LX100 My History With Compact Cameras

The LX100 is more of a "close in" than a "close up" camera. But some subjects as here lend themselves to the close up treatment.

If memory serves  correctly my first compact was a Minolta which I bought in the 1960s. This was basically a Japanese copy of the famous Minox spy camera which used 9.2mm black and white film.

The Minolta was really a novelty due to the very small film size which meant picture quality was not wonderful.

Over the next few years I bought and used several film compacts, all taking 35mm film in cassettes.

The Olympus Mju-1 was indeed very compact and made reasonable but not wonderful pictures.

So did the little Ricoh GR with a 28mm lens which I found too wide for general photography.

Two Nikon film compacts passed through my hands. One was inexpensive and had a dreadful lens. I forget the model number. The other was a 28Ti with a 28mm lens of decent quality and quirky little analogue dials on top.  There must have been something wrong with it as it didn’t last long in my household.

The Contax T2 was wildly overpriced but it had a nice lens and was a very good all round performer. I took it on a hiking trip in Nepal as an adjunct to my “proper” camera kit which was a Canon SLR with three prime lenses. In retrospect I think I should have left the Canon gear at home as most of the memorable pictures from that trip came from the Contax as it was much easier to bring out and have ready for a shot.

Our families last film compact was a Pentax travel zoom. I took this on a hiking trip on the glaciers of far north Pakistan as an adjunct to my main camera which at the time was a Mamiya 7.  Again I think in retrospect I should have left the Mamiya at home as most of the memorable pictures came from the Pentax.

The digital era    My first ever digital camera was a Canon Powershot S70 compact with a clam shell design reminiscent of the Olympus Mju-1. The S-70 had various deficiencies but it did alert me to the possibilities of digital capture in a small package.

Then came a series of Canon Powershot G compacts. I think there was the G7, G9, G10, G12 and lastly the G16. For several years this series was the industry leader in compact technology, bringing good picture quality and moderately but not very compact size to the equation.  Unfortunately Canon lost the plot somewhere between the G12 and the G16.  The G12 needed a good quality built in EVF and a fully articulated monitor but the G15 then G16 provided neither of these things. I took a G16 as backup camera on a southern ocean cruise stopping at Macquarie Island. But I found it  almost impossible to use outdoors due to the lack of an EVF. The picture quality was quite good but not outstanding.

A family member came home one day with a Canon G1X (the first version).  Canon brought this thing to the market with great fanfare and extravagant claims of excellence. But it proved to be a most disappointing camera with slow performance, average picture quality and poor ergonomics. I saw it as yet another sign of Canon's decline from the top rank of camera makers.

I used a Samsung EX1 for a short time. This camera had some quite sophisticated features but one big failing. With subjects having high brightness range it would grossly overexpose leading to severely blown out highlights. 

I tried two compacts from Panasonic. First came the LX2 which was “interesting” with a native 16:9 aspect ratio and plenty of technical sophistication. But the JPGs were unimpressive and shot to shot time was 6 seconds with RAW capture. This was entirely unacceptable.

The LX5 was a much better performer in every way. It made very good photos in most conditions. But the lack of a built in EVF and rather fiddly rear control dial did not endear it to me.

The Fuji X10 was another “interesting” camera. Add “quirky” to that. It worked reasonably well  if you were prepared to leave it on one of the fully automatic JPG modes all the time.  But try to shoot RAW and the confusion mounted quickly.

On the specification list the Nikon Coolpix P7800 appeared to be almost the perfect advanced compact except it wasn’t all that……you know…..compact. But it had a built in EVF, an articulated monitor and a very nice lens with a useful zoom range. But I discovered it was  sloooooowwwww. Slow to start, slow to focus, slow to operate and exceptionally slow to recover after each shot. This was most frustrating especially as Nikon was simultaneously making DSLRs with very acceptably fast all round performance.  Do the Coolpix guys not talk to the DSLR guys ??? Lunch together ??? Share technology ???   Anything ??

The penultimate camera on this list is the Sony CyberShot RX100 (original version). There are two of these in our family so I have had plenty of opportunity to work with the camera. In many respects it and the subsequent Mk2 and Mk3 versions are the ultimate advanced compact cameras.  No other camera packs as much picture quality into such a small package. The photographer who must carry his or her camera in a pocket need look no further.

But I never pick up the RX100 and never feel as though I want to use it. The problem is ergonomic. The RX100 is so small it is difficult to hold and its controls are cramped. It is efficient and functional but not enjoyable to use.

What have I been seeking   with all these compact cameras ? 

Basically I guess I want exactly the same thing as many other enthusiast photographers. This is big camera picture quality in a small camera package.

The Sony RX100  does deliver this but I don’t enjoy the process of using that camera.

And so we come to the Panasonic LX100.

Does this tick all the boxes for me in real world use ?

In a word, yes. Well, almost all of them.  It’s not perfect and I will have much to say about this in subsequent posts over the next few months. But none of the imperfections (as I see them anyway) is a deal breaker and it comes closer than any previous compact to meeting all my requirements.

It is compact but not too small, so I can hold and operate it properly. It has excellent focus and operating performance. It makes high quality pictures in a wide variety of conditions, indoors or outdoors. It has a good quality EVF always at the ready, so I can use it easily in Australia’s bright, hard sunlight.

It’s a keeper. 

LX100 Best Exposure Mode ?

The LX100 is a good street camera. 

My other camera is a Panasonic FZ1000. I never use this in P (Program Exposure) Mode because the Program Exposure algorithms result in some combinations of aperture, shutter speed and ISO which don’t work for me. So with the FZ1000 I generally use A (Aperture Priority) Mode at the wide end of the lens zoom range and S (Shutter Priority) or M (Manual) Mode at the long end to ensure an adequately fast shutter speed to prevent blur from camera shake.

The LX100 is different 

First, there is no really long end to the zoom range so camera shake is a less pressing issue.

Second, the camera uses different and more appropriate Program Mode algorithms. With Auto ISO These deliver a combination of ISO, shutter speed and aperture which I find very close to optimal in most situations.

So I use Program Auto Exposure Mode   with Auto ISO and Multi Metering almost all the time for general hand held photography with the LX100.  This is set when the Aperture ring and Shutter Speed Dial are both at the red [A] position.

Outdoors  as brightness increases the camera will set ISO 200, a shutter speed of 1/125 and increase the f stop to f5.6. If brightness increases further the camera will hold f5.6 and increase shutter speed.

This behaviour gives good results in a wide variety of outdoor situations. I am finding I rarely need to intervene but should I want to alter the aperture for a specific reason such as wanting less depth of focus for a portrait I am finding it is easier to do this with Program Shift using the rear Control Dial than switching to Aperture Priority with the Aperture ring on the lens.

Indoors  As light levels decrease the camera will open the aperture to the widest available for the focal length in use then reduce the shutter speed to 1/60 (wide) or 1/125 (long) then increase the ISO to 1600.  This sequence covers most indoor photographic situations in my experience.  The lens works well at its widest aperture at all focal lengths. A good balance of aperture, shutter speed and ISO is achieved.

In darker conditions the camera holds ISO at 1600 and lowers shutter speed to about 1/8 second.  It will not increase ISO above 1600 until the shutter speed would otherwise fall below about 1/8 second.  This is the only time I have a problem with the Program Mode algorithms.  The camera has good OIS and with good technique can be hand held at 1/8 second with reasonable success but human and animal subjects move about and will be blurred at this shutter speed.  Program Shift is not useful in this situation which can be managed by either:

* Manually increasing ISO until shutter speed comes up to an acceptable level.  I have enabled this by assigning ISO to the lens Control Ring.  I find this the most straightforward way of working as the ring can be operated with one finger of the left hand.  When looking through the viewfinder I generally use the “left hand over” (the lens) position as I find this more stable and comfortable than “left hand under”.  In this position the Control Ring falls naturally under the middle finger of the left hand.

* Setting Shutter Priority by moving the Shutter Speed Dial.  This requires more movements each more complex. Some LX100 users might think they can operate the Shutter Speed Dial with either the right index finger or the right thumb but I find that for consistency both fingers are required. This in turn disrupts grip with the right hand. This is not a big deal but does slow proceedings a bit. 

* Using the flash.  Oh……..Right………….there is no flash.  Wait a minute, yes there is a flash unit but it’s  separate and a nuisance to carry about and by the time it has been retrieved from its bag or wherever and slotted into the hotshoe the subject has probably wandered away and the photo op has been lost.   Anyway, I hate the look of direct, on camera flash photos so I leave the flash at home all the time.

LX100-vs-FZ1000 High ISO Comparison

LX100 Hand held, Program AE Mode, Auto ISO. 1/125 sec, f5, ISO 200.  RAW capture.

Some surprises here

When a new camera  arrives in my house I always want to compare it with any other camera available.  This set up a comparison between the LX100 (the new) and the FZ1000 (the not-very-old).

Published image quality tests such as those on Digital Photography Review indicate that the high ISO noise performance of the LX100 is about half a stop better than the Sony RX100(3) which uses the same sensor as the Panasonic FZ1000.  DPR uses certain test conditions and Raw Converter settings and I have no doubt their results are valid for those conditions and settings.

But I use a less “technical” and  more “real world” approach.

I photograph a set of books on shelves at each available ISO setting with each camera, each using the same aperture and equivalent focal length. I use AF, tripod, timer delay.

I then view the files after conversion in Adobe Camera Raw at default settings, whatever these may be. I do this because that is my normal work flow. I open the files in Photoshop and compare them, first at the default ACR settings then after tweaking the sliders in ACR until I have achieved what I consider to be a “best result”.  Again, this is my normal work flow so this approach is most relevant for me.

In a separate test I also photographed my standard test chart with each camera to evaluate resolution.

Expectations  The LX100 uses a larger sensor with less pixels than the FZ1000.

The table shows the actual figures:

Camera	Sensor effective diagonal (mm)	Sensor effective pixels (millions)	Crop Factor
Panasonic LX100	19.4	12	2.2
Panasonic FZ1000	15.9	20	2.7

Notes:  The LX100 uses a cropped 4/3 sensor providing a user selectable variable aspect ratio. 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 each have a diagonal of approximately 19.4mm. 

The pixel count on the LX100 varies with aspect ratio but averages about 12Mpx.

I would expect the LX100 to have convincingly less noise at high ISO settings than the FZ100.

I would expect the FZ1000 to have convincingly more resolution and sharpness than the LX100 especially at low ISO settings.

* When viewing files side by side in Photoshop I reduced the size of the FZ1000 files on screen to match those of the LX100.

LX100 at ISO 6400, from RAW original

FZ1000 at ISO 6400 from RAW original

Findings  Somewhat to my surprise, I found only one of those expectations was confirmed.

As expected:  

* The FZ1000 did produce higher resolution of fine details on the test chart at low ISO settings. By the way, this benefit is difficult to see in real world photographs even with subjects containing much fine detail.

Unexpected:

*  The high ISO files from the LX100 were slightly sharper at default ACR settings.

 So I slightly sharpened those from the FZ1000 to match the LX100.

* After doing so I found the luminance noise levels, sharpness and color  rendition  at each ISO setting up to 6400 to be identical.

* At ISO 12800 the FZ1000 developed false colors with excess magenta in the dark tones and green in the light tones. The FZ1000 files were also slightly less sharp even with extra sharpening applied. Luminance noise levels were the same.

Conclusion  Contrary to expectations I found the sensor in the LX100 provides no high ISO advantage over that in the FZ1000  up to and including ISO 6400.

The only advantage gained by the LX100 over the FZ1000 in low light is provided by the lens which allows a larger maximum aperture (smaller f stop) at comparable Equivalent (to full frame, 24x36mm sensor) focal lengths . This in turn allows a lower ISO setting to be used.

The table shows the actual aperture for each E Focal Length and advantage to the LX100 in EV steps:

Equivalent Focal Length Emm	24	25	28	35	50	75
LX100	1.7	1.8	2.1	2.3	2.7	2.8
FZ1000	N/A	2.8	2.9	3.1	3.3	3.7
Advantage to LX100 (EV) Approximate	N/A	1.3	1.0	0.7	0.7	0.8

Discussion  

For low light hand held work with no flash the LX100 does have a modest advantage over the FZ100 due to the wider aperture lens. Both cameras have fast, generally reliable single shot AF and both are very responsive with fast operation.

I have not had the opportunity to test the Sony RX100(3) but this camera uses the same sensor as the FZ1000 and has a lens with equivalent focal length and aperture very similar to the LX100. So I would expect the RX100(3) to have very similar high ISO performance to the LX100.

In previous testing I found that the Panasonic GH4 has a high ISO advantage of about 0.6 stops over the FZ1000.

So it would appear that the LX100 has gotten Panasonic’s second rank sensor, which is frankly a bit disappointing.

It would also appear that Sony is well ahead of the competition when we look at the relationship between sensor size and high ISO performance.

All this leaves me wondering why Panasonic elected not to use the Sony 15.9mm sensor in the LX100. Had they done so they could have given the lens an even wider aperture and/or longer focal length range resulting in a super category killer product.

Had Panasonic used their top rank sensor the LX100 would presumably have had better high ISO performance.

In either case it looks like an opportunity missed, it seems to me.

  

LX100 The World at f1.7

This location has plenty to test any camera. High subject brightness range, mixed light sources, constant human traffic and lots of detail. LX100, handheld, P Mode, Auto ISO, f1.7. One of several frames I made in a few seconds, each separately (auto) focussed.

It is early days in my time with the LX100   but already I am discovering that the best setting for general handheld photography is [A-A] (a.k.a. [Program]) Auto Exposure Mode with Auto ISO. 

Indoors the camera will often select f1.7 at the wide end of the zoom range.

Here are two photos demonstrating that picture quality at f1.7 is very good and depth of field is fully adequate for the subject in each case.  That does not mean everything is in focus but neither does it need to be.

The implication of this is that is the camera wants to use f1.7, let it do so, the results are just fine.

These photos are taken from RAW but the concurrent JPGs are almost as good. 

Underground railway. LX100, handheld, AF, P Mode, auto ISO, f1.7. The people moving are blurred but the still parts of the subject are sharp.  The notice on the blue support post at 7 o'clock from the round #3 platform numeral reads:   "To help with trains departing on time doors may close 20 seconds prior to leaving".  This level of detail won't survive compression for the net but it is there in the original.

LX100 Mega Pixels Ain't Everything (and 12 is plenty)

This is the full frame from the LX100

I have been comparing  results from my newly acquired LX100 with those from the FZ1000.  The LX100 has about 12 megapixels (depending on the selected aspect ratio) the FZ1000 has 20. You might expect the FZ1000 to have markedly superior imaging resolution to the LX100.

Indeed I have found that when the two are compared using my usual test chart which includes a lot of fine printing, the FZ1000 does out resolve the LX100. The difference between them is not great but it is definitely there.

If one were to dedicate oneself to photographing test charts no further enquiry would be required.

But out in the wide world I have found the LX100 makes sharp, clear pictures with very good rendition of fine subject details and textures.

The flowers shown in this post are growing on a tree in my garden. I have found in the past that they are a good test of the ability of a camera/lens/sensor/processor system to resolve fine subject details especially at the lighter end of the brightness spectrum. Some cameras just can’t render the little flowers clearly even though on paper they should have excellent resolution.

So I photographed them today with each camera at f4, hand held, RAW and adjusted the RAW files slightly in ACR applying a little sharpening and highlight reduction. The adjustments were not exactly the same for each as the originals have a slightly different histogram.

My impression is that:

* There is not much difference between the two.

* To my eyes the LX100 rendition provides slightly better definition of the flowers even when the two files are adjusted to be the same size.

* The background is sharper (less out of focus) in the FZ1000 version due to the smaller sensor.

 LX100 crop from the center

FZ1000 crop from the center

FZ1000 A Week Away

Motorway

I took the FZ1000 away for a week recently. As usual I found it to be very versatile, allowing me to

 photograph in a wide variety of circumstances with no need to change lenses and no need for extra equipment.

That should confuse them

Eastern Yellow Robin, rainforest, South East Queensland
These little birds flit about at high speed, perching for only a second or two at a time.  Responsive operation and fast AF allowed me to get the shot even in low light. This has been heavily cropped.

This juvenile regent bower bird is apparently getting in some early bower building practice. He was happily working only 4 meters from the pathway for humans through the rainforest. The shot was difficult with low light and much foliage between the bird and camera. I used the smallest size AF box to focus on the bird not the clutter.