GX7 or LX100??

[994]

Have been thinking about getting back into m43, and have been considering a GX7.

But, that LX100 looks aweful nice. Where could it be off?

It could be too expensive (my guess is $1200)
The lens could turn out to be soft (think of the Fuji X100 at f/2)
It could be a slow power zoom. I think I like manual zoom better
It could be slower to focus, just given they are likely going to try and keep it small

But even if it has deficiencies, won't it suppress prices of some of the more compact m43 bodies? So, wait a bit more for it to be announced, and THEN get a GX7?

What are other folks' strategies?

 

[Biro]

Impossible to really know about the LX100 until it is formally introduced. Have fun anticipating it but hold off on any decision until after it is announced - and after you've read some early hands-on reviews. It won't be long.

 

[DHart]

The LX100, regardless of how it turns out, would not replace a GX7 and some particular lenses (7-14, 9-18, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, 60 macro, 14-140, 100-300, 12-35 for IQ, etc.) It isn't likely to equally replace a GX7 and 12-35 lens, for that matter. But it may come pretty close to equalling a GX7 and the 12-32 lens.

From my personal perspective, the LX100 *might* replace the GX7 & 12-35 that rides along with me, all-the-time, everywhere in my "man bag", due to convenience/size factor AND provided it's lens at least equals the 12-32 in IQ. Even then, there would be times when I would wish for the magnificent 12-35.

BUT, no matter how fully-featured it is, it would not replace the lenses I listed above, which still need a GX7 (or other body) to ride on, when they're desired.

I see the LX100 as potentially being a perfectly viable everyday, go everywhere, all-the-time, excellent IQ, general purpose camera, as a replacement for a m4/3 body and separate zoom lens.

But when I set out to capture with greater imaging parameters, a regular m4/3 body and a variety of lenses will still be of importance, to me.

If you're interested in getting back into m4/3, I'd get the GX7 and some lenses now, then add the LX100 at some future point, if it turns out as we're all hoping it will.

 

[T N Args]

Thread might as well say 70D or G1X? Gee, how about think about your needs?

 

[Livnius]

I'll probably replace the GX7, Pana 12-35 and Nikon A if the LX100 lives up to the hype.

 

[994]

The particular thing about the GX7 is it's a compact body, so the longer lenses (like the P100-300) -- is that even the right lens for the GX7.

An LX100 couldn't replace a truly fast prime, but depending on how compact it is, could replace the need for a number of lenses -- like the fast normal zooms, the mid-range primes, etc.

Of course, it's all rumors, and maybe they're all wrong.

This is the m43 camera that many of us had hoped for years ago. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

 

[994]

Thread might as well say 70D or G1X? Gee, how about think about your needs?

I'm well aware of my needs actually. Clearly, the LX100 would only replace the normal range shooting. If I was into birding, for example, it wouldn't be at all a contender.

 

[994]

The LX100, regardless of how it turns out, would not replace a GX7 and some particular lenses (7-14, 9-18, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, 60 macro, 14-140, 100-300, 12-35 for IQ, etc.) It isn't likely to equally replace a GX7 and 12-35 lens, for that matter. But it may come pretty close to equalling a GX7 and the 12-32 lens.

From my personal perspective, the LX100 *might* replace the GX7 & 12-35 that rides along with me, all-the-time, everywhere in my "man bag", due to convenience/size factor AND provided it's lens at least equals the 12-32 in IQ. Even then, there would be times when I would wish for the magnificent 12-35.

BUT, no matter how fully-featured it is, it would not replace the lenses I listed above, which still need a GX7 (or other body) to ride on, when they're desired.

I see the LX100 as being my everyday, go everywhere, all-the-time camera. But when I set out to capture with greater imaging parameters, a regular m4/3 body and a variety of lenses will still be of importance, to me.

If you're interested in getting back into m4/3, I'd get the GX7 and some lenses now, then add the LX100 at some future point, if it turns out as we're all hoping it will.

Macro's an interesting question. Some (most?) of these larger sensor, fixed lens cams have NOT had good macro support, so likely the LX100 won't either. But if it did (even semi-macro), that'd be SWEET.

 

[DHart]

I'd say it's quite doubtful that the LX100 would be a full replacement for the GX7 and 12-35. It may be better for small/light/compact, though unlikely to equal the 12-35 for IQ. BUT, it may handily replace a GM1 and 12-32, provided one doesn't want the ability to mount any other lens on it.

Those of us who want to readily access wider, longer, faster lenses will still desire a m4/3 body and separate lenses. But the LX100 would almost certainly replace the LX5/LX7 and other compact all-in-one cameras that we might otherwise consider buying.

If I bought an LX100, I would certainly keep at least one (probably two) bodies like GX7's and a variety of wide/long/fast lenses for those particular occasions where they are the tool for the job.

 

[val]

It's going to be $900+ AUD and it's more about the protruding lens that I'm concerned about,
The reason why I like and recommend the RX100 Mk 3 because compared to the G1X Mk II, it slimmer and more compact while still having a great lens. I love my Nokia because it's always on me.

I love my GX7, don't get me wrong and while the EVF should be better, the ability to change lenses is why I bought it. The LX100 would probably be the gateway for people just like the X100s is to Fujifilm and the RX100 is to Sony because once buyers start thinking "Hmm I love this camera but I want more zoom/prime lens" then they'll look into M43.

 

[demiro]

My go-to is the E-P5 + 17/1.8. If the LX100 is reasonably close in performance I will have to strongly consider it. I'm guessing it'll be 2.8 at 35mm, which I won't love, but I would appreciate the added versatility it would provide.

 

[DHart]

The particular thing about the GX7 is it's a compact body, so the longer lenses (like the P100-300) -- is that even the right lens for the GX7.

What is the "right" lens for a given camera?

Is the 100-300 a "wrong" lens for the GX7. I would say certainly that it is not "wrong".

I've used the 100-300 on my GX7 numerous times, without any problems. Is it a large lens, relative to the body size of the GX7? Sure it is. Might a larger camera, with an even larger hand grip provide a better platform for such a lens? Sure.

But, the wonderful hand-filling right hand grip on the GX7, along with using your left hand on the 100-300 makes the combination plenty useable and quite manageable. No problem with that.

 

[T N Args]

The particular thing about the GX7 is it's a compact body, so the longer lenses (like the P100-300) -- is that even the right lens for the GX7.

As long as I use a DSLR handholding technique, the 100-300 is well balanced and ergonomic on my GX7.

 

[Serhan]

LX100 will be a little smaller then GX7+12-32mm or A6000/nex6+16-50mm with 1-2 stops faster lens.... G1X went from 9% distortion correction in M1 to 14.4% in M2 so sth will give to make the lens small and fast... Hopefully the lens will be more like RX1 but it is harder with a fast zoom...

 

[994]

I've used the 100-300 on my GX7 numerous times, without any problems. Is it a large lens, relative to the body size of the GX7? Sure it is. Might a larger camera, with an even larger hand grip provide a better platform for such a lens? Sure.

But, the wonderful hand-filling right hand grip on the GX7, along with using your left hand on the 100-300 makes the combination plenty useable and quite manageable. No problem with that.

Good to hear! I've read numerous comments about the GX7 not doing well with the bigger/heavier lenses.

 

[994]

Last time I shopped Panasonic, they would announce things that wouldn't release for months and months. Have they gotten better about that?

 

[demiro]

Last time I shopped Panasonic, they would announce things that wouldn't release for months and months. Have they gotten better about that?

I think now they release them sooner but don't do enough of an inventory build to support orders beyond the first wave of shipments. The LX100, if true as rumored, seems like one you'll need to pre-order on day one or be prepared to be patient.

 

[eljay]

I was shopping for a GX7 until the rumours about the LX100 and GM5 started. Now, I am waiting to hear about these two before I decide what to do next.

 

[gugarci]

If you don't plan to ever change or add some new lenses the LX100 looks like a great choice.

 

[DeoreDX]

If I could sell my 12-40 and replace it with a LX100 without too much extra money and get similar performance in a much smaller package I would in a heartbeat.