GX80 vs LX100

Lab tests of IQ don't take into account the things that affect IQ in the real world, #1 being the photographer's ability to hold the camera steady and #2 out of focus shots.

Im seeing this at this adress: even in 3200 g7x is bad for me.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100/12

Thanks a lot. But i have already the lx100.
I'm pleased with it (in control and maniability, it's just super).
But i'm never totaly satisfied, you see...
Im always searching for better in IQ + AF.
It's the reason i asked to understand what interests has the gx80 when i'm seeing that IQ is not asgodd as the lx100's

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

To me the GX7's image looks better.  In any case, in my PERSONAL experience with my GX7 and LX100, the LX100 is clearly weak in the edges and the AF isn't as reliable.  If Panasonic could fine tune it a bit (improve AF, improve lens corrections in the edges or improve lens, remove micro jitters from video) then it'd be an amazing compact camera.  As it is, it's a bit flawed (well, mine is, anyway) and I will probably end up selling it and stick with a pair of micro four thirds bodies for now.

So now i'm on the edge to sell my lx100 for this gx80...
But i'm really sad too... it's only 3 months since i have bought the lx100.
I don't want to make a mistake here.

Kinsi wrote:

So now i'm on the edge to sell my lx100 for this gx80...
But i'm really sad too... it's only 3 months since i have bought the lx100.
I don't want to make a mistake here.

If you're considering getting the GX80 with the 12-32 don't waste your time and money. The LX100 is a little worse image quality wise when used at the same ISO, however, in low light, you'll be using an ISO setting about two stops lower because of the faster lens in the LX100. So at night, you might be at ISO 1600 on the LX100, and to match the exposure, you'll need ISO 6400 on the GX80, in which case the LX100 wins easily.

Examples:

LX100/RX100 at ISO 6400 vs GX7/GX8 at ISO 25600(GX80 should perform very similar to these cameras):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmclx100&attr13_1=panasonic_dmcgx7&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_3=panasonic_dmcgx8&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=25600&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.1693482376280285&y=-0.7924914762178883

LX100/RX100 at ISO 1600 vs GX7/GX8 at ISO 6400:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmclx100&attr13_1=panasonic_dmcgx7&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_3=panasonic_dmcgx8&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=6400&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.1693482376280285&y=-0.7924914762178883

Unless you need to swap lenses, and are going to pay for a fast prime or one of the 2.8 zooms, you're not going to get better image quality with the GX80.

I love my EM1, but when I put the 12-32 on it, my RX100 III performs better. However, when I put my 7-14/4 or 42.5/1.2 on the EM1, it takes photos unlike anything the RX100 is capable of. The RX100 is more or less the equal of the LX100.

For now the remplacement is for the lx100 => 14-32 would be suffisant.

I dont understand your post can you explain to me?
Why lx100 for the same light condition need less iso than gx80 with the kit lens?

Kinsi wrote:

I dont understand your post can you explain to me?
Why lx100 for the same light condition need less iso than gx80 with the kit lens?

Because the LX100 has a F1.7-2.8 lens, while the 12-32mm is F3.5-5.6, so the LX100's lens is roughly 2 stops faster, which means if you use the same shutter speed, you can use two stops lower ISO with the LX100.

This applies to noise and dynamic range quite noticeably. But also lens sharpness, even if we assume that the 12-32mm lens is sharper than the LX100's lens, when you have to use two stops higher ISO, you'll need more noise reduction to get a usable file and thus the details will be blurred with the GX80+12-32mm combo.

Even if you added the 12-35/2.8, which we can safely assume is a better lens than the one on the LX100, the noise/DR performance will be very similar between the two. The LX100 will be a bit better on the wide end because the 1.7 aperture is 1.5 stops faster, while the GX80+12-35/2.8 combo will be a little better at the long end, despite both lenses being 2.8, because the GX80 uses the full sensor area so it will be about half a stop better.

In day light, when you don't need to raise ISO to maintain a fast enough shutter speed, this isn't as important, but if you're light limited, the LX100 will tend to be better than any M43 camera with the 12-32.

Ok i believe i understant and what lens can u use to have equivalent iso???
Not too pricey but good with the gx80 (it's to make budget comparaison)...
So 14-32 + f1.8

yeah but no zoom with it?