Any discussion of whether the LX100 deserves to exist is merely an academic exercise, after you look at the interest level. On DPR's own front page, the poll asks "What was the most interesting new camera at Photokina?" and the number one camera is the LX100 with one out of every four votes cast. And the LX100 is number two in the Most Popular Cameras graph farther down the page.
Those polls show that a lot of photographers want the LX100's camera category (enthusiast compact with non removable lens) to succeed, even if they will not be buying the LX100 itself.
tbcass: What good is in camera RAW processing. Isn't JPG from a camera a RAW image converted to JPG. I just don't get it because it seems completely useless.
I have no use for in-camera raw processing, but my guess would be it's if you shot in raw and you are still out in the field, but you need a JPEG ASAP to upload to your editor/blog/client whatever, and you aren't near a computer. Or all you are carrying is a phone or tablet with no raw decoding software loaded.
If those are the use cases, the feature is even more useful if the camera can connect wirelessly to a mobile device that can upload.
Seriously, fascinating stuff. Keep it up!
Too bad the chemtrail freaks are totally going to steal that image of kegs and republish it as "proof"...
Rob Bernhard: The premise that niche markets benefit all photographers rings hollow. Niche markets benefit well-heeled photographers. Woe is you if you are a photographer on a budget.
It used to be, a few years ago, that you couldn't get much useful unless you spent at least $1000. I saved up to get my first DSLR, a Canon Rebel XT, which was a big investment for me at $799. It did the job, but we all know what we think of that camera today: Pretty basic.
I am starting to come around to your point that enthusiast cameras aren't that much cheaper than a DSLR. But the reason for that is the realization that cheap DSLRs have gotten so good!
The photographer today who has the $800 I had benefits from a much richer selection of cameras with much better capabilities than I got for $800.
The end result of where photography is going is that the poor photographer is better off than ever. The capabilities available today for under $1000 are astounding.
And if you are truly poor, why not spend $200-300 on a used body? The market is flooded with former top-of-the-line bodies overcome by rapid advances in technology.
It's never been a better time to be a poor photographer.
Michael J Davis: ISTM that there are three factors in this argument:1. The quality from phones now makes P&S redundant2. P&S shooters rely on results ex-camera, keener users mostly carry out pp.3. Keener users tend to buy more (and 'better') gear but don't need it for the output formats they produce.
1] is correctly identified.2] Accounts for the more sophisticated 'in-camera' processing in simpler cameras - but is already here in camera-phones3] relates to GAS - and competition to fight for market share bya) increasing quality AND desirable add-ins that give reasons for locking into a systemb) increasing software in camera - part of the quality 'perception'.
I rarely print larger than 20"x16" - on my own printer, and have produced that quality since 2008 with 100ISO. Since then I go to higher ISOs or crop more of the shot and still produce quality.Still the majority of ILC camera users produce PDIs or web-based photos, for which 1400x1050 is the standard. Phone-cameras are now good enough.
I think it is a mistake for Panasonic to call the LX100 a "point-and-shoot" in their own marketing materials. It is a very advanced compact camera. I would love to use an LX100, it looks like a fantastic camera. I would never recommend the LX100 to anyone who wanted a pure point-and-shoot; I would tell the to stick with their smartphone camera.
Cal22: The LX100 aims at people who want an all-in-one solution. And the camera has a lot to like. I like especially the full manual control with control dials on the top plate for your right hand and a ring at the lens' mount for your left. And the camera body is big enough to making it not fiddly.
What I don't like: The camera has no tilting rear screen and no tilting EVF either. How to shoot from ground level? And a bundled flash should come up with more options than a built-in flash can provide; whether Panasonic will deliver in this respect, we may doubt until now.
The lens' zoom range is a little limited. Let's hope the image quality lives up to the name Leica!
I have a LX7 and I sure would like to have an articulating screen. It's for any time the photographer identifies a point of view that would be better than right in front of your face, which if you're open minded and creative, is quite often. High up, down low, in some cases even out to the sides, especially in crowd situations.
Sometimes I want to shoot down on a flower I can't get above; right now I reach up and do that blind. With an articulating viewfinder I could actually see the composition.
Another reason I want an articulating screen is to shoot at waist level while looking down at the camera. Since this is a classic shooting scenario right out of the film twin-lens reflexes of the mid-20th century, you'd be hard pressed to say that is "unneeded and not consistent with pure photography."
@Rob Bernhard, at under $300-$400 the enthusiast compacts that both I and the DPReview article mentioned are far below the price point of a comparably equipped DSLR unless you are a) using very cheaply made lenses for your DSLR or b) have selectively chosen to define "quality cameras" so that they exclude the quality of images what the LX series, Canon S series, and others have been known to produce.
You said "This is not good for consumers who enjoy photography on a budget and who benefited, over time, from new technology moving into the lower tiers."
But my entire post was about new technology moving to lower tiers. Optical image stabilization, fast autofocus, high ISO, fast sharp lenses aided by real time distortion correction...these are all benefits available in an extremely affordable $299 camera now because they are precisely "technology moving into the lower tiers"! Little of that was available on compact cameras a few years ago. What was pro-level is now bargain basement.
cgarrard: So much for sleep eh Richard? :)
I say its about time camera companies take risk and start building more enthusiast friendly cameras. I'd still like to see more risk and more niche's filled.
And maybe one of them will be bold enough to finally make a digital film cartridge we can use for our film cameras.
The digital film cartridge. Rumored and "announced" by various parties for 16 years...
...never shipped by anyone
Not necessarily true. The Panasonic LX3 cited in the article was personally revolutionary for me. In the film days few (maybe no) film P&Ss under $300 had the fast lens, the manual controls, or the high ISO performance of the LX series, and later the Canon S series for even less money (though I stuck with Panasonic).
Which means, if you are on a budget, the emergence of the enthusiast compact means that controls and capabilities you used to have to pay for an SLR to get have become available at a far lower price point.
Look at the big picture, quality (not just snapshot) photography has in many ways never been cheaper. I believe the reality is the opposite of what you have said.
burnin: The Panasonic GX7 has a flash, hotshoe and viewfinder.I wonder they left the flash out of the LX100. Big mistake.
They didn't leave out the flash. They include a clip-on flash. Given that this camera is too big to be pocket-sized, chances are you are going to have at least some kind of small bag or large pocket with you if you carry this camera. Just put the flash in that bag or pocket and it will be there when you need it.
I am a very happy Panasonic LX7 user and I don't use the flash much. I would put the LX100 flash in the bag and based on my LX7 experience I don't think the flash is going to come out all that often.
If I am SERIOUS about flash use with this camera, then I don't care about the one Panasonic includes. I will slide a little flash trigger into the LX100 hot shoe and remotely set off my speedlight that is positioned at a much better angle for the subject.
kstano83: Just curious. What will happen when the zoom lens has a manual aperture ring which I set lets say to f1.7 and will zoom in. Will the camera override the aperture to the lowest value available?
If it works like my Panasonic LX7, the lens takes the largest aperture it can at the focal length. It gets smaller as you zoom in, but as you zoom out you can see the aperture get wider again until it reaches max wide angle, where it is once again able to hit the f/1.4 I manually set on the aperture ring.
RichRMA: Using a phone as a primary photographic instruments is just being lazy. If you are a DSLR/mirrorless user and someone suggested to go use a little P&S, if you value the images you take, you'd ignore the suggestion. So why go and take images with a phone, other than the convenience?
@DerSteppenwolf I can tell you're very out of touch with both film and digital. There are a number of apps that let you control exposure time, like NightCap. Also, it is known that while film may have better overall dynamic range, digital's range has been shown to extend further into low light. Every cinematographer knows this! As for white balance, if you know film, you know that if your film is not matched to the light (e.g., shooting tungsten with daylight) and you didn't put a color filter on the lens, your colors will be way off and you will have to try and correct it in your color darkroom (you have one, right?). And light sources today are much more diversified than there are film types to match. Remember, we are talking about high ISO, where radical color corrections will make high ISO film look even worse. Digital white balance is simple, accurate, and fast.
Yes, great low light shots were made with film. But most of the handheld ones were not sharp; digital can be.
@DerSteppenwolf, no, but I find that a lot of film users have a short memory. Note that I was talking about a good film point-and-shoot, not a film SLR. Now remember that film above ISO 400 was grainy and had terrible dynamic range. My iPhone can outshoot that film P&S in low light, because ISO 800 out of today's phones looks a lot better than ISO 800 color film. Partly because of the sensor, because my iPhone is f/2.4 and my film P&S lens wasn't that fast. Also because film cameras have no noise reduction or stabilization. I have phone apps that will let me control exposure settings on my phone a lot more precisely than on my film P&S. Better burst mode, better long exposure, time lapse, MUCH better white balance digitally...the list goes on...
Joseph Black: It's nice to know some companies choose deliberate development rather than the rapid release of poorly conceived gimmicks. Not to say Apple doesn't have a gimmick here and there, but when they do something they do it right.
If you want to go far back enough, if Apple had a rule that they couldn't do anything that wasn't invented first, you would have waited several more years to use a mouse and a graphical windowed interface on a consumer computer. How much longer should we have waited? When Apple introduced multitouch on the iPhone, the only other example was the Surface furniture-sized proof of concept by Microsoft. How long did we want to wait for MS to convert that piece of furniture into something you could actually buy at a store and put in your pocket?
In the end it doesn't matter that Apple didn't do things first. It matters simply that Apple does them at all, because sometimes that's the only way the industry finds out how it's supposed to be done.
Jurka: Still without exposure compensation?????? Crap!!!!
Isn't that coming in iOS 8 in a couple weeks, along with the expanded camera APIs?
You're treating this as an either/or question instead of a both/and question. Instead of blocking off the possibility of creating images when the pro gear is not at hand, why not enable that possibility?
You said "If you value the images you take..." Well, if you value the practice of image-making, you would be open to taking images in as many situations as possible. In many situations, phone cameras are now better than many of the film cameras we used to use. Along with the SLR that would probably impress you just because it is one, I used to carry a respectable P&S as a second compact body on vacations and put good film in it, but phones blow that away.
Readers of this thread can choose to either believe you...or the thousands of professional photographers that have absolutely no hangups about taking photos with their phones, some even enjoying it when they're not shooting with their pro gear. Instead of thinking either/or, those pros think both pro gear AND phone cameras.
Steve in GA: Generations have passed since the end of World War II, but pictures like these help remind us of the horror, death and devastation brought by war.
A few years before these photos were taken, Berlin was perhaps the most impressive looking city in Europe. But, a German government that created new dimensions of insanity brought about the death of millions and destroyed this once beautiful city.
Ask Spain (Guernica etc.) if Germany was just sitting harmlessly behind its own borders in the 1930s.
gxtoast: There still does not exist on the market a dual 2.5" HDD combo that allows configuration in RAID 1 (mirror). Large capacity drives make mirroring much more cost effective while enabling simple and solid fault tolerant storage.
I'm also really surprised that we haven't seen similar large volume, yet slower, SSD mirrored storage using low cost TLC chips. Slower compared to regular TLC SSD speeds, but much faster than 5400 RPM 2.5" HDD speeds.
Weird. Particularly so when considering the rising desire to have fault tolerant storage, especially for portable use where HDDs are susceptible to movement and being dropped or bumped.
Go figure. No one was doing mirrored portable USB last time I checked a few months ago.
Would this work? It's been available for a while.Elite Pro Dual Minihttp://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/EliteALmini/RAID/eSATA_FW800_FW400_USB"Large storage capacity and selectable RAID-0, RAID-1, or span drive modes..." and claims to be bus-powered.
You can buy it empty if you want to put your own drives in it.
The seller is a very reputable and well-regarded maker of RAM and storage. I've been buying their products for years, although I haven't tried that dual 2.5.
Boss of Sony: I like these photos, although I think they have nothing to do with photography or cameras. They would probably be more appropriate on a history website. But I'm glad I saw them.
I think they have everything to do with photography and cameras. Without them, how would be be able to see this pictures?
We would only be able to see color sketches and paintings made in the spare time of servicemen. In other words, we wouldn't see them at all.
I use all Canon bodies and glass but...if Canon doesn't have any hardware in the pipeline to respond to the rise of micro four thirds, their only defenses will be lower prices and better marketing.
I'm not selling my Canon gear yet, but after evaluating my future needs I already know my next system is micro four thirds.