How does the lx100 compare to the gx7? I just purchased a lx100 and I love my gx7...do you think it was a good purchase. .or did I waste my money? I've heard nothing but good things about the lx100
Hi, good video. I just purchased the LX100 at B&H. There have been times I shoot in Raw, which is usually recommended, but often I don't have the time for post processing. So what would be the optimal settings for shooting quality Jpgs such as the Photo Style settings and other menu settings for general use? BTW, I rarely make large prints over 8 x 10. I post a lot of social media.
Thanks for the review, very informative. I was wondering which Canon did you refer town the beginning in the video and also how do you feel about these two cameras compared to Fuji x30?
These two are on my shortlist ... I'm stuck at the moment. I thought of the LX100 but it does have the four thirds sensor but they don't use the full sensor? So is it closer to the RX100 then? Plus you only get 12 megapixel images? I'm stuck lol
Just curious...how large is a pocket. All these pocket rabid folks. I've bought shirts from countries where people must be quite small on average. The pockets...are they the same size as pockets on a shirt designed for a larger person? Is there a standard size that is used when ranting about whether it fits in a pocket? I ask because personally I would never put a delicate mechanical device in my pants pockets...only my shirt. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting to look at what has happened over the last 5 years. Sony has so rapidly evolved, the Panasonic much less so. Now we have the ZV1 which is the ultimate RUclips camera and well worth getting. However, the LX100 II is still the better choice for more advanced photographers who want that tactile feel of using a camera more designed for manual operation. No mic input is a pain, and someone needs to give Panasonic a good slapping for no articulated screen, but, even now, 5 years later, the LX100 II is a fabulous option. Just shows how ahead of its time it was back then.
Nice review. Two questions... 1) Can you export the RAW files into Lightroom 5? 2) Could my Nikon flashes (Speedlights 700, 900, 910)still be controlled from a Nikon flash mounted on the Hot Shoe? Thanks
Marcos Dana Tough call. Depends on your shooting environment (i.e. lighting, size of the room, etc.) I probably wouldn't use either to be honest. I think an inexpensive DSLR like the Nikon D3300 + a good prime + off camera flash would be the better route to go. :-)
Cannot agree with the disadvantage of having a battery charger inside the camera. In my opinion it is positive. I have the RX100m3 and I LOVE the possibility to charge battery in the camera. Why? Because I can charge on the go, eg. when hiking or riding a bicycle directly from my power bank, or in my car when moving from one location to another one from the car socket. I think now-days all people have power banks with them (at least most of iPhone users - I still can't understand by the way why a company claiming to be an innovative leader can't invent a long lasting battery). And when you need you can always buy an external charger (you can find even for less than 10eur) and a second battery to switch. It gives more flexibility.
what's your choice between Lumix LX 100 and Lumix FZ1000. I want to shoot 4K especially on a Nebula 4000 3 axis gimbal. Your opinion would be of great value. regars John Kane
nictheartist You can choose on the camera your recording format. If you record 4k then a conversion to 1080p would have to be done after the recording.
While the LX100 does indeed have a micro 4/3 sensor, it does not use all of it, and therefore doesn't enjoy much of a large sensor advantage. In fact, according to DxOMark, the sensors are equal, both getting a score of 67. All the numbers, including colour bit depth, dynamic range and ISO performance are very similar. However, the LX100 does have slightly shallower depth of field, which is a plus. Something most reviews don't focus on with the RX100 is just how good the lens is. The RX100 M3 is sharper than the A6000 with the kit lens, and even the first-gen one was sharper than the Canon T4i with kit lens (see Digital Rev review). 1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/53991075/f99b68a1e32842b38ec16d0706d18314 I think the LX100 has a similar quality lens, perhaps trailing the RX in colour and contrast slightly, but actually has better bokeh. The RX100 doesn't have any dummy controls, don't know where you got that idea. Neither of these cameras are for professionals, and both suit the needs of the enthusiast just fine. You may have more manual controls on the LX100, but you have a lot more bulk and heft too. On the RX100, your primary settings are at most two selections away (while it would just be one action on the LX). The RX100 interface isn't beginner at all, it's found on just about all pro-level Sony cameras too. The shutter speed difference isn't important, because the RX100 has an ND filter. It allows you to shoot wide open on the brightest day, something the LX100 can't do. And for video people, the ability to control your shutter speed without clunky external filters is a boon. I'll take 1/2000 with a built-in ND filter over 1/4000 without ND any day. 4K video is where the Panasonic really has a point of differentiation, and the main reason why I was tempted till the end to get the LX100. It's not just that it shoots 4K, it does a very decent job at it too. The RX100 shoots 1080p at 50Mb and has full sensor readout, which makes its 1080p video very good, but Panasonic's video is the biggest reason to get the LX100 over the RX, if you can deal with the weight/size. I don't think the hotshoe matters for this class of camera at all (at least for me). If you're going to need proper flashes, you will probably want to use specific lenses and other accessories, and you're better off with an interchangeable lens camera. The RX100 M2 had a hotshoe, and I think Sony found no one really used it on this class of camera. The battery charging system is a plus on Sony if you ask me. You can charge the Sony with a USB battery backup, or in the car, and for less than $10, you can buy normal wall chargers too. Way more versatile than Panasonic's option, although it would have been nice for Sony to have included a wall charger in the box. The difference in size and weight between these two is where the battle stands. It might not seem like that much, but the RX can fit in just about anybody's pant pocket easily, while the LX can't, and will probably need a camera bag, albeit a small one. From my point of view, if someone's going to need a camera bag, you can go to a full interchangeable lens camera for not much more bulk and cost, with significantly better image quality. I was also able to find the RX100 M3 at a Sony store that was closing for $600 CAD ($480 US roughly), so it didn't make sense to spend nearly double on the LX for me either.
I think the sensor advantage is marginal at best, since the LX100 isn't using all of its sensor, and the RX100 is backside illuminated. And at low ISO, the Sony probably gives better detail with its 20.1MP. The lens advantage is also marginal. The 1/4000 shutter speed is largely negated by the ND filter on the Sony. The 4K video is nice, but the RX100 probably has the advantage shooting HD video, with its higher bitrate and use of all of the sensor. The external battery charger is just an extra expense for the Sony, which is balanced by the fact that the camera is cheaper. Your other points are well taken, and boil down to the fact that the LX100 is designed for the more serious photographer. The physical controls are fantastic, and combined with the higher burst rate with AF, the ability to add a bigger flash, (and though you didn't mention it, the faster focusing in low light) mean you're more likely to get the shot. For someone who will make use of these features, the extra size and cost of the Panasonic are well worth it. For everyone else, the Sony is the fairly obvious choice.
Video experts that have used the lx100 basically say to always shoot in 4K, and when you downsize to 1080p in post, it gives extremely good quality. I don't see how the Rx100 could compete with that, though in fairness, it takes processing to downconvert in post.
The Panasonic images are noticeably more detailed. I own neither and never have owned either brand in a camera so I'm not biased. I think this guy is spot on. The Sony is tons cooler though.
Lucid, I have the LX100 on order from B&H (linked through Steve Huff to help him out) and am buying my wife the RX100 this week as a Christmas gift. After a month of research, I determined that I like the easy access to shutter, aperture, exposure comp etc. I can live with the external flash because I rarely use flash anyway. That "tons cooler" comment was was because of the size and on board flash and also because the size difference is substantial for some people. I'm a dslr user so they menu driven Sony would drive me nuts.
Olivelimer I am also a DSLR user and want to shoot 4K, I am currently looking between the FX1000 and the LX100, did you compare those two Panasonic camera's next to eachother before making your choice for the LX100? What's your experience till now with the LX100, are you satisfied or not so much?
Interesting... but also give the pros of the RX100III please: 1. smaller 2. tilting screen 3. more megapixels 4. less likely to be damaged if turned on inadvertently in a confined space (this happened to my LX100, which 'self-destructed' by the force of the lens opening in a pocket!) 5. built in flash which also tilts for bounce... that's all I can think of. Something you should mention about the LX100 is the audio input level can be shown and adjusted to 4 settings (important for recording loud music) whereas the RX100III has only hi or lo settings (still better than nothing).
How would you rate LX100 vs RX100 mkiv? Which is best street camera? IMO rx100 mkiv has the edge. Smaller, high res sensor, no rolling shutter with e-shutter, tilt screen, faster overall, great autoISO etc. LX100 has more external controls, shallow DOF.
Old video I know but some of these reasons i disagree with. First off, DXOmark for example mark the Sony and Panny with the same score, and the sensor performance is on par with each other. The shutter speed difference is not worth mentioning as the Sony has a built in ND filter for high shutter speed wide open shots in bright light. The hotshoe is not really needed, why take a small camera and pop a huge flashgun ontop?
Let's look at those reasons Matt gives: 1. Sensor size. No doubt. Although it's 13 MP, they are larger pixels on the larger sensor vs 20 MP on a 1 inch for the Sony. Lower light superiority. 2. Zoom lens, minor point. They are equal here. Although some say Leica lens is sharper than the Zeiss. 3. 'More designed for a professional'....meh, it's a give and take decision. Personal opinion. Not an advantage. 4. FPS, ok, nod to LX100 5. Shutter speed, nod to LX100. Better. 6. Video, here it's Pany by a mile. The 4K video on the LX 100 even kills the RX100 IV in my opinion and looking at sample videos. No 5 minute limit on the Pany either. Nod, LX100. 7. Hot shoe, always good. Not essential to all but to a significant amount of enthusiasts. Nod to LX100. 8. External battery charger. Bull. You can get one for the RX100 and it's very convenient to able to charge your camera 'on the go' as you do for your mobile devices.
+Pierre Legrand Well, I thought about the Samsung NX500, Panasonic LX100, and the Sony RX100, and I bought the Panasonic LX100. For me, the lens on the LX100 plus the larger M4/3 sensor (in comparison to the Sony RX100) was a deal clincher. Love the little LX100! :-)
The greatest fun I have with picture taking is doing so in low light with no flash. I have the F2 22mm EOS-M now but I want something that can do better in low light without going FF or getting to large or too pricey although I have been looking at the sony A7II which is not that big and within my budget. Thinking of the Fuji XF 23mm F1.4R with an XT-10 body. Looking for suggestions as I am very close to buying. thanks
LX100 hotshoe is fully compatible with Panasonic and Olympus flashes. BTW, any camera can be used with a continuous LED lights and a tripod or a portable grip. LEDs disadvantage is a limited range but you can previsualize the effect of the light.
Good comparison! I've been looking at the LX100 for some time now and this is another good data point that helps. I'll probably wait till the LX100 drops in price a bit, but it is on my bucket list.
I have an S95 & PowershotPro1 & 70D which I purchased 2011, 2006, 2014 respectively. After having all of them, my conclusion is : The way I think of it is IF you can not pocket it, then take the cavalry (DSLR) with you.
I'm not spending $800 on anything to stuff in my pocket. I have a powershot s110 and keep it in a lowepro case which is what I'd do with either of these. The pocket factor for me is a non issue. The point of these cameras for an enthusiast or professional is to be portable enough to not need a backpack when you leave the house. Like another person commented.... No professional would use these to print or do a job with. Most will be using to post to social media to make those beers and food look amazing. I'm leaning toward the LX100. I've shot with a GH2 video and stills and that camera was balls deep. Panasonic and Sony both make great stuff but the 4k is pushing me to choose the Panasonic. When I want to shoot pro photos I'll use my 5d mark iii. This will be great to grab on the run and get awesome shots for posting to social media and when I want a great video I'll have that with me and I'll be current with future standard.
Actually. ..it's a lot easier to carry the pocket cameras for professional jobs. I use to carry all my canon stuff every were and it's quite a headache. I switched over totally to the micro 4/3 cameras and it makes jobs much easier! The cameras are so kick azz in the dark I don't even have to carry all the lighting kits I use to. My panasonic gx7 image quality for music videos were much better than any canon I've ever used.
Just bought the LX100 and very pleased because it fits a very desirable niche. Your points are all well taken. For me, the most important ones are sensor size and external battery charger. Wouldn't touch a camera that has an internal charger. --
ArtoftheImage The only negative thing i can mention for me is the switches and dials are too close on the lens, so when you making a video you might accidentally change the settings when you adjusting the focus manually.
4KLIP I use the Panasonic app on my phone or iPad when I'm doing video. It's great, and let's you control everything from a distance without having to touch the camera. :-)
The reviews show the RX100 mk 3 to be a great camera, but having tried it out it's just too small and fiddly for me. The Lumix LX100 feels great to hold and use with lots of direct control access. Some reports on the web have expressed concern that the maximum mega pixel size used is 12.7 megapixels. I think this is more than enough for most users, and we ought to cast our minds back to not many years back when professional DSLRs had 6 megapixels and everyone was saying how fantastic they were!! Matt's other Panasonix LX100 review on here along with this one has totally convinced me that the LX100 is the one to go for and I'm just ordered one. Can't wait to use it and will update when I have. By the way, cool hat Matt !!!
The Panasonic has an advantage over the Sony RX100 Mark IV. They both now have 4k video......but the Sony has a problem.....it over heats if you run 4/k video for more than 5 minutes. The camera shuts down and cannot be used for a few minutes while it cools down. Not good. I returned the RX100 MarkIV. I've had my Panasonic LX100 now for over a year and it still gives me smiles when I use it. The LX 100 also has better ergonomics. It feels right....while the RX100 still needs to get the aftermarket grip that you stick on the outside. It is also just too small for my hands.
good and reasonable analysis. 4k, bigger sensor for better low light is the biggest benefits for me. would love to have a tilt screen and touch but would have been more i guess.
Size Matters. The RX100mk3 is a pocket and go camera. You don't even need to bring an extra charger as a regular micro USB charger will do and my phone already uses one. An LX100 might fit in a baggy pair of jeans but where are you going to store that extra charger? To be fair I think these cameras are aimed at a different target audience. If you need the RX100 then the LX100 simply won't do and vice-versa.
The convenience factor of the Sony is way higher from my point of view. It has the flash already build in, has an articulate screen, the lens gets automatically protected when closed (sorry, don't know how to express this more eloquent in English) and it's smaller. So no need to carry around extra stuff and it's well "pocketable" (if that's even an English word). The high resolution allows for more cropping, which makes up a bit for the loss of reach. What I would like implemented still is 4k video, gps and a touch screen. Longer reach, bigger sensor and even better low light performance would always be nice, but I don't know if that's even physically possible for the small camera size. So for me as an amateur who is very much interested in good picture quality but lazy, the trade offs are worth it. Since I bought my RX100 mark 1, I only rarely used my SLR any more.
Just for amusement...my first backpacking trip with a video camera in the San Juan Mts in Colorado I carried a full sized VHS with hard case on top of my pack. My, how things have gotten better...too bad my body hasn't. I wish it was 1990 with today's equipment.
This low-budget music video was filmed with a DMC-LX100 (HD 1080,25p). We were really impressed by the overall quality which tops the GH4 (with less functionality though) : ruclips.net/video/CCc-D1-2XoY/видео.html Enjoy!
I like the size and ergonomics of the LX100 and I like to keep it around my neck just like an old Leica rangefinder. I don't want it in my pocket. The RX100 III is much smaller. I am a professional photographer shooting only stills and use the camera "recreationally." I just returned from Italy and shot over 2000 pictures with the LX100 and was very satisfied, particularly shooting outside at night when I cranked the ISO to 1600 or 3200. I rarely use a flash. But I have seen images from the RX100 III and they are excellent. I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. They both set up manually very easily so that you can concentrate on light and composition. I would have done well with the RX100 III also. And I like it's articulated screen ( RX100 III ) so you can hold the camera high over your head and see what you are shooting. Also, I think the LX100 better looking and looks like a real camera. As they say in Italy... ".Bella Figura " is important.
Totally agree there is no comparison! The lx100 is appreciated by anyone who already knows photography & usually those are people who already have DSLRs & know how to shoot fully manually & would like to have a second smaller camera as a backup or just for travelling light without compromising the image quality or to a less extent at least while the rx100 is more appealing to the beginners & people who just want compact pocket camera that can take good pictures on auto & that's why the Sony is leading the market in sales though these 8 reasons!
I agree with you. The LX100 has some better creative options. I own the RX100 II. I like its portability, altough I had to buy a spare battery plus the charger unit. You can add 100$ more to costs. I did it not only on account of waiting for the battery in camera to recharge but also that little flimsy latch to connect the camera to the charger was going to give up one day. I also tried to use the studio unit to fire my flashes, but the unit was so cumbersome on top of such little camera. No use for the RX100 II for studio work. I'm just wondering if Sony will come up with a beefed up edition of the RX10 to try to beat the LX100. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the comparison review, some good points there for me to think about between the two (even though I would be looking at the RX 100 iv) and good reasoning that I can relate to!
vitor azinheira There is no ND Filter on the LX100. If it had a tilt screen the camera would have to be thicker I've just got my LX100, its a great camera!
great points - I have the LX100 and love it - also have the RX100 - and normally would be expected to upgrade my RX100 to RX100m3 - but I opted to get the Canon G7X - primarily for Touch LCD and Touch To Focus - longer focal range and a bit brighter lens - The RX100m3 is still a fantastic compact - although some say the old RX100 has a bit sharper image - but of course slower lens and does not have the back lit sensor - and of course RX100m3 has EVF and Canon G7X does not - but if one is not in a sunny area then not as critical - The LX100 is fantastic - just wished it had Touch LCD and Tilt LCD - but 4k video quality is super nice and ability to capture 8MP frames from 4k video is just awesome - so basically a 24 frames per sec capture - So if one has the money then I would say get them all - LX100 for obvious best Image quality and 4k video - the Canon G7X for the Touch To Focus and longer focal range then the RX100 - but for a very small compact the RX100m3 has a bit better video then the Canon and of course the EVF - but if one is to pick only one - then the LX100 is the best IQ camera in video and stills - I would say that for family's / beginners the Canon G7X would be my pic as it is more compact then LX100 and has Touch To Focus - for more advanced users then the LX100 is the best and an awesome street shooter -
It is a nit pick, but the mount is Micro and the sensor is just plain FourThirds. I agree with all eight points, but I think I am gonna wait for the follow-on. I am delighted with an OM-D and six lenses, but I would like the 20 megapixel FourThirds sensor in an LX100-MkII as a scout camp, birthday party camera, particularly if we can get the yet to be announced, stacked, BSI version of the sensor. The 3200 ISO is cleaner on the Four Thirds than the 1600 ISO on the one-inch. Sony also makes a big deal about some lens magic on the RX100, that the aperture fall off on the wide end is slower than usual. As an alternative to spending $800 on the mZuiko 12-40mm f2.8 lens alone, you get the whole camera, EVF, DFD, 4K, and nice controls oriented toward some of us who retain film-era habits.
In all the discussions, the resolution of the sensors seems to come first, and yet what about the resolution of the respective lenses. At present I have a Canon 70D DSLR, having progressed from pre EOS to EOS film cameras and then EOS Digital cameras.With all these I have regarded the resolution of the lenses as paramount. I have only to compare some of my Canon L lenses with the kit lenses which came with the cameras which were hardly better than the bottom of a beer bottle. For the past six years my wife has had a Canon G10, which when it first appeared was probably the best 'point and shoot' camera available and one of the very few with a viewfinder. She now wishes to replace this, the G16 still has the appalling view finder and comparable Canon cameras to the LX100 and R100 III have no viewfinder. So she is left with the LX100 and RX100-III. I have only found one review of the respective lenses, though several have mentioned that the Lumix lens is soft in the corners. Has anyone any views on this.
Anthony Milton To be honest, I haven't really pixel-peeped my LX100. It may be soft in the corners, but the lens is fantastic and the camera is incredible. I get great photos from it, and superb 4k video.
I agree with the review. It might be fair to throw in the things that the Sony in all fairness does better though, most notably that it has a build in ND filter which is useful for shooting video outside and get a lower DoF, while still maintaining a lower shutter speed. (Generally the rule of shutter speed is of course 2 x framerate) Secondly, it is more compact. That said, there are so many advantages in my view, that the LX-100 wins hands down.
The "Dummies" "Non-Professionals" these are not words to use IMO for these "Lesser Gods" are the consumers that make the difference, One of my friends became a rich man from making pictures, he was already active during the 1968 student manifestations, he NEVER talked about other people that take pictures like that and the biggest brands MADE camera's for him, he encouraged them to go on and make litlle pieces of memory...
That's a great group of reasons but I think I'm going to end up with the RX100III. For me, the smaller form factor is a really big advantage - since I already have a great mirrorless camera and I'm looking for a high quality pocketable. I prefer in camera charging too. One less gizmo to pack when I'm travelling!
I think the LX 100 has 1/16000 electronic shutter. It has 4k video to 8-meg jpeg conversion by reviewing the video and picking a frame. You might want to wait for 6k video which will be full sensor and raw but that is only available now on top of the line video cameras. I think the Sony has a more flexible screen, a touch screen, a built-in ND filter. Dpreview's and Imaging-Resource studio images show the LX 100 has far better high iso performance. I own a LX7 and the LX100's iso 800 is till better on some parts of the dpreview studio image of the LX7 at iso 80, They have a grass and fern samples that don't look quite as sharp. The LX7 is 10-meg and the LX100 is about 12.7 so a big jump in sensor size and quality for a small loss in lens brightness.
Thanks, some very good follow-up points here! The Electronic shutter of 1/16000 will to some degree compensate for lack of ND filter, though for video purposes, one would rather want an nd filter to slow down framerate for a less choppy type video. Worst case though, screw a ND filter on front of the Lx100 as it supports that.
What do I think? LX100 has better aesthetic. So, I bought the D-Lux, even better aesthetic. And yeah, manual controls and hot shoe are SLR territory. For pocketable purposes, I have C-Lux 3. By the way, I am planning to buy the LX100 as well, because I like this camera so much. I go to Sony for portable music purposes, like the ZX2 player, it's fantastic.
I agree with your view . I have the Sony and it is better to have more manual functions as there are in the LX100 .. I may switch. Bigger sensor, also like the aperture ring on the LX100. So much better. The RX100 however is pocketable, and the LX100 isn't
Yeah Panasonic have stepped it up. The heavy comp is great for the consumer. I'd have to say I'm not buying anymore cameras that aren't weather sealed though.
I always have large pockets, so no issue of a larger camera. I do agree with your 8 points, to me this LX100 would be perfect if the viewfinder could be tilt also. I have the Leica D-Lux4, and love the professional way of use. This camera is slow in reaction, has no good high ISO performence, no viewfinder, the flash I hardly use, and if, I do not like the results. The manual focus is not handy like it seems on the LX100, likewise the aperture. Some buttons on the LX100 like the ia, is enoying, so Panasonic, you're close to a perfect compact to me. I wait for then, before iIreplace my Leica D-Lux4
All of Matts reasons are marginal IMHO...except for the control layout and hot-shoe...the Panny is more old school/traditional...but for newcomers to advanced cameras I'm not sure that matters...he also seems to think the Panny is a pocket camera...only if you have pretty big pockets...the Sony will actually fit in the butt pockets of my 501 Levis...I own and LOVE the LX100...I prefer the slightly larger size and the classic control set...but the Sony is a beauty as well...look for a nice,clean used unit and you can't go wrong either way...My 2 cents:)
Nice review / comparison. However, as far asI can say, the only actual advantage of the LX100 is the 4/3 sensor in low light. In regular lighting conditions on the other hand the resolution of the RX100 will win. As for the flash, the LX100 doesn't have a built in flash and with the RX100's flash you can trigger external flashes. The back screen that flips all the way up is also a nice feature for video production. But the main advantage I think the RX100 has is the size! And having external control dials does not necessarily represent an indicator for "professional use". Otherwise the Nikon Df would be the most professional camera out there ;) Please note that I am making these comments for argument's sake! I think both are great cameras and none has a net advantage over the other with the exception of size for the RX100 and 4K video for the LX100. IMHO.
I returned the LX100 because it's not pocketable. That means if you are buying LX100 better off you buy dslr instead. Charger is proprietary. I ended up not using it because it's big. I exchange to RX100 M3 and its with me all the time. Small and stealth!
+1addictsad78 - if you're going to buy a DSLR, you'll be better off with a medium format camera. If you're going medium format, then a large format camera will be even better. ;-) It's great to be able to put a camera in your pocket, but it's also great to have a camera smaller than a DSLR with an f/1.7 lens, 4k, etc., to make photos that the smaller camera can't make.
+1addictsad78 I agree about the size issue...once a camera can't fit in a pocket, and a person has to use a strap/etc to carry it, the camera might as well be a lot bigger and capture all the advantages thereof...though not sure I'd jump all the way to a DSLR (I'd think more of a Fuji X100T, Ricoh GR, or a micro-four-thirds or APS-C size mirrorless, with a small lens) after all, we are comparing "small" cameras here.
+William Salopek I lost my beloved RX100 M3 here in Tokyo.. good thing there is the biggest electronics store here in the planet lol. I bought the X70 and it's freaking awesome.
You should really do some fact checking before posting . Right from the beginning you got your facts wrong since this is not in use using a micro 4/3 sensor as you keep saying. And as regards point 5 , I would prefer a ND filter instead. For people who are hesitating between the two , you are omitting one of two biggest difference : the way the camera feels in the hands . Potential buyers should try them both because depending on the size of your hands , it may be the deciding factor for lots of people Last point : if you insist on wearing a baseball cap for your videos , do not wear it like a teenager ! ;)
You need to get YOUR facts straight. The Lx100 is indeed using m43 sensor. However, it does a slight crop of it, due to the lens not covering the full sensor size, so depending on the format you choose, you will get resolution around 12MP from the sensor, rather than the 16MP the same sensor provides on the Gx7
You did not read my post correctly. I know it is a m4/3 sensor but as i wrote in practical use it is onlu using part of that sensor so the crop factor is larger than other m4/3 rds. It is important that it should have been mentioned in this video
Harold6643 In my humble opinion, you need to write more clearly. Agree he could have highlighted this, but the difference is still more than 50% in size, and the pixel size is still m43 size, so for video that uses 1:1 (almost, not quite actually), the pixels used are effectively the same size as on a m43 camera like the GH4.
Have to agree with you 100% Matt, really nothing to add. If anybody here wants to learn more about the LX100, or if you already have one and want to share and learn even more about it come join us on the LX100 FB user page here: facebook.com/groups/LX100/
BE SERIOUS. ZERO point for your 8 points. THE SIZE of the RX100 III beats all other cameras. That's a camera you can have in your pocket. If I need another " small " camera with a bigger sensor, I'll choose the FUJI X100T, or choose another Sony the RX1R with a full 24x36 sensor, instead of your in-between big and small sensor LX100 camera. At least you manage to talk about this camera that is definitively interesting but unfortunatly is too big to be a pocket camera. Sorry. Sony winner,
I have an LX100 and the focus is awful , so haphazard . And forget landscapes , it over processes in jpeg and raw .. not a patch on the original RX100 .
DUDE!! I've been watching all your videos. You have a great channel.....THEN I seen this particular video and that UofM hat 😨 All I can say is GO GREEN!!!
How does the lx100 compare to the gx7? I just purchased a lx100 and I love my gx7...do you think it was a good purchase. .or did I waste my money? I've heard nothing but good things about the lx100
Dutch Jackson I love my LX100. That said, I also love the GX7, so, like you, I plan to own both soon. :-)
Dutch Jackson How are you getting on with your LX100? would be interested to hear as mine is on it's way to me. Thanks
LOOOOOOOOOOVE IT!
Dutch Jackson Who needs a 1000 word review to describe how they like their LX100, those 2 words say it all !!!!
The lens
I can't believe, he doesn't even have these cams but talking about them from a laptop! :D
Hi, good video. I just purchased the LX100 at B&H. There have been
times I shoot in Raw, which is usually recommended, but often I don't
have the time for post processing. So what would be the optimal settings
for shooting quality Jpgs such as the Photo Style settings and other
menu settings for general use? BTW, I rarely make large prints over 8 x
10. I post a lot of social media.
Hey you know that the LX100 goes up to 1/16000 of a second right?
Thanks for the review, very informative. I was wondering which Canon did you refer town the beginning in the video and also how do you feel about these two cameras compared to Fuji x30?
These two are on my shortlist ... I'm stuck at the moment. I thought of the LX100 but it does have the four thirds sensor but they don't use the full sensor? So is it closer to the RX100 then? Plus you only get 12 megapixel images? I'm stuck lol
Just curious...how large is a pocket. All these pocket rabid folks. I've bought shirts from countries where people must be quite small on average. The pockets...are they the same size as pockets on a shirt designed for a larger person? Is there a standard size that is used when ranting about whether it fits in a pocket? I ask because personally I would never put a delicate mechanical device in my pants pockets...only my shirt.
Thanks for sharing.
Interesting to look at what has happened over the last 5 years. Sony has so rapidly evolved, the Panasonic much less so. Now we have the ZV1 which is the ultimate RUclips camera and well worth getting. However, the LX100 II is still the better choice for more advanced photographers who want that tactile feel of using a camera more designed for manual operation. No mic input is a pain, and someone needs to give Panasonic a good slapping for no articulated screen, but, even now, 5 years later, the LX100 II is a fabulous option. Just shows how ahead of its time it was back then.
Nice review. Two questions...
1) Can you export the RAW files into Lightroom 5?
2) Could my Nikon flashes (Speedlights 700, 900, 910)still be controlled from a Nikon flash mounted on the Hot Shoe?
Thanks
Which one would be beter for photographing artwork and be able to print large format?
Marcos Dana Tough call. Depends on your shooting environment (i.e. lighting, size of the room, etc.) I probably wouldn't use either to be honest. I think an inexpensive DSLR like the Nikon D3300 + a good prime + off camera flash would be the better route to go. :-)
Thanks for the good advice!
HAAHAHAHAHAH that bandanna made my day!!
Honestly fucking hilarious
Thank you so much, because of you i bought the LX100 instead off the RX100
Alon Stern Glad to help! The LX100 is a little gem :-)
Cannot agree with the disadvantage of having a battery charger inside the camera. In my opinion it is positive. I have the RX100m3 and I LOVE the possibility to charge battery in the camera. Why? Because I can charge on the go, eg. when hiking or riding a bicycle directly from my power bank, or in my car when moving from one location to another one from the car socket. I think now-days all people have power banks with them (at least most of iPhone users - I still can't understand by the way why a company claiming to be an innovative leader can't invent a long lasting battery). And when you need you can always buy an external charger (you can find even for less than 10eur) and a second battery to switch. It gives more flexibility.
Magunto so what if you have an extra battery? How are you going to charge that?
is there a battery for the flash included?
what's your choice between Lumix LX 100 and Lumix FZ1000. I want to shoot 4K especially on a Nebula 4000 3 axis gimbal. Your opinion would be of great value.
regars
John Kane
kanerize Well, I bought the LX100 and didn't buy the FZ1000 :-)
Is there and audio port to connect and external microphone? How about a Lavilear wireless mic? You forgot to mention the Leica lense on the LX100.
Great review! Not sure if I'm reading the specs correctly, but it seems to me that the LX100 can only record video up to 25FPS?
+Silviu Mandea 25 fps 4K, 50 fps 1920×1080
Can you shoot in 4K on the LX100 and export in 1080p? Or do you need to downsize in post?
nictheartist Not sure about that. My LX100 should hopefully be here this week, so remind to check that for you.
Thanks :-)
nictheartist You can choose on the camera your recording format. If you record 4k then a conversion to 1080p would have to be done after the recording.
Thanks, I've decided to get the Nikon D5300, not 4K, but sufficient for my needs, plus excellent still photos!
While the LX100 does indeed have a micro 4/3 sensor, it does not use all of it, and therefore doesn't enjoy much of a large sensor advantage. In fact, according to DxOMark, the sensors are equal, both getting a score of 67. All the numbers, including colour bit depth, dynamic range and ISO performance are very similar. However, the LX100 does have slightly shallower depth of field, which is a plus.
Something most reviews don't focus on with the RX100 is just how good the lens is. The RX100 M3 is sharper than the A6000 with the kit lens, and even the first-gen one was sharper than the Canon T4i with kit lens (see Digital Rev review).
1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/53991075/f99b68a1e32842b38ec16d0706d18314
I think the LX100 has a similar quality lens, perhaps trailing the RX in colour and contrast slightly, but actually has better bokeh.
The RX100 doesn't have any dummy controls, don't know where you got that idea. Neither of these cameras are for professionals, and both suit the needs of the enthusiast just fine. You may have more manual controls on the LX100, but you have a lot more bulk and heft too. On the RX100, your primary settings are at most two selections away (while it would just be one action on the LX). The RX100 interface isn't beginner at all, it's found on just about all pro-level Sony cameras too.
The shutter speed difference isn't important, because the RX100 has an ND filter. It allows you to shoot wide open on the brightest day, something the LX100 can't do. And for video people, the ability to control your shutter speed without clunky external filters is a boon. I'll take 1/2000 with a built-in ND filter over 1/4000 without ND any day.
4K video is where the Panasonic really has a point of differentiation, and the main reason why I was tempted till the end to get the LX100. It's not just that it shoots 4K, it does a very decent job at it too. The RX100 shoots 1080p at 50Mb and has full sensor readout, which makes its 1080p video very good, but Panasonic's video is the biggest reason to get the LX100 over the RX, if you can deal with the weight/size.
I don't think the hotshoe matters for this class of camera at all (at least for me). If you're going to need proper flashes, you will probably want to use specific lenses and other accessories, and you're better off with an interchangeable lens camera. The RX100 M2 had a hotshoe, and I think Sony found no one really used it on this class of camera.
The battery charging system is a plus on Sony if you ask me. You can charge the Sony with a USB battery backup, or in the car, and for less than $10, you can buy normal wall chargers too. Way more versatile than Panasonic's option, although it would have been nice for Sony to have included a wall charger in the box.
The difference in size and weight between these two is where the battle stands. It might not seem like that much, but the RX can fit in just about anybody's pant pocket easily, while the LX can't, and will probably need a camera bag, albeit a small one. From my point of view, if someone's going to need a camera bag, you can go to a full interchangeable lens camera for not much more bulk and cost, with significantly better image quality. I was also able to find the RX100 M3 at a Sony store that was closing for $600 CAD ($480 US roughly), so it didn't make sense to spend nearly double on the LX for me either.
I really appreciate your help and this video! I am so glad I came across your channel please keep them coming! God bless!
Does the LX100 have a mic and headphone input?
Victor Sunday No, from what I can tell the LX100 has no mic or headphone inputs.
I think the sensor advantage is marginal at best, since the LX100 isn't using all of its sensor, and the RX100 is backside illuminated. And at low ISO, the Sony probably gives better detail with its 20.1MP. The lens advantage is also marginal. The 1/4000 shutter speed is largely negated by the ND filter on the Sony. The 4K video is nice, but the RX100 probably has the advantage shooting HD video, with its higher bitrate and use of all of the sensor. The external battery charger is just an extra expense for the Sony, which is balanced by the fact that the camera is cheaper.
Your other points are well taken, and boil down to the fact that the LX100 is designed for the more serious photographer. The physical controls are fantastic, and combined with the higher burst rate with AF, the ability to add a bigger flash, (and though you didn't mention it, the faster focusing in low light) mean you're more likely to get the shot. For someone who will make use of these features, the extra size and cost of the Panasonic are well worth it. For everyone else, the Sony is the fairly obvious choice.
Same thing for me. The pana don't use a mcg size sensor. It has a crop round about 2,2x.
Big plus for the Sony is the size.
Video experts that have used the lx100 basically say to always shoot in 4K, and when you downsize to 1080p in post, it gives extremely good quality. I don't see how the Rx100 could compete with that, though in fairness, it takes processing to downconvert in post.
The Panasonic images are noticeably more detailed. I own neither and never have owned either brand in a camera so I'm not biased. I think this guy is spot on. The Sony is tons cooler though.
Lucid, I have the LX100 on order from B&H (linked through Steve Huff to help him out) and am buying my wife the RX100 this week as a Christmas gift. After a month of research, I determined that I like the easy access to shutter, aperture, exposure comp etc. I can live with the external flash because I rarely use flash anyway. That "tons cooler" comment was was because of the size and on board flash and also because the size difference is substantial for some people. I'm a dslr user so they menu driven Sony would drive me nuts.
Olivelimer I am also a DSLR user and want to shoot 4K, I am currently looking between the FX1000 and the LX100, did you compare those two Panasonic camera's next to eachother before making your choice for the LX100? What's your experience till now with the LX100, are you satisfied or not so much?
Interesting... but also give the pros of the RX100III please: 1. smaller 2. tilting screen 3. more megapixels 4. less likely to be damaged if turned on inadvertently in a confined space (this happened to my LX100, which 'self-destructed' by the force of the lens opening in a pocket!) 5. built in flash which also tilts for bounce... that's all I can think of. Something you should mention about the LX100 is the audio input level can be shown and adjusted to 4 settings (important for recording loud music) whereas the RX100III has only hi or lo settings (still better than nothing).
Does the LX have live HDMI out?
How would you rate LX100 vs RX100 mkiv? Which is best street camera?
IMO rx100 mkiv has the edge. Smaller, high res sensor, no rolling shutter with e-shutter, tilt screen, faster overall, great autoISO etc. LX100 has more external controls, shallow DOF.
Old video I know but some of these reasons i disagree with. First off, DXOmark for example mark the Sony and Panny with the same score, and the sensor performance is on par with each other. The shutter speed difference is not worth mentioning as the Sony has a built in ND filter for high shutter speed wide open shots in bright light. The hotshoe is not really needed, why take a small camera and pop a huge flashgun ontop?
Let's look at those reasons Matt gives:
1. Sensor size. No doubt. Although it's 13 MP, they are larger pixels on the larger sensor vs 20 MP on a 1 inch for the Sony. Lower light superiority.
2. Zoom lens, minor point. They are equal here. Although some say Leica lens is sharper than the Zeiss.
3. 'More designed for a professional'....meh, it's a give and take decision. Personal opinion. Not an advantage.
4. FPS, ok, nod to LX100
5. Shutter speed, nod to LX100. Better.
6. Video, here it's Pany by a mile. The 4K video on the LX 100 even kills the RX100 IV in my opinion and looking at sample videos. No 5 minute limit on the Pany either. Nod, LX100.
7. Hot shoe, always good. Not essential to all but to a significant amount of enthusiasts. Nod to LX100.
8. External battery charger. Bull. You can get one for the RX100 and it's very convenient to able to charge your camera 'on the go' as you do for your mobile devices.
Dont you know he is dead?
what you think about samsung nx500 vs panasonic lx100 and sony rx100
+Pierre Legrand Well, I thought about the Samsung NX500, Panasonic LX100, and the Sony RX100, and I bought the Panasonic LX100. For me, the lens on the LX100 plus the larger M4/3 sensor (in comparison to the Sony RX100) was a deal clincher. Love the little LX100! :-)
this or the sz/tz 100?
The greatest fun I have with picture taking is doing so in low light with no flash. I have the F2 22mm EOS-M now but I want something that can do better in low light without going FF or getting to large or too pricey although I have been looking at the sony A7II which is not that big and within my budget. Thinking of the Fuji XF 23mm F1.4R with an XT-10 body. Looking for suggestions as I am very close to buying. thanks
Great thanks for this nice comparison. Short but very accurate. Please keep the good job ;)
No comparison stills? A picture is worth a thousand.....
This fucker never shows us using camera gear. All he ever does is talk talk and talk...he just watches other videos and repeats what they say...
the rx100 mark I had 10 FPS , why does the mark III have only 2.9 fps ?
Does someone has the gh4 with 12-35 and the lx100 to make a 4k video comparison ?
R.I.P. Matt
LX100 hotshoe is fully compatible with Panasonic and Olympus flashes. BTW, any camera can be used with a continuous LED lights and a tripod or a portable grip. LEDs disadvantage is a limited range but you can previsualize the effect of the light.
Good comparison! I've been looking at the LX100 for some time now and this is another good data point that helps. I'll probably wait till the LX100 drops in price a bit, but it is on my bucket list.
Wait! Just comparing numbers?
That's all this fucker ever does....
I have an S95 & PowershotPro1 & 70D which I purchased 2011, 2006, 2014 respectively.
After having all of them, my conclusion is :
The way I think of it is IF you can not pocket it, then take the cavalry (DSLR) with you.
I'm not spending $800 on anything to stuff in my pocket. I have a powershot s110 and keep it in a lowepro case which is what I'd do with either of these. The pocket factor for me is a non issue. The point of these cameras for an enthusiast or professional is to be portable enough to not need a backpack when you leave the house. Like another person commented.... No professional would use these to print or do a job with. Most will be using to post to social media to make those beers and food look amazing. I'm leaning toward the LX100. I've shot with a GH2 video and stills and that camera was balls deep. Panasonic and Sony both make great stuff but the 4k is pushing me to choose the Panasonic. When I want to shoot pro photos I'll use my 5d mark iii. This will be great to grab on the run and get awesome shots for posting to social media and when I want a great video I'll have that with me and I'll be current with future standard.
Actually. ..it's a lot easier to carry the pocket cameras for professional jobs. I use to carry all my canon stuff every were and it's quite a headache. I switched over totally to the micro 4/3 cameras and it makes jobs much easier! The cameras are so kick azz in the dark I don't even have to carry all the lighting kits I use to. My panasonic gx7 image quality for music videos were much better than any canon I've ever used.
Just bought the LX100 and very pleased because it fits a very desirable niche.
Your points are all well taken. For me, the most important ones are sensor size and external battery charger. Wouldn't touch a camera that has an internal charger.
--
+Mark Blass - external chargers for the Sony are inexpensive.
+2:
1: RX100M3 struggles with the autofocus badly
2: LX100 has a 43mm thread for filters.
Dani Good points! I have bought the LX100, so I'll be doing some videos on it soon. Spoiler alert... I LOVE IT!!! :-)
ArtoftheImage The only negative thing i can mention for me is the switches and dials are too close on the lens, so when you making a video you might accidentally change the settings when you adjusting the focus manually.
4KLIP I use the Panasonic app on my phone or iPad when I'm doing video. It's great, and let's you control everything from a distance without having to touch the camera. :-)
Alex O'Shea With the Sony or the Panasonic?
Alex O'Shea The filter might be to wide. Lens cant retract properly.
Nice video, I subscribed :)
It be awesome to do a sony a 5100 vs the pani... there a great improvement in you video quality are you using a gh4...
put in the g7x and wrap that all up.
The reviews show the RX100 mk 3 to be a great camera, but having tried it out it's just too small and fiddly for me. The Lumix LX100 feels great to hold and use with lots of direct control access. Some reports on the web have expressed concern that the maximum mega pixel size used is 12.7 megapixels. I think this is more than enough for most users, and we ought to cast our minds back to not many years back when professional DSLRs had 6 megapixels and everyone was saying how fantastic they were!! Matt's other Panasonix LX100 review on here along with this one has totally convinced me that the LX100 is the one to go for and I'm just ordered one. Can't wait to use it and will update when I have. By the way, cool hat Matt !!!
The Panasonic has an advantage over the Sony RX100 Mark IV. They both now have 4k video......but the Sony has a problem.....it over heats if you run 4/k video for more than 5 minutes. The camera shuts down and cannot be used for a few minutes while it cools down. Not good. I returned the RX100 MarkIV. I've had my Panasonic LX100 now for over a year and it still gives me smiles when I use it.
The LX 100 also has better ergonomics. It feels right....while the RX100 still needs to get the aftermarket grip that you stick on the outside. It is also just too small for my hands.
good and reasonable analysis. 4k, bigger sensor for better low light is the biggest benefits for me. would love to have a tilt screen and touch but would have been more i guess.
Size Matters. The RX100mk3 is a pocket and go camera. You don't even need to bring an extra charger as a regular micro USB charger will do and my phone already uses one. An LX100 might fit in a baggy pair of jeans but where are you going to store that extra charger? To be fair I think these cameras are aimed at a different target audience. If you need the RX100 then the LX100 simply won't do and vice-versa.
The convenience factor of the Sony is way higher from my point of view. It has the flash already build in, has an articulate screen, the lens gets automatically protected when closed (sorry, don't know how to express this more eloquent in English) and it's smaller. So no need to carry around extra stuff and it's well "pocketable" (if that's even an English word). The high resolution allows for more cropping, which makes up a bit for the loss of reach. What I would like implemented still is 4k video, gps and a touch screen. Longer reach, bigger sensor and even better low light performance would always be nice, but I don't know if that's even physically possible for the small camera size. So for me as an amateur who is very much interested in good picture quality but lazy, the trade offs are worth it. Since I bought my RX100 mark 1, I only rarely used my SLR any more.
Just for amusement...my first backpacking trip with a video camera in the San Juan Mts in Colorado I carried a full sized VHS with hard case on top of my pack. My, how things have gotten better...too bad my body hasn't. I wish it was 1990 with today's equipment.
This low-budget music video was filmed with a DMC-LX100 (HD 1080,25p). We were really impressed by the overall quality which tops the GH4 (with less functionality though) : ruclips.net/video/CCc-D1-2XoY/видео.html
Enjoy!
I like the size and ergonomics of the LX100 and I like to keep it around my neck just like an old Leica rangefinder. I don't want it in my pocket. The RX100 III is much smaller. I am a professional photographer shooting only stills and use the camera "recreationally." I just returned from Italy and shot over 2000 pictures with the LX100 and was very satisfied, particularly shooting outside at night when I cranked the ISO to 1600 or 3200. I rarely use a flash. But I have seen images from the RX100 III and they are excellent. I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. They both set up manually very easily so that you can concentrate on light and composition. I would have done well with the RX100 III also. And I like it's articulated screen ( RX100 III ) so you can hold the camera high over your head and see what you are shooting. Also, I think the LX100 better looking and looks like a real camera. As they say in Italy... ".Bella Figura " is important.
Totally agree there is no comparison! The lx100 is appreciated by anyone who already knows photography & usually those are people who already have DSLRs & know how to shoot fully manually & would like to have a second smaller camera as a backup or just for travelling light without compromising the image quality or to a less extent at least while the rx100 is more appealing to the beginners & people who just want compact pocket camera that can take good pictures on auto & that's why the Sony is leading the market in sales though these 8 reasons!
I agree with you. The LX100 has some better creative options.
I own the RX100 II. I like its portability, altough I had to buy a spare battery plus the charger unit. You can add 100$ more to costs. I did it not only on account of waiting for the battery in camera to recharge but also that little flimsy latch to connect the camera to the charger was going to give up one day. I also tried to use the studio unit to fire my flashes, but the unit was so cumbersome on top of such little camera. No use for the RX100 II for studio work.
I'm just wondering if Sony will come up with a beefed up edition of the RX10 to try to beat the LX100.
Thanks for sharing.
poncio dupont Quite possibly, but then a beefed up RX10 would likely be a lot more expensive.
ArtoftheImage
I don't care about prices.
I'm a poor man with expensive taste.
Thanks for the comparison review, some good points there for me to think about between the two (even though I would be looking at the RX 100 iv) and good reasoning that I can relate to!
Also Panasonic goes to F16 and has a ND filter and comes with external flash.
No Tilt screen will be a negative for now.
vitor azinheira I don't think there is an ND filter in the Panasonic LX100.
vitor azinheira There is no ND Filter on the LX100.
If it had a tilt screen the camera would have to be thicker
I've just got my LX100, its a great camera!
I think the LX100 will do 11fps with focus set on the 1st frame vs 6.5 fps continuous focus.
great points - I have the LX100 and love it - also have the RX100 - and normally would be expected to upgrade my RX100 to RX100m3 - but I opted to get the Canon G7X - primarily for Touch LCD and Touch To Focus - longer focal range and a bit brighter lens - The RX100m3 is still a fantastic compact - although some say the old RX100 has a bit sharper image - but of course slower lens and does not have the back lit sensor - and of course RX100m3 has EVF and Canon G7X does not - but if one is not in a sunny area then not as critical - The LX100 is fantastic - just wished it had Touch LCD and Tilt LCD - but 4k video quality is super nice and ability to capture 8MP frames from 4k video is just awesome - so basically a 24 frames per sec capture -
So if one has the money then I would say get them all - LX100 for obvious best Image quality and 4k video - the Canon G7X for the Touch To Focus and longer focal range then the RX100 - but for a very small compact the RX100m3 has a bit better video then the Canon and of course the EVF -
but if one is to pick only one - then the LX100 is the best IQ camera in video and stills - I would say that for family's / beginners the Canon G7X would be my pic as it is more compact then LX100 and has Touch To Focus - for more advanced users then the LX100 is the best and an awesome street shooter -
Nice review and thank you - I will go and buy the LX 100.
It is a nit pick, but the mount is Micro and the sensor is just plain FourThirds. I agree with all eight points, but I think I am gonna wait for the follow-on. I am delighted with an OM-D and six lenses, but I would like the 20 megapixel FourThirds sensor in an LX100-MkII as a scout camp, birthday party camera, particularly if we can get the yet to be announced, stacked, BSI version of the sensor. The 3200 ISO is cleaner on the Four Thirds than the 1600 ISO on the one-inch. Sony also makes a big deal about some lens magic on the RX100, that the aperture fall off on the wide end is slower than usual. As an alternative to spending $800 on the mZuiko 12-40mm f2.8 lens alone, you get the whole camera, EVF, DFD, 4K, and nice controls oriented toward some of us who retain film-era habits.
In all the discussions, the resolution of the sensors seems to come first, and yet what about the resolution of the respective lenses. At present I have a Canon 70D DSLR, having progressed from pre EOS to EOS film cameras and then EOS Digital cameras.With all these I have regarded the resolution of the lenses as paramount. I have only to compare some of my Canon L lenses with the kit lenses which came with the cameras which were hardly better than the bottom of a beer bottle. For the past six years my wife has had a Canon G10, which when it first appeared was probably the best 'point and shoot' camera available and one of the very few with a viewfinder. She now wishes to replace this, the G16 still has the appalling view finder and comparable Canon cameras to the LX100 and R100 III have no viewfinder. So she is left with the LX100 and RX100-III. I have only found one review of the respective lenses, though several have mentioned that the Lumix lens is soft in the corners. Has anyone any views on this.
Anthony Milton To be honest, I haven't really pixel-peeped my LX100. It may be soft in the corners, but the lens is fantastic and the camera is incredible. I get great photos from it, and superb 4k video.
I agree with the review. It might be fair to throw in the things that the Sony in all fairness does better though, most notably that it has a build in ND filter which is useful for shooting video outside and get a lower DoF, while still maintaining a lower shutter speed. (Generally the rule of shutter speed is of course 2 x framerate)
Secondly, it is more compact. That said, there are so many advantages in my view, that the LX-100 wins hands down.
Yes you are so right, the LX is just so much better unless you are a newbie and got shallow pockets and no iPhone.
The "Dummies" "Non-Professionals" these are not words to use IMO for these "Lesser Gods" are the consumers that make the difference, One of my friends became a rich man from making pictures, he was already active during the 1968 student manifestations, he NEVER talked about other people that take pictures like that and the biggest brands MADE camera's for him, he encouraged them to go on and make litlle pieces of memory...
what about the Sony IV
That's a great group of reasons but I think I'm going to end up with the RX100III. For me, the smaller form factor is a really big advantage - since I already have a great mirrorless camera and I'm looking for a high quality pocketable.
I prefer in camera charging too. One less gizmo to pack when I'm travelling!
what about 120fps for the sony...that is a big deal
Manual controls are easy enough on the RX100.
You can buy an external battery charger for the RX100.
I think the LX 100 has 1/16000 electronic shutter. It has 4k video to 8-meg jpeg conversion by reviewing the video and picking a frame. You might want to wait for 6k video which will be full sensor and raw but that is only available now on top of the line video cameras. I think the Sony has a more flexible screen, a touch screen, a built-in ND filter. Dpreview's and Imaging-Resource studio images show the LX 100 has far better high iso performance. I own a LX7 and the LX100's iso 800 is till better on some parts of the dpreview studio image of the LX7 at iso 80, They have a grass and fern samples that don't look quite as sharp. The LX7 is 10-meg and the LX100 is about 12.7 so a big jump in sensor size and quality for a small loss in lens brightness.
Thanks, some very good follow-up points here! The Electronic shutter of 1/16000 will to some degree compensate for lack of ND filter, though for video purposes, one would rather want an nd filter to slow down framerate for a less choppy type video. Worst case though, screw a ND filter on front of the Lx100 as it supports that.
What do I think? LX100 has better aesthetic. So, I bought the D-Lux, even better aesthetic. And yeah, manual controls and hot shoe are SLR territory. For pocketable purposes, I have C-Lux 3. By the way, I am planning to buy the LX100 as well, because I like this camera so much. I go to Sony for portable music purposes, like the ZX2 player, it's fantastic.
I am all for 4K video, but until it becomes 60p I won't be adopting any time soon. Smooth panning is really important to me.
I guess it all depends on the filming you do! I tend to not pan as much, plus I still prefer the feel of 24P, so I guess we are all different :)
I agree with your view . I have the Sony and it is better to have more manual functions as there are in the LX100 .. I may switch. Bigger sensor, also like the aperture ring on the LX100. So much better. The RX100 however is pocketable, and the LX100 isn't
Are you a rapper, bro?
Yeah Panasonic have stepped it up. The heavy comp is great for the consumer. I'd have to say I'm not buying anymore cameras that aren't weather sealed though.
The Pansonic is much bigger, I bought the Sony RX100 III for it's size. That is the main reason. Enough said.
I always have large pockets, so no issue of a larger camera. I do agree with your 8 points, to me this LX100 would be perfect if the viewfinder could be tilt also. I have the Leica D-Lux4, and love the professional way of use. This camera is slow in reaction, has no good high ISO performence, no viewfinder, the flash I hardly use, and if, I do not like the results. The manual focus is not handy like it seems on the LX100, likewise the aperture. Some buttons on the LX100 like the ia, is enoying, so Panasonic, you're close to a perfect compact to me. I wait for then, before iIreplace my Leica D-Lux4
All of Matts reasons are marginal IMHO...except for the control layout and hot-shoe...the Panny is more old school/traditional...but for newcomers to advanced cameras I'm not sure that matters...he also seems to think the Panny is a pocket camera...only if you have pretty big pockets...the Sony will actually fit in the butt pockets of my 501 Levis...I own and LOVE the LX100...I prefer the slightly larger size and the classic control set...but the Sony is a beauty as well...look for a nice,clean used unit and you can't go wrong either way...My 2 cents:)
#8 you couldnt use rx while its charging on an ac charger.. but on power bank you could use it =)
Does the power bank and camera fit in your pocket?
Nice review / comparison. However, as far asI can say, the only actual advantage of the LX100 is the 4/3 sensor in low light. In regular lighting conditions on the other hand the resolution of the RX100 will win. As for the flash, the LX100 doesn't have a built in flash and with the RX100's flash you can trigger external flashes. The back screen that flips all the way up is also a nice feature for video production. But the main advantage I think the RX100 has is the size!
And having external control dials does not necessarily represent an indicator for "professional use". Otherwise the Nikon Df would be the most professional camera out there ;)
Please note that I am making these comments for argument's sake! I think both are great cameras and none has a net advantage over the other with the exception of size for the RX100 and 4K video for the LX100. IMHO.
Viewfinder is reason number 9....number 9....number 9....number 9..............
+Dwight Parker Absolutely! I actually thought the viewfinder would be reason NUMBER ONE.
I owned Sony A7R and RX100 III, I thought was the best of the world until I bought the Leica D-Lux, (Leica version of LX100),
LX100 is in a different class!
I returned the LX100 because it's not pocketable. That means if you are buying LX100 better off you buy dslr instead. Charger is proprietary. I ended up not using it because it's big. I exchange to RX100 M3 and its with me all the time. Small and stealth!
Exactly the same reason I went for Sony M3, pocketable.
+1addictsad78 - if you're going to buy a DSLR, you'll be better off with a medium format camera. If you're going medium format, then a large format camera will be even better. ;-)
It's great to be able to put a camera in your pocket, but it's also great to have a camera smaller than a DSLR with an f/1.7 lens, 4k, etc., to make photos that the smaller camera can't make.
+1addictsad78 I agree about the size issue...once a camera can't fit in a pocket, and a person has to use a strap/etc to carry it, the camera might as well be a lot bigger and capture all the advantages thereof...though not sure I'd jump all the way to a DSLR (I'd think more of a Fuji X100T, Ricoh GR, or a micro-four-thirds or APS-C size mirrorless, with a small lens) after all, we are comparing "small" cameras here.
+William Salopek I lost my beloved RX100 M3 here in Tokyo.. good thing there is the biggest electronics store here in the planet lol. I bought the X70 and it's freaking awesome.
+1addictsad78 Good to hear.
You should really do some fact checking before posting . Right from the beginning you got your facts wrong since this is not in use using a micro 4/3 sensor as you keep saying. And as regards point 5 , I would prefer a ND filter instead.
For people who are hesitating between the two , you are omitting one of two biggest difference : the way the camera feels in the hands . Potential buyers should try them both because depending on the size of your hands , it may be the deciding factor for lots of people
Last point : if you insist on wearing a baseball cap for your videos , do not wear it like a teenager ! ;)
You need to get YOUR facts straight. The Lx100 is indeed using m43 sensor. However, it does a slight crop of it, due to the lens not covering the full sensor size, so depending on the format you choose, you will get resolution around 12MP from the sensor, rather than the 16MP the same sensor provides on the Gx7
You did not read my post correctly. I know it is a m4/3 sensor but as i wrote in practical use it is onlu using part of that sensor so the crop factor is larger than other m4/3 rds. It is important that it should have been mentioned in this video
Harold6643 In my humble opinion, you need to write more clearly. Agree he could have highlighted this, but the difference is still more than 50% in size, and the pixel size is still m43 size, so for video that uses 1:1 (almost, not quite actually), the pixels used are effectively the same size as on a m43 camera like the GH4.
Have to agree with you 100% Matt, really nothing to add.
If anybody here wants to learn more about the LX100, or if you already have one and want to share and learn even more about it come join us on the LX100 FB user page here: facebook.com/groups/LX100/
only 1 reason for lx100 which is its big ass sensor in your pocket for the price!!!!
THATCRAZYGUY Yes, the sensor is a big reason, BUT let's not forget the incredible Leica f1.7 - f2.8 lens!
BE SERIOUS. ZERO point for your 8 points. THE SIZE of the RX100 III beats all other cameras. That's a camera you can have in your pocket. If I need another " small " camera with a bigger sensor, I'll choose the FUJI X100T, or choose another Sony the RX1R with a full 24x36 sensor, instead of your in-between big and small sensor LX100 camera. At least you manage to talk about this camera that is definitively interesting but unfortunatly is too big to be a pocket camera. Sorry. Sony winner,
I get very ugly pixels and noise on my LX100. I have a canon eos 20D that is much better..........
I have an LX100 and the focus is awful , so haphazard . And forget landscapes , it over processes in jpeg and raw .. not a patch on the original RX100 .
Go Michigan!
Lx100 4k/30p videosample at 400 iso. It was dark...ruclips.net/video/PIdb0ju2I3w/видео.html
Just blows me away..
DUDE!! I've been watching all your videos. You have a great channel.....THEN I seen this particular video and that UofM hat 😨 All I can say is GO GREEN!!!
You got weird accent man. you say LX100 as atlex100... WTF
RICOH GR :)
Sony Betamax.