Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Panasonic' started by Jock Elliott, Oct 29, 2014.
WHEW. That was long, but informative.
LOL, even the Verdict page is long!
It's a function of the location chosen for the test. I spent a month in Brighton one week...
I haven't read it, but was the conclusion is that it is a camera and that it can take photographs?
Shockingly, no. They say that it's a camera that can take video from which you can extract photographs.
Heh heh. That really does look like the real standout feature with this camera. I'm sure it's a fine stills camera too, but I find the idea of being able to extract really good stills from video really compelling. Probably not for me - I just don't think I'd ever actually shoot anything that way - but it has loads of potential...
Mine should arrive next week!
It is an interesting feature, but a couple of things should be noted:
1 - Rule of thumb shutter speeds for video is 1/2x the frame rate, which usually means something between 1/50 and 1/60. The theory is that the slight motion blur from frame to frame helps make movement look smooth. If you shoot much faster than 1/2x then you risk an odd staccato effect-think D-Day Normandy Beach landing scene in Saving Private Ryan. So, practically speaking, you'll often need to choose whether you want nice video or nice stills from video. You'll rarely have the circumstance where you can get both.
2 - If you think that choosing the best portrait out of 10 shots is difficult, just wait until you shoot 10 seconds of 4k video at 24FPS; you'll have 240 shots to choose from!
I'm not saying that it's not a good feature, it's just that like most new features, the reality trails behind the hype.
I also didn't read it. Dear God, that's a long one. All it told me is that it is a very good-looking camera, but a little smaller than I was hoping it would be. I think it will take pictures that are nearly as good as the user is capable of.
I just have to consider that at present I have a camera that can shoot full resolution raw files at anything up to 10fps, and yet I don't go around machine gunning everything with it. So, am I going to start doing 4K video for the sake of extracting stills? Probably not.
I think that in reality it provides those who are already into video a means of extracting better screenshots.
Dpreview also posted their first impressions:
Nice review. I hate to criticize them for trying to be thorough. They tried to give the reader a good sense of strengths and weaknesses so you could decide between the LX100 and the RX100/G7x. Given the prices, this leans me more toward the original (cheaper) RX100 as a compact.
If anyone had told me a few years ago that a compact zoom camera could look like this ( http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100/samples/experience/P9610123-acr.jpg ) at ISO12,800 I'd have laughed them out of the room.
Clawd have mercy
My complaint toward the review was that they didn't appear to test the lens at multiple aperture, and the comparisons aren't wide open. They tested at the sharpest settings to the other cameras, but that still tells me nothing about the wide open capabilities of the lens.
The biggest complaint about the camera I've read about so far, especially from those on dpreview, is how mediocre the lens is and the lack of resolution. However, the higher ISO pictures I've seen so far are better than that of the RX100. Looking at dpreview's updated preview, it also appears the dynamic range is also much better.
Funny thing about all this is that I wasn't in the market for a compact until the LX100 came out. But in doing some comparisons with the LX100, I'm starting to think that the Canon G7X would actually be a better choice for me....lmbo.
Why aren't more folks thinking of it in comparison to the Canon GX1 mk II? 24-120mm equivalent F2-3.9 for the Canon, larger sensor. EVF is external, but flash and touchscreen are built in. Marginally bigger, which may be a plus for handling.
That extra reach would be a big plus for me. I have to weigh that against the positives of the LX100 though - internal EVF, fast focusing, better (for me) controls.
Jono's Leica version D-Lux (typ 109) review is out:
That Canon is so ignored it's not funny. The LX100 costs more, with a somewhat even tradeoff of features and capabilities vs the G1XMKII. But the Panasonic has been hailed as the second coming, while the Canon is treated like just another Canon.