jonikon

The question is whether or not the consumer will trust Samsung products not to catch fire again. As the saying goes, "Once burned, twice shy!"

Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras?
Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews.
If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.

No doubt Sony cherry picked this copy among several lenses available to them, but the big question is how good will the quality control and copy to copy variations be in the production lenses that people buy, and how reliable will they be over many years of professional use. Maybe these new and very expensive line of lenses will improve Sony's reputation in this regard, or a least Sony is hoping they will.

This reviewer is much too kind to this lens, to the point that he has no credibility as even a casual photographer. All one has to do is look at the lousy images to realize this lens is a worthless piece of junk that will end up in at the bottom of a drawer or more likely in the trash bin. Save your money folks!

R.I.P. Samsung camera division. At least you gave it a good effort in an ever shrinking camera market. Samsung deserves kudos for that, at least. Despite the demise of the NX system, if I could get an NX1 with a 16-50mm f/2-2.8 "S" OIS lens, for under $500, I would still buy one. Still looking for that fire sale!

Jon

I agree. I can't imagine changing lenses just to get to an extra 2mm of focal length (I own the Tokina 16-50mm f2.8.) No doubt one would have to stop down to f4.5 or more for decent edge sharpness anyways. The focal length range is too long at the wide to be a true UWA, which makes for a really useless lens design, IMO.

No EVF is off-putting, but no built-in flash is a deal killer for me. I had a Nikon V1 which also does not have a built-in flash and it was a real pain putting the flash on and then having to take it off when stowing the camera. Sometimes I forgot or misplaced the flash. I use the convenient built-in flash of my Nikon Coolpix A often to good effect, both indoors and outdoors, (for fill flash). Why some camera designers think a flash is a rarely used accessory that one should carry separately is beyond me.

The foliage look mushy in the landscape images when viewed at 100% on my PC. Does anyone else see this as well, or is it some kind of technical glitch?

To my eye, the new 20MP sensor is better in every way to older 16MP sensor. I was very close to buying a GX7, but after seeing the definite improvement in the high ISO image quality, (detail retention and dynamic range) of the GX8, I decided to wait for the price of the GX8 to come down instead. Glad to see m43 sensors improving once again after a stagnant period!

Yes, there are some excellent Zeiss lenses still being made, but unfortunately Zeiss dirtied it's brand years ago when they signed a contract with Sony allowing them to brand any lens Sony chose as a Zeiss Tessar lens. The Zeiss quality assurance of Sony/Zeiss lenses is a joke and is all just marketing. Some Sony /Zeiss branded lenses such as the Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS are junk on the inside. Photozone only gives it one an one half stars out of a possible five, optically. Unfortunately many Sony users are being duped into paying premium prices for the the blue label Zeiss on the outside, but only getting questionable Sony optical and mechanical quality on the inside.

I just bought a new Nikon V2 w/ 10-100mm lens kit for less than the going price of the 10-100mm lens alone, and have been favorably impressed with the V2's AF speed and accuracy, the controls layout, and handling. The compact, (2.38 in. or 60.5 mm long) ,10-100mm lens is surprising sharp for such a wide range of focal length, even at 100mm.

Looking at the photo results (shooting RAW and processing with Capture ND), this evening I was thinking that with a little more dynamic range I could easily give up my Nikon D7000 and all my large heavy FX and Dx lenses and just go all in with the light weight and compact Nikon 1 system. If the new sensor is as good as I think it will be with improved dynamic range, I predict more than a few will switch from DX to Nikon 1 in the future.

I had once owned the original Sony 70-300mm F4.5 – F5.6 G lens used on a Sony a700 and was impressed with it's sharpness excellent micro-contrast optics. However, I was disappointed with the focus speed and the thin plastic build which made the lens feel cheap. My lens became infested with grit of some kind due to a lack of sealing even though I was careful with it. In comparison my Nikon 70-300mm (paid $350 in a kit price), is not as sharp, and lacks great micro contrast, but the focus speed and build quality is superior to the Sony 70-300G. I have had the Nikon lens in all kinds of environments over the past four years including blowing sand and salt spray without any issues. Nice to see Sony realized the original 70-300mm F4.5 – F5.6 G shortcomings and have corrected the issues!

I agree. That photo of the tree leaves is very disappointing in terms of sharpness (especially beyond the center), and the bokeh is terrible. I get better images from my Nikon V1 with just a 1" sensor. One can have a wonderful sensor in a camera, but a poor lens can ruin it all. Obviously Panasonic took too many shortcuts with the lens and it shows. Like they say, "A chain is only as good as it's weakest link."

Well, darn it!
I really like the design concept of the LX-100, which is very close to what I want in a travel camera in terms of size and sensor image quality. However, it fails on on four counts that give me reason to pass on this camera.
1. No phase detection auto focusing. (Sorry, but I am spoiled by my Nikon V1's focusing performance!)
2. No built in flash, and the supplied flash is crude and weak with no bounce capability. At least the tiny flash for my Nikon V1 can do bounce flash.
3. Inferior EVF. There are much better available that do not tear.
4. Despite the hype, my eyes tell me the lens is not sharp enough, especially at the edges, which is a big disappointment considering the price of the camera and the short focal length range.

As it stands, the LX-100 is a bit too disappointing and over-priced for it's performance capabilities. Hopefully the rumored Nikon competitor to this camera will not have these shortcomings.

Too bad there is no EVF. That's a deal killer for enthusiasts. Using a rear LCD to compose is lame, and especially annoying in sunny conditions!

Richard,
You missed the Nikkor 18.5mm f1.8 in your list of enthusiast lenses.
It's hard to take your opinions seriously Richard, when you don't even bother to vet your research before you go about bashing a camera system you don't use and know so little about.
You are missing something else Richard: Journalist objectivity.

I have been into photography long enough to remember when serious 35mm primes were expected to be f2.0. Making a sharp 35mm f2.8 prime is cheap and easy. Too bad Sony took the low road and made this consumer grade lens a full stop slower than the excellent Minolta 35mm f2.0 legacy lens of yesteryear, and adds insult to injury by pricing it like a pro f2.0 lens. I just don't see how Sony's new FE mount camera system will be successful without a full set of pro quality FE lenses, and in terms of maximum aperture, this lens does not qualify as such.

If anything DPR was too kind to the A7 in their review. In no way does this camera deserve even the Silver Award based on IQ, handling, AF, and performance, not to mention the pitiful FE lens offerings. Sony may someday produce an improved version of the A7 with some pro FE lenses to mount on it, but until they do, the FE line of cameras is merely a plaything for those fascinated with expensive mirrorless cameras, rather than a serious and competent photographer's tool.

Based on the DPR review of the A7, it is obvious that Sony has overreached with their new line of full frame mirrorless FE cameras. which can not even match the capabilities of Nikon and Canon DSLRs introduced over a year ago.
If Sony still has any ambitions of taking FF market share away from Nikon and Canon after this fiasco , they will have to do a lot better than this feeble attempt of mediocre bodies and FE lens selection. Maybe Sony should instead stick with what they do best, whatever that may be.