GX80 vs LX100

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???

The real difference is that, with the GX80, I can have a 45mm f1.8 (or 42.5 f1.7) in another pocket. If all you get is the kit zoom then the LX100 is likely to win most of the time.

Mark

The LX100 only provides 12MP vs 16MP for the GX80, but this is not really a huge difference. It also has a remarkable lens which is significantly faster than the 12-32 kit lens of the GX80. I mentioned the 45mm f1.8 because it is a quite cheap lens that is faster than the LX100 and usefully extends the capability of the GX80 + 12-32.

Kinsi wrote:

Im a beginner, i don't realize in what proportion a lens can change anything...
And we must stay in the same range of prices also.

"i don't realize in what proportion a lens can change anything..." ???

Whatever you say

Kinsi wrote:

Im a beginner, i don't realize in what proportion a lens can change anything...
And we must stay in the same range of prices also.

Lenses matter more than anything else.

If you're comparing the GX85 kit lens to the LX100, the results should generally (slightly) favor the LX100, as it has a brighter lens at each (equivalent) focal length than the GX85. It also shares a sensor with the GX85's predecessor (GX7), though only uses about 3/4 of it.

If you were to switch lenses on the GX85 and use the 20mm f/1.7 - a small $250 lens that is regarded as one of the best buys in m4/3, then the GX85 would have better image quality.

If you don't know how much a lens can change a camera, and never plan on changing the lens regardless of the camera you get, then just stick with the LX100 - it should be more than enough camera for your needs.

Kinsi wrote:

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...

In whica case the labo (whatever that is) is wrong. Except if they are using the junk lens that's the 12-32 with the GXanything.

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???

The LX100 is very noticeably softer than a recent Pana MFT body with e.g. the 12-35 - and in fact, does pretty badly against even the RX100.

The real reason to buy and use an LX100 is the handling, not IQ. If you can deal with what level of IQ the LX100 gives you (I can't really), then enjoy the superior handling (better than any MFT body IMO) of the LX.

Kinsi wrote:

Hu? It's not wrong see by yourself on this site for example.
If you use comparative labo page you can clearly see the lx100 better than the gx70 or 80...
BUT
It's my question... in these tests... what lens did they use???

...because despite what they apparently control for, I see too much variance in IRL results compared to DPReview's synthetic tests. I always take it with a giant pinch of salt and in reviews look for comments that I can correlate with other cameras I own.

If you're willing to listen to a bunch of guys who've not owned an LX100 (or in my case, the D-Lux 109) + a range of MFT's, then that's entirely up to you.

What I'm saying is that that LX100 is very noticeably soft, even more so than a MFT crippled with the 12-32 3.5-5.6. With a 12-35 2.8, a GM1 for example will destroy the LX100.

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.  \

LMNCT wrote:

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. \

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.

The LX100 is a non-interchangealbe. short range telephoto camera.  It is a very good Point and Shoot.  It is great for people who do not want to be bothered with changing lenses and have no need of either wider or longer focal length lenses.  The GX85/0 is the one to choose if you think that you may want to learn more about photography and build a collection of lenses.  It should deliver better quality images than the LX100 depending on the lens used.  There are some very sharp lenses in the Micro Four Thirds line/s (Panasonic and Olympus) and not all of them are very expensive.  If you have the opportunity to handle both cameras, do so.  Ergonomics are important too.

Oh, I see that you took your hostility pill this morning.

Kinsi wrote:

It's what i dont understand at all (and it's really hard to chose a device like this).
When you see the labo comparative on dp... lx100 has a better iq than gx7 or omd.
You can see by yourself => see the plant, see the hair... there is a incredible difference even in high iso (and even in the corner or border... im amazed by this argument cause the lx100 crop from 16mpx not to have the border problem)!!!
Me, i want to know when i take a device and i search for good IQ to see good IQ not to wage on lenses... i don't know if i'm clear here?
Im' not angry but it's a lot of money

As summarized, the key advantage to MFT, whether GX7 (no longer made) GX80/85 or OMD flavor is the ability to change lenses.  If you can live with the very high quality, incredibly compact LX100 24-75mm 1.7-2.8 equivalent FIXED lens, there is no argument which wins.  If you want to add a longer telephoto, or a wider angle lens, or even a faster lens (think not just Voightlander f/0.95 lenses or upcoming Olympus f1.2 primes, but any number of 1.4, 1.7 or 1.8 primes) the MFT cameras come out ahead, because they offer you a flexibility and capability that cannot be had with a fixed lens camera.  If you want to shoot birds or safari, you cannot put a 300mm f/4 or 100-400 zoom on the LX100.  If you need a f1.8 fisheye, you cannot do that either.

This argument holds for just about any interchangeable lens camera.  An when you print, and not pixel peep, the differences that you observe between the LX100 and an MFT are not great.  That's how I feel anyway.  Good luck in your quest.

Kinsi wrote:

It's what i dont understand at all (and it's really hard to chose a device like this).
When you see the labo comparative on dp... lx100 has a better iq than gx7 or omd.
You can see by yourself => see the plant, see the hair... there is a incredible difference even in high iso (and even in the corner or border... im amazed by this argument cause the lx100 crop from 16mpx not to have the border problem)!!!
Me, i want to know when i take a device and i search for good IQ to see good IQ not to wage on lenses... i don't know if i'm clear here?
Im' not angry but it's a lot of money

I don't know what images you're looking at, but the RAW ISO 3200 comparison between the GX7 and the LX100 shows much better results for the GX7.

Again, if you don't want to be bothered with lenses, or can't justify buying them, the LX100 or Sony RX100 are fine cameras, and can produce results that are comparable to, if not better than, most interchangeable lens cameras with their respective kit lenses. But If you're willing to put in the time, effort, and money, a GX with a selection of lenses will likely provide better and more versatile results in the long run.