I Got Myself A Panasonic Lumix LX100

If any of you remembered the post I did not too long ago about the three cameras that I was lusting for (read here if you have not done so), in the list there was a Panasonic Lumix LX100. The idea of owning a compact camera with a Micro Four Thirds sized image sensor and bright zoom lens was quite an attractive one, held back only by the hefty price tag, which I could not justify spending on. Honestly, I would think that an Olympus E-M10 Mark II, priced about the same though with a slower aperture zoom lens is a much better deal and overall more feature-packed package. Nonetheless, I found a used Panasonic LX100 with a bargain I cannot refuse, hence I thought to myself, since Christmas and my birthday are coming soon, I deserve to reward myself with something nice. Something like a camera that I have lusted for all this time. Yes, alright I admit it, it was all GAS but I am human too. Cut me some slack.

Panasonic LX100, while not a small camera, is still quite compact in overall form factor. 

I am not a huge fan of all the manual dials and controls (no thanks to Fuji) but I guess it is something I have to live with. 

Being a camera that I would use often, I expected it to be of some heft with substantial hand-gripping area. Panasonic LX100 accomplished just that. 


I am not going to write a review for this Panasonic LX100, since it is not exactly a new product, and there are many available reviews out there already. Now this is where the Panasonic LX100 gets interesting. DPReview posted a glowingly positive review of Panasonic LX100 at an 85% rating and acquired the prestigious GOLD award. In contradiction to that, Steve Huff was not too happy with the LX100, and refused to post his review of the camera, something you do not find Steve to do often unless the camera is, well, really not something review-worthy. 

This has become quite a paradox, you see, because DPReview is strictly technical review site and the judgment of cameras are often quantified by actual test results that are measured in meaningful numbers and charts and they can be quite unforgiving if there is something wrong or inadequate in their test results. On the other hand, Steve Huff, like myself takes a more enthusiastic review by real world examples of what the camera can do, and we present more subjective reviews based on our own experience using the camera we are reviewing. There really is nothing much negative to write about cameras, and it was surprising that Steve decided to dismiss the LX100. This contradiction was enough to drive me curious and it was about time I tried this Panasonic LX100 myself and see what the fuss is all about. 


Buying into the camera after my own online research (yes, I do read everyone else's reviews), I decided to purchase the Panasonic LX100 on the following grounds:
1) It is a compact camera, but with Micro Four Thirds sizes sensor, hence image quality wise I can expect it to be on par with my current Olympus system
2) 24-75mm F1.7 to F2.8 lens. Imagine now I have a 24mm F1.7 wide angle lens! And it has image stabilization built in, which is an added bonus. I expect the lens to have decent sharpness and overall good rendering. 
3) 4K video shooting capability, which was well implemented based on the few reviews I have read
4) Fast Autofocus since I intend to use this for street photography
5) Good straight out of camera JPEG

F1.7, 1/250mm, ISO400

F2.3, 1/500sec, ISO500

F2.8, 1/500sec, ISO200

F2.6, 1/80sec, ISO400

F2.8, 1/800, ISO640

F2.8, 1/100sec, ISO400

F2.8, 1/500sec, ISO200

100% crop from previous image

F4.5, 1/800sec, ISO200

F5.6, 1/1000sec, ISO200

F3.2, 1/200sec, ISO200

F5.6, 1/125sec, ISO100

F4, 1/100sec, ISO200

After spending a few days shooting with the Panasonic LX100, to my surprise, I find myself agreeing to mostly what Steve Huff has said in his blog post about the camera. 

There was just something that did not feel right with the camera. I could not fully explain it, but I shall try my best. 

If you strictly look at the specifications and judge the camera alone with the technical sheet, the Panasonic LX100 is one heck of a camera. It trumps all other compact competition (except the size and weight part of course) from similar offerings by Sony (RX100 series) and Canon (G7x, G1x) by having a significantly larger image sensor and equally bright lens to match. In addition to that, the LX100 has super high resolution electronic viewfinder, 4K video shooting, optical image stabilization that works both for stills and video and the super retro-look which was quite obviously stolen from Fujifilm X-series camera implementation of multiple dials and manual controls carelessly placed all over the camera body, which many people like somehow. Everything on the LX100 seemed just right, and that was no wonder that it won a Gold Award in DPReview. 

However, the truth that many people have ignored is that you cannot judge a camera merely by looking at specifications. It is not how large the image sensor is, how high ISO you can go or how much dynamic range you can get in an image. Most of the times, the experience of using the camera matters the most. 

The question I often ask myself: Do I enjoy using the camera?

Strangely, for the Panasonic LX100, the answer is not an easy yes. There are many reservations and I am going through them in this blog entry. 


If you have been shooting JPEG with the LX100, do yourself a favor, start shooting RAW, and you will never look back. 

The images in this entry look ok, because they were processed from RAW in Capture One software. I shot both RAW and JPEG in LX100. When I was shooting on location with the LX100, the preview on the camera screen showed unimpressive, soft and often flat looking images. There was no wow factor as I immediately previewed my shots and they sometimes looked as if the images were out of focus. I immediately thought perhaps the lens was not as sharp as I thought it was (we shall discuss the lens separately) so I just continued shooting so I could inspect the images in my computer LCD screen later. 

Much to my dismay the straight out of camera JPEG was so poor, I did not believe my eyes. At lower ISO settings (with noise reduction set to minimum setting of minus 5) the fine details were mushy and not crisp like what I used to get from Olympus cameras. At high ISO, the noise reduction applied were so strong that all the useful fine details were completely destroyed, at the expense of having more noise suppression. I understand that it is not right to expect Olympus level of JPEG quality, but if you guys remember I used to own a Panasonic GM1, and the JPEG output from GM1 was a lot more appealing to me than what I am seeing from the LX100. There is a big difference!

This point alone made me realize that Steve Huff was right, the experience while shooting with the LX100 was not so great especially when you do not get that "wow" or image "pop" as you nail your shots. At first I thought it was the LCD screen's fault but honestly after reviewing the JPEG images, it was just the poor JPEG engine in the LX100. 

Therefore, I painstakingly processed the images in RAW one by one for this blog entry. The RAW images behaved just as I have expected the RAW images from a Micro Four Thirds sensor, resolving plenty of useful fine detail, looking sharp and having decent control of noise when shooting in dim lighting conditions. In fact, I would say the properly processed RAW files were looking very pleasing, and I was quite happy with what I saw coming out from the LX100. 

Important note guys, do not shoot JPEG with the Panasonic LX100. If you want anything good out of the camera, RAW is the only way to go, Be prepared to spend some time in post-processing. I used Capture One to process the LX100's RAW files. 

F4, 1/100sec, ISO200

F3.2, 1/80sec, ISO250
Close up shooting at telephoto end of 75mm

F5.6, 1/15sec, ISO200
Macro mode at 24mm wide angle, closest focusing distance. 
As you can see the macro image is not so sharp, even stopping down the aperture from F1.7 to F5.6. 

From here onward, it is a series of high ISO tests. I know this is a typical setup, and I have yet to test the Panasonic LX100 in real low light shooting situation. The following images are 100% crop of the similar scene but with varying high ISO settings. 





This, this is also ISO6400, but straight out of camera JPEG. 
You may scroll up and compare against the ISO6400 RAW processed image before this. The difference is HUGE. I think the Panasonic LX100's JPEG is quite bad. 

This ISO12800 is a RAW processed image, and honestly it looks much better than the previous ISO6400 JPEG straight out of camera image!


Besides having a large Micro Four Thirds sized image sensor in a compact camera body, it was impressive that Panasonic managed to squeeze a matching size of a zoom lens which was super bright in aperture, ranging from F1.7 to F2.8. I have never owned a bright aperture wide angle lens, hence having an LX100 was a smart choice, since I not only got myself a 24mm f1,7 lens, I got myself a whole new camera that came along with that! 

The overall lens sharpness is quite good. I am talking about kit lens level of good, in comparison to Olympus 14-42mm kit lenses, I'd think the sharpness on the Panasonic's lens on LX100 is on par. However to achieve similar sharpness you do need to stop down a little bit (recommended optimum sharpness at F2.8 at wide angle and F3.5 at telephoto end). Shooting at wide open is a bit soft, but that is ok, because it is a rather compact lens, designed for smaller size hence there should be some compromise in overall image sharpness. 

I particularly like the rendering of the lens, since it is not critically sharp like all the prime lenses that I am using all the time, there is that smooth, rounded quality to the images. 

However, I cannot say the same about the close up shooting. While at the Macro Mode, the Panasonic LX100 allows the lens to go super close to the subject (3cm at wide angle), the image comes out soft. Maybe it was too much to expect the lens to be sharp for macro shots, but then again this is the same characteristics for most built in zoom lenses in compact cameras. Stopping down the aperture did not help much either in this case. 


Being a Micro Four Thirds camera, I expected the high ISO performance to be similar to the previous Panasonic camera I have owned, the GM1. Indeed the performance was on par, and there was obviously no miracles here. Since I have commented on the JPEG quality being unacceptably bad, I highly recommend processing RAW images and by doing so you will have some flexibility in recovering details and suppressing noise as you edit the images. To my own personal limit, I would not go higher than ISO1600 for anything serious in photography, and will not hesitate to stretch to ISO3200 for my street shooting and personal photographs. 


I have voiced my dislike with the manual dials and controls (I even said so in my original Olympus PEN-F review) and I feel that it is a step backward from the advancement in modern digital camera. 

I understand the appeal and why many would love to have manual controls, especially being popularized by Fujifilm and the retro-classic looking cameras they are making. I am a practical photographer, I would like to reach my controls and settings quickly, thus placing the controls all over the camera body and lenses do not fit into my requirements. There are just too many dials and controls and they do get cumbersome to operate when you need to set things quickly. I would think that the modern twin dials approach on professional DSLR works efficiently and I do not want to have an alternative to that especially when it comes to shooting something serious. 

Why would I want to sacrifice functionality over a classic look?

I'd take a camera that works more efficiently, camera manufacturers should just stick to the practical front and back control dials near the shutter button design. 

Overall camera handling is very good. I think the not too small form factor helped, with substantial hand gripping area for comfortable camera holding. The camera felt sturdy and reassuring as I was shooting with it on the streets. This was one huge improvement over the previous Panasonic GM1 that I used to own, while I love it being so tiny, it was just not practical and definitely not comfortable to hold for long hour shooting. 

F2.8, 1/160sec, ISO200

F2.8, 1/100sec, ISO200

F2.8, 1/1600sec, ISO1600

F4, 1/100sec, ISO200

F2.8, 1/125sec, ISO200

100% crop from previous image

F2.8, 1/200sec, ISO200

F5.6, 1/160sec, ISO200

F2.8, 1/200sec, ISO200

F4.5, 1/400sec, ISO200

F4, 1/80sec, ISO200

Special thanks to JiaYeen for the impromptu portrait shooting session!
Do check out her blog here (she is a Panasonic Lumix user)


The battery life on the Panasonic LX100 is not stellar, but a single charge can get me about 300 over shots, with plenty of chimping in between shots. I would definitely recommend a spare battery if you need the camera to get through a full day shoot, depending on your style of photography, you might even need two batteries. 

The electronic viewfinder was pleasant to work with, it was huge and generally bright and easy to compose with. There is one problem, which is common in most cameras with electronic viewfinders, the color balance on the EVF is not the same with the LCD back screen of the camera. It can be difficult to judge white balance on the spot, but that should not be an issue if you shoot RAW, and I strongly recommend that you do. 

Autofocus was quick and accurate and I have no issues with getting the shots quickly on the street. The speed was not on the same level as the Panasonic GM1 I have used previously, but good enough for general shooting. If you are thinking of shooting sports (not sure why but just in case if you do) you may struggle in locking focus fast enough in fast action shots. 

I really do wish Panasonic has included a tilt screen and touch screen function in the Panasonic LX100. Considering I intend to use LX100 as my street photography tool, having tiltable screen for low angle perspective and touch screen to change the focusing point quickly can make a world of difference. 

I have not shot in superbly dim lighting condition, and I have not tested the 4K video of the camera, which I believe the Panasonic LX100 will do well in both situations. 


I do genuinely think that the Panasonic LX100 is a capable, versatile photography tool. It is an ambitious camera that does tick all the right boxes of what makes a great compact camera, but to me personally it also falls short in a few areas. Having a Micro Four Thirds image sensor, boosted with fast aperture lens ensure high quality image output which was a Godsent especially working with such a compact form camera. However, since it is still a compact camera I wish the straight out of camera JPEG could be better, at least usable without resorting to spending extra time in RAW post-processing. The lens on the LX100 itself is not super sharp like all the other lenses I have worked with (not something I want to expect from a small sized camera with small lenses that match) but in all honesty I am quite happy seeing what the lens renders. The images have a pleasing look and smooth quality which is just nice for street photography and some portrait work. 

F2.8, 1/100sec, ISO200

I think it is still too early to decide if I really do like the Panasonic LX100. For sure, I do not hate it, and unexpectedly it was not the love at first sight. I did have high hopes when I decided to get the LX100 and perhaps my expectations were set too high for this camera. 

This scenario serves as a good reminder that we should not judge a camera solely based on technical specifications. User experience is an important factor that cannot be measured by graphs and charts, and can only be validated in actual real life shooting sessions. 

While it may be premature to make any conclusions, I do need to spend more time with the Panasonic LX100. I need to understand it better and surely in time I will be able to operate more efficiently with it. So far, looking at the RAW files I have processed I strongly believe I can make the camera work as an everyday carry around camera, as well as for my shutter therapy sessions. 

Any Panasonic Lumix LX100 users? Share your thoughts!

Panasonic Lumix LX100 is available from B&H here


  1. I have one, and still have to use it more properly.

    I've got one for two reasons: to use the video features (I shoot a lot of live concerts, and generally the focal lenghts are inside the range of the LX100 lens - and is much better to have one body for stills and other for video) and because, for the price, is a wide aperture zoom lens that comes with a camera attached as bonus. :)

    You're absolutely right saying that the JPG engine is junk - don't know what the hell Panasonic did there, since the JPG engine of their other m4/3 cameras is good (not the best colors, but with very good details). Don't have problems with the dials for stills, but for video is somewhat a pain. The lens is really not the sharpest (the impression is augmented in the first impressions by the horrible jpg engine), but is good enough and the wide aperture is a blessing in low light - and other compact cameras with compact lenses are not the sharpest too (I have a Fuji X100s too, and its lens in f/2 is VERY soft, much more than the LX100's in f/1.7 - improves a lot in f/2.8).

    But probably is a camera that I will keep for a long time - as I said, is a good priced lens with a camera attached as bonus. I think it is a handsome camera; not the best but good enough both for stills and video (it's video is VERY good), hence it is very versatile. And thinking for a while to be my all day bag camera (the role of my X100s today) because of this versatility - will try to use it more seriously for stills to examine this possibility.

    1. Hey Marcio,
      I am glad I am not the only one thinking the JPEG output is bad.
      I have good expectations on the video and I cannot wait to test it out in a local band show soon. The 4K recording is a bonus and the lens stabilization is also a good thing.
      I agree that the larger than usual compact camera sensor size and large aperture lens combination is a great thing to have! I shall be exploring the LX100 more.

    2. LX100 video is very good - the stabilization works well also in video, just don't expect Olympus level of stabilization. :)

    3. Can't wait to test it out when I do get the chance!

  2. Nice to hear your thoughts Robin! When I was debating Panny 12-35/Oly 12-40, I came across the LX100. Getting a whole camera with a brighter lens (but more crop) for less than either of the M43 zooms seemed appealing. For better or worse, I bought the 12-35 but it's never been clear in my mind which was the winner. The 12-35 sits at home more than I expected mainly because of it's size and weight. I've wondered if the LX100 would get more use for recreational shooting. I didn't know the jpg's were so bad. For a lot of casual shooting, I'm often to lazy to work from raw even though I capture them. So your's and Marcio's comments are appreciated and I can leave my thought about the LX100 behind. I guess for my casual, outdoor work the 12-32 compact lens will continue to see most of the action.

    1. I think it is a great decision to get either a 12-35mm or 12-40mm, both are excellent and can deliver wonderful results. and you are so right when it comes to compact factor the 12-32mm pancake is an awesome choice. Seems like you have the right decisions to make them work for you.

  3. My main camera is an OM-D EM-10 Mark II (which is fantastic) but I'm considering getting a 2nd camera with manual controls just for fun (I love manual controls).
    However, after reading this, I'll go with a Fuji X100, which I've used before and enjoyed.

    Thanks for this!

    1. Fuji X100 has a fun factor to it, and I really do enjoy shooting with it. Something which I do not get instantly from the Panasonic LX100. Though I think it takes time to warm up to the Panasonic.

  4. Thanks Robin for rhis balanced review. This basically means we need 2 types so such enthusiast M43/Aps-C/FF cameras: bright zooms with unavoidable quality compromises; and fixed lens primes such as X100, GR and Q that go for top sharpness in small packages. Olympus would be most welcome to join, especially for a fixed prime M43... as per previous post. Meanwhile thoroughly enjoying my new Olympus 12-100 f4...
    Best wishes Vincent

    1. You have got yourself the new 12-100mm? Wow that is fast! I am sure you will find the lens to be a wonderful lens to work with.

  5. Hi Robin

    Hope you're doing well. The long time between the updates worried me a bit after hearing you felt out of power. Anyway, good to hear from you again!
    Also nice pics, despite some quirks with the LX100. And thanks for your thoughts. I was thinking about recommending this camera to a friend, because of m43 experience with Panasonic. Good you wrote before that!


    1. Hey Andreas, apologies for disappearing without any mention. Life has been incredibly busy after the official launch of the E-M1 Mark II and we at Olympus Malaysia had non-stop consumer events all over Malaysia and I was at every single one of them. No time to shoot means I do not have fresh photos which I could use for this blog! But I am back and I am now shooting more for a few more updates before the year 2016 ends.

    2. Hi Robin!
      No apologies necessary. I perfectly understand that you can`t live several lives at once and stay sane.

      Take care for yourself, and when you feel ready to blog we'll appreciate your beautiful photgraphies ;)

  6. I think as you mentioned, if your primarily a Raw shooter (which I am) then the LX100 is an excellent camera with a lot of high end specs. The newer Panasonic cameras (GX80 and G80) process jpg's much better than the LX100 but of course are also bigger. I think anyone looking for a second camera that's small, light and fairly compact and would like a fast lens then it's still an excellent choice as long as your prepared to shoot Raw.

    1. I just do not understand why Panasonic did not just use a similar JPEG processing in LX100. Does it not deserve the same level of image quality like their other Micro Four Thirds cameras?

  7. Thanks as always for such a balanced review. By the way, I see the camera has the auto lens cap accessory. Did you like having that feature on the lens?

    1. I did not exactly have a choice with the auto lens cap. The original owner (which I bought the camera from) lost the lens cap and he replaced it with an auto cap. I have no issues with it so far.

    2. I've bought the auto lens cap for my LX100. Takes away some of the beauty of the camera, but it is extremely useful - the front element of the lens is very close to the lens barrel border, and it is very prone to get dirty by hand grease. You could put an UV filter (the lens accept a screw filter), but the smudge problem will persist.

      But the Panasonic cap is somewhat expensive - get the JJC auto lens cap (it is the one that I have), it works very well and is much cheaper.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. The GM1 was too small, so you got the LX100? Hope it's enjoyable.

    1. I have sold off the GM1 to fund for the E-P5. If the LX100 is good enough, I might sell off the E-P5.

    2. I really like the GM5 when I need light gear. I have a bag for it and the 15mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7, the kit zoom, and either an Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 or 8mm fisheye f/1.8. Unfortunately, there is no room in the bag for the Manfrotto Pixi tripod.

      It's interesting being out with such small equipment. No one perceives a threat--they just think it's cute.

  10. Robin, great review on the LX100. I bought the Leica D-Lux when they both just launched. The Leica has much better JPEG engine. It is worth checking out on the second hand market, which is now cheaper than the LX100 bought new. The only down side for me is the menu, which is horrible in use, otherwise a good 2nd camera accompanying Oly. Strength of D-LUX are 4K video, compact with good zoom range for travel photography.

    1. Hey Shaun this was not really a review, more like my thoughts on the Panasonic LX100.
      I would think the Leica version has much better JPEG engine!

    2. So much for putting the LX100 behind me. Spent the afternoon looking for side by side comparisons between the LX100 and D-Lux. Haven't found anything conclusive that the image engines are much different or similar. Be nice to know.

  11. Hello Robin,
    interesting thoughts on the LX100. And I can understand them. But for me it was totally different. When it was released, I went to a local store that had the camera and I fell instantly in love with it. I did not plan to buy it, but then I went home with it. Maybe because I just started a new job :). I love the manual dials. And I think it has the optimal form factor for my hands meaning the best compromise between size/grip area. Just like the GX-7 for interchangeable lens (So sad the GX-8 is much larger).
    I also was very disappointed with the jpgs. But at that time I thought it is a Panasonic problem because I only had Olympus cameras. No fine detail, a strange purple color cast to the red tones...
    But I always shoot raw with the smallest jpg available just for a quick preview. But then I was super disappointed with the software that came with the LX100. I have an E-M5 and the Olympus Viewer, while very slow, it delivers really good quality jpgs. With the Silkypics or what it was I just could not get any decent results. I tried different opensource software for linux but since the LX100 was brand new, it was not supported. It worked partly with some but the colors did not turn out right. Luckily I was still enrolled in the university so I could get a student license for Lightroom for 30€. With that the LX100 pictures turned out great. Btw. now the LX100 is perfectly supported by the opensource tools. And I can really recommend darktable.
    I really like how the lens renders. It has the Leica look and I really like the bokeh. I never thought that was possible for a Zoom lens. It is not super sharp in the corners but that is OK. If I need critical sharpness I have the 12-40 or prime lenses. But I can see myself often just taking the LX100 because it is so small and light and the pictures turn out that good anyway.
    About the video. It is really good quality. Especially in 4K. Unfortunaly the stabilisation is not as good as in my E-M5. And that is so stupid, you can either have good stabilisation or good video -.- (Maybe the E-M1 II changes that)
    But there are some things about the camera that I don't like. There is no mic in and I don't like the internal microphone. Of course you could get an external audio recorder and stitch it in post, but that is extra work.
    The Lens sticks out quite a lot when turned off. This makes the camera quite large but I guess there is no way around it with a lens like that for a sensor this size.
    No touchscreen. What where they thinking?!
    I mean seriously, especially since Panasonic is using them much better then Olympus anyway. My guess is, that the camera was already quite expensive and they thought no one would buy it if it is even more expensive?
    Lens speed when turning on. It takes quite a while before it is ready to shoot.
    But all in all it is a really small power package. I think the only camera comparable is the Canon GX1 and the lens should be even less sharp. But it has a flip touchscreen.

    1. Thanks for your input Mr Chainsaw (wow, what a nickname!)
      I agree with you, now that I am shooting more and more on the streets with the LX100, it is getting annoying without the flip screen and touch screen, I just felt that I have over-relied on these two features that I do need them more than ever now. The get-around was that I used the electronic viewfinder more, and that EVF was quite a good one, large and clear.
      I am ok with the lens being not as sharp as Olympus usual lenses, since they were designed to be small and to fit into a compact form camera. Being what it is, with generous aperture of F1.7 at wide angle, it is a huge welcome. As you have mentioned, for critical sharpness I do have my Olympus lenses and cameras.
      I'd take the Panasonic over the Canon anytime! Yes, you are right about the Leica rendering. as I have mentioned while I did not find the lens to be sharp, it is sufficient and does have a pleasing, smooth, nice look to it.

  12. I own an LX100 for a few years now. Mainly because I want to have a camera like that along with my Nikon D600 and some MFT bodies like E-M5 and my recently bought G80 that will probably replace my E-M10mk2. I really want to like that camera and I have no problem with the jpeg quality because I do RAW shooting most of the time. The main problem that makes me still doubt wether to keep the LX100 in my collection is the fact that I have a lot of trouble with the viewfinder that I do not have with all my other camera's. I am wearing spectacles and for me it is almost impossible to judge if things are in focus using that viewfinder. I tell my self "use the back panel LCD, but I am so used to using viewfinders, that I simply forget about that in practice. This is probably also caused by the fact that the LCD is fixed and is not of the touch type. I am curious to know how your experience will be in the long run.

    1. Hey fotobram,
      Thanks for the input! I did notice that the diopter adjustments for the electronic viewfinder was quite limited in range. I have dialed in to compensate on a maximum capacity and that was strange because in Olympus cameras I rarely did need to compensate that much for my eyes (I am wearing spectacles too). However, at this moment I am still quite ok using the LX100, for me it is easier to just the in focus through the EVF than the back screen!

  13. Robin, i have the Leica 109 for the very reason that the LX failed, the JPEG's, but you do have to use Lightroom to get the best. Enjoy the LX, it will grow on you.

    1. Thanks for the feedback! I am not using Lightroom. For my photos from the LX100, I currently use Capture One for RAW processing.

    2. Try DxO Photolab. It's way better than C1, specially with the DxO optical module for the LX100.

  14. Great photo of the building with the blue door and windows. I wouldn't swap my OMD EM10 but the LX looks great:)

  15. thanks !

    On my side, and from others pictures only (not direct experience), i find the lens VERY sensible to flare. Making it almost unusable outside (to my taste).
    Outdoor shots, middle of the day, are almost all "washed out", no contrast and such. Not only direct sun, but anything reflective (white wall...).

    On the other side, i think i'm spoiled by my usual suspect combination : Pana 20mm f1.7 mk1 on E-M1 :D
    Olympus done some magic "film-like" on the highlights (rolled off, soft clipping) on O-MDs (not regular PEN).
    When you combine this with the amazing 20mm f1.7 (flare resistant enough, to my taste), it is a pleasure to shoot AGAINST the sun ;)
    I don't remember having any "washed out" highlights with this combination.

    Most technical tests, like DP Review, don't test AND RATE bokeh and flare. They provide a sample gallery, at least :D
    I think this "flare/no contrast problem" is amplified by the flat JPEG rendering (i'm, again, spoiled by Olympus JPEG).

    Look at DPReview outdoor pics to know what i mean.
    At the end, i kept my XZ-2...and may be will replace it by a second hand RX100 mk1 ;)

    thanks again ! You helped me a lot with your blog :D

  16. I have used every brand of cameras since the dawn of the digital age and have never found a good jpeg engine. I find they are horrible just horrible in their rendering. Yes, even Fuji. I shoot raw happily and without fail but then again I also love processing the files as much as I love shooting :)

  17. I have been looking at this camera for the past few days, and one thing I am still curious about I have only seen on one review. Is this camera good for landscape shots? From what I have read so far, it seems like it is more for portraits or concerts, but does not show the detail in landscapes as well as most on the market. Would you say this is a good landscape & architecture camera? Also, I am someone that picked up with film and am looking for my first digital. If I do not edit my photos at this point, will I be happy with that may come our of this camera? Are there other mirrorless I should look at, priced similar or maybe a few hundred more. I would like to have a camera for a few years before upgrading again.


    1. Read this review first ;)
      Because the first thing you would have read is : "THE JPEG ENGINE IS POOR"

      So forget about this camera for straight out image from camera.
      As a GENERAL advice, the best JPEG engines are from Fuji and Olympus.

      From there, the main problem is camera size. You can get a very good camera for the same price BUT it will be bigger. Or the sensor will be smaller (more noise, less dynamic...so bad for landscape).

      To me, for landscape architecture and average size, an Olympus with a wide angle is the best solution. But you loose zoom and small size.
      A Fuji and wide angle will be more expansive and bigger.

      You can get an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II. And it is another level than LX100 :D
      With an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II, you are set for years. And the JPEG engine is gorgeous for landscape in "Vivid" mode.

      As for main landscape/architecture affordable lenses you can put on it, there are Panasonic 12-32mm OR Panasonic Lumix 14mm f2.5.
      Because Panasonic/Olympus use the same system.
      12-32 mm is wider (24mm equivalent) and zoom. 14mm is more "gorgeous" (a good prime lens).

      Price wise, you are near LX100 but with another quality/features level. And you can buy a better lens (12-40 pro...) latter :D

  18. Just about to buy a used LX100 on Ebay to supplement my XT2. I’m spoiled by the jpegs on that thing, so after trawling through all the reviews am holding fire on the purchase. Jon

  19. I bought one and regret it :-(
    The camera doesn't perform.
    Wide angle is awful.
    Horrible distortion and trees become purple because of CA.
    Not even mentioned lens flare.
    You can correct post but at great cost.
    You have to worry too much about circumstances. If you downsize your pics 6 times to 2 mp you are fine.
    But at true size it's bad.

    1. Exactly what i seen on most pictures over the net.
      Indoor or outdoor with controlled light : it works.

      Any hard light...it becomes a mess of CA, internal reflections and more.
      I don't even speak about distortion.

      Main problem with this camera ? A fixed lens ... witch is BAD.
      That's why i kept my full M43 system.

      12-32mm (grey market for the price) and any good M43 body from Panasonic or Olympus is a better option by far.
      I'm sorry about your experience :(

  20. Honestly, don't use any other raw processor than DxO Photolab. Turn the DxO Lens Sharpness on and see by yoursef.
    The image quality is stunning even wide open.

  21. I bought one yesterday - it was a choice between this and the Olympus Omd EM10 ii. I am thinking I made the wrong choice! Switched it on last night and I am extremely unimpressed at the degree of flickering on the lcd (fluorescent light in the background) which none of my other cameras noticeably do in same room. And a big green flare spot! (From my anglepoise lamp in the corner). I initially thought the lcd was faulty as it was so flickery during focusing then noticed it was only when pointing in the direction of a door with a fluorescent light shining through the door. While in the store I had googled reviews. Instinct told me it was too good to be true (fast lens, large sensor) and didn't seem particularly sturdy. Love the manual controls and ergonomics which tipped it for me. I am now trying to decide whether to try and return/exchange as my first experience in low light in living room was not good.

  22. I don't have this issues here. The flickering may be caused by your powerline frequency. Here is 60hz, maybe there is 50hz.
    I never experienced any flickering with my own LX100. That's strange, I also have an EM10 and the EVF is far worse.
    The lens is indeed VERY good. Much better than the 14-42 kit lens from Olympus. You just need to shoot in raw and uce a devent converter to extract all the juice from it. Lightroom is way behind DxO on this subject.

    My LX100 has now 3 years of moderate to heavy use, exposed to temperatures from -30 to +45 and with something like 40000 clicks and keep walking without any sign of problem.