LX100 lens vs. Panasonic 15mm

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by yorik, Apr 10, 2015.

  1. yorik

    yorik Mu-43 Veteran

    462
    Dec 23, 2013
    Scotts Valley, CA
    Yonatan
    I have been wanting the 15mm for a while now, but it occurred to me that for a couple of hundred $ more, I can get the LX100. My question is for anyone who has (or has used) both: how does the LX100 render compared to the 15mm (or the 25mm)?

    Thanks in advance!

    Yonatan
     
  2. GFFPhoto

    GFFPhoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2013
    I've been wondering the same thing, but also considering the GR.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    The LX100 is not in the same class as the 25/1.4 imo. Micro-contrast/detail/sharpness...I don't know the best way to describe it, but the 25/1.4 can deliver an amazing "look" a times, whereas I find that the LX100 just produces really good photographs.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. shermanshen

    shermanshen Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Jul 28, 2014
    I also was thinking about the 15mm f1.7 but opted for the Ricoh GR instead. I'm very happy with my decision. The Ricoh is small, has great ergonomics, and most importantly, takes amazing pictures.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. yorik

    yorik Mu-43 Veteran

    462
    Dec 23, 2013
    Scotts Valley, CA
    Yonatan
    The GR has also been on my radar (especially at current prices). Can you compare the rendering of the GR and the PanaLeica lenses?
     
  6. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I can't tell you how many times I've almost purchased a GR. But then I remember too many reviews saying "you must shoot raw" with it, which I tend not to do. Not sure if that is true, but I've chosen to believe it.
     
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Bit of a strange comparison IMO... the LX100 is practically the same size as your GX7, with a slightly worse (and fixed rather than tilting) EVF, no touch screen, no tilting LCD, and takes time to power up and deploy the collapsing zoom lens before being able to shoot. When would you take one versus the other?
     
  8. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    633
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    Yonatan: Which primes do you already own? Which body do you shoot them on? Depending on that, the LX100 might actually be a very sensible choice for a bright wide-to-normal zoom solution - but if you own one of the enthusiast grade mFT bodies, the 15mm makes a lot of sense, especially if you don't already have a similar lens in your kit.

    All this delibaration aside, I have to say that I have this FoV covered with my GR, too. As a matter of fact, it's my best wide-angle, bar none (though that might change in the not to distant future). In my opinion, you simply can't beat it for its size-price-quality ratio ...

    I don't want to further complicate things, but if size isn't your main concern, I'd also look into the fast Olympus 12-40mm or the Panasonic 12-35mm zooms - they're both more or less equal to the available primes in terms of quality, and though not quite as bright, clearly more versatile.

    To answer part of your last question (just saw your post while editing mine): The GR's lens is far better than the LX100 zoom; I can't directly comment on the 15mm or the 25mm PanaLeicas, though. All I know for sure is that the GR beats all my Olympus primes in terms of clarity and rendering - neither the 12mm nor the 17mm come close; the 15mm isn't that much superior by all accounts. The only lens that has something similar going for it is the 20mm, but not being as wide, it doesn't deliver quite the same kind of image ...

    M.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. yorik

    yorik Mu-43 Veteran

    462
    Dec 23, 2013
    Scotts Valley, CA
    Yonatan
    The weaknesses you mention - especially the no-tilt lcd - do give me pause. But the LX100 has the flexibility of the zoom (I currently alternate between the P20 and the O45 on my GX7. The P45-150 only comes out at sporting events) and has the intriguing 4K-photo mode, and 12 is noticeably wider than 15, so there's that too. If the rendering of the LX100 lens had a little of the PL magic, I would give it
    more serious consideration, especially as part of two-body kit.

    See above...

    My main concern about the GR is the lack of built-in viewfinder. Do you have any experience with the external (optical) one?

    I have been thinking about these too... It's good that I can't actually afford to buy anything right now, or it would be much more frustrating! :)

    Good to know!

    Thanks all around!
     
  10. inthecage

    inthecage Mu-43 Regular

    46
    Jun 4, 2010
    North Ohio
    M Ferencz
    Assuming the world of mirrorless doesn't implode, you should theoretically be able to screw the 15 onto m43 cameras for years to come. Hopefully better and better cameras. Fixed lens zoom is an easy setup, but that day will come when the 'whole package in one' limits your flexibility. Lastly, if it's about image quality the PanaLeica 15 and 25 never fail to make me very happy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  11. memzinla

    memzinla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Oct 31, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    It's funny. I was wondering the same thing. I want a fast lens, but also want the 4K video + a point and shoot camera for concerts. I haven't had the best luck at concerts, and they always tell me to take my E-M5 back to the car because of the removable lens. :/
     
  12. shermanshen

    shermanshen Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Jul 28, 2014
    I only have the 25mm f1.4, so I can't compare with the 15mm. I believe the GR lens is a bit sharper, but that might have something to do with the fact that I shoot the GR stopped down more often than I do with the 25mm. The bokeh that the GR produces though is quite lovely though. Snap focus, great controls and customizability, solid build. It really is photographer's camera.

    On another note, I also feel like the GR does pretty well all the way up to ISO 6400 while I set a limit of ISO 3200 on all of my m43 bodies. The f2.8 limitation is really not a factor when you consider that. I like carrying my GR on my wrist or in my pocket while having my em5ii + 25mm and gx7 + 45mm in my bag. I have a Tenba DNA 11, so with the zipper open, everything is accessible instantly.

    Here are a couple shots with the GR:

    CASL 2015-211. Pottery Barn, Pasadena. san diego-79.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Where does the Nikon Coolpix A fit in? Those are $300 refurb.

    I will say that what I love about the 15mm is the ability to do some subject pop at f1.7.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. shermanshen

    shermanshen Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Jul 28, 2014
    From everything that I've heard, the Coolpix A and the GR are pretty equal. The biggest differentiator is in the bodies as opposed to image quality. The Nikon is supposed to make better Jpegs but I've actually been happy with the Jpegs that the GR produces. Here's a review featuring both:

     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Seems like the Coolpix A could be a winner at that price. Would be hard to find a 14mm f2.5 and a solid body for the same price.

    As for the original OP, I really, really, really want to like the LX100. I almost pre-ordered it because it just looked like an absolute win on paper. However, I've just never read a review or seen an image from the camera that made me excited about it's image quality. It's kind of like a "superzoom" lens to me. So much in a small package, but in the end maybe they compromised too much to get there. I mean, there's a reason the 12-35 f2.8 is more expensive for just the lens than the LX100 is altogether.

    I am sure some LX100 owners will disagree, but searching flickr, etc. for LX100 samples vs GX7 or E-M10 samples and there is a significant difference in quality.
     
  16. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    The Nikon is hugely tempting, but too many reviews highlight the slow AF. To paraphrase what runs through my head from them "good camera for anything that doesn't move". One of our well-regarded members, Ray Sachs, speaks highly of the A, but he is a street-shooting zone focus guy, so slow AF doesn't matter to him.

    If I want less than stellar AF I'll buy another X100. :)
     
  17. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    As an LX100 and m4/3s user I can't disagree too much with what you are saying. A nice prime on a current gen sensor will generally be a step or more up from the LX100. I'll take the LX100 vs various kit lenses, which is something of a more fair fight I think. The question imo is not "is the LX100 as good as a prime or 2.8 zoom?" but rather "is the LX100 good enough for me?". For me it generally is. I like a fast prime option if I need it, but I have mostly overcome the desire to have a half dozen fast primes in my bag. The convenience factor of the LX100 trumps the need to make every shot better. Lots of what I shoot can be described as family snapshots though, so that is certainly part of the equation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I also keep thinking that for any m4/3 user you just slap a 14mm f2.5 on your smallest body and you are 98% to either of these cameras anyway - for $150 (used).
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  19. GFFPhoto

    GFFPhoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2013
    This is what I learned from online research, the rumor is they share a sensor so the files are similar, but the GR has slightly better corners (maybe, only some reviews say this), snap focus, built in ND filter and is a fast one handed shooter. The Nikon has better build quality and a dedicated focus ring, but the operation is a bit more involved and sometimes needs 2 hands. Color is better from the Nikon, but the tonality of B&W conversions from the GR files is supposed to be one of the best from a digital camera. I'm kind of sorry I missed the close out of the Nikon when it was less than $400 new and came with the viewfinder for free (which is $200 now!!). At that price I would have bought one and not looked back.
     
  20. GFFPhoto

    GFFPhoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2013
    I've been doing that with the GX1 to see if I could live with a 28mm fixed lens. The GX1 isn't pocketable, it lacks some of the functionality of the GR (snap focus and built in ND), and the 14mm lens is decent, but not great. I think the differences between the GX1+14mm and GR are significant, but deciding if its worth the extra $$ is a decision everyone has to make on their own.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1