LX100 Mark II Long-Term Reports?

[agentlossing]

Interested to hear anyone's thoughts about the LX100ii over the longer term. I know there were claims of enhanced dust resistance. Any firsthand experience on this? And how have you liked using the camera, what is it best for? Any unexpected observations? Thanks!

 

[PhotoCal]

I'm still using my LX100. No dust issues at all.
I treat my cameras like they are expensive and delicate electronic devices.
I've never had one fail yet.

I've had problems with poorly designed/manufactured lenses by this company.

 

[agentlossing]

I'm still using my LX100. No dust issues at all.
I treat my cameras like they are expensive and delicate electronic devices.
I've never had one fail yet.

I've had problems with poorly designed/manufactured lenses by this company.

Original LX100 or mark ii?

And by this company, you mean Panasonic? Lens issues are pretty rare for them.

 

[agentlossing]

I'm just going to drop some thoughts in here. I am testing out an LX100 mark II for a week or so, having used it for a couple days I have some observations.

Positive first: the step zoom is a fantastic feature! When I handled an original LX100 a few years ago, I was reminded of how much I dislike toggling a zoom button, and the control ring around the lens felt numb and frustrating as well. Keep in mind I have no idea whether the original LX100 offered step zoom or not, I simply didn't know about it till now. But using step zoom effectively removes all frustration. Yes, it takes a second for the lens to move between stepped focal lengths, and it can take longer if you want to move several steps, as you have to sort of time your nudges to the toggle. But regardless, the frustration isn't there because there's no longer a delayed, electronic input that you have to try and time perfectly with the movement of the lens zoom. The focal lengths are useful and I like that they are marked in 35mm-equiv terms, unlike they usually are on an ILC zoom lens with a standard zoom ring.

Fast, responsive, everything I'd expect from a modern Panasonic.

Now, not so positive: Handling could be much improved if the grip were designed a little better for a small size camera. Ricoh's GR cameras have this figured out. The grip has some more depth and extends further into the palm, while still being small. As is, it feels like Panasonic just took a decent larger grip and shrunk it down. You'd need to have kid hands to make it truly fit comfortably. It's not terrible, just awkward. A half-case would definitely improve it.

IQ, that's the sticking point with me. The lens is good but it has a gentle sharpness. I've realized that M4/3 sensors really respond best to bitingly sharp lenses, the sensor processing handles detail the best when this is the case, whereas any lens which is acceptably sharp but doesn't have the same level produces slight mushiness, more due to the way sensor processing handles vague detail than any actual optical shortcomings. However, there seems to be some evidence of sample variation with the lens, so maybe that theory is wrong and this just isn't an ideal copy. At any rate, IQ doesn't "feel" great, and I have to continue using and analyzing photos to really figure out why. I should print some as well.

 

[agentlossing]

Anyone else feel that the colors out of the LX100 mark II are a bit more dull than comparative Panasonic cameras? I just can't get the same feel to color images as I got with the GX9, curious if others have found JPEG settings which they like. For the GX9, standard JPEG with some negative saturation dialed in made for lovely colors, but I can't desaturate the colors with the LX, almost feels like an increase is needed. Not that I've had any sun to work with during this rainy January...

 

[PhotoCal]

Original LX100 or mark ii?

And by this company, you mean Panasonic? Lens issues are pretty rare for them.

Mine was the original. I know a lot of people claimed dust was an issue with this model but not for me.

Yes, I was referring to Panasonic lenses.

I ended up selling my LX100. I was tired of not having a telephoto option. I bought a GX85 (two lens kit) to supplement my Olympus Em1.2.

If I want to travel lighter I use my Sony RX100, which I picked up ahead of a trip prepandemic. It's a really fun and versatile compact.

Sorry about the lag in responding. I hope this helps.

 

[pdk42]

I really wanted to like the LX100 (original). I actually bought two. The first wouldn’t focus for toffee. Anything past a few metres away was always mush, even with MF. The second was better - it would at least focus at infinity, but the focus hit rate was poor (and I’m talking static subjects, not sports). I also found the EVF very tunnel like and the lack of a tilt screen was frustrating too.

I had high hopes for the mark 2, but it really looks pretty much the same as the original but with an upgraded sensor and (allegedly) better dust sealing.

So my portable camera is now the EM10.2 with a couple of primes.

 

[agentlossing]

I'm wondering whether there is still a bit of that purported infinity focus issue with my mk II sample resulting in the mushy detail. The colors and contrast could just be relatively low due to its being a zoom with a lot of elements, but I expect better detail from the 20mp sensor. The sample variation seems strange for a Leica-branded lens.

 

[protapic]

I have had LX100ii since Nov 2018, and have been happy with it. I would agree colors may seem muted, but not so much more than my GX85 (but more than my E-M5iii). On my cameras I use the standard settings, and make changes in post.

I usually process RAW files for images I care for the most, and find that colors and detail can be pulled from LX100ii RAW files when desired (DXO Photolab works wonders on these).

The LX100ii is my go to camera when the GX85 (or now E-M5iii) with len(es) are too much to carry, especially when I want it to fit in my backback, fishing bag, coat pocket, or take shots from my car, usually one handed, etc. I have taken maybe 700+ images on it. For me, it's a great camera when I want/need to minimize weight&size (compared to interchangeable lens system) but still have better image/controls/zoom than cell phone and have access to RAW files to process.

I had never noticed any dust spots (until this thread, thanks guys!), but I just shot some quick images against an old white posterboard at f5.6, f8 and f16. At f8 I can just discern a spot on the upper right edge, and it's clearly there at f16 (I never shoot more than f5.6). Interestingly, if I zoom in from widest setting the spot is even less prominant.

Good enough for #2 camera, and good enough for recent #2 place in Dpreview contest (photo taken while fly fishing in Oil Creek, PA, SOOC jpeg with slight crop to straighten horizon)

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=1171015&View=Results&Rows=4

Hope this helps!

 

[agentlossing]

Thanks for that report! I was leaning towards the feeling that the LX images resembled the GX85's. The GX9 has a little edge, but then it helped too that I was only using excellent lenses on it when I had it (mainly the Sigma 30mm f1.4).

Since I already carry a dust-prone Ricoh GR, it might seem a little silly to get a second camera which might get sensor gunk. Though I see B&H has the three-year extended warranty offer which (I assume) would cover sensor cleaning?

 

[mumu]

I had an LX100 and it had dust on the sensor. I tried to avoid f/8 which was when it just began to be visible. I also found the focus to be less reliable than my GX7 and its OIS suffered from micro jitters when shooting video. Wasn't impressed with the image quality compared to my GX7, either. It wasn't terrible but I just felt that corners at 24 equiv could be mushy. In the end, I decided to stick with the GX7, and now GX9, plus small primes for my compact camera.

 

[agentlossing]

The lens IS is another thing I noticed, it seems unreliable. Not sure if that's just my technique. I have been center focusing and recomposing, and I think that confuses the IS unit. I can't reliably get stabilization to work at 1/30 and 50mm equiv. That's actually quite terrible. Again, I suspect it's from the IS trying to counteract me recomposing with the shutter half pressed.

 

[Macroramphosis]

If I was in the market for a tiny camera I'd probably settle happily for a GX800 plus the 12-32 glued to it. I hear the sensor is the same as the GX9 and produces fine photos. I'mm sure I could also work without a VF if needed. I think as an outfit it would be even cheaper than a LX100, second hand.

 

[agentlossing]

The GX800/850 has the old 16mp sensor. Also I am pretty sure it still uses the 1/500 maximum mechanical shutter that debuted in the GM line - which is fine, but not always the best in bright light when electronic shutter might produce rolling shutter effect.

 

[davidzvi]

..... Keep in mind I have no idea whether the original LX100 offered step zoom or not, I simply didn't know about it till now. But using step zoom effectively removes all frustration. Yes, it takes a second for the lens to move between stepped focal lengths, and it can take longer if you want to move several steps, as you have to sort of time your nudges to the toggle.
......
Now, not so positive: Handling could be much improved if the grip were designed a little better for a small size camera. Ricoh's GR cameras have this figured out. The grip has some more depth and extends further into the palm, while still being small. As is, it feels like Panasonic just took a decent larger grip and shrunk it down. You'd need to have kid hands to make it truly fit comfortably. It's not terrible, just awkward. A half-case would definitely improve it.
......

Yes the original had the step zoom option. I had the lever set step and the ring to variable. Yes it helped but not quite enough for me.

The original had a nice grip they messed up in vII. The original reminded me of the GX7 that they also messed up on the GX85 and GX9.

I really wanted to like the LX100 (original). I actually bought two. The first wouldn’t focus for toffee. Anything past a few metres away was always mush, even with MF. The second was better - it would at least focus at infinity, but the focus hit rate was poor (and I’m talking static subjects, not sports). I also found the EVF very tunnel like and the lack of a tilt screen was frustrating too.

I had high hopes for the mark 2, but it really looks pretty much the same as the original but with an upgraded sensor and (allegedly) better dust sealing.

So my portable camera is now the EM10.2 with a couple of primes.

I also had two with the second having "better" AF. But still not as good as any other m4/3 camera I've owned (that includes my first E-PM1). It's funny, the EVF never really bothered me. Maybe my eyes are so bad I never noticed how bad it really was?

If I was in the market for a tiny camera I'd probably settle happily for a GX800 plus the 12-32 glued to it. I hear the sensor is the same as the GX9 and produces fine photos. I'mm sure I could also work without a VF if needed. I think as an outfit it would be even cheaper than a LX100, second hand.

But that misses the point of the LX100, the manual controls.


The LX100 is a camera I REALLY wanted to love. What I really would have liked is if they had made the lens a manual zoom like the Fuji X#0 series. I do love the idea of it, I just found it missing a few points in execution for me.

 

[agentlossing]

Wow, even with really limited experience I think my feelings are echoing yours. I want to love it, but the IQ, either because of AF or some other reason, just doesn't feel like it should. I keep getting hung up on the idea that it has the same excellent sensor and processing as the GX9, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[DaveLamb]

Well, I had the original one - had high expectations for it --- loved the size and feel...BUT about 40% of my landscape pics were out of focus...tried everything and couldn't fix it : sent it back after 3 weeks. If they come up with a new model with a tilt screen and weather sealing I might buy it.

 

[pdk42]

Well, I had the original one - had high expectations for it --- loved the size and feel...BUT about 40% of my landscape pics were out of focus...tried everything and couldn't fix it : sent it back after 3 weeks. If they come up with a new model with a tilt screen and weather sealing I might buy it.

That mirrors exactly the problem I had. Lots of reports on the internet about it too. Amazing that Panasonic could have screwed up so badly on something as basic as the AF.

 

[agentlossing]

I took a few RAW files through the trial of DXO PL4 with DEEPPrime NR to see how they looked. Just the NR and optics correction applied. Not bad, still not quite on par with the GX9 sensor in my opinion. Levels and sharpening applied in LR6 after importing the files as DNGs with DXO's edits.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[demiro]

I had the original LX100. Didn't experience AF issues. I found the camera to deliver shots that were comparable to the various O and P kit lenses that I've used over the years. But neither the LX100 nor the kit lenses deliver on par results with any of the primes I've owned, so if your expectation is Sig 30/1.4 results you'll likely be disappointed.