lorenzo de medici: Very helpful review and commentary. Someone who earns their living by their photographs is an authority, period. Her being a Canon user but generally biased against this particular model contributed to a nice balance of praise and criticism. I also wonder, what cameras do have the voice caption feature? My Nikon D810 does not. There's really only one thing that I find less than helpful about this review. As a working newspaper photographer, she gets credentials to stand on the sideline where the action is. So she doesn't really need the extra reach of a smaller sensor on a telephoto. Neither do I, since I can crop out of my 36MP image to get the same result. But many people, who don't get to stand on the sideline, do find the 1.5 focal length multiplier to be helpful in sports photography. Not an issue for her, so she downplays that advantage that this camera has.
Olympus E-PL5, E-M1 and E-M5 do, as well as others in the line... They allow a 30s voice note to be recorded with an image. This is an interesting point that doesn't get much mention in reviews - and why an opinion piece like this is interesting to me. I don't understand why some people (in other comments) seem to think every opinion piece should result in recommendations that make sense for every potential buyer of this camera. The PJ has a specific niche/use of this body, and her comments reflect that. For me this adds to the discussion of how working photographers use cameras, rather than being a buy/don't buy recommendation for everyone.
bcalkins: A lot of progress has been made in compact cameras - at least 3 of these cameras on the lens chart have wider effective apertures than most dSLRs with a kit 18-55mm zoom. It also shows the value of lens choice - a kit with a couple of inexpensive f/1.8 primes would be off the bottom of the chart (page 1 of the review) whether MFT (just), APS-C or Full Frame.
They should add an APS-C dSLR with kit zoom to give you an idea of how much depth of field control you do get with these much smaller cameras!
In whose hands, though? I doubt the majority of buyer of an inexpensive dSLR kit push the limits enough to notice a difference... Little difference in online, or small prints. Or at least I see little difference between my friends who have Rx100 or Canon G series versus the Rebels and D3100's... Except that the ones with the compact cameras take them with them :)
A lot of progress has been made in compact cameras - at least 3 of these cameras on the lens chart have wider effective apertures than most dSLRs with a kit 18-55mm zoom. It also shows the value of lens choice - a kit with a couple of inexpensive f/1.8 primes would be off the bottom of the chart (page 1 of the review) whether MFT (just), APS-C or Full Frame.
Simon97: Despite its lower pixel count, at ISO 1600 the LX100's images don't turn to mush. Look at the text on the grey background. The LX100 stays legible while the Canon and Sony have become mushy. Megapixel race anyone?
I don't care for Canon's soft approach with very strong sharpening halos. The LX100 has more "snap".
Except that the LX100 also bests the G1X Mk II, in my opinion. I'm surprised how much better the LX100 looks in this studio scene (which is not necessarily indicative of how it will fare in real scenes with more DR, AF, etc.) than the G1X, RX100 and so on, especially at higher ISOs. The RAW files are a lot closer, but still...Panasonic is doing something right with its out of camera jpgs these days when it comes to NR.
buybuybuy: What an absurd presentation of images!
I would imagine that any reasonable person would look to such a gallery for information on how a particular camera performs. Yet, is this possible here (or for that matter, in any of your camera review galleries)?
ISO? F-stop? No way to select/sort...If I want to browse images at leisure, I'd visit Flickr. Here, however, I expect the presentation to better reflect its context--a review of a camera--a technical item--on a gear-oriented site. And, in this regard, it performs quite dismally.
note: translated from German by my assistant Carsten.
Did you try the slideshow option? It presents an easy way to browse images with the EXIF info overlay and an option to download the full res image. Saying nothing about the quality or artistic merit of the images, I can agree that the gallery used by DPReview is frustrating to use. The EXIF Info below cannot be seen (on my laptop) at the same time as the image without scrolling, and I can't go from image to image without repositioning my mouse. But the slideshow option improves things a lot, so try that if you haven't...
"you have to go to the $1600/£1200 Nocticron to find clicky apertures on an AF lens " - doesn't the 17mm Panny f/1.7 prime have this as well, for a much lower price?
I think you have touched on a very interesting point - and it is the difference between when one *might* do with a camera and how one actually uses it in practice. A lot of people purchase a dSLR with kit lens and never buy another lens. The LX100 is the kind of camera they should really buy - since they get the benefit of the much faster lens and the creative options that offers with a smaller size to boot.
Personally I find the LX100 to be an attractive option as a second body, as well. I own an EM-1 and recently purchased a GX1 as a small carry anywhere option. The reality is that I'll never take the GX1 with a 12-40mm or 50-200mm lens. As soon as I start taking more than one lens I have 'room' for my EM-1. So practically, a fixed lens on the LX100 would make no difference (other than having a faster lens!).
There is a reason these aren't made for Canon/Nikon, and conversely why they exist for Fuji/Samsung/MFT (natively) - Canon and Nikon support a larger sensor size. When you get into a telephoto lens, how many people want to spend $1600+ for less reach? And by going with a crop specific model you give up the option to use the lens on a full frame body later (with full coverage). Whether people upgrade not not I think most people think they will at some point. When I used to shoot with a 70-200mm F/4 Canon on APS-C it was a wonderful lens, and I don't recall wishing I had a bit more range on the wide end - that end has plenty of choices that overlap. But I frequently wanted more range on the telephoto end.
Now, with an MFT system I use a 50-200mm zoom - so in many ways I've gone the other way, taking advantage of the smaller system to get MORE reach in a similar size, rather than matching the reach on a full frame sensor in a smaller package.
Hmmm. Not impressed by this sequence if we are talking about state of the art PD-AF!
Poweruser: 1.1kg... are you kidding Tamron?
What's not to love? Get a good workout while you pursue your hobby!
bcalkins: "the on-board FAST AF system"
I'm trying to imagine an AF system that isn't "on-board" :)
Well there you go, I knew about the T80 system, but the 35-70mm was before my time. I have to say it is a bit larger than I imagined :) It makes me think of other AF systems of the 80s, like the Trap Autofocus idea on the Yashica 230-AF!
"the on-board FAST AF system"
You have to watch this hilarious take on the Lastolite Urban backgrounds:
Royal1: kinda of a poorly exposed grainy picture. No wonder the Iwo Jima picture was more popular. It looks like one of those plastic Kodak lens pictures.
Don't judge a photo by its low res jpg ;)
JamesD28: I think far too many people are forgetting that this camera's aimed at beginners.Yes, the sensor is tiny.Yes, the viewfinder is under par in terms of resolution.No, the pictures aren't going to be brilliant above ISO 400.
But are beginners really going to care about this?
If there is one thing I've learned from different size cameras, it is that there isn't a whole lot of difference going to a 'slightly' larger sensor. MFT to APS-C, 1" to MFT, 1/1.7" to 2/3", etc. All fine for sharing with family and friends on facebook and prints as long as you don't get into low light situations. And then, if you do, you need a fast lens, too - that adds up to a higher priced camera!
That said, the zoom range is definitely the draw for this camera...
schawo: Any tests of the new FW with legacy 4/3 lenses like the 50-200 SWD?
Seems better with the 50mm macro as well. Seems to avoid hunting, and favors small steps towards finding focus... Combined with the shutter shock 0 setting it is quite a powerhouse for sharp photos!
I'm impressed too - just tried with the 50-200mm and it seems to know which way to go now, with much lens hunting than I've seen in some situations. Looking forward to the next kids soccer game, or other opportunities to try out tracking...
ystein Bach: This proves the fact that the patent agency doesn't do their jobs. I simply don't understand how it is possible to get such a patent. I just wonder what the next will be.
I agree - there is little that is novel or non-obvious about this patent to anyone who has spent some time on it. I think if you asked any professional product photographer how to get an object on a white background without photoshop or a green screen they would describe a lit backdrop with a semi reflective base for the object to sit on. One of many tutorials on setting this up, this one from 2008: https://zackarias.com/for-photographers/photo-resources/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/
ThePhilips: Why there are no TCs for mirrorless, which go between the camera and the lens? Only the ones to screw on the lens?
You can use the Olympus 1.4x and 2.0x along with an MFT adapter and presumably still get AF with a four thirds lens...
Given that they tend to work better with longer focal lengths and reduce light, I can see why the MILC companies need to focus on the longer, fast lenses first, before bringing out a tele-converter. All f/2.8 or faster MFT lenses so far are 100mm or less, if I'm not mistaken.
Given that a smaller kit is one of the strengths of a MILC system, you'd think a 1.4x TC would be a desirable thing - but fast teles aren't going to be small or cheap, so they don't seem to focus on them...