Panasonic DC-LX100 II First Impressions Review

You're not losing anything here. A fixed sensor aspect with cropping to achieve other aspects would give you fewer pixels and less of the image circle.

Nothing mentioned in the review. It was a big issue, one that would have been discussed here in this review had Panasonic done anything about it.

Bangers and Mash:

This isn't exactly a "review".

Nor does DPR get say 20 LX100 Mark IIs to test over 6 months for mechanical and durability issues.

DPR is not a gear rental house, nor is it Consumer Reports.

It's not like 2 months after the LX100 Mark I first shipped, so early 2015, six out of ten owners reported dust on the sensor despite the fact that the lens can't be removed.

I have sent LX100 back to Panasonic for 3 times to clean the dust. I find the dust on the sky every time after back from the trip of Japan, I need to use Lightroom to remove the dust. This is a big issue for the LX100 Mark I.

Icat:

I'm not disputing that dust is an issue for the LX100 Mark I.

What doesn't then follow is that dust is an issue for the still basically unreleased Mark II.

The Mark 1 has been out for years, dust is known to be a problem. This Mark II has not shipped, so pronouncements like that of Bangers and Mash are tiresome to read when they very much imply that the Mark II is established to have this same problem.

Meh, my Canon Powershot G9 had "dust on the sensor" - twice.

This problem isn't unique to Panasonic.

Solution - take better care of your camera, use a vacuum cleaner or send it in.

Sorry it's tiresome to read. I simply stated that the known issue wasn't addressed. If a company makes any kind of changes, no matter what they are, they would indicate it right off the bat. In other words, if Panasonic addressed the issue of sensor dust, they surely would have mentioned it from the get go. To me that makes logical sense. I for one, would not buy into another camera HOPING they fixed the problem. I want to know about it before hand, and before the camera goes into production. If Panasonic wants to sell their camera knowing of an issue, they better make sure they fix the issue and make mention of it.

Bangers and Mash:

"I simply stated that the known issue wasn't addressed. "

And quite simply you can't be sure of the verity of that statement.

"if Panasonic addressed the issue of sensor dust, they surely would have mentioned it from the get go."

That's just your guess. Not a terrible guess, but also not a sound foundation upon which to conclude much.

Bangers and Mash:

"Well, we will have to wait and see the outcome."

And if you'd started with that proposition, then it would be easier to take you seriously.

Bangers & M:

It's quite clear what your are saying. I'll not re-cite you jumping to a conclusion.

We know the quality of this lens, it's a known sensor, so we don't have to wait for that information to conclude a very good IQ outcome.

So that leaves the dust question we'll have to wait and see about.

Just think simply: Panasonic knew the problem of dust on the sensor of the LX100 MK1. So, logically, it should have mentioned in the new specifications that this problem has been solved. At least to reassure future customers! It did not do so, so the problem persists.

Thanks for the info; however, where did you read that on Sept. 19 ?

The latest reliable info I read was Richard Butler's "No word on dust-proofing. Again, the use of the same lens would strongly suggest it hasn't become any more dust-proof".

"no, the same lens does NOT then mean the same seals, or more importantly the same filter on the pressure equalization port-vent" (by HowaboutRAW).
Did you read that, Richard Butler ?

Yes 4K video. I've seen a side by side comparison of the LX100 and the C300II in Rec709 and the LX100 really looked the same, similar detail rendition, grain structure, same pleasing colours, it's a little pocket cinema camera. Of course the C300 does better at high ISOs but for a pocket hybrid camera with tiny files it was a killer deal, even high ISO from the quite-large sensor is excellent too. I know a greater-than-expected number of filmmakers who own it. The only letdown was the limited dynamic range for that flat look and the lack of mic/headphone jacks, two things panasonic should have corrected with V-Log and a mic input in the mark II, yet they left it as is and removed the wide angle of the lens! Weird stuff

It is cheaper than a adult elephant and a lot easier to handle

This camera’s web browser is awful, you can’t use it for email, and it doesn’t even come with Snake.

lacikuss:

And yet, in 2018, there's no direct competition for the extremely well regarded LX100 Mark 1.

Remember, Sony still makes the RX100's EVF a popup adventure--it's improved.

Does the Canon M50 have a built in EVF? I really don't know, but most of the Canon EOS-M bodies don't. Canon has nothing like this lens for its EOS-M bodies.

There's much to like about the Sony RX100V, but the Panasonic LX10 costs less. And the Mark 1 LX100 costs less too. Irony.

It's not your "belief" so much that m43s is doomed, it's clearly a wish.

Why don't you look at a GX85 or Olympus EM1 II, or GH5 before opining.

I'd absolutely love to see Sony come up with an APSC compact (think G1X III but with all the bells and whistles of an RX100).

HowaboutRAW

Unfortunately, the LX100 I or II doesn't fit into my pocket so you can't compare with Sony RX100 series at all. As you need a bag to carry it, then I compare with any similar sized small camera.

And yes the M50 has a EVF

and yes the M50 has two fast primes, one is a very sharp pancake lens.

and also has a flip touch screen, shoots 4k and cost the same as this LX100 II.

plus you can have UWA, teles, macro, etc lenses for very low price.

M43 is doomed that is for sure, just wait some years, those M43 lenses are way to expensive...

lacikuss,

If being pocketable means in a small pocket, since it's easy to fit the LX100 in a normal jacket pocket, then yes the RX100 or LX10 is better choice.

The question about the Canon EOS-M lenses wasn't whether fast lenses of fixed focal length exist for the Canon APSC mirrorless system. So you've provided a fake answer. And no, there's no equivalent Canon zoom.

(There are of course plenty of fast fixed focal length lenses for the Panasonic and Olympus m4/3s bodies.)

Nor of course by your limited definition is the Canon EOS-M 50 anywhere near pocketable.

lacikuss:

NB: "irrelevant" doesn't mean what you suppose.

You got caught making up "answers" that avoid the specific points I made. And and you pretended that some perfectly good fixed focal length EOS-M lens is the same as this fast zoomed Panasonic.

I get it, you don't like m4/3 cameras. And you want them to fail. But if you make things up about this camera (which technically isn't m4/3) the desperation of your inventions undermines your wishes and opinions.

I have nothing especially against the Canon mirrorless APSC system, except that it took Canon far too long to introduce a body with a built in EVF, and there are no fast native zooms. The 2 m4/3 systems don't suffer from these failures, nor does this Panasonic that was derived from the m4/3 standard.

I guess Panasonic is not stupid to cannibalize the sale of their more expensive M43 cameras...

Why companies think their only competion is their own cameras. RX100V is the only competition they have to compare it with. They failed big time. Therefore useless camera. 4/3 compact should have surpassed 1" camera. Why Panasonic, why?

Nothing wrong with the focus.

When you need zoom, you'll know.

The iPhone XS has both 25mm and 55mm equivalent lenses. When I need more I will use my a7R3 which is my main camera anyway.

HowaboutRAW, how about computational photography! It's time to wake up. RAW is becoming less relevant in the face of advanced JPEG processing engines in traditional cameras and cell phone camera computer aided image processing.

goodbokeh:

Neither of those iPhone lenses is up to this zoom.

Years in the future computational photography has some promise--say 20 years from now.

In 2018, there is NO smartphone camera (sold new) that comes close the LX100 Mark 1.

"raw is becoming less relevant". Ha, ha. Right you don't care about WB and NR.

RAW will always be relevant, as it lets you decide what the image is supposed to look like. No matter how good a JPG engine is, it won't be perfect in all circumstances, nor will it be able to use the exposure settings creatively.

As long as you don't care about good IQ smartphones are fine.

BlueBomberTurbo:

And to think that goodbokeh lists a Panasonic GH5 and some excellent Olympus and PanaLeica lenses for it in his gear list, but he proclaims that basically the new iPhone surpasses that gear. If that gear list is true, I'm getting the sense that goodbokeh ain't using it to its capacity.

@HowaboutRAW

Definitely not. I'm using a Panasonic GX85 as a daily driver, and the image quality is nearly A6000-level. Good enough for most things, and worlds better than any smartphone image I've ever seen displayed outside of a tiny smartphone screen.

https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?idType=4&idPhone1=8858&idPhone2=8720&idPhone3=8967

Scroll to the pink pom-pom, Sponge Bob patch, or 5 dollar bill, and you can see how terrible the last iPhone was at reproducing detail. Unless there's been a quantum leap in processing, the new iPhones won't fare much better.

@goodbokeh ... sometimes it is better to say nothing at all.

More low light capability and zoom compared to phones

This camera IQ is only better than a smartphone picture IQ (current gen) in only 5% of the shooting scenarios but, it is not pocket sized like your phone so in those special cases you don't even have it with you, sad! For those who pixel peep you can still det a 6D FF new for the same price.

lacikuss:

No, the LX100 has better IQ than a smartphone of 2018 in ALL shooting scenarios.

HowaboutRAW

Well he only says computation and auto HDR surpass dedicated cameras. Apparently those things are more important to him than pure IQ quality. It seems lately there's been a split between those of us who prefer pure IQ quality with some digital manipulation and those who like heavily and artificially produced results.

@HowaboutRAW

Well, the thing with smartphone sensors is that they're ridiculously quick. Think a Sony A9 on steroids and speed. Being so small, and outputting such low quality data, makes transfer speeds crazy. They can shoot a large burst in the blink of an eye. Fortunately, any recent camera of APS-C or larger sensor size (except Canon...) can just expand the DR on a single image to get the same effect. And with higher quality. And yes, before anyone says it, this can be achieved in-camera.

goodbokeh:

In other words you owned a Panasonic LX100, yet you preposterously pretend a 2018 iPhone has better image quality.

An HDR function doesn't automatically provide good IQ, in fact HDR is oft a substitute for good final image IQ.

You're deluded about the powers of commercially available computational photography in 2018.

"Fixed lens high spec compact cameras are withering in sales and will soon be gone in all but specialized niches gentlemen."

Yet, there's the Ricoh you cite, the Sony RX100, and the LX100.

Given how pricey the Mark 1 LX100 still is, it's laughable, and a sign of your desperation, to pretend the Mark 2 will be on sale at firesale prices by the spring of 2019. The Mark 1 has been 800usd (with some intermittent sale pricing) for the last 24 months, that's close to the original retail price.

So, Although LX100 II uses a M4/3 sensor, it is not a M4/3 camera.

@Samuel - Yea, but you can crop and do that too and you don't lose any of the sensor surface on original capture. Yes?

No.

Go to page 2 of this feature (“What’s new and how it compares”) and scroll to “Multi Aspect sensor and updated processor”. There you will see a diagram of the sensor area versus image circle of the lens. Click on the various aspect ratios to see how the sensor area changes to always use the full diameter of the image circle thrown by the lens. Notice how this allows 16:9 (yellow) to be wider than 3:2 (magenta) and 4:3 (cyan) to be taller.

In contrast, other cameras (e.g. the Sony RX100 models) are fixed to the magenta 3:2 area, and if they offer other choices of aspect ratios in the menus, those are merely cropped out of the magenta area. Consequently they do not use the full diagonal of the lens in other aspect ratios, and this means they also suffer a greater penalty of sensor area than does the Panasonic.

For them to do that they'd need to have a circular sensor that reads the full lens image circle! Otherwise multiaspect ratio is the only way to get the most out of the circlular image circle when changing aspect ratios rather than simple cropping which wastes circle area.

@ All - yes, but you're still losing some sensor. I'd rather have a full 20Mp of sensor @ 3:2 (or whatever). But that's just me.

But stevo23, then the lens would have to be bigger. The Panasonic multi-aspect-ratio design extracts the absolute max performance out of the physical volume of the camera. That seems to me like a good approach when making what is, after all, a compact camera.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, although the Panasonic lens starts at 24 mm-equivalent, because of its multi aspect ratio feature, it has a horizontal angle of view equivalent to a 22.x mm-e lens. Since it is surprisingly often the case that you use a wide lens to cover a wide horizontal view, as opposed to a tall vertical view, that makes it very useful.

When I had an LX3 and later an LX5, I had a lot of fun playing with 24 mm-e and 16:9. The horizontal coverage had a genuine ultra-wide feel and composition in 16:9 was an enjoyable, cinema-like challenge.

@ Samuel Dilworth. The aspect ratio of the LX3 to LX7 cameras can only be appreciated by owners. I love my little LX3 and LX7 for all the features we appreciate. IMHO, what many posters comment about is theoretical, as they often link aspect ratios they can obtain with a crop of their fixed aspect sensor, but they never appreciate that they are not getting a wider FoV which the LX's do give, going from 3:2 to 16:9, and more height information when going to 4:3. Being able to instantaneously switch between them on the fly is a great aid to composition, something which cropping later can't equal.

You can't "get the full sensor/image" unless it's a circular sensor. That's the only way to make multi-aspect unecessary.

I didn't know that. Thanks

RX100 series is like a small miracle machine. I have shot a documentary with that, as my video camera was not allowed in places i shot

How are people that have LX100 dust issues storing their cameras when in use? People with issues on RX100s usually put them in their pants or jacket pockets, which is roughly as bad as putting them in a sandstorm...

It will all depend upon the sample studio images in comparison to the original. Will the added resolution produce more detail? That is what I want to find out.

@NYCman, The extra 4MP should improve detail, however seriously, is that the reason to spend $1K? Not me but each to their own. Theres a compulsion for many to feel compelled to upgrade every time a company brings out a new model. As soon as its even announced, people are taking back all the good things they were saying about the previous model. The reality is this; If a previous camera produced for you a great image and you were happy, why would you need to upgrade to gain mostly features which have no effect on the image. Remember its about what you do with the gear you have not how much or how often you upgrade.

There's no ND filter (that would have required redesigning the lens) but there's a filter thread to let you attach an ND or Vari-ND.

No word on dust-proofing. Again, the use of the same lens would strongly suggest it hasn't become any more dust-proof.

Red dot version?

The sensor size is actually called 4/3", and has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of 4:3. It refers to the diameter of old video tubes (not the diagonal of the sensor!), just like 2/3", 1" and other similar sensor designations.

Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds refer to the lens mounts, not the common sensor size shared by both systems.

The lens may be the real important feature. I enjoy taking pictures in museums, churches, and historical buildings. The manual settings are my kind of control.
What bothers me on many cameras is that setting the parameters takes so long. When participating in a guided tour there is little time.
In the meantime I decided to take all pictures in landscape mode as I use a 4K monitor to watch my slide shows.

Excellent point but one would lose the speed. I own the LX100 and find the F1.7 invaluable when taking pics indoors (in museums, for example) where flash is not allowed.

ive got the gm5 with the 12 60 and its frickin tiny 😎 .. not much different from the lx100 ,... but with the advantage of accepting a 55 200 panny or my Panny 7-14

which is a hilarious but very useful pairing,, its also sweet with the oly 12 f2
the silver lens and black body clash a little

@CAcreeks "considering the crop video, a waterproof Olympus TG5 might produce higher quality 4K video."
The cropped area within the LX200 sensor that records 4K video, is slightly smaller than a 1" sensor, which is about 4x the area of the TG5 sensor. Besides, Panasonic has an autofocus system that actually works during video.

On the other hand, if you drop the LX100 into the drink, its video output quickly degrades to nothing :)

Thanks BorisK1. Good point about AF. You probably mean LX100 II not LX200. I guess the crop isn't too severe because photos max out at 4928x3552 and that's not much larger than 4K video, 3840x2160.

Maybe not everyone wants a dedicated 28mm wide-angle camera. LX100 is like a jack of all trades. It has 24-28mm wide-angle, 40-50mm normal, and 75mm 'portrait' capabilities in one package.