Reading mode: Light Dark

LX100 - first "controlled" image/lens tests

Go to last post
G

guerciottiman

Active member
Messages
70
Reaction score
33
Location
Melbourne, AU
Hi All,

I've been following the discussions here on various threads about the quality (or lack thereof) of the lens on the LX100 as a result of the sample gallery posted here on DPR.

We are now starting to see more "reviews" popping up on other sites and this morning I saw the first "control" image quality/lens test for this camera at:

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1991/compact-panasonic-lx100-precision-colorimetrie-11.html

The lens appears to be quite good in the centre at both wide and tele ends.

However, the lens looks to be quite soft at the edges both at the wide and telephoto ends and requires at least F4 before things sharpen.

I guess how significant this is wil be an individual thing. I've been really excited about this camera but I think I will wait a bit longer until additional reviews come out.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Excellent information contained within. This is exactly the sort of evaluation that every review site should do.
 
What do the tests mean ? Worse than other cameras ? Better than other cameras ?
 
I'll quote Sir Jagger: "You can't always get what you want."

And that includes edge-to-edge sharpness in a compact, high-speed lens attached to a body with a decent-sized sensor while shooting wide open and close to wide-open for under $1,000.

Understanding its limitations, this camera is a buy for me as an everyday general purpose/street shooter that fits into my messenger bag. It's not the camera you use for paid headshot gigs or that epic landscape photo trip. But that's OK.
 
BeyondPluto said:
I'll quote Sir Jagger: "You can't always get what you want."

And that includes edge-to-edge sharpness in a compact, high-speed lens attached to a body with a decent-sized sensor while shooting wide open and close to wide-open for under $1,000.

Understanding its limitations, this camera is a buy for me as an everyday general purpose/street shooter that fits into my messenger bag. It's not the camera you use for paid headshot gigs or that epic landscape photo trip. But that's OK.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Sir Mick will always get what he wants ;-)

I agree it will be a matter of individual needs and let's not forget it is a "compact". if one is after landscapes then I suspect that an aperture of F5.6-F8 and beyond will be in order. At these apertures the lens performs quite well to the corners.

If one is after shallow DoF and operating at F1.7 then corner sharpness may not be that critical.

Understanding limitations of a camera is very important and that is why these types of reviews are quite informative.
 
cainn24 said:
ShutterNot said:
What do the tests mean ? Worse than other cameras ? Better than other cameras ?
Click to expand...
LX100

RX100 III

Not precisely comparable given that there are some variables in the testing methodology, but still useful I think.
Click to expand...
Thanks for point this out - didn't think to look for the RX100III test at the same site :-O

What's your take on it?

At the wide end I think the two lenses are maybe comparable. I think the differences I see are due to the extra resolution (higher MP count) on the Sony. The difference between these lenses is evident at the corners at the telephoto end. The Sony lens seems to be performing better than the Leica.
 
Last edited:
BeyondPluto said:
I'll quote Sir Jagger: "You can't always get what you want."

And that includes edge-to-edge sharpness in a compact, high-speed lens attached to a body with a decent-sized sensor while shooting wide open and close to wide-open for under $1,000.
Click to expand...
Yep.

There's a reason a 12-35mm f2.8+GX7 is going to cost you twice as much as the LX100 and be much less portable. Wouldn't you think Panasonic would have made the 12-35mm m4/3 lens a pancake if they could do so without major optical compromises?
 
Sharpness seems to be poor, but at least the DISTORTION section at the bottom shows the lens doesn't greatly barrel distort the image before correction at 24mm like the G7X does, shown here:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

The G7X requires massive distortion correction at 24mm, requiring many pixels to be discarded to get the final corrected image. Not so here.
 
Thanks for the heads up.

From what I see it is the same at wide angle as the Sony RX100 III, and better than the Sony at the telephoto end. Plus diffraction does not set in till latter than the Sony giving more usable f-stops. I think Panasonic did a excellent job considering the restraints that they imposed on themselves.

My pre-order stays in place for sure.
 
cainn24 said:
ShutterNot said:
What do the tests mean ? Worse than other cameras ? Better than other cameras ?
Click to expand...
LX100

RX100 III

Not precisely comparable given that there are some variables in the testing methodology, but still useful I think.
Click to expand...
The site recently switched from DXOMark testing to IMATEST result so there are no direct comparisons. But I see that their last lens test for the Fuji 35mm f1.4 used IMATEST so at least this give something to compare. The LX100 holds up well considering this is comparing a compact zoom to the prime lens.

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2022/objectif-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-35mm-f14-r-flash-test-8.html

Hopefully they will do the G7X test soon which we could then directly compare.





LX100 24mm Equiv

LX100 24mm Equiv



LX100 75mm Equiv.

LX100 75mm Equiv.



Fujifilm 35mm

Fujifilm 35mm



--
My Flickr Birds
 
Last edited:
Yeah les fracais say distortion correction is complete.

Not really a surprise the soft f1.7 edges, the lx 100 is on an equivalent of ~f4 wide open

Quite a lot smaller than mFt with the 12-35 or 12-40, half the price, maybe 85% -95% objective and subjective IQ, and you have maybe three stops of dof control more than the 1" inchers.

Your best camera is the one you take with you the most imho.

I'm in, as long as Oly don't announce one !
--
================================
Enjoying Photography like never before with the E-450!
Images, photo and gimp tips:

Freddies ClipRants

olympe450rants.blogspot.com olympe450rants.blogspot.com

NORWEGIAN WOOD GALLERY

Olympus' Own E450 Gallery http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e450/sample/

"to be is to do" Descartes;
"to do is to be" Satre ;

............................"DoBeDoBeDo" Sinatra.
=============================
 
That is the point. Some people seem to want absolute lens sharpness in the bokeh areas of the image. The problem in reading a lot of things is trying to filter out obsession from the realistic expectations for what is a powerful and affordable camera like the LX100 reduced to such a size.

I must say the control layout of aperture and shutter on auto until you turn the dial really is an improvement on the PASM dial.
guerciottiman said:
BeyondPluto said:
I'll quote Sir Jagger: "You can't always get what you want."

And that includes edge-to-edge sharpness in a compact, high-speed lens attached to a body with a decent-sized sensor while shooting wide open and close to wide-open for under $1,000.

Understanding its limitations, this camera is a buy for me as an everyday general purpose/street shooter that fits into my messenger bag. It's not the camera you use for paid headshot gigs or that epic landscape photo trip. But that's OK.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Sir Mick will always get what he wants ;-)

I agree it will be a matter of individual needs and let's not forget it is a "compact". if one is after landscapes then I suspect that an aperture of F5.6-F8 and beyond will be in order. At these apertures the lens performs quite well to the corners.

If one is after shallow DoF and operating at F1.7 then corner sharpness may not be that critical.

Understanding limitations of a camera is very important and that is why these types of reviews are quite informative.
Click to expand...
 
guerciottiman said:
At the wide end I think the two lenses are maybe comparable. I think the differences I see are due to the extra resolution (higher MP count) on the Sony. The difference between these lenses is evident at the corners at the telephoto end. The Sony lens seems to be performing better than the Leica.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree that the RX100 has the overall better lens in terms of sharpness and that its high MP sensor certainly takes advantage of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top