Panasonic DC-LX100 II Review

It's nearly finished.

1 week agopermalink

Naveed Akhtar

Cheers Richard!

1 week agopermalink

Wouldn't it be nice to have a m43 lens with those specs, ie, an f/1.7-2.8 lens speed? (You'd need to increase the dimensions of the lens by 10% for it cover the full m43 sensor while keeping the same f-stop and AOV range.)

3 weeks agopermalink

Naveed Akhtar

it would be nice, but please don't judge the size or price according to this camera lens setup.

3 weeks agopermalink

mosc

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.

3 weeks agopermalink

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.

3 weeks agopermalink

Karroly

The closest lenses for M4/3 are the Panasonic 12-35mm 1:2.8 Lumix G X Vario ASPH OIS and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40 mm f/2.8 Pro. But not as fast at the short end.

5 days agopermalink

odin_cro

couldn’t find the information about the size and controls layout - are they the same as on LX100? I adore this camera, and the only issue is the dust problem (which started after 2 years of intensive use ikn my case). So, I would maybe change it for the LX100mkII if I can cotinue to use it with my Ikelite underwater housing.

Thanks in advance :)

3 weeks agopermalink

Yxa

The control layout is the same except for the big one, touch screen and a couple more Fn buttons

3 weeks agopermalink

odin_cro

Thanks a lot, will wait for first units to come to my ,ocal shop.
I am worried about new fn buttons, as on lx100 one of most important buttons for me (video RECj is locat d close to FN buttons.

1 week agopermalink

As (I hope) you can see from this picture, the button layout is the same. It's just that more of the existing buttons are now customizable FN buttons.

1 week agopermalink

Rensol

Buy Sony A6300 with kit 16-50mm lens.
Almost the same size
Almost the same price
1000x better performance even with the cheap kit lens!
.
Goodbye panasonic garbage.
.
My less then 1 year old LX100 (first gen) stopped working (most likely motherboard). Sony's are abused but still alive.

3 weeks agopermalink

With kit lens? Proof needed...

3 weeks agopermalink

You mean THIS kit lens?
Lens test 1: https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=1
Lens test 2: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/

3 weeks ago*permalink

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....

3 weeks agopermalink

Rensol

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.

3 weeks agopermalink

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.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Low Budget Dave

I would guess that the Panasonic also uses lens correction, we just don't know about it because there is no reason to ever turn it off. When you look at the pictures from the two, they are actually pretty similar.

The difference to me is that you can switch lenses on the Sony after your vacation is over.

15 hours agopermalink

jackspra

Happy New Year🎉 Everyone

3 weeks agopermalink

This is already the third time this model is on the front page. Why do they insist so much? Are there no other topics to discuss or maybe Panasonic is a sponsor?

3 weeks agopermalink

It's a recent new camera.

Cameras like the Canon R and the Nikon Z7 came out months ago.

3 weeks agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

Thank you Richard. OK.

1 week agopermalink

vaughanB

I will say that the samples look really good, some of the best I have seen, I might have to check this camera out

3 weeks agopermalink

mojojoedwards

The first LX100 came out as a competitor to the XZ1 with better lenses circa 2011.
Still not much improvement after all these years.

3 weeks agopermalink

The first LX100 came out in 2014, not 2014. It has a much bigger sensor than that in the XZ1.

3 weeks agopermalink

Revenant

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

3 weeks agopermalink

And as I meant to post, "came out in 2014, not 2011."

@Revenant:

Right, that too. I had an LX5, nice small camera that.

3 weeks agopermalink

Chris 222

To Richard Butler:
"However, following claims of improved sealing around the lens, we are told: "There is no additional urethane sealing used but we have a countermeasure to prevent the dust ingress with the LX100M2. There will no longer be a gap when the lens barrel is moving."
This is promising, since dust getting sucked-in by the lens mechanism became a widely-discussed concern with the original version."
Did you ask Panasonic what this "countermeasure" ACTUALLY is?! Or why it directly contradicts what the Panasonic Germany rep stated to ephotozine?
This is a legitimate question. One early buyer already had to send back his LX100M2 after a mere 200 shots due to dust on the sensor... (see Amazon US reviews)
Yet you wrote in your WHAT WE LIKE column:
"Panasonic promises improved anti-dust sealing in lens"
So... an unverified manufacturer's "promise" is now a PRO at DPR?

3 weeks agopermalink

There's no way to verify it, so we made clear that it's a promise, not an absolute fact.

1 week agopermalink

Chris 222

Since my post I have learned that Panasonic's claim of "countermeasures" is complete hogwash.
But the real question for you - and for many of us who have followed you for a long time - is an ethical one: is it a good idea for DPR to start listing "UNVERIFIED MANUFACTURERS' PROMISES" in your review summaries?
Isn't discussing/listing verified facts the hallmark of basic journalism?

1 week agopermalink

Ultimately, that's what's happening every time any website repeats claims that something is 'weather sealed,' since that's an unquantified, non-testable claim.

We've tried to make that uncertainty clear.

I'd be interested what you've learned, though. If we have reason to doubt the claims, we'll remove them.

1 week agopermalink

Chris 222

Well, Richard, I hope you can understand that my sources need to be protected, including one who would undoubtedly lose his job at Panasonic if revealed.
You could, of course, press Panasonic to give you DETAILED PROOF of their "dust ingress countermeasures" claim (the bizarre wording itself should have been a red flag...) and then amend your article accordingly.
Or maybe not. Your call.

1 week agopermalink

Pixelster

Looks like a great camera. A consumer camera without BIF?
Photography should be fun.
#Happy_Photography

Thanks
(Pixelster-Globally Photo Editing Service Provider in Bangladesh)

4 weeks agopermalink

pro photo 2011

The existence of the Leica brand in the camera world has one very important but unintended consequence.

Because real Leica gear is so expensive, it makes everything else seem so reasonably priced.

At least it makes buying a Sony a7R3 with 3 GM lenses so much easier.

4 weeks agopermalink

What does this PanaLeica sorta-compact have to do with something like the Leica SL, which would be the Leica competition for the Sony A7RIII?

Right, the SL and its native lenses are more expensive than the Sony. Each full framed mirrorless body has strengths, the Leica has the better EVF, and the Sony has more mega-pixels and better AF.

The Leica's lenses are optically somewhat better, but not a great deal so. And the Sony GMs are mostly very good optically.

The Leica SL is better for M lens use.

4 weeks agopermalink

While i appreciate f1.7 on the wide end, 24mm is the minimum for wideness and with only 3.1x zoom, just go wider. To 20mm or so. 75mm max., AND NO FLASH, at the end of 2018 compared to its peers is a true head-scratcher! More importantly, utter shortcomings and egregious failures.

Such a bass-ackwards, limited, obsolete product smacks of Leica controlling Panasonic, and not the other way around. I'm surprised this camera doesn't have just 1AF point right in the center. Very unfortunate GIGANTIC letdown... :(

1 month ago*permalink

pro photo 2011

Apparently, Panasonic wanted to just update the 4-year-old camera without too much cost.

Changing the zoom range is a major undertaking. Going wider than 24mm is a big deal in terms of cost.

Panasonic didn't even want to add a tilting screen.

Since the price difference between the LX100 II and the Leica D-LUX 7 is only $200, I would buy the Leica. It's prettier and when it's time to sell it, the Leica can fetch far more money.

4 weeks agopermalink

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. ;)

4 weeks agopermalink

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.

4 weeks agopermalink

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...

4 weeks agopermalink

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.

4 weeks agopermalink

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".

4 weeks agopermalink

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.

4 weeks agopermalink

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.

4 weeks agopermalink

Lol, yup, must have been you...

Good day, sir! 🎩

4 weeks agopermalink

Sir 7:

At least I try gear.

4 weeks agopermalink

Gooooood daaayyy, sir! 🎩

4 weeks agopermalink

hypnotictortoise

"At least I try gear"

Yeah, you're the whole package.

4 weeks agopermalink

Sactojim

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

3 weeks agopermalink

King. 👑

Have a Happy New Year, my humble subject! 😉

3 weeks agopermalink

athensGA

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.

3 weeks agopermalink

Has there ever been a zoom lens that went wider than 24 mm equiv. that was not a pure wide-angle zoom (ie, one whose maximum focal length went beyond 35/40 mm equiv.)?

3 weeks agopermalink

The Canon SX60HS goes from 21mm-1,365mm equivalent (3.8mm-247mm actual).

While I'm no expert in compact cameras, it seems reasonable that there would be a few others that have at least a 4x zoom starting at about 20mm-ish. Whether or not they exist yet, it can't be all that difficult. While the SX60HS' lens is by no means the greatest, it pulled off 65x starting at 21mm. Sub-24mm is clearly not a limiting factor.

3 weeks agopermalink

hypnotictortoise

Just for the hell of it, I priced Leica gear the other day. 'It couldn't possibly be that much more expensive than a D5', I thought. Yeah, right. I could get a D5 or X1D for the price of an MP or MA. Add 80% to that for an M10. The SL was in the middle of those.

People can spend their money as they wish, however, the discussion about the merits of Leica cameras is not even worth having because of the price point.

3 weeks agopermalink

I've just perused the DPreview database. There seem to be a handful of exceptions (two superzooms, one 'dive-proof', one 'normal' compact):
- Canon PowerShot SXx0 line
- Panasonic DMC-FZx0 line
- Olympus Tough TG 8x0 line (these can be used underwater where the apparent focal length increases, which probably was the motivation to go wider than 24 mm equiv.)
- Casio Exilim EX-ZR5000

No interchangeable lenses breaking that (24 mm equiv.) barrier though.

3 weeks agopermalink

@noirdesir:
Thanks for the info. I forgot about the Lumix line, and didn't know the Oly Toughs went that wide. Good to know when I'm ready to replace my Nikon AW130.

I think the challenge with ultrawides is that the angle of incidence increases notably vs. longer lengths. Bridge/Compact shooters generally aren't expecting critical IQ, nor are they likely to make really large prints so this is really where cameramakers could commonly make ultrawides. It's unfortunate this isn't more common.

To me, MFT and 1" sensor cameras are the perfect place to start really exploring lens formulas for something like a 20mm-100mm equivalent ILC lens. Then APS-C and FF.

Since Nikon gave up on 1", we're really in Lumix's (Leica's) and Sony's (Zeiss') hands there. And when you think of it, the LX100M2 was the perfect opportunity. Even a 20mm-80mm lens would have been a notable improvement over the LX100's 24mm-75mm. And of course, it's just got to have a flash.

3 weeks ago*permalink

colordoppler

RX100vi blows it out of the water in image quality and versitility. Besides it fits in my skinny jeans.

1 month ago*permalink

Sezano

Why pick on skinny jeans?

4 weeks agopermalink

Ben O Connor

Back in Jan 2011; Olympus XZ-1 scored 74 points and got a GOLD MEDAL.

Because; even with its extrmely limited video capabilities, it was possible to add a mic (SEMA-1 hotshue adaptor). Had an underwater housing, which I enjoy every summer since 2012. Has 55mm adapter piece, which cleverly protect the zoom action lens.

LX 100 however, lacks all of those or supported by 3rd party manufactures' stuff. So even it has 82 points, it deserves silver award, that I wouldn't give!

1 month agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

I would argue that more people care about video than an underwater housing. Besides, both Ikelite and Nauticam make underwater housings for the LX100.

1 month ago*permalink

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

4 weeks agopermalink

Ben O Connor

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?!

4 weeks agopermalink

mojojoedwards

I am still using the XZ1 till today for travel shots, works perfectly fine than any smart phone cameras. Battery performance is amazing. HATES the POOR video focusing.

3 weeks agopermalink

JEROME NOLAS

A consumer camera without BIF? Big deal for me!

1 month agopermalink

V1 didn't have a built in flash either.

1 month agopermalink

jvt

What's the V1 have to do with anything?

1 month agopermalink

Sezano

It has. It does!

4 weeks agopermalink

norman shearer

This might make a good alternative to the Sony RX100 series if you value image quality over AF tracking etc. I can see Panasonic making money with this camera because that lens and sensor combo gives it a USP.

1 month agopermalink

alex carlan

For me, four things cripple this camera:
- the zoom is not actuated manually, with a ring around the lens, but with an electronic, motorised zoom rocket.
- the start-standby-restart cycle.
- Lack of an articulated screen.
- That e-viewfinder...

I want a fast compact camera for street, family and travel. The lens-sensor combination is perfect on this one. But the controls ruin it. I'd love this camera with Fuji Fx20 controls and mechanics. But I guess the concept of a high-quality compact camera is compromised by smartphones anyway...

1 month agopermalink

Ben O Connor

Get an GX-80/85 my friend. I enjoy it with 15mm Leica ever since

1 month agopermalink

alex carlan

Ben
This should be the sensible, reasonable solution, right? But I grew old and tired of swapping lenses, and a single focal length is not enough.... I did that all my youth with a Pentax K10, a 31 and a 77.

4 weeks agopermalink

Mnemon

"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).

4 weeks agopermalink

tvgc

It is the same on the LX100MKII...(smile).

3 weeks agopermalink

Canono_1

Focal Length (30 - 94mm in 35mm equiv. in 16:9 in 4K PHOTO / 4K video recording)
Better than the 32-100mm you wrote which is wrong，and thus it’s a 1.25x crop

1 month agopermalink

dansclic

Seems the omd em 10 II is better... not,much larger but more versatile

1 month agopermalink

The Olympus EM10 II is an excellent small ILC.

You forgot however that this Panasonic has a zoom lens for which no equivalent in size and f-stop range exists for m4/3s system bodies.

Also while you're looking for a zoom like that of the LX100 but for the Olympus price an f/2.0 12mm m4/3 system lens.

Last the Olympus EM10 II has a "mirror box", you should have written Pen-F.

1 month agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

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.

1 month agopermalink

Kid Kurtz

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.

1 month agopermalink

Karroly

"Last the Olympus EM10 II has a "mirror box", you should have written Pen-F."
In a DSLR, the mirror box is the volume in front of the sensor not the roof on the top. You meant "roof pentaprism ", didn't you ?

5 days agopermalink

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.

5 days agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Yep, should have just said viewfinder hump.

5 days agopermalink

Karroly

HowAboutRaw,
To me, what you called the "mirror box" is in fact the hump on top of the E-M10 II, right ? Then you named it wrongly, because this hump in a DSLR in not the mirror box. Period...
Through your numerous posts, I have noticed that you rarely accept to be corrected when you are wrong...

"...since there's no mirror, nor is there a prism, in the EM10 II's box."
Really ? I never noticed, I am happy to know...

4 days ago*permalink

Karroly:

"Then you named it wrongly, because this hump in a DSLR in not the mirror box. Period..."

That's debatable because of traditional phrasing, and the fact that one side of the hump (facing down and into the body) is a wall of what you're calling the "mirror box". Is a box defined by a single side? Shades of "Flatland".

Generally I call the area the mirror swings through, the the space between the lens and the sensor/film plane.

"Through your numerous posts, I have noticed that you rarely accept to be corrected when you are wrong.."

Above regards "mirror box", I acknowledged already that you can call the mirror's swing area the "box" if you like.

Elsewhere , you've haven't really managed to find a capacity to "correct" me. You've frequently been wrong on a variety of camera subjects.

""...since there's no mirror, nor is there a prism, in the EM10 II's box."
Really ? I never noticed, I am happy to know..."

Of course you are. /s

4 days agopermalink

SignumX

Wow... Quite an underwhelming upgrade after so many years.
If the same amount of (little) progress would have been made between Rx100 III and VI it would have been flamed so much. But somehow it is not a problem when it comes to the Panny? Are you guys just so happy to see a new version that you disregard the facts that this is just a mere cosmetic upgrade to revitalise the interest in the line? A sub 80 % score would be more than enough, even if it is "fun and engaging".

I want a capable and technically up to date camera that is not crippled by design too much. Especially if I pay around 1000 for it. I have a dog that is fun and engaging.

1 month agopermalink

Beshkno

@signumX, I agree that four years has brought little feature updates. I had the LX7 and now the LX100. imo, there was not a big difference between those two and now a few years post Lx100, not a significant difference again. Ive not heard of the dust issue had been resolved either. All of them are good cameras but at its price point I would have hoped that more functional. Was added to its form

1 month agopermalink

geoson

A sub 80% score is for a camera that is a poor performer, meaning it does not do what you expect it to do. If you judge the camera on performance alone, it's very good. That's the low 80's score. The Silver medal is because it's chief competitor has made more advancements.

1 month agopermalink

morepix

I notice that if you use the comparison graph on the Conclusions page of the Mk II review, the original LX100 never scores lower than the new model, and is on several counts better than the Mk II. How are we supposed to understand that?

1 month agopermalink

The scoring of the Mark I (released late 2014) is relative to other 2014/15 cameras that would have competed with the LX100.

So "better [in 2015 terms]".

1 month agopermalink

epozar

"Flash X sync speed 1/4000 sec"

page 67 of manual:
"You may not be able to select some values depending on zoom position."

Is it possible to sync flash im M-mode at widest zoom at 1/4000 and f1.7 - for daylight flash photography? Or there is a limitation in aperture value(s) mentioned in the manual?

1 month ago*permalink

BobT3218

This is a lovely camera. It has that nostalgic rangefinder look and I have no doubt it takes great pics. I'd love to own it but I won't. With phones so good now and with their ready connectivity and perfectly pocketable, I really struggle to see this camera as anything other than a niche market camera.

1 month agopermalink

BobT32:

This has much better stills and video quality than any 2018 smartphone camera.

Right, this Panasonic LX100 II doesn't surf the web.

1 month agopermalink

BobT3218

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.

1 month agopermalink

epozar

try multiple wireless flash with a phone ;)

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month ago*permalink

jvt

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.

1 month agopermalink

jvt:

In late 2018, there is no available new smartphone camera that comes close to the image quality of this Panasonic.

The Sony A6000, with an equivalent zoom, costs more and is much bigger. Two lenses would also be more to carry.

Right, the Sony has a better EVF, and likely better better AF, or at least better tracking AF.

The obvious competition from Sony, the RX100 V, costs just as much, is smaller and less easy to grip, and one has to pop out the EVF, though that mechanism has improved. And correct the RX100 V has a better EVF.

4 weeks ago*permalink

DPreview:
If you look at the main page, you can read the title "Fun and Engaging, the Panasonic DC- also 963 commentsLX100". However, if you click on this title, you are redirected to the already known article "Panasonic DC-LX100 II Review Published Dec 19, 2018". Why does Dpreview insist on the LX100 II, using this little diversion?

1 month agopermalink

Bjrn SWE

Hm, I really like the concept of this camera, but when looking at the images from the Studio Scene Comparison Tool, I see that they are sort of blurry and not at all up to standards of other M43 cameras (Panasonic GX9, G9 etc). Too bad. I hope Fujifilm or some other manufacturer will make something similar to the LX100 II, maybe a bit larger with a multi aspect ratio APS-C sensor, and that their make "nails it".

1 month agopermalink

JL Auch

They should've marketed/spec'd this as a mini GH5/G9...

High-end EVF, Tilt Screen, IBIS, Full Featured Video specs...

1 month ago*permalink

With a centre "mirror" box?

You forgot weather sealing.

Anyhows, you be describing a camera that would retail for a good deal more than $1000.

I see you didn't mention replacing the old lens with one that can keep up with the 20MP sensor.

1 month agopermalink

Mach Schnell

My LX-100 sits on the shelf now because the sensor is covered in dust, with no way to clean it off. What a shame. I loved that camera. Now it is almost useless. I won't buy a fixed lens zoom ever again.

1 month agopermalink

If contact a camera for £100 I had the cleaned out of a DSLR......

1 month agopermalink

NYCman530

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.

1 month agopermalink

Mach S:

And the fact that this is a a review of the Mark II + Panasonic claims to have addressed the dust problem (no, not promises to have solved any and all dust, that would be crazy) is material to the fact of dust within your Mark I how?

1 month agopermalink

Ken Prager

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

1 month agopermalink

Ken Prager:

Okay, say that's true, you've managed to name one camera with an affixed zoom (it's hardly a compact--it's a jacket pocket "compact", like this Panasonic) with weather sealing.

It also has a much slower lens than this Panasonic.

The Sony RX10 IV also has some weather sealing.

1 month agopermalink

Ken Prager

My comment was in response to Mach Schnell. The point was the Canon G1x III has weather sealing if he wants another fixed lens compact camera with weather sealing. I was not comparing it to the Panasonic or any other camera...

1 month agopermalink

if u want a good pocketable camera, get the pixel XL. it makes better images than this beast of a camera... and as a bonus you get extra feature such as calling functions, browser and aps.

1 month agopermalink

I hope that's true. Any evidence?

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month agopermalink

Modgil P

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

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month agopermalink

Marksphoto:

What makes you suppose I don't have raws from the cameras I mention?

Download Pixel 3 raws, and download LX100 Mark I/II raws, say a total of 30. Then open in real extraction software, so not Affinity or On1.

"And if you want a better photo you may want to prompt for the fuji mirrorless with great primes and bigger sensor,"

I sincerely hope it's news to you that Fuji does NOT ship a competitor to the Panasonic LX100 II. And that a Fuji ILC with a lens as fast as that on the Panasonic would be much bigger costing more, even if you purchase one of the Fuji X bodies sans EVF.

"not much larger than your beloved panasonic that makes half decent potos with a crappy zoom."

Apparently you are unfamiliar with this Panasonic's lens, and Fuji's X mount offerings.

I have no interest in claims about out of camera jpegs when judging over all image quality. (And yes, the Panasonic LX100 II has a very good jpeg engine.)

The only thing the Pixel 3 is better at is web-surfing.

1 month agopermalink

i am famililar with fuji x mount, i own all their fast prime lineup lenses and beleive me, if i wanted real quality such as weddings, I would shoot fuji, not some half decent panasonic. shoot 30 images with your panasonic and 30 images with fuji plus their fantastic prime lenses and open the raw files in Capture One, which is offered for free for fuji users and you will see the difference.

but for travel photography pixel xl and panasonic are more than enough; however when you travel pixel is pocketable, has a navigator feature and a browser, not to mention you can go on facebook.

panasonic doesn't deliver optimal quality, but if you are ok settling for half decent that's your choice, otherwise it's a bulky travel camera for sharing photos on fb - the same as pixel xl. the only difference is pixel does great at jpeg rendering out of the box and you have to waste time processing your travel images to get the same results..

1 month agopermalink

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

1 month agopermalink

Martksphoto:

"if i wanted real quality such as weddings, I would shoot fuji, not some half decent panasonic."

But that's like saying, I'd pick X full framed camera and high end lenses in place of a Sony RX100 X.

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 doesn't deliver optimal quality, but if you are ok settling for half decent that's your choice, otherwise it's a bulky travel camera for sharing photos on fb "

Duh, there are better cameras. There are better smartphone cameras than the Pixel 3 too.

Now more relevant, the Pixel 3 has garbage IQ compared to this Panasonic. It's also a weak higher ISO camera.

The best smartphone camera in late 2018 is the Huawei P20.

All you've managed to do is say "I only shoot jpeg, don't care about having more than one focal length when travelling, don't care about shooting in low light, and there are ILCs that are better".

1 month agopermalink

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 :)

1 month agopermalink

Marksportphoto:

"Panasonic iq is equivalent to 24-75mm f3.2-6.2, "

That's not how image quality works.

"Fuji has a better equivalent zoom - google it."

No Fuji doesn't. You have a very limited understanding of f/stops, learn more.

Right, you like your Pixel for posting to Facebook, it doesn't make for good image quality though, especially in low light, even if a 2018 Pixel is better than some smartphone from 2015 (not the CM1 of course, that's still the best).

"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 "

No fast lenses aren't exclusively what you need for good colour. When combined with a large sensor--we'll say APSC qualifies, but the LX100 comes much closer than the Pixel. Often fast lenses aren't sharp all the way open either, the Panasonic at f/1.7 has that problem.

"i'd prefer to buy a constant apperture zoom"

Immaterial to the discussion here.

1 month agopermalink

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

1 month ago*permalink

Marksphoto:

No, f/stops don't work as you describe. You've posted a number of errors, not just the fake Fuji zoom equivalence; that one at least has a limited validity.

"startup"? I have to suppose that's a case of projection.

1 month agopermalink

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)

1 month ago*permalink

Marksphoto:

"buy this point and shoot,"

Huh, way past that back in the later 1970s.

From what you've posted here: You still have a great deal to learn about f-stops and lenses.

1 month agopermalink

im sure i could give you photography lessons)

4 weeks agopermalink

Marksphoto:

It's your lens and f-stop claims that be the issue, those are only some of the parts of a successful, or not, photograph.

4 weeks agopermalink

those aren't my claims, it's the claims of the common knowledge. If you want to learn theory there are a lot of lessons on youtube that will help you become better at technical know-how. good luck!

4 weeks agopermalink

Marksphoto:

What you call common knowledge, or claims of, are in error.

There be much you don't know of f-stops and lenses.

"If you want to learn theory there are a lot of lessons on youtube that will help you become better at technical know-how. good luck!"

That video hosting website would be a place to start on your journey to better lens and f-stop comprehension.

4 weeks ago*permalink

oh, i see you already familiar with the resource, just thought I might help out and point you into the right direction, in case you weren't in the loop )

4 weeks agopermalink

Marksphoto:

Most the the 1970s CE are forty years ago.

You posted your lens-f-stop confusion, here's what gave you away:

"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."

4 weeks ago*permalink

Most of the 1970s CE are forty years ago.

3 weeks agopermalink

How about. I'm sorry f stops confuse you. I think you will also be needing some English lessons... It's difficult for you to bring your point across...

3 weeks agopermalink

Marksphoto:

Not my failing that you don't understand f-stops, and posted the preposterous:

"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."

If you'd just stuck with "lowlight", you'd have point for the film era, or say 2004-11 in the digital era. But now many cameras easily shoot at ISO 12,800, which affords the use of slower lenses in many instances.

I can't be helped if you don't know what CE means. But that's your ignorance, not some failure of my fluency in English.

"It's difficult for you to bring your point across..."

You made your ignorance of f-stops point for me. Why do you suppose I quoted you?

Also, "you need some" uses fewer characters and is in fact proper English. But that's not what you used.

NB: Before you say "but you...'be'...": learn about using an infinitive form of a verb.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Ebrahim Saadawi

I am very bumbed about the 4K video crop. This could have ben the ultimate travel video/stills camera.

1 month agopermalink

In the need to give a fair and balanced review some comment is necessary about the field sequential evf used in several Panasonic products. It comes across as a serous negative when in truth field sequential (FSE) evf units work very well for most users.

The issue is that I have several Panasonic camera bodies with FSE and also a Panasonic G9 with its “best in business” evf. But the FSE units do just as well in their primary purpose - to frame, compose and check focus. I have absolutely no issue in using them - I see no particular benefit from the G9 evf except it is larger.

In practice dpreview condemnation of FSE is taken up as “gospel” by many who simple use it to fling a barb at Panasonic. Just how many sales Panasonic loses because of the set against the perfectly FSE must be unknown.

Some must need more from their evf units and like to stare through great big bright ones. They are “not everybody” as is acknowledged in reviews.

1 month agopermalink

jvt

Sorry, Tom, but I just don't agree. The (FSE) evf in this model is small and smeary. I find it hard to believe that if anyone looked through this model, and then through the G9, that they would opt for the LX100 II. It's no contest. Saying it's good enough is fine. But why should anyone settle for good enough?

Panasonic invited this justified "barb slinging" by incorporating a dated, inferior EVF when they have the technology to do better. Perhaps if this was a $400.00-$500.00 camera, but they're asking $1000.00 for it.

This does not even take into consideration the lack of a tilting screen, built-in flash and a host of other omissions.

I love the look and feel and controls of this camera. But it's crippled by what's underneath its skin.

1 month agopermalink

Sion H

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

Photography should be fun.

1 month agopermalink

EarthQuake

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.

1 month ago*permalink

ShatteredSky

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.

1 month agopermalink

Jack527

I also disagree with you Tom. The EVF is usable, and perhaps there are some people that would be quite satisfied with it, but the fact remains that it is rather rubbish compared to other products now on the market. It is ok for occasionally use, but it certainly doesn't encourage frequent use,whuch I feel is a missed opportunity. If this was a cheap camera maybe it would seem more acceptable, but at this price it's an unnecessary and unacceptable compromise.

1 month agopermalink

bluevellet

There were a lot of complaints from fans/owners of the original LX100 when compared to how little the successor had changed.

But to me, when looking at specs and what it can do, I find the successor very appealing. If I were in the market for a powerful compact, this would easily make my short list of potential buys.

1 month agopermalink

ShatteredSky

Exactly, even with those lukewarm updates it is, dust problem aside (which I’ve got with the LX100).

1 month agopermalink

timoteotresgatos

This camera is not and will not be dust proof, according to Panasonic:

"[While the new design of the DC-LX100M2 ***might*** have been improved, we make no claims that it is weather sealed or dust proof on our website. Therefore we cannot guarantee that it is dust proof. If that is a concern of yours I suggest you look at our weather sealed cameras like the DMC-FZ300K, DMC-G85MK, DMC-GX8 or our professional grade cameras like the DMC-GH4, DC-GH5/5s". (Asterisks added by me for emphasis).

It seems that the comments Panasonic made for this article is b.s. Panasonic support's comment makes clear that dust will still accumulate on the sensor.

Too bad. It could have been a nice travel camera but Panasonic is choosing not to address the dust issue.

1 month agopermalink

https://nigelpaterson.com/2015/02/17/dust-the-typ-109/

LX100M2 is identic with Leica D-Lux 7. The previous Leica (identic with Panasonic variant) was Leica D-Lux typ 109. Concerning the later I found the statement below which shows that Leica itself was not dust free! How about D-Lux 7?

1 month ago*permalink

Trip around the forums and you will find that all cameras with collapsing lenses suffer from some dust on he sensor issues. Consider that a collapsing lens both compresses air and causes a vacuum inside. If the camera were hermetically sealed then this compress/vacuum effect would have to be overcome somehow.

Strangely on all forums much angst is directed at the manufacturer of the product for poor dust sealing. ... and nobody will ever admit to not ever pocketing these cameras which are sold as “pocketable” :)

1 month agopermalink

timoteotresgatos

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.

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month agopermalink

timoteotresgatos

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.

1 month agopermalink

timoteotresgatos:

No, the D-Lux 4 is not the same basic design, unless you mean all cameras with a zoom affixed to the body have the same basic design. (And I say this as someone who owned a Panasonic LX5, which does have the same basic design as the LX3/D-Lux 4.)

Dust within zooms permanently affixed to cameras is not exclusively a Panasonic LX100 Mark I problem.

1 month agopermalink

Oh, a "little wonder"! I thought this was the definitive confirmation that the LX100 MkII is dustproof. Unfortunately......

1 month agopermalink

Andrew Elliott

If in conclusion DP, you say, "Excellent image quality in both Raw and JPEG modes", then how come the image quality graphical bars only go to 65-70% for JPEG & RAW?
Do you mean that picture quality is excellent compared to lesser cameras, or pretty good compared to similar cameras?

1 month ago*permalink

NYCman530

Perhaps they mean for a 4/3 sensor it is excellent. I would think the ratings would have the bars over 75 or 80% for APSC or full frame sensors, which would basically have better image quality..

1 month ago*permalink

Andrew Elliott

Who knows?

4 days agopermalink

We mean it's excellent for a compact camera (since its combination of sensor size and lens brightness is unmatched).

Also, the bars in the comparison tool do not start at 0, so it's not safe to assume they represent 65-70%.

4 days agopermalink

JakeJY

One con you listed was:
"No means of previewing video framing before initiating recording."

While the LX100 doesn't have the Creative Video Mode of other Panasonic cameras, it still has the "Rec Area" setting in the Custom mention which allows you to switch between a preview of the still picture angle of view and motion picture angle of view.

1 month agopermalink

Thanks for pointing that out. I found that out after flying home yesterday so will correct the phrasing as soon as I get to a computer.

1 month agopermalink

Honestly, for $1000 I'd rather get an A7 II. In the end it is all about the final image, not about toying with the new "bells and whistles".

1 month ago*permalink

Athonline

You should get a GX50 if it is all about IQ...

The reason this and other premium p&s still exist is that people like their convince and small size.
No CSC +lens will you the at the same size the same flexibility. Even a GM1/5 or a GX80 with a small prime like the 15mm or 20mm will be a tad bigger and without the zoom.

It is all about being able to get that photo in the first place...

1 month agopermalink

fstopx2

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

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month agopermalink

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?

1 month ago*permalink

Athonline

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.

1 month agopermalink

@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.

1 month agopermalink

@pogobi
Getting that photo and being satisfied with its quality are two different things. Which is why I can't justify spending $1000 on a P&S camera these days, when much better options are available for the same money.
Lens blur, aberrations, noise, etc. ... all reduce image quality. And what makes you think that the lens (which is 24-75F3.7-6.2 FF eq.) can be better than FF kit lens? The sample images do not support your theory.

1 month agopermalink

@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!

1 month agopermalink

FrithjofA

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.

1 month agopermalink

@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.

1 month agopermalink

@pogobi
See, the problem is that you don't utilize the FF, so that it seems all the same to you - APS-C ... FF ... LX100's 2.2x crop, you don't care much about the quality difference (if at all). Maybe all you want is to shoot snapshots. It's fine, I have no problem with that. But don't expect everyone to do the same.
Am I impressed by the A7 kit lens? Hell no. But, the LX100 is even less impressive, specially for the price.

1 month agopermalink

@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.

1 month agopermalink

I'm just stating the obvious.
Don't confuse "feeling offended" with the "arrogance of ignorance".
"Wait a few months and watch the prices drop." - Sure. Just wait and see the A7III price going down to $998. Good luck with that.

1 month agopermalink

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

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.

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.

1 month ago*permalink

Oh, I smell more ignorance ...
It's not a fast 24-75F1.8-2.8. It's a slow 10.9-34F1.8-2.8 or 24-75F3.7-6.2 FF eq. Get over it. And then you must realize that if you want to compare the FE 28-70 kit lens to your 14-45F3.5-5.6, you have to stop the Sony down to F7-F11 accordingly.

1 month agopermalink

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!

1 month ago*permalink

Equivalence is not about DoF, never was. It is about using the same amount of light for (re)producing the same images on different format cameras.
"F1.8 means F1.8 - no matter, how big the sensor is." - That is IGNORANCE right there :))

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month ago*permalink

No, the DoF is just a side effect. Technically, equivalent lenses produce the same DoF, but its effect on different resolution sensors is different. If there was a sensor with infinitely small pixels / infinite resolution (which is not possible, but let's pretend that it is, or that they are finitely small, like the smallest possible pixels), then by zooming in, you would learn that there is no depth of field and it is all just an illusion. There's nothing really in perfectly sharp focus, only sharp enough when you zoom out enough. Same way any image can be 100% sharp if you downsize it enough. Or, for example, if you take whatever size sensor with very/ridiculously low resolution, like 100 pixels, then there will be no depth of field in the images, it just won't gather enough information.

1 month ago*permalink

Now, sensor technology is limited and while we can have 50mp FF chips, we cannot have 50mp APS-C chips of a reasonable quality and cost (yet). Therefore, larger sensors will always have the resolution advantage over the smaller sensors, and they will have the shallower DoF too, just because their images can be viewed larger.

1 month agopermalink

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.

1 month ago*permalink

Knowledge doesn't just come with age. You have to learn stuff, gain practical experience, spend a lot of time doing that. It's not like "... ding-ding-ding-ding .. oh, look it's 70 o'clock, so I'm a genius now and you all better bow to me young suckers ...". I don't care how old you are, if you come and tell me that "the Earth is flat". Some people never learn to distinguish reality from fantasy.
I'm not telling you what camera to use. Go ahead, pick whatever you like. But when you start preaching that your camera of choice is the best there is, then you better have some real evidence to support that.
Oh, and you know what comes with age, for free? - Brain failures.

1 month ago*permalink

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. ;)

1 month ago*permalink

Do you even realize that all of your childish accusations can be mirrored back at you Mr. Superiorly-Older? Because that's exactly what you are doing - bashing other people's camera preferences, trolling and pretending to be superior, without providing any valid arguments.
Maybe you just don't understand English well enough, because you are twisting my words and making up context. Well, Merry Christmas then.

1 month agopermalink

So I was intrigued to read the positive notice regards the out of camera jpegs.

The Panasonic G9 also got good reviews of its jpeg engine. I confirmed these claims.

I downloaded some LX100 II jpegs from here at DPR. And they are good; this includes the higher ISO ones--so ISO 3200 and above.

However clearly some have in camera NR applied and some have no in camera NR applied.

That NR data isn't posted with the samples, and at least my copy of Adobe Bridge CS6 doesn't see LX100 II NR data.

So could DPR add in camera NR data settings to the sample information?

1 month ago*permalink

If the LX100 II is set up like other Panasonic cameras then you can turn off “all” noise reduction optionally. On my bodies I set NR = -5 on all settings - whether this is entirely “off” I don’t know but the range of NR available is +5 to -5.

Easily done.

1 month agopermalink

Tom Caldwell,

Okay, thanks.

But my question was about DPR providing the NR settings data with the files (either raw or jpeg) that one downloads from DPR.

Examples: Jpeg 2455719073 (ISO 6400) has a great deal of NR, but jpeg 2455719073 (ISO 3200) has little or no NR applied.

So I just want to be clear on where NR was applied in the camera, and to what degree.

1 month agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

DiffractionLtd

With prices like that, it's "little wonder" sales of P&S's tanked.

1 month agopermalink

Yet the first LX100 sold at 800usd for years. (Right once in a while it would get put on sale for 600usd for a few weeks time.)

The various Sony RX100s have sold well, still do so.

In don't know about the Panasonic ZS200's and LX10's sales, but they are plenty good cameras.

You seem to have confused small sensored jpeg only cameras with raw capable cameras that have sensors at least 2X the area of those jpeg only cameras.

Now what has died is the sales of cameras like the Canon G16--raw capable but small sensored. Though its wheel and dial control layout is something that Sony really needs to think about copying for some variation of a future RX100. (Panasonic got there in 2014 with the LX100 Mark I.)

1 month agopermalink

JakeJY

The sales that tanked are the 1/2.3" P&S. The larger 1-inch ones are doing fine (the RX100 series can reach similarly expensive) and the LX100 probably does fine also. The high price tag also means they don't have to sell as many to make the same profit (a good thing for the company in a shrinking market).

1 month agopermalink

justmeMN

@HowaboutRAW "Now what has died is the sales of cameras like the Canon G16--raw capable but small sensored."

Yes, Canon recently wrote "we will work to improve [compact camera] profitability with a continuing focus on selling premium models (G-series)."

1 month agopermalink

justmeMN:

Right, but:

Remember Canon has a different G series. The latest has an APSC sensor. One can put it in a jacket pocket (outer usually) but that's because it has a slow lens.

The G16 is now a few years old.

1 month agopermalink

justmeMN

@HowaboutRAW: My impression is that the best selling Canon G is the 1" sensor (US$600) G7 X II. My guess is that it will be updated, with the same sensor size, in 2019.

1 month agopermalink

just Minnesota:

My point is that the G16 is a significantly different camera line, one that has had a 1/1-1/2 sensor since the G1 back in the year 2000. (A few models in there only shot jpegs, but all had good controls and a somewhat bigger sensor.)

Then right, Canon has used "G" to desg

1 month agopermalink

Cheap cameras have low capability and poor build quality. Making a capable camera cost more whether it is compact or otherwise - the old adage: “you tend to get what you pay for”. To suggest that the obviously highly capable LX100 II should be “cheap” is to categorise all small-build cameras should be relagated to those who indeed only wish to have a pocketable “point’n’shoot”. If you have to rise above the mobile phone industry small cameras have to be well built and very capable.

Categorising all small cameras as cheap-pocketable-afterthought was obviously the death of the GM series as so many did not really understand that tiny cameras could also be built to high quality standards.

1 month agopermalink

tedolf

I just don't get it. Who buys these kinds of cameras?

For $1000.00 you could get a GX-85 with a two lens kit and have $500.00 left over to buy lenses.

How does this make any sense?

Tedolph

1 month agopermalink

FrancoD

size maybe ?
what do you think ?

1 month agopermalink

Chris Noble

It is a good question, but you are getting GX-85 quality in a much more convenient and compact package. That is attractive to many.

1 month agopermalink

Stefan Hundhammer

I have the GX80 (a.k.a. GX85), and I absolutely love it. It has taken the place of the Nikon D750 (which I still have and use) as my primary camera.

Yet, I am still looking for a good replacement for my aging Canon S95 for an always-with-me camera. That LX 100 II would definitely fit the bill (and I'd happily pay the price), but it's quite a bit on the large side; not something that fits nicely into my jacket pocket. Other than that, I would buy it. Maybe I still will.

The GX80 with the Panasonic 20 f/1.7 is probably not that much larger than this LX100 II, but there is still a difference between having just one prime and a (albeit short) zoom. But overall, the GX80 even with that pancake is still quite a bit larger than that S95.

So, to answer your question: I would be one to buy that kind of camera. I find it a pity that they don't make many of them anymore.

1 month agopermalink

todolf:

That GX85's zoom (kit) is real slow.

Last I checked, a good f/2.0 12mm m4/3 lens retails for something like $600.

I have nothing against the GX85, however you completely ignored that you can't get an equivalent lens+body for those thousand US dollars.

@Stefan Hundhammer:

But how much does the 12mm f/2.0 lens retail for, not the f/1.7 20mm m4/3s lenses?

1 month agopermalink

telefunk

LX100II is much smaller and more capable than your proposal

1 month agopermalink