click to expand...

Need to do 'apples-to-apples' comparison.

The 12-60 kit lens is slower f/3.5-5.6 max apertures which allows for smaller physical size/ lighter lens.

To match the LX100 lens f/1.7-2.8 max apertures would need to get the:
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ASPH ($997.99 +/-); or
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 ($999.00 +/-)

Member said:

... I really don't know what Panasonic are thinking. Perhaps they are hoping that prospective customers will confuse 'compact' with 'pocketable' and buy it on that basis? ...

Click to expand...

In all due respect, do not know what / why are your are thinking, at the Panasonic.com LX100 web page HERE there's NO reference to LX100 be pockectable, nor have I've read any reputable online sites' LX100 full review note that the LX100 as a pocketable camera.

Even your link provided above to Cameradecision.com notes:
"Panasonic LX100 II is a Large Sensor Compact"

Bottom line/ reiterate: If you had simply taken the time to thoroughly read several of the LX100 Full Reviews (as referenced above) you would have been aware of ALL your LX100 gripes prior to even buying the LX100. If you had only read the LX100 Specs you would had know the LX100's size/ weight. :-|

Cheers,
Jon

Of course it is! Or rather, it can be. Jacket pocket during the winter and cargo shorts pocket during the summer. And if you're a lady, or with one, it also fits in a small handbag. So the subject of the thread needs to be changed to "jeans pocket".

--
Apollon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apollonas/
http://500px.com/Apollon
Fuji XE-1&2, LX100, Fuji 50-140 2.8, 56 1.2, 27 2.8, 10-24, Rokinon II 8 2.8

Having just sold my gx9 & 12-60mm (plus all the other lens) and keeping the lx100m2, I find it smaller, lighter, much better ergonomics, much MORE FUN.

With the gx9 combo, I found the lens way bigger and the camera not so easy to use, especially one handed. Then there is the 2-3 stop difference in the boekh.

I do miss the tilting screen, but not as much as I thought and the boekh and size, ease of use easily out way it.

Camera spec sheets can only tell you so much, handling a camera an the joy you get from using it are do much more important, but obviously are purely subjective.

For a photo centric, old fashion hands on camera you will struggle to beat the lx100m2. Some things are greater than the sum of their parts.

As others have pointed out, when did it ever claim the "right" to be compared? Those of us who have the LX100 (1 or 2) know what we're getting. The only other non-ILC camera with a similar shooting experience is the Fuji x100 series. I love the external controls, to the point that I miss them when using my GX7.

123dy said:

I bought my LX100 in December last year. It's my only camera (replaced LX3) and I've taken thousands of pictures with it on trips to Scotland, Wales, Spain, Portugal, and locally here in Bristol.

It's not a pocket camera. I wear it around my neck, either hanging to the front if I want to use it, or slung round to the side, where it gets tangled up with my rucksack straps, if I'm just walking along or want to keep it out of sight of people coming towards me. If it's raining and I'm wearing a waterproof jacket I'll drop it down the front of the jacket and hope it stays dry.

In not being a pocket camera it loses the right to be compared with actual pocket cameras, eg Sony RX100 or Panasonic TZ/ZS x00, and instead requires to be compared with other cameras that are also not pocket cameras.

And it loses!

For example, on the specs the Panasonic GX9, while being a few mm bigger in each dimension than the LX100 2, blows the LX100 2 out of the water:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-LX100-II-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GX9

And a GX9 is much cheaper as well! My local dealer is selling GX9 + 12-60 kit lens for $150 less than LX100 2. If you are in the market for a new Panasonic camera you can save yourself a lot of money by buying a much better product whose only real disadvantage is that it is a little bit bigger than an LX100!

Click to expand...

A little bigger? The 12-60 lens itself at 66 cms is deeper than the whole LX100 body without even bringing the GX9 body in to it. Plus these long heavy lenses on thin light mirrorless ILC bodies do tend to want to topple forwards when held in front on a neck strap and can be rather clumsy and awkward to carry around.

Big stuff is usually cheaper than this miniaturised equipment as the constraints of engineering it all in to a small space are not there in a big slow lens like the 12-60.

Member said:

I really don't know what Panasonic are thinking. Perhaps they are hoping that prospective customers will confuse 'compact' with 'pocketable' and buy it on that basis?

Click to expand...

Very interesting thread!

Actual user comments on specific cameras is very valuable to those of us suffering a GAS attack for another camera.

I have been seriously considering "Pocketable" cameras for about a month and concluded there is only one with a "large sensor", the Panasonic ZS200. It has most of what I want, including a decent zoom.

I've also considered the GX85 w/12-32mm lens, the GX9, and will now think long and hard about the LX100.

I hope this thread continues to develop, with others mentioning strengths of the various compact cameras.

Thanks for the interesting comments! I hope for more input!

Jack

I'm not trying to be mean, but this seems like a really faulty analysis on the part of the OP. The GX-9 would need to have a lens like the 12-35mm f/2.8 to be comparable to the LX100. Here's how the two cameras look with the correct lens on the GX-9:



It looks like the GX-9 is about twice the size of the LX100. And with the 12-35mm lens, the total package is also twice the weight of the LX100. And even then, the LX100 still beats the GX-9 in low-light at the wide end, since the LX100 starts out with an f/3.7 equivalent lens, while the GX-9 lens is never any faster than f/5.6 equivalent.

Of course, the GX-9 will be a bit faster at the long end, but the LX100 still wins out in maximum light gathering ability, as well as overall light-gathering ability across the zoom range.

And while the LX100 may not fit in most pants pockets, it will fit in jacket pockets or in a belt pouch, which is how I usually carried mine.

If somebody is wanting something like the LX100, but more pocket-able, then the LX10 would be the best choice. It's much smaller than the LX100, so it could be pocketed, and it has a very fast f/1.4-2.8 lens in front of it's 1" sensor, so it does low-light and blurred backgrounds better than any of the other large-sensor compact zoom cameras out there.

At the wide end, the little LX10 even beats the GX-9 / f/2.8 combo for low light, and it's pretty much even with the LX100, with an f/3.8 equivalent aperture. It also has good manual controls. It doesn't have an EVF like the LX100, but it does have a tilt screen.

I have nothing against the GX-9, which is a great camera. In fact, I own and love its predecessor the GX-7, and it's probably my favorite camera I've ever owned. But it's a very different kind of camera from the LX100. I could fit my LX100 into my LowePro Dashpoint 20 belt pouch, while the GX-7 or GX-9 body with no lens would not even fit in the pouch. Here's a picture of the LX100 in the Dashpoint 20 (image borrowed from beelzebot):

Setter Dog said:

Very interesting thread!

Actual user comments on specific cameras is very valuable to those of us suffering a GAS attack for another camera.

I have been seriously considering "Pocketable" cameras for about a month and concluded there is only one with a "large sensor", the Panasonic ZS200. It has most of what I want, including a decent zoom.

I've also considered the GX85 w/12-32mm lens, the GX9, and will now think long and hard about the LX100.

I hope this thread continues to develop, with others mentioning strengths of the various compact cameras.

Thanks for the interesting comments! I hope for more input!

Jack

Click to expand...

Dedicated dials / buttons and a fast lens keeps the LX100 in a class of it's own. It's not meant for the point n shooter. These apples to oranges comparisons are interesting but are just that.

Edgar_in_Indy said:

I'm not trying to be mean, but this seems like a really faulty analysis on the part of the OP. The GX-9 would need to have a lens like the 12-35mm f/2.8 to be comparable to the LX100. Here's how the two cameras look with the correct lens on the GX-9:



It looks like the GX-9 is about twice the size of the LX100. And with the 12-35mm lens, the total package is also twice the weight of the LX100. And even then, the LX100 still beats the GX-9 in low-light at the wide end, since the LX100 starts out with an f/3.7 equivalent lens, while the GX-9 lens is never any faster than f/5.6 equivalent.

Of course, the GX-9 will be a bit faster at the long end, but the LX100 still wins out in maximum light gathering ability, as well as overall light-gathering ability across the zoom range.

And while the LX100 may not fit in most pants pockets, it will fit in jacket pockets or in a belt pouch, which is how I usually carried mine.

If somebody is wanting something like the LX100, but more pocket-able, then the LX10 would be the best choice. It's much smaller than the LX100, so it could be pocketed, and it has a very fast f/1.4-2.8 lens in front of it's 1" sensor, so it does low-light and blurred backgrounds better than any of the other large-sensor compact zoom cameras out there.

Click to expand...

The f1.4 disappears rather rapidly on zoom so the more slowly closing aperture of the Canon G7X is better for that not closing up until 50mm equivalent. Best to look at the equivalent aperture charts to see what exactly goes on in the aperture of these cameras.

Some are pretty much f2.8 unless absolutely wide which gives little scope for subject separation.

Edgar_in_Indy said:

At the wide end, the little LX10 even beats the GX-9 / f/2.8 combo for low light, and it's pretty much even with the LX100, with an f/3.8 equivalent aperture. It also has good manual controls. It doesn't have an EVF like the LX100, but it does have a tilt screen.

I have nothing against the GX-9, which is a great camera. In fact, I own and love its predecessor the GX-7, and it's probably my favorite camera I've ever owned. But it's a very different kind of camera from the LX100. I could fit my LX100 into my LowePro Dashpoint 20 belt pouch, while the GX-7 or GX-9 body with no lens would not even fit in the pouch. Here's a picture of the LX100 in the Dashpoint 20 (image borrowed from beelzebot):

Click to expand...

This against a full frame camera, so compared to a aps-c it's about an f2.8-4 so you can get some seperation





Only 2.8!

GCW1 said:

This against a full frame camera, so compared to a aps-c it's about an f2.8-4 so you can get some seperation



Only 2.8!

Click to expand...

I was talking about the LX10 which really appealed until I saw how it closed up rapidly. The LX100 beats them all as you demonstrate.

Edit: Love the picture of the Lady by the way. The smile and the reflections give a lot of warmth and character to the image. I get too much embroiled in the gear specification talk.

Hi,

I have read so many posts like this.

Never have I actually seen any evidence to support such 'claims'.

I would really like to see true *low* light shot results of this GX9 camera/ kit lens combo against the LX100 II with 20MP sensor.

I dare you ... (being quite sure I already know) ... and The Winner that Takes it All !

People who prefer small better look at e.g. the Google Pixel 3 smartphone with the new Night Mode functionality.

The LX100 (II) is a true camera ... no toy.

But as always, YMMV.

Kind regards,

Stefaan

KeepCalm said:

Edgar_in_Indy said:

If somebody is wanting something like the LX100, but more pocket-able, then the LX10 would be the best choice. It's much smaller than the LX100, so it could be pocketed, and it has a very fast f/1.4-2.8 lens in front of it's 1" sensor, so it does low-light and blurred backgrounds better than any of the other large-sensor compact zoom cameras out there.

Click to expand...

The f1.4 disappears rather rapidly on zoom so the more slowly closing aperture of the Canon G7X is better for that not closing up until 50mm equivalent. Best to look at the equivalent aperture charts to see what exactly goes on in the aperture of these cameras.

Click to expand...

I've studied DPR's handy equivalence graphs many times, and I'm very aware that f/1.4 is only available at the widest angle, but a fast 24mm lens is a very useful thing to have. I've said before that the LX-10 is almost worth buying for the f/1.4 wide angle alone. It makes the camera so useful, and better equipped to deal with low-light than any other compact zoom camera.

As for the G7X II, it also has a very attractive lens, and it would probably be my 2nd choice, but I prefer the specs of the LX10's lens.

I have also noticed that I'm usually finding myself at either the extreme wide-end of the LX-10's lens, or the extreme long end, with relatively few shots in between. So while the slightly faster midrange of the G7X would be appreciated, it would mostly be wasted on me.

But both the LX10 and the G7X II could be considered good alternatives to the LX100 if true pocketability is a requirement, and an EVF is not vital.

camfan1 said:

I would really like to see true *low* light shot results of this GX9 camera/ kit lens combo against the LX100 II with 20MP sensor.

I dare you ... (being quite sure I already know) ... and The Winner that Takes it All !

Click to expand...

A contest of "Look at my low light photo!" would not really prove much, as you can get good photos from either camera. It's simply that the camera/sensor combo that captures more light will allow the user to shoot at a lower ISO and/or higher shutter speed in any given low-light situation.

In the case the of the LX100-II vs the GX-9 w/kit lens, the GX-9 has an f7-11.2 equivalent lens, while the LX100-II has an f/3.7-6.2 equivalent lens, so it's about a 2-stop advantage for the LX100-II.

In the real world, that means that if the same person were photographing the same scene with the two cameras, and all else was held equal, then the LX100-II shots would be less noisy due to using a lower ISO and/or would be sharper due to a higher shutter speed. But beyond that the two images need to be drastically different.

For a casual photographer, the differences may not be that important. But for somebody who enjoys wringing every lost drop of performance out of a camera, the advantages and disadvantages of the two setups will be obvious.

Edgar_in_Indy said:

A contest of "Look at my low light photo!" would not really prove much, as you can get good photos from either camera. It's simply that the camera/sensor combo that captures more light will allow the user to shoot at a lower ISO and/or higher shutter speed in any given low-light situation.

In the case the of the LX100-II vs the GX-9 w/kit lens, the GX-9 has an f7-11.2 equivalent lens, while the LX100-II has an f/3.7-6.2 equivalent lens, so it's about a 2-stop advantage for the LX100-II.

In the real world, that means that if the same person were photographing the same scene with the two cameras, and all else was held equal, then the LX100-II shots would be less noisy due to using a lower ISO and/or would be sharper due to a higher shutter speed. But beyond that the two images need to be drastically different.

For a casual photographer, the differences may not be that important. But for somebody who enjoys wringing every lost drop of performance out of a camera, the advantages and disadvantages of the two setups will be obvious.

Click to expand...

That nails it pretty well, I think.

With the same sensor and processor technology. the discriminators would be (1) lens aperture, (2) pixel size, and (3) comparative effectiveness of the IS, if hand held,.

Edgar_in_Indy said:

KeepCalm said:

Edgar_in_Indy said:

If somebody is wanting something like the LX100, but more pocket-able, then the LX10 would be the best choice. It's much smaller than the LX100, so it could be pocketed, and it has a very fast f/1.4-2.8 lens in front of it's 1" sensor, so it does low-light and blurred backgrounds better than any of the other large-sensor compact zoom cameras out there.

Click to expand...

The f1.4 disappears rather rapidly on zoom so the more slowly closing aperture of the Canon G7X is better for that not closing up until 50mm equivalent. Best to look at the equivalent aperture charts to see what exactly goes on in the aperture of these cameras.

Click to expand...

I've studied DPR's handy equivalence graphs many times, and I'm very aware that f/1.4 is only available at the widest angle, but a fast 24mm lens is a very useful thing to have. I've said before that the LX-10 is almost worth buying for the f/1.4 wide angle alone. It makes the camera so useful, and better equipped to deal with low-light than any other compact zoom camera.

As for the G7X II, it also has a very attractive lens, and it would probably be my 2nd choice, but I prefer the specs of the LX10's lens.

I have also noticed that I'm usually finding myself at either the extreme wide-end of the LX-10's lens, or the extreme long end, with relatively few shots in between. So while the slightly faster midrange of the G7X would be appreciated, it would mostly be wasted on me.

But both the LX10 and the G7X II could be considered good alternatives to the LX100 if true pocketability is a requirement, and an EVF is not vital.

Click to expand...

I have a tiny little G9X which is a miracle creation really. Dopey old canon somehow seem to be able to put out elegant little cameras like the Ixus compared with their usual lumps. It always goes pear shaped for Canon when they put an EVF in the camera as regards elegance as it will be housed in a structure with all the sophistication of an outdoor dunny on top. The DPR reviewers hated the G9X and not a camera probably for the measurebators and pixel peepers but it is a handy little thing. It is the only truly pocketable 1" camera which compares with previous smaller sensor cameras and outperforms them without any doubt.