Fuji X100VI vs Panasonic Lumix LX100 MII

Has anyone used both an X100 (the latest VI or one of the previous iterations) and a Panasonic LX100MII? I'd be interested in comparing some thoughts.

The LX100MII is old and discontinued, but a few used ones can still be found, and for less than half the price of an X100VI (if you can even get your hands on one, that is).

My thinking is that it is smaller https://camerasize.com/compare/#793,919

The lens is not as fast as that on the Fuji (dpreview had a chart on aperture and focal length here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-dc-lx100-ii/2) but still faster than the kit lenses of a Sony alpha or OM EP7 (only the kit lenses can compare in terms of bulk, and minimising bulk would be a priority for a travel camera).

And, well, it's not like there are loads of fixed-lens camera with large (m43 or APSC) sensors that can really compare. There are the Ricohs, but they have no zoom.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the two?

Does the older age of the Panasonic show in many ways, or has the tech really somewhat peaked anyway?

The Panasonic doesn't have a built in flash. Neither has the best autofocus, it seems, but probably it shouldn't matter too much for non-sports photos.

My use case would be as a travel camera; something not too bulky to carry around during family holiday, to take pictures of the kids, the entire family, some landscapes, etc. I would like better low light performance than a 1inch pocketable camera, but without carrying bulky gear.

Thanks!

APCUser said:

Has anyone used both an X100 (the latest VI or one of the previous iterations) and a Panasonic LX100MII? I'd be interested in comparing some thoughts.

The LX100MII is old and discontinued, but a few used ones can still be found, and for less than half the price of an X100VI (if you can even get your hands on one, that is).

My thinking is that it is smaller https://camerasize.com/compare/#793,919

The lens is not as fast as that on the Fuji (dpreview had a chart on aperture and focal length here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-dc-lx100-ii/2)) but still faster than the kit lenses of a Sony alpha or OM EP7 (only the kit lenses can compare in terms of bulk, and minimising bulk would be a priority for a travel camera).

And, well, it's not like there are loads of fixed-lens camera with large (m43 or APSC) sensors that can really compare. There are the Ricohs, but they have no zoom.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the two?

Does the older age of the Panasonic show in many ways, or has the tech really somewhat peaked anyway?

The Panasonic doesn't have a built in flash. Neither has the best autofocus, it seems, but probably it shouldn't matter too much for non-sports photos.

My use case would be as a travel camera; something not too bulky to carry around during family holiday, to take pictures of the kids, the entire family, some landscapes, etc. I would like better low light performance than a 1inch pocketable camera, but without carrying bulky gear.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Hello, I have used the Leica Dlux 8 ( essentially same optics / sensor as LX100 Ii ) which I sold in favour of the Fuji X100VI. I much prefer the shooting experience with the Fuji and the results are better. Sharper images, better DR, more MP to crop. Yes the zoom is good on the Dlux8 but the IQ from the Fuji is far superior in my opinion.

APCUser said:

Has anyone used both an X100 (the latest VI or one of the previous iterations) and a Panasonic LX100MII? I'd be interested in comparing some thoughts.

The LX100MII is old and discontinued, but a few used ones can still be found, and for less than half the price of an X100VI (if you can even get your hands on one, that is).

My thinking is that it is smaller https://camerasize.com/compare/#793,919

The lens is not as fast as that on the Fuji (dpreview had a chart on aperture and focal length here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-dc-lx100-ii/2) but still faster than the kit lenses of a Sony alpha or OM EP7 (only the kit lenses can compare in terms of bulk, and minimising bulk would be a priority for a travel camera).

And, well, it's not like there are loads of fixed-lens camera with large (m43 or APSC) sensors that can really compare. There are the Ricohs, but they have no zoom.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the two?

Does the older age of the Panasonic show in many ways, or has the tech really somewhat peaked anyway?

The Panasonic doesn't have a built in flash. Neither has the best autofocus, it seems, but probably it shouldn't matter too much for non-sports photos.

My use case would be as a travel camera; something not too bulky to carry around during family holiday, to take pictures of the kids, the entire family, some landscapes, etc. I would like better low light performance than a 1inch pocketable camera, but without carrying bulky gear.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Even better is the canon G1XMIII with an APS-C sensor. Also discontinued. I lucked out and got an open box one a couple years ago. I'm blown away by how good the IQ is. Pretty good AF too.

I have had X100 all the way up to V (VI still on backorder) and the two first incarnations of the LX100. They are quite different. The LX100s feel plasticy and have a sequential EVF, which in my opinion is cheap, cheap, cheap. And crappy. And small. And not very good. If you get the idea that I dislike the EVF, you are correct.

They are pretty much everything bad about Panasonic. On the other hand, they are small, and changing aspect ratio is kind of fun. That's probably their best feature. There is not enough size difference to matter, in terms of pocket ability. Honestly (as though I'd lie. ha) I'd take any generation of RX100 over an LX100; the Sony 1" sensors are pretty good and the EVF, while a pain what with sticking out like an afterthought, is better than the Panasonic.

Oh; the first generation, at least, was prone to some serious dirt collection on the sensor. The second generation was somewhat better. Can't speak to subsequent versions, including any "leica"branded ones, the curiously-named D-Lux.

The problem with the g1x m3 was that it was quite bulky, and the lens was not as fast as that of the lx100

But I am surprised that neither Canon nor Panasonic tried to resuscitate these models to capitalise on the success of the x100vi. "why wait 6 months for the fuji, get ours now" could be a decent marketing strategy.

Or maybe Canon and Panasonic don't want to eat into their interchangeable lens market?

Clive99 said:

APCUser said:

Has anyone used both an X100 (the latest VI or one of the previous iterations) and a Panasonic LX100MII? I'd be interested in comparing some thoughts.

The LX100MII is old and discontinued, but a few used ones can still be found, and for less than half the price of an X100VI (if you can even get your hands on one, that is).

My thinking is that it is smaller https://camerasize.com/compare/#793,919

The lens is not as fast as that on the Fuji (dpreview had a chart on aperture and focal length here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-dc-lx100-ii/2) but still faster than the kit lenses of a Sony alpha or OM EP7 (only the kit lenses can compare in terms of bulk, and minimising bulk would be a priority for a travel camera).

And, well, it's not like there are loads of fixed-lens camera with large (m43 or APSC) sensors that can really compare. There are the Ricohs, but they have no zoom.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the two?

Does the older age of the Panasonic show in many ways, or has the tech really somewhat peaked anyway?

The Panasonic doesn't have a built in flash. Neither has the best autofocus, it seems, but probably it shouldn't matter too much for non-sports photos.

My use case would be as a travel camera; something not too bulky to carry around during family holiday, to take pictures of the kids, the entire family, some landscapes, etc. I would like better low light performance than a 1inch pocketable camera, but without carrying bulky gear.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Even better is the canon G1XMIII with an APS-C sensor. Also discontinued. I lucked out and got an open box one a couple years ago. I'm blown away by how good the IQ is. Pretty good AF too.

Click to expand...

The G1X mark iii plus a second small M body wearing the 22mm f2 or the 32mm f1.4 is a helluva compact travel outfit to this day.

APCUser said:

The problem with the g1x m3 was that it was quite bulky, and the lens was not as fast as that of the lx100

But I am surprised that neither Canon nor Panasonic tried to resuscitate these models to capitalise on the success of the x100vi. "why wait 6 months for the fuji, get ours now" could be a decent marketing strategy.

Or maybe Canon and Panasonic don't want to eat into their interchangeable lens market?

Click to expand...

I think the problem with the g1xm3 was the price. It was crazy high when it came out. It's pretty small, it does have the viewfinder hump, though. It will fit in a smaller pouch. Smaller than X100. Lens is F2.8 at the wide end, but, yes, it's slower at the long end. There's still nothing on the market like it.

I have used the LX100 (mark 1, not 2) and I currently have the X100S.

My experience using them is that they might look like pretty similar options, but you absolutely don't use them the same way.

The X100 series really is all about the user experience : you have the OVF to truly immers yourself in what you're photographing, you have a lens with a fixed angle of view, and overall a very simple camera that starts quick and power of just as fast. It's a really great street photography camera for those reasons. For travel, it can be a nice "photography notebook" as I like to call it, but it's also a little limited for capturing stuff when you can't zoom with your feet. Sometimes the 35mm angle of view can feel cramped for landscapes, and it can also feel too wide for stuff you can't get any closer to.

It's still versatile enough overall, but I have the feeling that it's a little bit more specialized.

The LX100 is the exact opposite. You don't have a prime lens, but a zoom lens, which is a power zoom (and not a particularly fast one at that). Meaning that you will have to wait for the lens to extend and retract when powering it on and off, which takes a second or two and is overall pretty annoying. It basically means that if you have the camera around your neck, you can't turn it on, take the picture and turn it of easily, as by the time the camera is turned on, and you're ready to shoot by adjusting the angle of view, you generally have missed the critical moment. And due to the lens extending so far forward, you can't really keep it on all the time (not mentionning the battery would run out quick).

Also, this isn't a camera that you "immerse" yourself in like the X100 series, as the viewfinder is really not that great.

Overall, I found the LX100 was the better travel camera, as it was more versatile, but the X100 was more enjoyable to shoot with. The main advantage of the LX100 over the X100 were stabilization and the zoom range.

When it comes to the X100VI though, well this camera fixes a lot of issues the previous X100 camera had : the 40MP resolution means that you can crop in a lot without much loss of detail (depending on the output you want, either prints or online posting), the camera is now stabilized as well. Only problem that persits is the lack of wide angle, which can be solved through the use of the WCL converter.

The LX100II is a good camera but will fall short on a lot of stuff, inclusing autofocus performance, and resolution, even at longer ranges, compared to the X100VI (I think it stillhas more resolution than the X100VI at its maximum 75mm equivalent)

It's not an easy choice, but I would personally give the edge to the X100VI in your situation (depends if you wanna spend the time and money to get one though...)

MJ_Photo38 said:

I have used the LX100 (mark 1, not 2) and I currently have the X100S.

My experience using them is that they might look like pretty similar options, but you absolutely don't use them the same way.[...]

It's not an easy choice, but I would personally give the edge to the X100VI in your situation (depends if you wanna spend the time and money to get one though...)

Click to expand...

Thank you, you raise very good points.

Not being able to shoot instantly with the LX100 may be an issue for street photography but less so for family holidays.

I honestly don't care much about immersing myself in the experience, using the EVF etc (I get it that it's very subjective and these points are important for quite a few people)

I think I have to balance:

• lack of flash (many people love to hate the small integrated flashes but I find them useful for backlit scenes)
• price
• faster lens on the X100VI (which probably makes the most difference with shallow DOF, not when I need to step down anyway)
• lack of wide angle
• the tele I can probably manage by cropping; most of my shots are in the 35-50mm equivalent focal length, and the x100vi cropped at 50mm still gives a 20MP file

I suppose that at 35-40ishmm the image quality is broadly comparable, right? I am not into pixel peeping.

APCUser said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

I have used the LX100 (mark 1, not 2) and I currently have the X100S.

My experience using them is that they might look like pretty similar options, but you absolutely don't use them the same way.[...]

It's not an easy choice, but I would personally give the edge to the X100VI in your situation (depends if you wanna spend the time and money to get one though...)

Click to expand...

Thank you, you raise very good points.

Not being able to shoot instantly with the LX100 may be an issue for street photography but less so for family holidays.

I honestly don't care much about immersing myself in the experience, using the EVF etc (I get it that it's very subjective and these points are important for quite a few people)

I think I have to balance:

• lack of flash (many people love to hate the small integrated flashes but I find them useful for backlit scenes)
• price
• faster lens on the X100VI (which probably makes the most difference with shallow DOF, not when I need to step down anyway)
• lack of wide angle
• the tele I can probably manage by cropping; most of my shots are in the 35-50mm equivalent focal length, and the x100vi cropped at 50mm still gives a 20MP file

I suppose that at 35-40ishmm the image quality is broadly comparable, right? I am not into pixel peeping.

Click to expand...

I cannot say if they are comparable or not, as I only used the first LX100 (with its 12MP sensor) and the X100S (that has a 16MP sensor). I have no idea how the 17MP in the LX100II or the 40MP in the X100VI renders images.

I will say that the lens in the LX100 is pretty soft wide open at 24mm equivalent compared to the lens in my X100S (which is already not the sharpest). And i flares like crazy, if that's something you care about.

Personally, I see both cameras as a relatively wasteful venture. Both are extremely expensive for what they are (in my country, LX100IIs go for 800 to 1000€, which is a stupidly high price, and I'm not even talking about the X100VI...)

In my opinion, if you want a small footprin camera with decent AF and good versatility, I think micro four thirds cameras and lenses make more sense. I have bought an Olympus E-M5II last year and I use it much more than my X100S. It's about the same size, has great handling, similar image quality, and has access to all the lenses (big and small) that you'd want.

And it's substantially cheaper as well... I went for the E-M5II but the E-M10II is basically the same camera and you can find it for about 250€ around here. Add a 20mm f/1.7 pancake for about 200€ and we're still only at about half the price of an LX100II.

I understand the appeal of fixed lens cameras, but only when that actually translates to size and weight gains...









Something like a GX85 would provide the same IQ (or better), similar handling, same EVF, tilt screen and integrated pop-up flash...

... for way cheaper. I guess it depends how much you value the retro dials and rings on the LX100 and X100 cameras.

Note : the back dial of the LX100 (that I like to call "scroll wheel of doom") is a very common failure point when it comes to double or unregistered inputs.

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

The problem with interchangeable lens cameras is the bulk.

Only the kit lenses, or a very wide pancake with less room to crop (because the sensor is not 40 MP) would have a comparable bulk to that of these fixed lens cameras. Especially the depth because of the lens. And kit lenses are often not as good as some of these fixed ones, especially the x100vi which is very fast.

I recently posted about it here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68237619

Where I compared equivalent aperture and dimensions.

The OM ep-7 with the 14-42 kit lens is the least bulky combination (especially the depth) but that lens won't get the best out of that camera. Once you start attaching better lenses, they become longer, the bulk is no longer comparable and it stops being much of a travel camera.

Minimising the bulk is crucial for a parent travelling on family holidays with kids. To be clear, these are my specific preferences, I get it that everyone is different etc etc

APCUser said:

The problem with interchangeable lens cameras is the bulk.

Only the kit lenses, or a very wide pancake with less room to crop (because the sensor is not 40 MP) would have a comparable bulk to that of these fixed lens cameras. Especially the depth because of the lens. And kit lenses are often not as good as some of these fixed ones, especially the x100vi which is very fast.

I recently posted about it here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68237619

Where I compared equivalent aperture and dimensions.

The OM ep-7 with the 14-42 kit lens is the least bulky combination (especially the depth) but that lens won't get the best out of that camera. Once you start attaching better lenses, they become longer, the bulk is no longer comparable and it stops being much of a travel camera.

Minimising the bulk is crucial for a parent travelling on family holidays with kids. To be clear, these are my specific preferences, I get it that everyone is different etc etc

Click to expand...

I understand all of this, but at the same time, I *was* travelling with fixed lens cameras and changed for ILC MFT cameras, purely because of versatility, and because it didn't change the way I was using my camera.

The neither the LX100 or the X100VI are pocketable anyway, both are pretty thick cameras that will require at least a jacket pocket to carry around (and it will not be a comfortable experience, speaking from experience here), so if you want to have them with you, the best way to carry them around would be either with a strap, or a small bag. If you want a pocketable, good IQ camera, the only current option is the Ricoh GR3 and / or GR3x

I mostly use the 20mm f/1.7 (40mm f/3.4 equiv), and if I want wider I have the small 14mm f/2.5 in my pocket. I generally leave some lenses with a more specialized purpose at the hotel (or whatever place I'm staying at for the trip) that I can grab if I know I'll need reach (generally a 45mm f/1.8 if I know I'll be doing some portrait work, or my 35-100mm zoom).

My biggest problem when travelling was to never know in which camp to go : either I got a full bag of gear, my full frame camera, street camera, video camera... or I only took a fixed lens body with me and left everything else home.

The Olympus kit that I made allows me to have basically the same thing as the fixed camera (I can choose to only take the 20mm and then I basically have the same thing as if I was using an X100), or I can carry a small pouch and have lenses that will allow for more stuff, either architechtural photography, or portraits or whatever. The point is that I get to choose what I use and what I carry with me, and I don't have to make compromises, because the camera is basically the same size as my X100 with the lens, and gives me a similar angle of view.

With the LX100, I was always a bit frustrated by the user experience of that thing (which was really not great, the viewfinder sucks, and the controls are a little bit finnicky), and with the X100 I always felt constreained into a single type of usecase without much versatility.

I completely understand your concerns, but it's because I came from the same place as you that I make the recommendations that I do. Fixed lens cameras sound great on paper, but they always come with big compromises in the name of ease of use which I personally am not willing to make.

I think a lot also depends on how one travels. Eg travelling by car or train gives you more flexibility. By plane, I don't want to put gear in my checked luggage, and cabin baggage comes at a premium.

I almost always carry a sling or small backpack (if only for all the paraphernalia a parent must carry for their kids). I have often brought a compact Sony rx100v with a 1 inch sensor and the Sony a6000 with just one prime lens (typically the 35mm),using the latter mostly for portraits, especially with lower light.

Of course your mileage may vary.

APCUser said:

I think a lot also depends on how one travels. Eg travelling by car or train gives you more flexibility. By plane, I don't want to put gear in my checked luggage, and cabin baggage comes at a premium.

I almost always carry a sling or small backpack (if only for all the paraphernalia a parent must carry for their kids). I have often brought a compact Sony rx100v with a 1 inch sensor and the Sony a6000 with just one prime lens (typically the 35mm),using the latter mostly for portraits, especially with lower light.

Of course your mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

Well, whatever the means of transportation, I try to travel as light as possible. Generally, for a weeklong trip, I have a 30L bag holding all of my clothing, laptop, chargers, etc and my 6L sling that I use to carry around my personal belonginngs like my glasses, wallet, keys, etc. I'll generally have my Olympus in there with the 20mm lens to take photos duting the travel itself, then I can empty some stuff out of both bags and make a more comprehensive camera kit in that 6L bag (if I don't simply take no bag with me and only the camera, which can also happen).

Unless absolutely necessary, the 30L bag stays in the room for the entire duration of the trip.

I don't think these are very comparable, the X100s are within the luxury category. They are overbuilt to be fancy, the feel very solid and well engineered. I bought a used X100F a few years ago, and despite it being the camera with by far the worse image quality I own, I have still taken by favorite photos with it, just because I like bringing it with me, I liked using it, I liked holding it and especially love just looking at it.

You have to remember that these arn't cameras you bring to work, its something personal. Buy something that you would like using, not just one with the best specs. There are not cameras you can buy in 2025 that will limit you from taking "good photos" the main limitation is your willingness to go outside and take photos.











View attachment 64a5814afbd84009972ae19f455334e4.jpg