UPDATED: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 real-world samples gallery posted: Digital Photography Review

Article

The Panasonic Lumix LX100 topped our reader poll as the most interesting product to come out of Photokina 2014. Indeed, the LX100's combination of a Four Thirds sensor and 24-75mm equivalent F1.7-2.8 lens is big news. Also offering a 3.0 inch LCD and a built-in electronic viewfinder, the LX100 is capable of recording 4K video and offers an array of control dials for easy access to exposure settings. We've been testing out this intrepid compact for the past few days; take a look at a gallery of real-world samples and see what it can do.

Updated Sunday October 5th with 46 new images

Updated Monday October 6th with several ACR Raw conversions 'to taste'.

See our updated Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 real-world samples gallery

Read our Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review

Comments

Total comments: 618

I got mine a week ago , still learning to use will update later but 1st impression on picture quality is awesome !

0 upvotes

I purchased a LX100 about a month ago and the picture quality is just awesome.
Check out some of my pics from London.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/marc-heurtaut/sets/72157649363075439/

0 upvotes

Look at those samples,which seems better?
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1991/compact-panasonic-lx100-exemples-photos-15.html
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/panasonic-lx100-1264690/review/8#articleContent
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/panasonic-lx100-analisis-fotos-video_12388
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_LX100/sample_images.shtml

0 upvotes

These new shots are much more typical of real world use. Thanks DPR. The colour rendition seems similar to Sony, a tiny touch to the blue side, but I have no problem with that. For 12mp, these look fine and sometimes I feel one advantage of having only 12mp is that it forces one to look at an image in the round. With many mp, one is often tempted to pixel peep and to get caught up in the ultimate resolution game with oneself. With a camera like this, if you take a nice picture, it stays a nice picture rather than an exercse in hand-wringing and photoshopaholism.
Looking at the shot of the map-reader by the window, the oversharpening does seem apparent, with strange artefacts on the skin. However, I would hope that anyone considering this camera would be able to deal with this from RAW. I know with my GX1 I would not consider using JPGs, especially as Silkypics is so easy to use.
To sum up, my interest is piqued.

0 upvotes

Is there a subject, “The usage modes of samples galleries?” I have used them to understand optical abberrations, color palette, noise floors, tone curves, dynamic range and the like. I thought of a new use. We have comparative samples and pretty samples, the latter end much more pleasing. The teaser photo for the Nikon D750, for example, has a girl on a painted pony at the beach with a beautiful sky as a backdrop, hardly the photo that sells me on the idea that I need to shell out big bucks for the big frame. Well do I know that the camera and lenses I have on hand could easily have handled such an easy exposure. I am NOT curious about the 36-megapixel end of the Nikon/Sony full frame. I want to know what the far end can do. Huge pixels and deep ISO are my only curiosity. Show me the unapproachable so I can decide on a budget.

2 upvotes

I think my RX100 (version 1) does considerably better than the samples here. And that's with looking at 20MP at 100% rather than 12MP.

I was hoping that the image quality in this camera would justify it's noticeably larger size (compared to the RX100 series). Sadly it looks as though that isn't the case :(

4 upvotes

What raws from the LX100 have you extracted, and with what software?

Have you looked at the out of camera jpegs posted at both Imaging Resource and PhotographyBlog?

0 upvotes

HowaboutJPEG since that's what many people like shooting on holiday?

5 upvotes

Well HowaboutIPhone since that's what people take with them on holiday? Then what's your purpose here?

0 upvotes

BozillaNZ + tkbslc:

That's odd I live in a city with many tourists and I see many normal digicams daily, and most can be set to shoot raw.

Neither of you two "thinkers" have answered the question that I asked.

If the iPhone is enough of a camera for your purposes, by all means use it exclusively. If you care about more control, shooting above ISO 400 and better lenses, you'll think about something like the LX100 or RX100III.

0 upvotes

Have you checked all those cameras to see if they are set to raw?

2 upvotes

tkbslc:

Which cameras are you referring to? The RX100I+II+III all LX100 shoot raw. There are no 4/3rds still cameras which can't shoot raw.

If you're referring to tourists' cameras in my city, DSLRs and interchangeable mirrorless all shoot raw--though no right, I can't speak to how they're set up. Nor do I care, a jpeg out of a 5 year old Canon Rebel will be better than a jpeg of the same shot out of an iPhone.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

"Nor do I care, a jpeg out of a 5 year old Canon Rebel will be better than a jpeg of the same shot out of an iPhone."

Exactly my point, so why vilify JPEGs from nice cameras? And I never mentioned iphones.

0 upvotes

tkbslc:

I don't vilify jpegs from cameras with good jpeg engines, like many Canons.

But raws are of course much more adjustable.

Having raw samples from reviewed cameras gives me a much better idea of the overall image quality and high ISO capacity of the camera under review--and jpegs above base ISO often add artifacts that I prefer to do without.

Right about the iPhone, that was a different string of comments about this LX100, there someone had gone on about how it was best to compare the LX100 to the iPhone, and couldn't accept that some would only ever shoot raw only with the LX100. I didn't review the comments thoroughly enough.

0 upvotes

@HowaboutRAW: Some of the samples above are converted from RAW. Read the second line in green at the top.

0 upvotes

Sidath Senanayake:

Yeah, so? Jpegs aren't raws. Also not news to me that some of the files are derived from raws.

Anyhow, extract to tiff if you care about image quality.

So, you've not answered the questions:

"What raws from the LX100 have you extracted, and with what software?"

"Have you looked at the out of camera jpegs posted at both Imaging Resource and PhotographyBlog?"

0 upvotes

No question, this camera does a very decent job. I don't know if it is tungsten or florescent but one of the lighting conditions leave a little bit to be desired, but then most cameras struggle with artificial light.

0 upvotes

What program can be used to develop the .RW2 RAW files? I have the latest versions of Adobe Photoshop/Bridge/ACR but the LX100 is not supported yet. I would love to be able to evaluate the RAW files.

0 upvotes

Try Rawtherapee 4.1.

It works for me on a Windows 7 computer.

It has some pain in the fanny features, and doesn't do well with higher ISO photos, no matter what some claim in these comments, but it's a start.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

1 upvote

My Kind of Camera LX100 ordered yesterday

2 upvotes

Why landscape photos? Is this a camera for landscape or for street? And the prize? For landscape an old E-PM1 or E-Pl1 is enough - or better.

2 upvotes

Why carry two cameras when you can carry one.

2 upvotes

I wanted to say impressive for the price, then I saw $899 tag. What?
So the $900 now became the norm for premium compacts? Only few years ago, this category was barely touching $500

5 upvotes

The LX7 was sold for 500 two years ago. This is a different camera. The Fujifilm X100 is also categorized as a compact. It's a big category.

1 upvote

LaFonte:

The LX7 has a significantly smaller sensor, and therefore uses less glass in the lens, meaning that less glass needs to be nearly perfectly shaped and polished to Leica standards for the LX7.

My 2001 purchased Canon G2 cost nearly 700usd.

1 upvote

Which is why a used the LX7 as comparison...

0 upvotes

carlnor,

right.

0 upvotes

It fits a coat pocket, has a 4/3 sensor, has a fast normal zoom, and it does 4K video (reportedly pretty well). That's a pretty big jump for the "compact" category.

4 upvotes

Don't get me wrong, this will be the best LX to date.
BUT : from everything I saw until now (here, imaging resource, ephotozine and more...), I'm really concerned about optical quality.
Edges and especially the whole right part of almost every picture are really softer than expected, at least for the rather low megapixel count.
The RX100 III, even at 20MP, looks sharper even in RAW without overprocessing.
Maybe the Panasonic will have better dynamic range and high ISO performance, but giving the already amazing 1" sensor of the Sony (12.4 EVs against maybe half an EV more on the 4/3 LX sensor), I don't think the difference will be enough to clearly outperform.
However, the LX100 will operate faster for sure, but to me the RX100 III still wins overall. Not the mention the pocketable form factor...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

At the widest focal length the edges seem blurry, but gets much sharper at around 30mm equiv. Anyone else notice that?

1 upvote

Thanks dpdeview for the new JPEG vs. RAW comparisons! Those are the VERY most important samples for me! And, they look very promising to me!

1 upvote

When did DPReview post raws?

PhotographyBlog has actual raws for download.

0 upvotes

1 day ago I think ... Processed RAWs, but nice to see the difference to the OOC JPEG next to it.

0 upvotes

orion1983:

Right, raws processed to jpeg with ACR something, but of course raws can be processed to the lossless tiff format too. And that's better for these purposes.

Then in a month or so the serious raw extraction programs will allow us to process the raws themselves. Rawtherapee works already--but not well past ISO 1600.

PhotographyBlog also has many out of camera jpegs for download--better, on average, than the examples here.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Anyone think "made in china" LX100 is a dampener or even a deal breaker? Sort of this premium compact losing its cachet? Wonder where the Typ109 is made, dont want a made in China Leica, that's me though... But guess a lot of you out there thnking along the same lines...?

1 upvote

No. Here's a previous rant of mine on that topic if you can be bothered reading it: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54456233

7 upvotes

I did read the rant.... But would like to clarify my point was not implying or debating China made is inferior quality, but rather if perception of the buyer is the reality, will this impact LX100 sales or even if it did not, it is like the back of mind feeling 'made in china' that one might have. Personally I am looking at the Leica version and it is a no go if it is made in China.

0 upvotes

"Personally I am looking at the Leica version and it is a no go if it is made in China."

I wont argue with you. If it was a matter of logic and evidence I might. But underlying "feelings" can't usually be extinguished in any sort of reasonable time frame no matter how much rational discussion is thrown their way...

Heh.

1 upvote

SulfurousBeast:

Olympus makes bodies in China--the very good ones.

Samsung/Optron makes optically extraordinary lenses in China.

And before I read it: No Foxconn does NOT really make iPhones, and laptops for Dell, HP etc in China. Foxconn assembles parts made all over the world.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

I personally switched away from Nikon gear due to quality issues I had with newer gelded lenses that stopped working (made in china) . That Nikon service is just bad and expensive...

1 upvote

lacikuss:

Only low end lenses made by Nikon in China--like the optically good 50mm lens on the Df.

Generally, there aren't a lot of lens failures reported with Nikon lenses.

0 upvotes

Nowadays one could not stay away from Made in China products and as long as the ISO Quality control is there with bench marking China products are NO problems IMHO

0 upvotes

When i buy a japanese automobil it doesn't matter if it is the entry level vehicle its quality is impecable. When i bought the Nikon D600 for $2,000 it came with a manufacturing problem that Nikon denied for almost 2 years. Before than i had a d90 dx camera., i bought a 35mm f/1.8 dx lens that aftet a couple of years of barely using it the spring that control the diaphragm broke. This is a gelded lens which is difficult to repair. Nikon wanted to charge me $180 for its repair. At the time that was the lens price (new).

Unfortunately chinese manufacture is not close in quality to japanese QC.

0 upvotes

Japanese made cars are not always made without defects.

Look up the engine blocks of the 2006 Honda Civics.

By your "logic" you'd avoid Hondas.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

@lackikuss Product quality depends on the standards set by the parent company. Essentially all of Apple's products are made in China and Apple's products consistently have very low defect rates. You should be attributing the problem with your D600 to Nikon, rather than blaming it on where it was made.

0 upvotes

Acording to your logic please avoid buying Nikon and Hondas then because their Management is just incompetent and chinese labor is at par with the swiss.... lol

0 upvotes

MichaelKJ:

Apple products are made all over the world, they are assembled in China.

lacikuss:

I've see crappy Bosch tools (belt sander) made in Switzerland.

A dozen years ago or so, VW had huge problems with German made ignition coils in Golfs and Jetta cars, VW compounded the problems by lying about them.

0 upvotes

Last time I checked, wages in China were just slightly lower than in Japan. So that explains why manufacturers are eager to build in China. What it doesn't explain is why these cost savings aren't passed along to the consumer.

There is also the politically incorrect assumption that Japanese culture embraces perfection in a way the Chinese don't. That's a bit of a stretch but if you had a choice between equivalent Japanese and Chinese cars, which would you take?

0 upvotes

Cainn24, that's precisely my point, my disclaimer was made in China is or need not be inferior quality. There are too many stuff at home that is made in China. But if you believe buying decisions are as much about 'feelings' (emotional) as much as it is logical, would the potential buyers of the Leica version of this camera be turned off if it was made in China?. I certain is one. That's all I was asking. That's how people 'attach' value to things. To throw in another example would be Swiss watch say TAG, made in China :-) , with Leica I see it that way than with Panasonic even if every single component was the same inside,

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Which images are converted from RAW?

0 upvotes

They have 'ACR' in the title of the image.
'ACR' because developed in Adobe Camera RAW

For example

ACR version: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3041424/?inAlbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-samples-gallery

JPG version: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3040807/iso200-trail?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-samples-gallery

1 upvote

Photography Blog review.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx100_review/

2 upvotes

"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 is the most capable compact camera that we've ever reviewed..." High praise...

4 upvotes

It is indeed. In sharp contrast to all the critics trashing it before even reading a complete review. Some wanting more zoom and a tilt screen before complaining it's not compact enough. Some complaining about softness 5cm from the lens on a landscape photo where the focus sits 5 km away...

2 upvotes

About comments about landscape images and other cameras doing as well:

I have looked at 3 lenses on Pentax SLR. Expensive Pentax 50-135/2.8, cheap Tamron 70-300 Di, Pentax 135/2.8

With Tamron at 135mm, the Pentax zoom spanked it for pictures of trees in the far distance. The leaves were more visible. Better contrast... The Pentax 135/2.8 looked pretty good as well.

Still, the Tamron is great for closer subjects. It really does a good job for the few animals I run across. Some lenses like working with distant stuff, some do better with closer stuff.

I also decided to not use 'hyperfocal' method for good foliage. I decided to focus at infinity for good foliage.. let DOF make the foreground.

With a range to 24, it would be nice for the LX100 to have great looking distance performance. However, without knowing focus strategy, hard to know if foliage can be better.

But doesn't mean the lens won't shine for other stuff.
A thought for people concerned about results with foliage.

0 upvotes

I hope the photographer who used this LX100, is not to the height of the camera .... I waited a long time for a worthy successor of the LX5 .... this time to see these pictures ... I was cold !!! not want to think that is a step behind Panasonic ... or has exhausted the inteligenência and creativity of its engineers .... I'm sad .... very sad !.

3 upvotes

The pictures don't do much for me, either. Those little cascades or Olympics or whatever are no good. I prefer Colorado Rockies and if we can't have that may as well drive the cameras down to red rock country.

And if we can't have that...
A pool party is always nice :^)

PS - as some others have noted, they are snapshot kind of pictures and I think they are fine for representing most of the pictures these cameras will take.

P/S or fancy SLR, there are always times more care or deliberation make a difference.

2 upvotes

I have the GM1. As everyone knows it is a small camera and the kit lens is not fast but I would think it would do just as good a job on the landscape shots posted here and maybe better. I get the advantages of 1.7 to 2.8 lens and the EVF but you could have that (EVF) with the GM5 and get to add the occasional nice prime lens. The LX100's lens would have to be really good for me to want the camera over the GM1 or 5. Just my opinion and others may feel differently.

3 upvotes

I suspect most people buying this will already have an ILC.
This will be for when they don't want to carry it or mess around with carrying and changing lenses.
Your GM1 may be small but add the 12-35mm F2.8 to it and it will be larger than this.
And the EVF on this is much better than the one on the GM5 which is important to people like myself who never use the back screen for taking photographs
I would argue that this camera challenges the need for the GM1/5 which is IMHO only really suitable for using with small lenses and has limited controls.
Immediately you start using it with large lenses you would be better off with a larger and more ergonomic camera.

0 upvotes

Hi, Thanks for the comment. I can't say I agree as the the LX100 only has a size advantage when shut off. As soon as you turn on the camera the LX100 will be larger and the lens on the LX100 appears to stick out much further than the GM series. At max zoom I would bet it is no contest.
I do agree about the EVF as it sounds like they have developed a great one.
Thanks again.

1 upvote

The whole point of retractable/collapsible lens design is so it can be compact when you need it to be (when it's in a camera bag/pouch, or your pocket), and bigger when it doesn't really matter (when you're actually pointing it at stuff).

In other words, the size _advantage_ is real.

1 upvote

Hi cainn, I agree. I was wrong before and the GM5 is actually smaller even with the kit lens attached. As I own a GM1 which is even smaller than the GM5 I find this surprising as I could not honestly call the GM1 a pocket camera. The LX100 looks to have great ergonomics but size wise I couldn't now call it a pocket camera. Many out here have posted that the Sony RX100 series (smaller than the GM series and LX100) isn't a true pocket camera. Despite all this I love what I am seeing about the LX100. It is the last thing I need but long ago I fell under the GAS illness.

See this size link and scroll down:

http://www.fotopolis.pl/n/19739/panasonic-lumix-gm5-i-nowe-obiektywy-pierwsze-wrazenia/

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting

1 upvote

That fact that the GM1/GM5 + 12-32 is smaller doesn't really impress me. It SHOULD be smaller because the lens is so much slower (f/3.5 - f/5.6 compared to f/1.9 - f/3.1 in MFT equivalent terms). So the LX100 has superior low light performance and superior DOF control.

0 upvotes

OK... what exactly happened here? These samples were soft, and now they're all sharpened up?

I saw those originals. They were NOT awesome.

What is happening here? Somehow history is getting changed here, because those crappy original samples have mysteriously disappeared.

Am I the only one here taking crazy pills?

I can use Lightroom, Photoshop, Magic Sharp, Slice Like a Ninja, or Cut Like a Razor Blade filters to help out any image to make it "look" sharper.

But you're not taking $900 bucks out of me for a mediocre lens where I have to do this to every image I take!

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting

7 upvotes

No. Me too.

1 upvote

Ogl does not take crazy pills.

Paul, do you have any of the images you believe were 'pre-sharp' ?

I had several tabs open with different sample but I closed them a day or so ago...

0 upvotes

No the original images are totally gone. The LX100 is now the most amazing camera ever made, now that all the samples have been sharpened post process. A total farce.

0 upvotes

I think you've all gone bonkers.

The first set of images posted were all SOOC JPEGs (except for one) and I actually downloaded a couple. They look the same now as they did then.

The second set of images were all processed from RAW using ACR, so they are NOT examples of JPEG engine performance anyway. If dpreview processed those particular shots again with more aggressive sharpening, and I'm not saying they did (I didn't pay as much attention to them so I can't make a call either way), so what? It's all in the game if we're working with RAW.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting

1 upvote

The original images I saw were all soft and I was not impressed at all but now these look much better.

2 upvotes

Review at Ephotozine.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-full-review-26173

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

ePhotoZine has published more photos, the first one has raw:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-sample-photos-26312

And I've downloaded the P1050403.RW2, converted to CR2 using my project CR2Pana, and developed it using Canon RAW Image Task, the result is here:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=49920817883891967283

The color and sharpness is very good! It's funny that Canon's software helped this camera to unleash it's potential but neverless it's doable and I will finish the CR2Pana's LX100 support by the time it's on the market!

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

not bad...but hard to say that it's very good.

0 upvotes

It's easy enough to process LX100 RAW files in Photo Ninja by modifying the EXIF data with a GX7 model name using ExifTool:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5zqo720gxuzexpu/P1050403_PN_v1.jpg

It's a bit of a hassle but I haven't been able to create a working colour profile directly.

I don't mean to minimize your efforts Boz as the more options we have the better. I just personally love the results that Photo Ninja produces.

0 upvotes

.
Thanks, BozillaNZ, but your processed image isn't very good at all, because:

- The sky is quite noisy despite being shot at base ISO 200. It has typical small-sensor noise.

2) Either present in the original or produced by your process, there are dozens of *donut-shaped artifacts* like this one (shown here at 200%):

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/3043488.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWXD4UV3FXMIDQLQ/20141009/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20141009T144851Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=693556fe54f98dc86bcb38a1d6f8062159af3580b6cf317945bd41f96f17bb38

They can be seen in the sky (coord (3621, 63), (3130, 10), etc), in the wood (2851, 548), and everywhere else.

3) the image is way oversharpened, with a distinct 2-pixel white halo around every wooden beam and contrasty edge.

So your effort did not succeed in creating a good image, the result is oversharpened small-sensor quality at most.

T.
.

2 upvotes

Those black spots are dead pixels, easy to remove if I want to. And you know what, I have a fetish on over-sharpened image. I like them and that's my style. Feel free to disagree. The image quality this camera can provide satisfies my standard and I will buy it. Noise in the sky? yes, that's typical M4/3, all M4/3 does that. and a compromise I can accept for ease of use, for the times I don't want to take the full FF system.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

.
Ok, BozillaNZ, to each its own. Thanks for your reply, I hope you enjoy your LX once you buy it.

T.
.

1 upvote

Hmm...not so hot on this camera anymore. :/
Are the RAWs this soft?

4 upvotes

No matter which fixed-lens compact you're talking about, if you load up a RAW file and turn the sharpening right down, you'll end up with a softer image. In other words, every JPEG engine in every camera in this class does in-camera sharpening. Some more than others. And some do a better job than others

But if you're asking whether it is possible to produce a sharper more detailed result without accentuating noise by processing from RAW, the answer is most definitely yes.

0 upvotes

I'd still like to know if the LX100 will allow ISO to float when in Manual Mode (selected S & A).

0 upvotes

And if it will do that, will it respect auto ISO in M as well?

I did finally learn how shutter is adjusted. Full stops are set on the dedicated dial, of course. Any finer increment set on ring around 4-way controller. This ring allows +/- 2/3 stop. So, if you want a little more, have to move up to the dedicated dial again.

Retro is fine. Retro for sake of retro is disappointing. While other cameras with two modal command dials do not have controls 'dedicated' to either aperture or shutter, they actually offer more practical convenience.

Using an exposure mode dial is no slower than using the aperture ring and dedicated shutter speed dial.

With the shutter speed selection made at two control points, the camera is less suitable for use in manual mode. For all the dedicated dials, it is best suited for some program mode.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Article

UPDATED: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 real-world samples gallery posted

Buying Options

Comments