Panasonic LX100

I was considering getting the 12-35mm f2.8 for my micro 4/3rds cameras, but now I've seen this I think I might just get this instead. Bearing in mind both lenses have almost the same full frame equivalent focal length, and the minimum apertures on the lx100 are f1.7-2.8, could this actually give better results, while at the same time giving me a spare body to fall back on? Has anyone had similar thoughts? Or even reasons as to why getting the 12-35mm would be a better option (disregarding price)?

I must admit, I also like the styling of this new camera and the thought of getting 8MP stills from 4k video seems very interesting to me. So, I think my mind is already made up on this one, but I would still like to hear other peoples' opinions on the lens issue.

Thanks
 
It's a really nice thing to have the aperture on the lens, and also excellent to have manual focus on the lens. But if I had to choose between focus on the lens and zoom control on the lens, it would be the latter every time. Most times these days most folk use auto-focus, but we use the zoom every time (else we'd have bought an X100!). I really do hate those little zoom control collars round the shutter button...

The LX100 should be a bit of a wake-up call to Fuji, who seem to have missed the boat a bit with the X30 (based on rumours of comparative lack of pre-orders). So do I have to wait another year or so for the X40 before upgrading my X10? :)
 
I think the x30 is a very nice piece of kit, but now we're seeing more larger sensors in compact bodies (lx100, rx100 m3, g1x m2), and that seems to be a key thing people are looking for in compacts nowadays (unless of course you're looking for a power zoom). However, the x30 has pretty much hit the nail on the head with its price point, and I think this will boost sales of it when beginners to photography come in to shops like Jessops to pick the cameras up and get a feel for them (rather than people who do their researching online), and probably won't be as prepared to fork out as much as you'd have to for the cameras with the larger sensors . And let us not forget, that it has the Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS sensor with its unique colour filter array, where arguably sensor size isn't all that important (particularly when users of this camera are typically going to be daytime street shooters).

Thanks for your input though on the lens issue. I'd not even considered power zoom vs. manual zoom, although I don't think it would be a huge issue for me. I've used bridge cameras in the past and actually preferred the power zooms. I'll be going into a Jessops store close to me as I'm told they'll have one in for customers to handle exclusively the weekend after next, before models hit the shelves. I probably won't be forking out for it til Christmas time anyway and with any luck prices might have come down a bit by then :)
 
ChrisR said:
It's a really nice thing to have the aperture on the lens, and also excellent to have manual focus on the lens. But if I had to choose between focus on the lens and zoom control on the lens, it would be the latter every time. Most times these days most folk use auto-focus, but we use the zoom every time (else we'd have bought an X100!). I really do hate those little zoom control collars round the shutter button...
Click to expand...


There's a rather important single sentence in the DPR assessment of the cameras that most people have overlooked:

The dial above that is used for zoom or manual focus, depending on what you're doing.
Click to expand...

Which to me indicates that the control ring on the lens can be used to manually zoom the lens when not in MF mode.


As far as I'm concerned this is a no brainer replacement for the X10.

For a start, it's smaller than the X30 and more importantly, it's got the sensor (or rather a slightly larger one) that Fuji should have put in their new version; ie a 1".
The only downside from what I can see (arguments about Phase Detection aside) is the slightly smaller zoom range.
 
I thought it was a MFT sensor, not 1"?

If it was only 1", surely you'd get the RX100-3 which is just about pocketable.
 
Jono1 said:
I was considering getting the 12-35mm f2.8 for my micro 4/3rds cameras, but now I've seen this I think I might just get this instead. Bearing in mind both lenses have almost the same full frame equivalent focal length, and the minimum apertures on the lx100 are f1.7-2.8, could this actually give better results, while at the same time giving me a spare body to fall back on? Has anyone had similar thoughts? Or even reasons as to why getting the 12-35mm would be a better option (disregarding price)?

I must admit, I also like the styling of this new camera and the thought of getting 8MP stills from 4k video seems very interesting to me. So, I think my mind is already made up on this one, but I would still like to hear other peoples' opinions on the lens issue.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm still thinking about getting a LX100. I currently have a LX5 which I sometimes take on holiday, a G1 which I use often, a GX7 which I sometimes take on holidays and days out and an A7 which is my luxury time to myself kit. The LX100 could I think make a good holiday and day out with my GF/family camera but...

I looked on a comparison site and compared the LX100 to the GX7 without a lens and size and weight wise there's not a lot in it with the LX100 being only marginally smaller and lighter. So, even when the GX7 is fitted with a compact standard zoom to compete with the LX100's zoom range arguably there's still not a startling difference in bulk and weight but of course with the GX7 and standard zoom you'll have a f3.5-5.6 lens or something like that whereas with the LX100 you'll have a wider aperture, but that might not matter for a holiday and day out camera.

So I'm not sure if I'll get one. But it looks like it's a lovely thing. So I might :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm still thinking about getting a LX100. I currently have a LX5 which I sometimes take on holiday, a G1 which I use often, a GX7 which I sometimes take on holidays and days out and an A7 which is my luxury time to myself kit. The LX100 could I think make a good holiday and day out with my GF/family camera but...

I looked on a comparison site and compared the LX100 to the GX7 without a lens and size and weight wise there's not a lot in it with the LX100 being only marginally smaller and lighter. So, even when the GX7 is fitted with a compact standard zoom to compete with the LX100's zoom range arguably there's still not a startling difference in bulk and weight but of course with the GX7 and standard zoom you'll have a f3.5-5.6 lens or something like that whereas with the LX100 you'll have a wider aperture, but that might not matter for a holiday and day out camera.

So I'm not sure if I'll get one. But it looks like it's a lovely thing. So I might :D
Click to expand...
There's an article at dpreview entitled what's the point of the lx100 (or something similar) and they make exactly the same point as you in that it's not any smaller than a mirrorless setup and probably bigger than some bigger sensored mirrorless setups. They do say its a quality cam in its own right.
 
Brazo said:
There's an article at dpreview entitled what's the point of the lx100 (or something similar) and they make exactly the same point as you in that it's not any smaller than a mirrorless setup and probably bigger than some bigger sensored mirrorless setups. They do say its a quality cam in its own right.
Click to expand...

Even though it's larger than a quality compact such as the LX5/7 (but I'm sure I've read that it's actually smaller than the Canon alternative) it could still make a lot of sense...

- As a quality fixed lens camera with a VF, a higher image quality alternative to the larger LX7 type quality compacts.
- As a companion to something else... I could see it fitting in very well with a GX7 or GM5 or even my A7 when fitted with a wide aperture prime. The LX100 could be used for general purpose stuff in good light and the interchangeable lens camera and wide aperture lens combination could be used for lower light shooting. This is how I've used my MFT and LX5 when on holiday. We'll have to wait and see what it performs like but with todays improving higher ISO performance it may well be good enough for all but the very lowest light shooting.

I think it'll be a hit and sell well.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think it'll be a hit and sell well.
Click to expand...

So do I, by the time you've got a M43 camera with that kind of spec and added all the fast primes you would need to cover the same apertures and FL you've spent a fortune and have to carry all those lenses. OR you have a larger, lower spec, more expensive, slower zoom package that wont balance as well. e.g. EM10 + 12-40 2.8.

Im really interested in trying/buying one of these.
 
The specification and manual controls are very tempting but for me the fly in the ointment is the power zoom.

I've been thinking about my experience with a Nex 6 and power zoom and I thought it was awful as I found it impossible to control the thing and get the framing I wanted... and then I remembered that I've actually owned a Panasonic with a power zoom. Actually I owned a LX2 and still own a LX5 and I have to say that the whole power zoom things is simply awful in my experience and with the cameras I've tried or owned.

As there's only Curry's with their limited stock to buy from here I normally buy on line but the inclusion of a power zoom means I'm not willing to buy before I try and I suppose that I'll have to drag myself to Leeds or Newcastle to try one once they hit the shops.
 
Last edited:
Stick the 12-40/2.8 on a GM5 and then compare the sizes again :)
The appeal of the LX100 is for those of us who mainly use a single fast zoom - it's a much smaller package then doing it via an ILC.
Yes, it's in the same market as an RX100-3 (which is smaller) but having handled the RX100-2 I didn't think it was that pocketable so my preference would be for the larger sensor of the LX100.
 
woof woof said:
The specification and manual controls are very tempting but for me the fly in the ointment is the power zoom.

I've been thinking about my experience with a Nex 6 and power zoom and I thought it was awful as I found it impossible to control the thing and get the framing I wanted... and then I remembered that I've actually owned a Panasonic with a power zoom. Actually I owned a LX2 and still own a LX5 and I have to say that the whole power zoom things is simply awful in my experience and with the cameras I've tried or owned.

As there's only Curry's with their limited stock to buy from here I normally buy on line but the inclusion of a power zoom means I'm not willing to buy before I try and I suppose that I'll have to drag myself to Leeds or Newcastle to try one once they hit the shops.
Click to expand...

I agree... I have a X10 and am thinking about the X30, the LX100 is appealing in almost all respects except the power zoom. The fully manual zoom on the X10 is a real joy to use; it's not even fly-by-wire so never overshoots where you want!

If you could choose to put the zoom control onto the ring round the lens, rather than the stupid nipple by the shutter button, that might work...
 
I just want them to release the thing already! Nothing else interests me at the moment in the 'camera world' and Im itching to try something new.
 
DemiLion said:
Whilst it's not exactly manual, this should be better than the power switch on the top:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://panasonic.jp/dc/lx100/operation.html&prev=/search?q=http://panasonic.jp/dc/lx100/operation.html&biw=1760&bih=853
Click to expand...

Hmmm: "Control ring on the lens barrel can be done to smooth delicate operation that can be used as a focus ring during manual focus, explore the focus.
In addition, you can assign to zoom operation, such as step zoom."

Judgement reserved for now I think, maybe cautious optimism justified? I guess we'll have to wait and see!

(There always seems to be quite a let-down when the glorious marketing-speak is made metal and plastic and compromised and sits in our hands. :( )
 
But if you assign zoom to the ring how do you manually focus? I hope you can assign a button so that switching between zoom and focus is quick and easy. Time will tell.
 
woof woof said:
But if you assign zoom to the ring how do you manually focus? I hope you can assign a button so that switching between zoom and focus is quick and easy. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

My argument is that with digi cameras I will zoom far more often than I'll manually focus. But as you say, we must wait and see.
 
It's particularly interesting to compare it to the GM5+12-32 - the LX100 is...
16.3mm wider (+17%)
6.7mm taller (+11%)
5.1mm thicker (+10%)
122g heavier (+43%)

The difference in size is noticeable, but not huge. It looks like the LX100 will fit in the same pockets as a GM5 (in likelihood a coat pocket rather than trouser). The weight difference is significant, indicating the extra glass needed for the much faster aperture (1.7-2.8 vs 3.5-5.6) - it's amazing they've made it so small.
The LX100 even has a better zoom range - 10.9-34 vs 12-32.

I think if you're just after a single-lens small carry-around, it's a no-brainer. The LX100 wins hands-down. The only reason to go for the GM5 is the rather obvious one - you can change lenses.


Edit: add thickness data
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
But if you assign zoom to the ring how do you manually focus? I hope you can assign a button so that switching between zoom and focus is quick and easy. Time will tell.
Click to expand...


The AF/AF-C/M switch maybe?
 
Llamaman said:
It's particularly interesting to compare it to the GM5+12-32 - the LX100 is...
16.3mm wider (+17%)
6.7mm taller (+11%)
Similar thickness (hard to gauge accurately as the size comparator seems to get this wrong)
122g heavier (+43%)

The difference in size is noticeable, but not huge. It looks like the LX100 will fit in the same pockets as a GM5 (in likelihood a coat pocket rather than trouser). The weight difference is significant, indicating the extra glass needed for the much faster aperture (1.7-2.8 vs 3.5-5.6) - it's amazing they've made it so small.
The LX100 even has a better zoom range - 10.9-34 vs 12-32.

I think if you're just after a single-lens small carry-around, it's a no-brainer. The LX100 wins hands-down. The only reason to go for the GM5 is the rather obvious one - you can change lenses.
Click to expand...


If that's from DPR, I'm pretty sure that the released figures for the GM5 are body only and don't include the lens.
 
Rapscallion said:
Looks like it will be a brilliant travel camera.

Was hoping it would be a 'carry anywhere' camera, but looks a bit big for that (similar size to the omd body without the hump form what i see)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#133,289.397,569,570.397,555,491.397,ha,f
Click to expand...

I have three cameras smaller than my GX7. Two are sort of credit card footprint compacts and they will fit in a trouser pocket but the image quality they provide is no better than a modern smart phone and may infact be worse although my cameras are old and newer ones may offer better image quality. Anyway, next up in size from those is my LX5 and it will not fit in a trouser pocket and needs to be in a coat pocket or in the summer when I'm not wearing a coat it goes in a bag. I expect that the LX100 will be bigger again but as a LX5 needs a bag carrying a LX100 in a bag is no biggie.

Back in the days of film I had compact cameras and they wouldn't fit in a trouser pocket and had to go into either a coat pocket or a bag so this is acceptable to me as long as there are advantages over a truly trouser pocketable compact camera. Actually my LX5 fits into my old compact film cameras case. A LX100 wont as it's bigger but I don't see that as a deal breaker at the moment.

And while I'm on the subject of trouser pockets and as I mentioned smartphones... I expect I'm the only person in the country who is irritated by the fact that most smart phones are much bigger than my old mobile and no longer fit in my trouser pocket :(
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
And while I'm on the subject of trouser pockets and as I mentioned smartphones... I expect I'm the only person in the country who is irritated by the fact that most smart phones are much bigger than my old mobile and no longer fit in my trouser pocket :(
Click to expand...

Defiantly not in your skinny jeans ah Alan ;)
 
In the summer it's going to be an issue, now that my current phone is more akin to a small tablet! Right now I have to put it in the inside pocket of my jacket when heading out. I would never put a large phone in a jeans pocket - and I don't do skinny! :D

I've had the X10, the X100s and the rx100 and the latter is the only one possible that you would consider putting in a 'trousers' pocket. You'll be needing a strap or bag for most 'compact' cameras out now anyway.

I like the look of this Lx100
 
DemiLion said:
If that's from DPR, I'm pretty sure that the released figures for the GM5 are body only and don't include the lens.
Click to expand...
It was from the camera size link in the post above mine, which includes the lens.
 
rjbell said:
Defiantly not in your skinny jeans ah Alan ;)
Click to expand...

hehe :D

I wear baggy clothes rather than tight ones. My Galaxy S3 Mini (in its case) will actually fit in my slightly baggy jeans pocket but I find it too bulky and heavy and therefore refuse to carry it like that. Actually I see the size of phones to be more of a problem than the size of cameras... men need a man bag these days.

Anyway, a camera that isn't pocketable and needs to be in a small bag is acceptable to me as that's how I carried film cameras, as long as the image quality and controls justify taking it.
 
Llamaman said:
It was from the camera size link in the post above mine, which includes the lens.
Click to expand...


You need to brush up on your maths a touch then! :)

Having said that, it's fairly immaterial. It's smaller (if a touch heavier) than the X10 which I'm more than happy with.

The GM5 doesn't have in body stabilisation and the EVF is 50% of the resolution of the LX100. That pretty much rules it out for me straight away!
 
Nice price drop, now £699! Well it could never be the same RRP as the Leica could it.
 
I'm seriously considering one of these too. I may buy a GX7 and 20mm f1.7 as a stop gap until the price comes down a bit though.
 
The Photography Blog review treats the control ring as a stepped zoom ring, and says it can be configured as a stepless zoom. I didn't notice them mentioning it as a manual focus ring (though I didn't read it all that carefully). They thought it was the best compact they'd ever tested and gave it 5*!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top