mpgxsvcd: I find it peculiar that there is an awful lot of nothing in the shadow areas of the Canon RAW sample images. Look near the Honey Ridge Farms bottle on the low light scene at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. There simply is almost no noise at all in the dark areas. Nothing but inky Black.
What is really concerning is that there isn't any signal there either. There should be some signal but it isn't there.
So was this Black point set differently than the other cameras? That would be really misleading if it was.
I find it peculiar that there is an awful lot of nothing in the shadow areas of the Canon RAW sample images. Look near the Honey Ridge Farms bottle on the low light scene at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. There simply is almost no noise at all in the dark areas. Nothing but inky Black.
This new review really opened up my eyes to some nice new features on the 7D MKII. The AF Area Selection Lever really sounds like a great new addition.
I also like the fact that it can dial in exposure compensation with Auto ISO in manual mode. Panasonic never allows that to happen for some strange reason.
I have learned that Canon is going to do what they always do. Each iteration is a very small step forward. However, they always move forward instead of backwards like some other manufactures have been accused of in the past.
Honestly, the 7D MKII is a very capable camera. It has some features that other cameras don't have and it lacks some that others have. However, it is capable of taking great images in pretty much any situation.
If you have Canon lenses it is pretty much a no brainer to get this camera.
Sensor image quality isn't everything. It can help in tough situations but so can faster lenses, better flashes, and better technique. In the end it is what you make of it.
Wow this camera garnered a lot of attention very quickly.
prossi: Interesting, I was not aware the ratings were relative. as good as the GH4? Seems a bit much.
They are realative to the cameras in its class. The GH4 is not included in its class so the numbers cannot be compared.
I have both the GH4 and the LX100. I have no problems using the LX100 instead of the GH4. The LX100 can't match my 35-100mm F2.8 but the GH4 doesn't do wide angle as well as the LX100. Together they are a perfect match.
Everyone complains that the LX100 has too low of a resolution and that its lens is a compromise. I am looking at the RAW indoor test scene images and I honestly see that the LX100 has more detail than the Sony RX100 MKIII across the entire frame for all ISO values.
The difference in noise for the cameras is not huge but the LX100 is better. I don't get why everyone says that the Sony has more detail. It doesn't show in the pictures. Just because the resolution is more doesn't mean that it actually has more detail.
These are all things we expected the camera to have in the first place.
armanius: I'm enjoying my LX100. Unless I'm missing an option somewhere, the auto-ISO implementation is horrible. Camera refuses to go past ISO 1600 even when the shutter speed has dropped to 1/8" at full zoom (when in aperture priority).
My point isn’t that Program Priority is the right option for every situation. My point is that you should start with Program priority with Auto or Intelligent ISO. If that mode doesn’t work for your needs then it is so easy to switch to shutter priority for faster or slower shutter speed with the LX100. It also just as easy to dial in a different aperture.
Other cameras require you to change the dial to shutter or aperture mode then select your shutter or aperture value. With the LX100 you can change the mode and the value with one action. It doesn’t sound like a big deal until you try it.
You are right that it will select 1/60 until the ISO would have to increase above ISO 1600. After that it will use a longer shutter duration instead of increasing the ISO down to ¼ of a second. After that it will begin increasing ISO again.
raztec: This camera is an amazingly ambitious attempt at creating the perfect compact travel anywhere camera. However, I'm not sure it really hit that mark. But I applaud Panasonic for trying.
The reasons are:
1. The m4/3 size sensor doesn't give significantly better IQ than a 1" sensor. While it gives shallower depth of field, which is great, I believe that's offset by the expensive and slightly compromised lens and much larger size. Even the high ISO isn't significantly better than the Sony RX100III.
2. No tilt screen. This is an absolute must if you want use it as a video camera. It's a huge oversight in my opinion. Flash I can live without, but not a tilt screen.
But where it really delivers is in styling, 4K video (and still capture), fast lens, and manual control options. It's obvious that this is a real photographer's camera. But I believe Panasonic could have achieved all that with a 1" sensor, smaller camera and tilt screen.
The slightly better image quality when combined with the significantly shallower depth of field makes the differences between it and the 1" sensor cameras significant.
The tilt screen is not a significant issue for video. However, the lack of a touch screen is.
mpgxsvcd: This statement is also misleading. "As with the GH4, Auto ISO is not available in video mode."
It has Auto ISO in video mode. Just not with full manual controls in video mode. That is a very significant distinction.
Thank you for being so thorough. I have just one more request. I understand if this is asking too much. However, the current statement "Auto ISO is available in movie mode but not in conjunction with manual exposure, so there's no way of using it without the camera also being able to make unwanted changes to shutter speed or aperture. " could be misconstrued as it cannot be used with Shutter Priority or Aperture Priority modes with movies.
It can do those things. Could you change the statement to read "Auto ISO is available in movie mode but not in conjunction with manual exposure. However, it can be used in Shutter or Aperture Priority modes which give the camera control of Aperture and Shutter Speed respectively."?
First I must ask what are the conditions that cause you to choose shooting in Aperture priority mode. I am not saying that you shouldn’t be. Instead I am just trying to see why the Program Priority mode aperture setting are not a good option for you.
Please try shooting the same scene with Program Priority mode and let us know what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO it is choosing.
This statement is also misleading. "As with the GH4, Auto ISO is not available in video mode."
You need to set your max ISO limit higher in the Pictures Menu item. Personally I let it go all the way to ISO 25,600 for Auto ISO. You can set it lower if you like.
May I suggest trying Program Priority with Auto ISO and set the Auto ISO limit to a higher value? You will be surprised that it will always try to pick the optimal aperture for detail in good light and it will always try to open the aperture up if there isn’t enough light.
If you find Auto ISO isn’t giving you a fast enough shutter speed when the subject moves then try Intelligent ISO in Program Priority mode. It will always try to get to 1/120 of a second with movement. Otherwise it will act just like Auto mode. If you need faster shutter speeds then try shutter priority mode with Auto ISO.
This is fascinating technology. I wonder if it learns as it goes or if it is pre-programmed with all of its knowledge.
Kipplemaster: This size of camera seems the worst of all worlds to me although they seem enormously popular at the moment (in Japan?) It is not pocketable, so needs a strap or bag. In which case why not just take an A7R or proper M43 camera. Or even a DSLR. If you want to travel light (ie no bag/strap) you can downsize to a Canon S120 or Ricoh GR.
It fits in a jacket pocket very nicely.
mpgxsvcd: The only difference between the LX100 and an M4/3s camera is the interchangeable lens mount. Otherwise the internals of the camera are pulled directly from existing M4/3s cameras.
The LX100 is probably the best mirror-less camera on the market today.
When you consider Size, Price, Features, Image Quality, and Lens I don’t see how you would end up with any other camera.
john10001: This camera may be great but unfortunately it can no longer be considered an Advanced "COMPACT" Digital Camera like its predecessors, COMPACT being the operative word.
Unfortunately this is no longer something I want to buy. This thing is a hefalump. A brick. And not something I can live with.
If you can live with it's size and it still ticks all your boxes and needs in a camera after coming from LX3/5/7 then fair enough good luck to you.
For me Panasonic have messed up and fallen behind the competition. They no longer have an advance compact digital camera to compete with rivals so what they did with the LX100 is take the range out of its previous category into a new category.
For someone who still wants something compact, advanced, and refined, Panasonic now have nothing to offer.
This leaves me looking at the Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A, Sony RX100 II/III and the Canon G7 X. All advanced compact digital cameras that take great photos and a logical step from the LX3/5/7.
It isn’t that big. Let me name the things that I carry everywhere that are about the same size or bigger than it.1. My Phone(Samsung Galaxy Note 4)2. My Wallet(Yes I need a smaller wallet)3. My iPad-mini4. My ComputerI find a way to carry those things even though most of them don’t really fit in my pants pocket. I have learned that a Jacket pocket is a far more useful thing than a pants pocket.
I bet that the Program Priority mode with Auto ISO on the LX100 actually gets it “Right” more often than most users would in full manual mode. It is simply that much better than the logic they have used in the past.
Cane: If the thing is too big to fit in your pocket anyway, why didn't they put an articulating screen on it? Size? No. It's not 2010.
Cost. They wanted it to be $900 just like the original GF1 was. There will be an LX200 in the future that will add an articulating touch screen for roughly the same money.
I wonder why they couldn’t have produced a camera like this a few years ago. I know the auto focus tech was not as good and you wouldn’t have had the 4K video. However, couldn’t they have put a 4/3s inch sensor in this size body back then?
Could they have produced this lens a few years back? Were they just waiting for the software correcting technology to catch-up with this lens design?