The Panasonic LX100 LX100 II Thread

Sadly it's going back to MPB I haven't been so impressed with the low light deatail my Google Pixel 5 seems marginally better!
 
Mark Dell said:
Sadly it's going back to MPB I haven't been so impressed with the low light deatail my Google Pixel 5 seems marginally better!
Click to expand...

Perhaps should have tried LX100ii?
it has a newer sensor.
But in reality even the LX100ii is not really better than a 1" sensor camera in terms of ISO performance because of the extra crop factor to achieve the multi-aspect ratio feature.
 
Last edited:
Sold my LX100 mark1. Even though it was identical to the first one I owned, it just didn’t “grab” me the same. And I had checked for sensor dust (clear) so it wasn’t a sub-conscious reaction to that.
 
Stephen L said:
Sold my LX100 mark1. Even though it was identical to the first one I owned, it just didn’t “grab” me the same. And I had checked for sensor dust (clear) so it wasn’t a sub-conscious reaction to that.
Click to expand...

I'm still thinking of getting rid of the little RX100 III as the GR3 gets used more than the Sony.
 
I find the LX100 to be one of those cameras that is almost great. I've owned two in the past. The first I bought used and it just refused to focus reliably at anything beyond about 3m away. I tried everything - every AF mode the camera had and even MF. Nothing worked, so I sent it back. The second I bought new and it also struggled to focus reliably. It was better than the first but still not good enough to rely on. It was a real shame, because as a carry everywhere camera it was close to perfection. A tilting screen would have pushed it over that line! (and working focus).
 
There must have been something wrong with that specific camera or possibly your technique then.
I've used an LX100 to shoot racing without any focus issues.
 
I have owned two Mk1 LX100. I regrettted selling the first, so I bought another. However, for some reason, certainly not technical, I just couldn't get on with it. Maybe because in the interim I bought an Olympus E-M5iii, which I found whilst being a little larger and slightly heavier had much better ergonomics. So for anything really pocketable I am resigned to using my iPhone (12, I thnk). But I don't consider the iPhone to be a serious camera, just a "memories" taker.
 
Stephen L said:
I have owned two Mk1 LX100. I regrettted selling the first, so I bought another. However, for some reason, certainly not technical, I just couldn't get on with it. Maybe because in the interim I bought an Olympus E-M5iii, which I found whilst being a little larger and slightly heavier had much better ergonomics. So for anything really pocketable I am resigned to using my iPhone (12, I thnk). But I don't consider the iPhone to be a serious camera, just a "memories" taker.
Click to expand...
That's true my Samsung galaxy s22 ultra is amazing - for aphone
 
DemiLion said:
There must have been something wrong with that specific camera or possibly your technique then.
I've used an LX100 to shoot racing without any focus issues.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's technique. I've been taking photographs since the 1970s and have used more cameras than I care to admit! Also, others have noted similar problems - e.g. this comment from Steve Huff (https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/01/26/my-panasonic-lx100-thoughts/):

Auto Focus. This is where I had issues. The AF of the LX100 seemed speedy enough but in MANY cases it would confirm focus and the result would be an out of focus image. I was using center point, so I knew where the camera should be focusing but it was telling me it nailed it and the results said otherwise. I had enough of these misses (more than any other camera I have used) to make me wonder what was going on with it. It started to frustrate me and made me not want to use it.
Click to expand...

When I shot landscapes at infinity focus with the LX100, the details were mush, even at base ISO. I took several shots and it was always the same.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that all LX100s are like this, just that there does seem to be more than the expected number of cameras with AF problems.
 
I have an old LX3 that I find useful indoors not using flash.

A few months back I was considering an LX100, but was put off by a coupe of niggles that popped up several times. Not a lot, but more than other models.

Roughly the same time, I was looking for a GX8, as I prefer the grip shape to the GX9

I ended up buying a GX9, and am really enjoying it, a lovely companion to the G9, and they have both fallen into natural uses depending on what I feel like at the time.

Then I though that I may have felt restricted by the LX100, but if so how?
The difference in size is minimal (9mm difference in width and 6mm difference in height), and only 14g difference in weight
It can obviously use all the lenses the other M43 cameras can, so I have a good range to choose between, batteries are inexpensive (and it takes the same battery as the GF3 which I have)

I paid £340 for it with a 12-32 Mega OIS lens, and a shutter count of less than 3000.

All this makes me feel I must be missing something on the LX100, but not having used one, I can't see what it is, would really like to hear opinions on what I am missing with the LX100, and should I put it back on my "wish list"?
 
Sangoma said:
I have an old LX3 that I find useful indoors not using flash.

A few months back I was considering an LX100, but was put off by a coupe of niggles that popped up several times. Not a lot, but more than other models.

Roughly the same time, I was looking for a GX8, as I prefer the grip shape to the GX9

I ended up buying a GX9, and am really enjoying it, a lovely companion to the G9, and they have both fallen into natural uses depending on what I feel like at the time.

Then I though that I may have felt restricted by the LX100, but if so how?
The difference in size is minimal (9mm difference in width and 6mm difference in height), and only 14g difference in weight
It can obviously use all the lenses the other M43 cameras can, so I have a good range to choose between, batteries are inexpensive (and it takes the same battery as the GF3 which I have)

I paid £340 for it with a 12-32 Mega OIS lens, and a shutter count of less than 3000.

All this makes me feel I must be missing something on the LX100, but not having used one, I can't see what it is, would really like to hear opinions on what I am missing with the LX100, and should I put it back on my "wish list"?
Click to expand...
12-32mm is a f3.5-5.6 lens.
The lens in LX100/ii is a f1.7-2.8 lens.
The closest you can get is the 12-35mm f2.8 which costs more than 12-32mm and is larger.
Even then you don't have the f1.7 at the wide end.

My main niggle with these bodies is that the Jens doesn't cover the entire sensor. Panasonics "excuse" is that it's multiformat so you can switch between 3:2, 4:3, 1:1 etc aspect ratios.
This is the reason you only get 16mp on LX100ii while it actually houses a 20mp sensor.
Personally I rather the camera gave me 20mp files from the full sensor area and I'll decide in post how I wish to crop it.
 
nandbytes said:
12-32mm is a f3.5-5.6 lens.
The lens in LX100/ii is a f1.7-2.8 lens.
The closest you can get is the 12-35mm f2.8 which costs more than 12-32mm and is larger.
Even then you don't have the f1.7 at the wide end.

My main niggle with these bodies is that the Jens doesn't cover the entire sensor. Panasonics "excuse" is that it's multiformat so you can switch between 3:2, 4:3, 1:1 etc aspect ratios.
This is the reason you only get 16mp on LX100ii while it actually houses a 20mp sensor.
Personally I rather the camera gave me 20mp files from the full sensor area and I'll decide in post how I wish to crop it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one of the things I like on the LX3, is the wider aperture.

On the GX9 in low light, I tend to use the 20mm f1.7, not zoom I know, but a very nice lens and very small :)

I would agree on getting the full 20mp, but having the same angle of view on the different aspect ratios has been a selling point for a very long time, so I guess there are those to whom it is important.
Glad you pointed out the LX100 ii has a 20mp sensor, something to watch for and worth remembering.

Seems the main thing I am missing then is the lens.
 
Sangoma said:
Yes, that is one of the things I like on the LX3, is the wider aperture.

On the GX9 in low light, I tend to use the 20mm f1.7, not zoom I know, but a very nice lens and very small :)

I would agree on getting the full 20mp, but having the same angle of view on the different aspect ratios has been a selling point for a very long time, so I guess there are those to whom it is important.
Glad you pointed out the LX100 ii has a 20mp sensor, something to watch for and worth remembering.

Seems the main thing I am missing then is the lens.
Click to expand...
Indeed lens is the main reason.
We used to have the LX100/ii and my wife much prefers the G100+20mm/1.7 combo. Thanks to phones it had trained her to use her feet and not really use zoom lenses. So she likes small prime lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top