Getting an itch again - Compact, 4/3rds cameras

[Donald]

I don't know if this is a useful observation, but in case it is, I think this thread has developed into two entirely different discussions.

Donald started this, not by asking about the pros and cons of switching to mirrorless or 4/3,

Consistent with that, he noted the Fuji X100 and the Panasonic LX100 as possibilities. Both lack interchangeable lenses, and they clearly are not a substitute for a DSLR--let alone the fabulous DSLR that Donald recently purchased.

The second discussion is about the pros and cons of switching to MFT from DSLRs, or of using MFT ILCs as a substitute under some circumstances.

Dan is absolutely right. I have welcomed the discussion on both for the fact that it has informed me much better than I was previously informed, about the differences that we are talking about and, b) confirmed for me that indeed I am not talking about switching to mFT and thus am not in the marketplace for a camera with interchangeable lenses.

So, I am very happy to have seen the discussion above evolve as it did.

I am now entering the final stage of decision-making and am am asking myself why I should NOT buy the Panasonic DMC XL100. That's always the final stage for me - search out the 'cons', if there are any and decide how significant they are.

[davidedric]

Hi Donald,

Sounds like you are almost there, but I'll still add my tale.

A couple of years ago I decided I wanted a second camera to carry with me more regularly. The idea was to keep it in the car, and after much thinking and researching, and not knowing where it might lead me, I settled a refurbished Panasonic G5 with the kit lens. Of course, I went out and tried it, and though I really like this - and the results are pretty good too. So a few months later, we were off on holiday for a week, and I decided to splash out on their 14-140mm zoom (which has an excellent reputation). I was very happy, both with the lightness and ease of use of the kit, and with the results.

At the start of last year, I added a gx7 body which has a newer sensor and software and the 100-300mm. Last summer I went for the 12-35mm "Pro standard" lens, and was blown away by the results. Most recently, I added a G7 (at the ridiculous nett price after cashback of £269) for various improved features including DFD which is said to offer DSLR class auto focus on moving objects.

Before I got started with m4/3, I had planned to upgrade my 600D to a 70D, but then last summer I also sold all my DSLR kit - it was clearly not going to see any more action.

So, although I never set out with the intention of ending where I am now, by choosing an ILC camera, I opened up an avenue that I would likely not otherwise discovered.

I'm sure you are more than capable of deciding what you do want, so enjoy - I am sure you will.

Dave

[Black Pearl]

I am now entering the final stage of decision-making and am am asking myself why I should NOT buy the Panasonic DMC XL100. That's always the final stage for me - search out the 'cons', if there are any and decide how significant they are.

I think the only (possible) con is that you're not really getting a M4/3 sensor. You never get to use the whole sensor as the aspect ratios crop into it in a rather unusual way. The m4/3 sensor inside the camera is a 16mp unit but typical output is around 12 (and a bit) mp. Probably not a big deal but as sensor size for CiC members is something we talk about, look into and understand its a bit of an unusual approach.

I would still recommend you take a look at the X100t before ultimately hitting the 'buy' button. I get that it doesn't have a zoom but you have those already. What it does have is a very good APSC XTRANS sensor, a very good lens and a very, very clever viewfinder.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Donald,

Well, I spent a bit of time (out of interest) going through a review and the major thing that occurs to me that might bug you is the electric zoom control. However, this is not necessarily a reason to steer you away from the LX100, as it likely applies to all cameras you are considering.

I didn't notice, could not determine whether the zoom control might be a 'proportional' one (a good thing), or just the standard P&S in/stop/out 3 way switch.

I find the latter exceedingly frustrating to achieve the angle of view I want when shooting with typical P&S or bridge camera. Some bridge cameras have a manual (lens barrel) zoom, but (I assume) this cannot, due to the contracting lens design to make it smaller to transport.

If a zoom control is 'proportional', the speed of zooming is controlled by the amount of rotation (or pressure) applied to the button in the "T" or "W" directions and this makes it far easier to achieve a precise focal length (and not have to wait ages to get to it).

Others with more experience in this market sector might be able to fill the gaps in my knowledge.


I also didn't see whether manual focus is possible, if it is, the same frustration might apply to that, rendering it effectively useless - but since very few users will ever use manual focus, I suspect it won't be an area they have dedicated much design effort to.

Well, those are two things I found/find a PITA when I 'expanded' from shooting with a DSLR alone to also shooting with a P&S and/or bridge camera, which is (effectively) what you are intending. The third thing I found an issue was the lack of aperture range available on the models I have, but the LX100, due to its bigger sensor (than P&S/bridge) has that mostly covered.

There are several things I liked about the camera from the DPReview I (mostly) read.

Cheers, Dave

[xpatUSA]

I think the only (possible) con is that you're not really getting a M4/3 sensor. You never get to use the whole sensor as the aspect ratios crop into it in a rather unusual way. The m4/3 sensor inside the camera is a 16mp unit but typical output is around 12 (and a bit) mp. Probably not a big deal but as sensor size for CiC members is something we talk about, look into and understand its a bit of an unusual approach.

There's a good interactive illustration of the LX100 aspect ratios here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...umix-dmc-lx100

Doesn't look the same as the Panasonic GH1 system which has a dimensionally over-sized sensor giving a constant pixel diagonal, irrespective of the aspect ratio selected:

[Venser]

If you're still trying to choose, I mentioned earlier I didn't like the autofocus of the X100s, but the one feature I absolutely loved exploiting was the flash sync speed. The X100T has the following 1/1000 at f2, 1/2000 at f4, 1/4000 at f/8. It also has a 3-stop built in filter to further exploit the above.

[Donald]

Oh dilemmas, dilemmas!

I need to dwell on it over the weekend. LX100 - X100T? X100T - LX100?

[Dave Humphries]

Well, I guess the X100T does avoid the electric zoom problem

I have not tried, but for me, I wouldn't like having just one angle of view or put another way; focal length (35mm FFE).

... and before anyone says 'zoom with your feet', I'll remind them that changes the perspective of the subject relative to the background.

Workarounds:
There's a limit to the cropping possible to achieve a field of view equivalent to a longer focal length.
Not all subjects will be conducive to taking multiple shots and panoramic stitching to achieve the equivalent of a wider angle of view.

For a few genres, a single focal length is enough.

No - for what you need it for, I'd suggest the X100T (or any single focal length lens camera) is too limiting in the longer term.

Although I accept that as a learning experience, it would do none of us any harm to be restricted to a single focal length from time-to-time, so we fully explore the compositional possibilities - but ask yourself, would you want to drive a car with only one fixed gear ratio (forever)?

That's my opinion, others will disagree - and that's fine.

[NorthernFocus]

Donald, you may want to consider "having your cake and eating it too". An ILC with a pancake style fixed focal length lens is functionally the same as the others you are considering and small enough to carry in a pocket. But... if you then decide that the fixed focal length and/or the particular focal length that you chose is too restrictive, well then you can get additional lenses and at least have a smaller alternative to a DSLR for travel etc. I went the route of ILC with the APS-C format Sony a6000 and it is definitely not a pocket camera. But it is dramatically lighter and much smaller than a DSLR for traveling. But I am pretty much binary with my photography. I'm shooting or I'm not. So I don't really care to have a camera in my pocket all the time. If the need does arise I accept the limitations of the cell phone camera.

[wilgk]

Man up Kay - a DSLR will still be lighter than Fashionista's shopping bags.......

You speak wise words and true!

[DanK]

Donald,

I was writing an answer somewhat like Dave's when a storm took out our power, which showed me that the battery in my UPS is gone. I lost the message.

My brother has an XT100, or a similar Fuji, and loves it. I have been very impressed by the images it produces, and I suspect--I've never seen or attempted an A/B comparison--that it produces higher quality images than the LX100. It has a larger sensor (APS-C vs. a slightly cropped MFT) and more usable pixels (the Lx100 has only about 12 MP at 3:2). I used it once or twice and was impressed. However, the fixed focal length was simply a killer for me. It isn't flexible enough. Even the zoom on the LX 100 is limiting, but much less so, with FFE 24-70 or thereabouts.

It's not just that zoom with your feet changes perspective. There are times when one can't zoom with ones feet. There may be a busy road in the way, or a river or pond, or you there might not be enough time.

As they say, different strokes for different folks. But for my purposes, the LX100 is a better compromise. It IS a compromise; anything will be. But for my own purposes, it seemed to be the best tradeoff.

Dan

[Black Pearl]

Took a bit of finding but knew I'd posted them.

This was a few day trip to London where I only took an original X100 with its original firmware and I loved every minute of it. Once or twice I missed not having a different focal length but if you are of a mindset where you know you have a fixed lens then your brain just goes about looking for shots you can take and not ones you can't. Years later I still do the same thing and still love the experience.

London - X100 Style
.

[inkista]

I have a GX-7 with a complement of decent lenses. I also have an X100T. The X100T is my carry-everywhere camera. An LX-100 tempts me as a replacement for my old Powershot S90. But. If I HAD to choose a carry-with-me-everywhere camera, I'd stick with my X100T. YMMV.

The GX-7 is a great carry-everywhere camera if mated with the Panasonic 20/1.7 (or similar pancake lens, like the Oly 17/2.8). But if you use any non-pancake lens with it like the PL 25/1.4, or Olympus 25/1.8, it no longer is easily coat-pocketable. You get an MFT body and lenses if you want a smaller bag than a dSLR one, but not for carry-everywhere convenience. This you already figured out.

The LX-100 has the basic disadvantage (to me) of being based more on P&S technology than film camera tech. This is a personal taste matter. But you are talking about EVF or LCD composition. If you're used to dSLRs, this may or may not bother you. I'm personally fine with it with the GX-7, but I'm oldschool enough that I prefer an optical viewfinder. Refresh rates, color rendition, eye relief, etc. sometimes make an EVF an annoyance, despite the liveview advantages. If you want to shoot video, it's probably a hands-down winner, but that's never been one of my priorities.

Where the X100T really really shines (for me) is that hybrid viewfinder. YMMV. But I like that I can swap between OVF and EVF at need. And that the OVF is more rangefinder style than SLR style. Being able to see a wider FoV than your final frame has advantages when street shooting. The X100T is more limited in function for me, though--I tend to only use it for street/walkaround and social shooting. And because I am a woman with a purse, I also carry my Fuji Instax SP-1 with me, and it's hecka easier to use the SP-1 with my X100T than with my GX-7. But I've been surprised at the intense gratification that can come, while street shooting, of handing a stranger a print of themselves. Again, YMMV on the usefulness/advisability of doing this.

And then there's the Fuji X-Trans sensor and JPEG engine, which lends an indefinable something to the final images. Much as I love my GX-7, I sometimes struggle to get the colors right with it in post. I never have that issue with the Fuji files.

My personal recommendation would be to rent the cameras you're considering, or possibly just rent the X100T--it's a substantially different beast to shoot with from most other cameras because of the hybrid viewfinder and fixed lens. And experience with it will tend to polarize you one way or the other about it.

[jcuknz]

Donald .. you could find the new Panasonic GX8 with the short zoom or prime of your choice interesting. 20Mp and 4K


https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...s=Panasonic+GX

Amazon USA just offered them to me

edit
Just saw this review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...umix-dmc-lx100 maybe a bit big for your needs .

[ShaneS]

Donald, I too have been getting the itch for a small camera and had a friend recommend the Sony RX100 (original now selling for around $389USD not successive versions I, II, or III) as a good 'pocket' option. So after my brain going into shock mode at the technical knowledge of the members here I did a quick google search that compared the two cameras. Maybe this would add another wrinkle to you decision making or I really am in over my head technically

Here is the link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/came...nasonic/lx100/

If anyone has experience with the Sony I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that camera as well (please specify what version you have). I have read Dan's take on the ergonomics of the Sony being a negative for him but wonder if a woman with presumably smaller hands would have similar issues?

Thanks!

[DanK]

Shane,

I believe the RX100 I is the original. You need to get up to the III to get a built-in viewfinder. The ergonomics of the I, II, III, and IV, but other things changed as the introduced the newer models: the sensor, the lens, the EVF, and more.

There are lots of comparisons of the RX100 and LX100 on the web. Just google and you will find a bunch. I found them informative.

I have friend who has tiny hands and loves her RX100 I. However, the two differ in more than size. The LX100 has grips, and it is designed to make manual control easier than it is when you have to dig through menus. The latter doesn't matter to my friend, who doesn't generally want a lot of control, and it may not matter to you.

If you can, I really urge you to handle both. I dithered literally for months, but when I finally handled the LX100 (I had already played with the RX100), it was obvious within minutes which was right for me (which of course might not be the right decision for you), because the two are so different in design. If you don't know anyone with these cameras and, like me, don't want to go into a bricks and mortar store and then order on the internet, check with some local camera stores. Some will match the price of online authorized dealers (e.g., Adorama or B&H) on these cameras, presumably because they aren't generally discounted very much.

Dan

[ShaneS]

Thanks Dan! Good advice to go out and get my hands on the two. I know that Best Buy carries the Sony but not sure about the LX100 so I will check.