Panasonic DC-LX100 II Review

The GF series is an interesting story. Panasonic maintains that it was always meant to be the simple, entry-level model.

It took them a while to recognize that that's not who was buying it, so the true (or, at least, enthusiast) successor didn't appear for a few years. If you look at one series as GF1 -> GF2 -> GF3... you'll see one pattern and GF1-> gap -> GX1 -> GX7... there's another.

When the original LX100 came out, panasonic answered some questions on it explaining that the lens was smaller than the same spec'd ILC lens could ever be. It's got glass much closer to the sensor and there's no need for a mount.

Yeah, in relative terms, the m43 flange distance isn't so micro. It's 89% the length of the sensor diagonal, the shortest mount in relative terms is probably the Nikon Z-mount where the flange distance is only 37% of the sensor diagonal. The smallest ratio for an SLR mount was 94% with the Konica F-mount.

Here is the verdict from one of your reviews.

Verdict
The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS broke a couple of records but unfortunately not in the positive sense. Its uncorrected distortion and vignetting figures are nothing short of insane. So Sony obviously doesn't want the lens to be used without enabled aberration compensation. This eases the pain in some respects. However, even so it doesn't make it a great lens

I had to cut it down to stay in the word limit. The other review shows that the lens is never sharp at 16mm

There is no way that the zoom in this Panasonic isn't better....

It is sort of luck thing but some copies are pretty good.
One of say 5 or 10. My current copy os a pretty good lens.
Now please note, that while panas has 12Mp Sony has 24Mp and larger sensor.
So for panas to be better then sony A6300+kit lens should resolve less the panas does. Yes it is impossible even with the bad copy.
So the sony combo is better!
My copy of LX100 is not something stellar to say. Even Nikon 1j5 and 1v3 were sharper with kit lenses.
So this is a very questionable camera.
-no flash
-4k is crap compared to 6300
-with the cheap kit lens on 6300 you get 24mm equivalent in 4k.
-mic in
- larger sensor, more versatility
..... List goes on.

The Panasonic in question here (the one being the subject of this review) has 17 MP, not 12 MP. In linear terms that is only 19% higher resolution.

The A6300+16-50 mm is also heavier and larger: 520 to 392 g, 120 vs 115 mm width, 71.5 vs 64.2 mm depth, 66.9 vs 66.2 mm. The Panasonic also has the faster lens, even after adjusting for sensor size: f/3.7-6.2 equiv. vs f/5.3-8.4 equiv..

But to me, the image quality of the 16-50 mm is the one thing that would rule it out.

Sponsored content is marked as sponsored, reviews cannot be sponsored.

The only reason this has been on the front page is because we thought people would be interested in it.

Yeah, the XZ1 competitor was the LX5, with a much smaller sensor than the LX100.

I hate that red dot. It symbolizes what's wrong with photography to me. Just because their optical quality is so good they have gotten away with murderous pricing and criminally underspeced, embarrassing, bodies for far too long.

Sorry, nothing against you. But I'm praying for a Leica bankruptcy. I know it won't happen. But that just shows how worthless praying is. ;)

Sir 7:

"Just because their [Leica's] optical quality is so good they have gotten away with murderous pricing criminally underspeced, embarrassing, bodies for far too long."

At the end of the year 2018, the Leica SL still has the best EVF.

Until the Sony A9 released, in March 2017, the Leica SL (running firm V2 or later) was a better higher ISO stills body than any Sony mirrorless body, this includes the A7SII.

As of late 2018, the Leica TL2 is the only largely touch UI camera (that is not a smartphone) available. It has the latest Sony APSC 24MP sensor.

The Leica Q is a better stills camera than the Sony RX1II, the Q's only sort of close competition. And "specs wise" the Q has a significantly better lens than the Sony's just very good lens.

You were saying about under-speced cameras again...

Like so many Leica bashers, you're Leica cameras ignorant.

Oh, and the PanaLeica lens in this Panasonic is just good, not great.

You know what's better than all those Leicas you mentioned, RAW? Nikon and Canon DSLRs. It's that simple.

Leica ergos are rubbish. Leica's AF is rubbish. Leicas are slow and unresponsive.

No offense, but please spare me the "exposure triangle" argument regarding ergos. This isn't 1975 anymore. All, ALL, features and functions of a complete camera system matter, and combine to form a system that either gets the shot or doesn't, gets the shot more regularly, and then how well it captured the shot. In that order.

If all you care about is studio or landscape then really all that matters is glass and sensor characteristics because time isn't much of a concern or any concern at all. And that's where Leica shines. But not BECAUSE of design, rather, IN SPITE OF design. Step into street, action, or event, and Leica isn't even a candidate due to the myriad shortcomings. An ungodly-sharp manual-focus, or even AF, lens doesn't matter if you miss or fail to nail almost every shot. Continued...

And that's the thing; every single Leica made is intended and marketed as a street machine. Harkening back to the nostalgic 1960s or so when Leicas excelled in that very unsophisticated camera era. Leicas now are not marketed as studio/landscape cameras despite that really being all they can excel at.

Sir 7:

Canon and Nikon DSLRs? Full framed and APSC DSLRs aren't a market Leica is in. Ironically, Leica's S medium format DSLR is smaller than a Nikon D5.

"Leica ergos are rubbish. Leica's AF is rubbish. Leicas are slow and unresponsive."

Screaming "I know nothing of Leica" I see. The SL has strong AF, and it's very well laid out. So is is the CL. Right the SL doesn't compete with the Nikon D5 for AF.

"If all you care about is studio or landscape then really all that matters is glass and sensor characteristics because time isn't much of a concern or any concern at all."

Again screaming "I know nothing of Leica cameras in 2018".

"And that's the thing; every single Leica made is intended and marketed as a street machine. "

And I see Leica Ms on the street every week. But notice my list above doesn't mention the M.

"Leicas now are not marketed as studio/landscape cameras despite that really being all they can excel at."

You're again screaming "I know little of Leica in 2018".

Lol, of course the S doesn't compete with the D5 for AF, but it doesn't even compete with a D90 for AF. And for 20 grand... it should be better than a D5 at pretty much everything, shouldn't it?

Again, murderously overpriced and criminally underspeced. Because of that stupid red dot...

It must have been you that i went down the stupid S3 rabbit hole with before, with you defending the S3's ergos as as-good-as the D5's. Even if not you, that is so ridiculous I'm not wasting any more time on this.

Have a Happy New Year, RAW.

Sir 7:

Again, "lol" gives you up.

Never implied the Leica S's AF competes with the AF of the Nikon D5. But the Nikon isn't a medium format body, while the Leica is.

"And for 20 grand... it should be better than a D5 at pretty much everything, shouldn't it?"

You really think the S is a sports camera?

"Again, murderously overpriced and criminally underspeced. Because of that stupid red dot."

You've not managed to cite underspeced Leica cameras. If you'd said something about the first X having a slow buffer or not great AF, you'd have a point. Not a current 2018 Leica camera that. Nor is the X2 or XE.

"It must have been you that i went down the stupid S3 rabbit hole with before, with you defending the S3's ergos as as-good-as the D5's."

The Leica S3 ergonomics (assuming they are the same as the S) are excellent--yes nearly as good as those of the D5. So two cameras which you know little of.

"Have a Happy New Year, RAW."

Try out cameras before opining.

Lol, yup, must have been you...

Good day, sir! 🎩

Gooooood daaayyy, sir! 🎩

"At least I try gear"

Yeah, you're the whole package.

sir7..drama queen. " praying for a Leica bankruptcy". Try thinking before you toss out nonsense.

I have used almost every major brand of camera in one form or another. They all have strengths and weaknesses. I am generally skeptical of any blanket statements, good or bad about any brand.

Leica gear is expensive, frequently not justifiably so. Leica users are friendly enough, but there is a snob and exclusivity factor that makes the 'cult' easy to 'hate'.

But to say Leica ergo is 'rubbish' is pure nonsense. The classic controls and minimalist approach is quite effective for many users. I hate the explosion of buttons and functions and dense menus on most modern cameras. Even Leica-aspiring Fuji X-cameras are overly complicated.

AF prowess varies from camera to camera in all brands, including Leica. My Leica Q's internals were probably wholly designed by Panasonic, and despite lack of PDAF pixels the AF is extremely fast and accurate. The interface is intuitive, and kind of clever, really. Quite a versatile camera, at current used prices it's a bargain, really.

The xz1 had a poor sensor. Buy for its size and year. Lovely camera in many ways but far from perfect

John, first of all thanks again. You were the man show me image compose editor (Windows ICE). Wonderfull panorama maker for free!

Olympus XZ-1. actually its sensor was on par for its time period, zoom range was superior! Best of its time. Actually so good, that it was the same set of optics on XZ-2, Pentax MX-1 and Casio exilim something. (cant name the model now).

Panasonic LX100mark2 has all lackings present, once again!. Well, since Leica and Panasonic started L mouth, maybe 2019 we will finally constant F 1.8 zooms on m43 why not?!

What's the V1 have to do with anything?

"the zoom is not actuated manually, with a ring around the lens, but with an electronic, motorised zoom rocket."

It won't turn into a mechanical zoom, but if it is anything like the first LX100 you can switch the function of the lens ring to zoom. Do it that way on mine when in photography mode - ring zooms across the range, zoom rocker switches between the typical focal lengths (24, 28, 35, 50, 70 mm equivalent).

While the body might not be much larger, the LX is the eight of the EM's top plate without dials, but an equivalent lens would make the EM huge by comparison.

The other day I was marvelling at the size of the XT-20 which was dwarfed by an adjacent XT-3. With a 23mm prime it would be dainty next to my 6D.
In addition you still have to handle it to take photos.

K:

Try using the DLSR mirror focusing system sans prism/mirror atop.

Now, ironically the Nikon F can be shot waist finder--with the right non-prism box.

What you're describing is a mirror swing area underneath what is called the mirror box.

You're free to call the mirror box the prism box, or the prism hump I guess.

But anyhow notice how I used quotation marks around the term, since there's no mirror, nor is there a prism, in the EM10 II's box.

HowaboutRAW:
I agree, the IQ is much better than a phone but I would have thought that those that appreciates higher IQ, would also appreciate something a little more versatile.

try multiple wireless flash with a phone ;)

BobT3218:

But if you care about half decent IQ, or being able to shoot at ISO 1600 and produce good results: This Panasonic is vastly more versatile than an iPhone or Pixel 3--as a camera, not as a websurfing/emailing/FBooking/v-logging device. Of course, it's a vastly better video camera, if you want to post a complex video to Youtube.

There used to be a multi-function woodworking machine sold in the USA called the Shop Smith Mark 7. It was well made, and highly versatile.

However it took time to set up correctly as a table saw or drill press or sander, and to handle material of any reasonable size you'd need an external table aligned with the saw/sander/drill. I bring this up to say "yes more versatile is a real thing, unlike claims about the versatility of an iPhone/Pixel, but versatility often comes with conditions that take work to meet.

That's just it...I can get better IQ, a better EVF, plus a built-in flash and two lenses for $600.00 if I buy a Sony A6000. And, yes, I can get not only "half-decent" IQ out of a cell phone, but excellent IQ out of one.

Unfortunately, the ergonomics of the LX100 lens is quite different from those of other fixed lens zooms. That is why you don't hear a fraction of as many incidents concerning the Canon G7X line and Sony RX100 series.

FYI: The Canon G1x III is a fixed lens compact camera with weather sealing.

Marksphoto:

No, the Pixel whatever is not a better camera.

As of late 2018, there is NO smartphone camera that comes anywhere near this LX100 II for stills or video image quality.

By far the best smarphone camera ever released (and still not as good as the LX100 I/II) was one from 2015, ironically made by Panasonic. It is no longer available new and has not been replaced by Panasonic.

You guys should check studio comparison on DPR. Pixel has remarkable IQ, although parameters are different (only iso55 and jpeg option for pixel available). The detail rendition surprised me I was checking out rx100v vs x-a5 vs d5600 and added pixel3

Modgil P:

Yawn.

The Pixel 3, or any 2018 smartphone, just really isn't very good.

Now, 2018 smartphone cameras are largely better than 2016 smartphone cameras--with the exception of the aforementioned Panasonic CM1.

Why do you suppose it acceptable to only look at ISO 50 and jpegs? No one cares that the Pixel can shoot a half decent jpeg in bright daylight. A jpeg only compact from the year 2002 could too.

howaboutRAW the the sample gallery here suggests that this panasonic is worse than my pixel xl, unless the photographer screwed up in some ways... the pixel xl makes great jpegs in the dark, i don't know what source you got your information from but I own the pixel xl. And if you want a better photo you may want to prompt for the fuji mirrorless with great primes and bigger sensor, not much larger than your beloved panasonic that makes half decent potos with a crappy zoom.

forgot to mention, you cant shoot portraits on panasonic with great bokeh, pixel does it with finesse it looks like a 1.4 50mm equivalent

i shoot low light with pixel xl all a lot, very happy with the given iq, enough for facebook, i never print my photos from pixel XL. Again if I wanted to shoot for fine print I would use larger format cameras. On fb your panasonic would give the same iq as my pixel XL. and as of 2018 pixel XL is the best smart phone camera - google it.

"Who cares? You've also still not managed to name a Fuji APSC zoom that is the equivalent in zoom/speed to this Panasonic's lens."

Panasonic iq is equivalent to 24-75mm f3.2-6.2, I am sorry but that is too slow for me... Fuji has a better equivalent zoom - google it. I don't use zooms for my fine photography, I prefer f1.2 or 1.4 - that's how you shoot in low light and that's how you get optimal color, dimension, and sharpness. Secondly if i were to buy a zoom, which I never will, i'd prefer to buy a constant apperture zoom, so you can shoot with the same camera settings at any set zoom range - makes your life easier :)

howaboutRAW, i think you need to take photography lessons if you think f stops don't work the same as i described, good luck with your startup hobby

what's the point of discussing this with you, buy this point and shoot, practice and learn, maybe will talk again in a couple of years)

im sure i could give you photography lessons)

I agree: it's perfectly functional but unpleasant. The g9's is fun to look through.

Photography should be fun.

I owned a GX7 for a brief time and the original LX100 as well. The field sequential EVFs are horrid. They look awful and worse, make me feel physically ill (motion sick) looking down the viewfinder. I've never had this problem with my Olympus cameras (EM5 1/2, Pen-F, EM1 1). The EVF in the RX100 line is, while tiny, fairly pleasant to use as well.

If you don't mind using this terrible EVF that Panasonic for some ungodly reason keeps putting in their cameras that is great, but you (and I) are a sample size of one and do not represent the market as whole.

Again, I have absolutely no problem with tearing etc with this EVF. It’s on the small side though. And no, I’m certain the G9 is not more fun to shoot with, considering its oversized body.

I have a D-lux4/LX-3 that I have owned for many years now. It is very similar (in overall design) to the LX-100 II
. I have used it under all sorts of conditions and it Is almost always in my jeans' pocket when I'm carrying it. I have never see any signs of sensor dust in my images.

I have read a number of user comments on the internet in which people say they're returned the camera because of a serious sensor dust problem. Personally I, haven't seen any such comments on the LX-3/D-LUX4.

I don't know what to make of all this. I want a compact travel camera with good image quality and raw dynamic range and thought this was it until all the dust hullabaloo.

The Sony Rx-100 series cameras are similar compact zoom cameras and I've never read anything about sensor dust with them.

timoteotresgatos:

Name a camera with a zoom permanently affixed to the outside of the body that is dust proof?

Panasonic claims to have worked on the LX100's dust problem. Panasonic would be crazy to claim the LX100 II is "dust proof".

Your specific experience with the LX3 is immaterial. I suggest you look into the concept of vacuums and unequal pressure distribution within small spaces.

Why do you consider my experience with the D-Lux4 immaterial? Same basic design as the LX-100 cameras.

I have not seen any dust complaints in any of the reviews I've read about the RX 100 series cameras and they have a zoom similar to the LX-100 cameras.

Till that collapsible lens gets dust on the sensor that you can't clean. No thanks.

What's a GX50? You mean the GFX50? Sure. Will you sell it to me for $1000? A7II = twice the weight, 6 times the image quality, for the SAME price.
If you cannot get that photo with whatever modern camera, then it's not the camera's fault really. Smallness is overrated.

Six times the image quality? What makes you say that?

A way to look at this camera is to convert its to equivalent full frame. That makes it a 24-75mm 3.2-6.2 lens and optically equivalent or better than a full frame kit lens.

That is actually pretty good for such a small package...Combined with its very nice burst rate and controls (burst means, I can stack images with software like Kandao's RAW+), it means that this is a highly capable camera. I wish there was a full frame equivalent but there just isn't!

Maybe you dont care about smallness, but many other people do. When you work in the alps and have to carry something like 15kg up to the mountains (like I do every two weeks), you will definitely care about the weight and space of either a full frame or this compact camera.

Also, you seem to contradict yourself. If any modern camera is good enough, why not get a compact one? Why would you want full frame then?

Yes, I meant the GFX50. If the image quality is the major drive, as indicated in your original post, then the price shouldn't be a factor - as the weight and size isn't.
Smallness might be for you; I would rather have a discreet camera with me than not to.

@Athonline
No, my original post is about a better way to spend $1000.
If an image doesn't deserve to be high quality, then most likely it's not worth to be shot at all. Photography is not about putting small cameras in your pockets and avoiding the bigger ones. Just like drinking is not a sport.

@ecka84: I've owned both the A7 and the LX100 II and I was unimpressed with the kit lens of the Sony. Let's not talk about the A7's horrible jpeg engine since I shoot raw, but the lens of the lx100 is okay.

If you compare the actual light gathering capability, and that is the important thing, both cameras are quite equal in effective apertures and therefore background blur.

If I didn't have any camera, I would take neither and invest in a good aps-c mirrorless with an additional good prime lens. However, since I own a full frame and need something that is more compact and good to use, I chose the lumix lx100 II. I got it cheaper (used), so that of course helped.

Nobody forces anybody to buy a specific camera. X may be perfectly suited for Y, while it is not the ideal choice for Z. There is no point in trying to argue that X is the perfect camera for anybody, just because it is the best choice for Y!

Why would I buy a chunky A7II when I am looking for a pocketable light weight camera with a fast lens? The A7II is useless without a lens. With 2.8/24-70mm is costs 3 times as much as the LX100 II and weight 1.5kg. With 4/24-70 still twice as much!

Besides, the LX100II runs 800€, the A7II without a lens 1200€. Easy call here.

@FrithjofA
The A7II with a kit lens is $998! LX100II lens (24-75F3.7-6.2 FF eq.) is nothing like FF 24-70F2.8 or F4. Get over it. It is slower and crappier than Sony's kit lens.
Don't like "chunky"? - Use your phone... 400g LX100II is not nothing. And if I'd want something really small to travel with, I'd get the Ricoh GR II (220g, APS-C, sharp lens, $497) instead.

@ecka84 I like polite discussions but you make it difficult.

First up, "Use your phone" - that is just pure trolling.

Implying that I don't "utilize FF" is ad hominem and plain wrong. You have no clue what I use my cameras for but it taxes them a lot - nightscapes/astro, IR/UV/fullspectrum photography, landscape...areas where colour depth, dynamic range and good noise performance are critical. The moment you use the A7 II in anything else besides single shot, it defaults to 12bit. Like your dynamic range? Well, 12bit makes it kind of equal to the LX100 in any other mode. Longtime exposure? The high-pass filter makes that difficult with any A7. Besides, as I said before, I can easily stack a quick raw burst.

Comparing an older camera to the brand-new market price is rubbish. Wait a few months and watch the prices drop.

There is only one compact camera that can zoom 3x and has an equivalent aperture of 3.7-6.2 - not to mention the excellent haptics and burst speed.

Can someone from the MODs please stop Ecka84 from trolling the news section?

"LX100II lens (24-75F3.7-6.2 FF eq.) is nothing like FF 24-70F2.8 or F4. Get over it. It is slower and crappier than Sony's kit lens."

FYI, that Kitlens is optically being inferior, especially the soft edges. I do own it since the A7, it renders foliage way mushy, and to compare this with the LX100 II lens is beyond being silly - it's nonsense! It's a very slow, F3.5 to F5.6 lens, FYI - start reading reviews first, before playing keyboard warrior on DPReview News Section.

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/999-sony2870f3556oss

FYI, it's optically worse than my 14-45/3.5-5.6 Kitlens, which came with my 2008 Lumix G1 mFT Camera.

One, who compares a FF DSLM System camera with a advanced mFT Pocketcamera - is even more than nonsense.

Usual comment from someone with no idea - A7 II with a inferior, really cheap Kitlens. No comparsion to a fast 24-75/F1.8-2.8, especially into low light situations.

ecka, you don't know the meaning of i g n o r a n c e, no way, you shoot into your own foot, have fun doing so. You know - talk is cheap, and you can make your obscure comparsions, you talk about DoF equivalence, F1.8 means F1.8 - no matter, how big the sensor is. And that FE 28-70 is one of the -in your words- crappiest Kitlenses, i have used. So much for that.

FYI, just think 10 sec about - for what reason this small Lumix LX100 series is being built for - then compare this to a Fullframe DSLM, if you're still wondering, you'd never get the point anyway.

Hint: it was never being meant for 1:1 comparsion with a FF sensor DSLM, and not for exchanging lenses. It's about Size and Lens Speed. ;)

Have fun!

Equivalence is exactly about the same depth of field - if you gather the same amount of light with the same field of view, depth of field is the same. Dpreview have an entire article about that.

Ecka just FYI, I am older, and being shooting longer than you. You're the same kind of person, which would compare a VW Golf with a Ferrari F40 - the same is like, that you compare the A7 II with a optical inferior Kitlens, vs the LX 100 II - don't tell me something about photography - you don't have a clue, period. ;)

PS: Nobody, who is being serious about photography - would shoot the A7 II, III for ages with just a FE 28-70/3.5-5.6 Kitlens. It's like having a wartburg wagen with porsche motor.

FYI, not everybody does need "Fullframe", and the fullframe moniker means nothing, when you do compare it with cheap lenses, especially. Further, what i was telling you before, pogobi said it.

You've never thought about the ppl - which need to have a ever ready, small camera with fast zoom lens all time besides them, don't you? It's such a cheap attempt to bash the LX100 Series from your side - and that my friend, is being called i g n o r a n c e, from your side. ;)

A fine weekend.

Ecka, you know what your problem is? you do think you'd feel superior - but you're not, and often trolling the forums here. I do have enough with that. And i know for sure more than you, because i do shoot almost as long, as you're being old into years.

And about your trolling - here is a direct fake news again, read your comment again: "I'm not telling you what camera to use. Go ahead, pick whatever you like." a few comments above, you've been bashing all over the LX100, and it's "crappy" lens - and now you wanna play the experienced. I have enough with this premature behaviour of yours. First you bash against it, and then you do play the opposite. Get serious. Get a life.

The Proof is from your started trolling against the LX100 II being here:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-dc-lx100-ii?comment=7583486245

Have fun - i won't answer you anymore. ;)