Huh, 1-2 times per year it happens that sources and I do not understand us right 🙂 This is one of these cases. A highly trusted source actually told me the LX8 will NOT. I repeat NOT use the same FZ1000 sensor! There was a miscommunication before the FZ1000 announcement and I didn’t understand the LX8 doesn’t use the same FZ1000 sensor.
Sorry, for the mistake, but communication with sources is let’s say…not always 100% clear 🙂
P.S.: Panasonic FZ-1000 preorders at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here). In Europe at WexUK (Click here).
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
61 Responses
It really doesn’t matter as long as it is 1″ inch sensor . I would prefer it to have Fuji X trans sensor .
Don’t understand why Pana use Sony exmor sensor & in the mean time worked with Fuji to develop organic sensors .
because organic sensor won’t be happening until next year or year after next year, and they need camera now
You still don’t get me right .
What I trying to say is Fuji’s 1 inch sensor with X trans tech is sufficient for the incoming LX8 .
The organic tech reserve for premier cameras such as GX & GM .
Your talking if Fuji’s X trans tech is ahead of Panasonic’s sensor tech, while Fuji’s latest APS-C sensor only very slightly’s outperform’s the (smaller)GH4 sensor(and not even in all aspects)
I agree I did admire Fuji’s sensor tech especially in DR performance , as for Pana , they are close .
Pana need Fuji’s colors & DR to be a step forward in digital photographing .
I’d rather it had about 12MP than 20MP on a sensor this size
20MP would add the extra reach through intelligent zoom
Personally though I’d rather have better high ISO performance and less stupidly big files and manually crop in PP if required, than any kind of digital zoom function.
intelligent zoom is a must in video mode
I hope LX8 will use 1″ inch sensor, f/2 lens wide open, 4K and a decent price, the rest dos not matter.
It would be better to have less megapixels but still keep the same sensor size. The worst case scenario is that they keep the same small sensor they’ve been using throughout the LX series’ history. I hope this is not the case.
Maybe 4/3. No. I guess they will not remove zoomlens for good IQ and thin body.
Ура. Может все-таки 4/3. Да ну, кого я обманываю. Разве они уберут зум, чтобы сделать качественный и компактный фотоаппарат.
My fear is a 1.17″ sensor !!!
See above.
There are grand total of ZARRO chances that the LX8 sensor would be smaller than 1″ so no reason for worrying. (That’s because the lens is too ‘slow’ for smaller sensor.)
I easily could be smaller. LX7 was not quite pocketable with 1/1.7″ sensor. They could use 2/3″ and 1 stop slower lens on wide end to make it smaller.
But he body is 100% bigger and the lens darker. another thing is that there is no 2/3 sensor currently on the market.
Panasonic could order any sensor they want, from anybody, including their own joint venture with TowerJazz.
But of course something more common is more probable.
Ooooops, excuse me, almost have forgotten! 😀
[OFF] A square multi orientation multi aspect ratio sensor makes the portrait grip useless: you can always hold the camera in ‘landscape’ position even if you want to shot in portrait mode. The orientation could be set (together with the aspect ratio) using a switch – instead of rotating the body. Moreover, a simple tilting screen/viewfinder would be enough for all situations, no need for swivelling screen.
Don’t confuse this with classical square sensor systems. Unlike e.g. MF cameras, in our case the square multi aspect and orientation sensor should cover not just the image circle for 1:1 (square) format but also for 4:3 portrait, 4:3 landscape, 16:9 portrait and 16:9 landscape modes respectively, and won’t use all pixels simultaneously, see the illustration below (omitted the 4:3 modes for simplicity).
(Considering the major importance I will post this in every upcoming threads from now on. Hope both our admin and you, guys will forgive me for this kind of ‘harassment’ being a small price paid for making this killer feature as standard for future M43 bodies.)
I don’t get your point. Do you Pana to incorporate this? Then say it, but your post is a bit cryptic. 😉
PS: It would be nice to see that!
PPS: Swivel screens still have the advantage of protection for the screen itself.
Just buy Sony A7R and use APS-C E-mount-lenses. Then you can crop afterwords portrait, landscape or what ever size picture you want. With 36Mpix sensor there is a plenty of room for cropping.
If the only concern is quality pixels, you have a point; but getting a Sony camera and cropping for portrait defeats the point of being able to use the vast range of smaller and lighter lenses of the m43 format.
Dear square sensor evangelist,
1) I don’t find your “ergonomic nightmare” of having to rotate the camera argument compelling, it is not such a big deal, really. Turning the camera vs flipping a switch! On the other hand, a solution like the implemented by the Fuji X-T1, to make the data rotate as you rotate the camera would be welcome.
2) It is true that a square sensor would make a swiveling screen redundant, as tilting would be enough. (but it comes with its own problems, see point 4).
3) If the sensor was bigger, the cost of the sensor would be higher and the cameras might have to be larger too to accommodate the sensor.
4) Would the EVF and the screen have to be square too then? since when you want to shoot 4:3 or 3:2 or 16:9 vertical, on the typical 3:2 screens and EVFs, the image would be quite smaller. Then one would probably prefer to turn the camera (ergonomic nightmare!) than ending up with a small vertical preview image. An example: on a 3 inch 3:2 screen (2.5″ x 1.66″ or 63,50mm x 42,16mm), when flipping the switch to take a vertical 3:2 image, the preview would only be 1.66″ x 1.11″ big (42,16 mm x 28,11 mm) instead of 2.5″ x 1.66″ (63,50mm x 42,16mm) big. So I guess the screen and EVF would indeed need to be square too for the “not having to turn the camera” argument to make sense, which would make the size of the camera bigger. Wasn’t one of the selling points of m43 it’s compactness? A square screen in those proportions would be 2.5″ x 2.5″, in other words, it would make the camera 20 mm or 0,79″ taller (+ the increased height for the square EVF). It is either having taller screens/EVFs or keeping the screen sizes and having the vertical images show quite smaller on screen and EVF.
Nevertheless, I shot with Medium Format cameras for a year and It made me really appreciate the square aesthetic. When I shoot with my Panasonic camera using the 1:1 crop, the loss of field of view of the lenses bothers me somewhat. With the proposed solution, the horizontal crop would be less significant and one would gain some vertical image.
I would very much welcome a GX8 with a square sensor, (with the tilting screen and the EVF that can be flipped up) and wouldn’t mind compromising between the preview image size and camera size (a 4:3 proportion screen that would add 1 cm of height?).
But it sounds very much like a pipe dream, not even any current Medium Format cameras come with a square sensor. The GH2 had a bigger sensor than average m43 cameras, but it remained a rectangular sensor (so it was still necessary to turn the camera vertically for a vertical picture, again no big deal).
One last thing, posting the same comment in every m43rumors post does indeed feel a little bit like trolling/harrassing, and after seeing the exact same comment in a few posts and the tone of some of the wording on the replies, it is starting to get annoying, you might make more people be against it than converting them to your cause. Maybe you could try being more creative with the posts, showing artistic image examples? Also even if you convinced a good proportion of m43rumors followers to “lobby” for a square sensor, I’m not sure how relevant it would be in proportion to the m43 market.
I hope you enjoyed the wall of text,
sincerely,
AmateurSquareShooter.
1. I indeed find the camera rotation quite unconfortable, and not just because the rotated layout is far to be optimised for a good portrait handling. Just try to keep the camera in portrait position for a couple of minutes! Moreover, I use the camera 70-80% in portrait mode, but really hate it.
3. Definitely negative: a 4:3 sensor is a bit cheaper but the surface of the square sensor is just 33% bigger (even smaller than an APS-C one!!!!) so it shouldn’t be more expensive than an average APS-C camera. And the camera wouldn’t have to be larger as the sensor would fit behind the mount, no matter if it is 4:3 or square.
4. As a first step neither the EVF nor the screen have to be square. It’s important to have the necessary resolution, and the ‘unused’ space would be perfect for histogram, parameter display etc. But even a square screen might be welcomed as you can place many additional controls on the gained space.
5. You should not give (FF or medium) DSLRs as example since it’s a challenge to use square sensors on DSLRs (you should increase the mirror assembly to fit the taller sensor). But this is no issue on mirrorfree cameras.
6. I neither like trolling but this is the only way to get this subject discussed. If our @admin gave this subject a whole post I wouldn’t be forced to opt for such a desperate solution.
sincerely,
Kesztió
You made some quite compelling points.
It would actually be quite nice to have a post dedicated to this. If the admin gave a place for “the devil” to express and discuss its views, everyone would win.
1.) If there are more people for whom vertical comfort is relevant, why not?
3) Actually, the sensor cost compared to APS-C is a good point.
4) I would appreciate having a square viewfinder if the sensor is square but for practical reasons a 3:2 screen would be fine.
5) I didn’t give DSLRs as an example, I just mentioned that I shot with a Medium Format camera and learned to appreciate the square format. Of course there would be no mirrors involved, just a square shutter? (I guess that is not a problem?)
I guess I would be in then. Now you only need to convince everyone else :P.
With an approx 19mm x 19mm sensor one would get:
– For 4:3 the camera would use 17.3 mm x 13.0 mm of the sensor
– For 3:2: around 18 x 12mm???
– For 16:9: around 19mm x 10.7 mm
– For 1:1: around 15.5mm x 15.5 mm (similar effective sensor size than cropping a 3:2 APS-C sensor to 1:1)
Still, the sudden urge to spam every post feels misguided, no one is forcing us to post and again, I question the strategy.
To conclude this post, an appeal to the 43rumors admin: would it be possible to have a post discussing this issue? Some people would feel less compelled to spam, some people would stop being annoyed by it, It would be an interesting discussion and perhaps some other photography related sites would mention the discussion and link to the m43rumors page.
Just written to @amin to give a chance for a post about this issue. Obviously I would stop spamming immeadiately. 😀
Why not have a large square sensor that uses all of the pixels? I love the square format for film.
If it uses all of the pixels in a square sensor, the sensor would have to have the size of the dark grey rectangle (to cover the image circle), which would result in the image being cropped to achieve anything else than 1:1. In other words, it would be an advantage for people wanting to use the square format exclusively, but a disadvantage for anyone else.
+1 for loving the square format 🙂
Fixed 35mm lens 1.8 same GH4 sensor mic port and all video settings of GH4 would be perfect especially fixed lens
LX-series don’t use a ‘fixed’ lens.
It would be great to use m43rd sensor siz, gm1 already small so why not!
Unlikely that the zooms could be miniaturized to make them pocketable, which is this camera’s market. But a tiny, fast attached zoom M43 (X20 competitor) would be cool.
This camera would be a perfect candidate for the 1″ organic sensor. All the supposed specs point to a premium model for the enthusiast market. That 1″ organic sensor could go into the Panasonic LX8 and a Fuji X30, and both would blow away the Sony RX100iii. Panasonic would match the shirt pocket size and modern design but would have better “organic” quality while the Fuji would win on ergonomics, manual controls, hybrid viewfinder, and appeal to retro style fans willing to sacrifice a little size. This scenario is probably a year premature, but it would be great if the organic sensor is a well kept secret and ready for market. If not, it sounds as if both Canon and Sony are close to sensor breakthroughs. Competition is good. 2015 should finally see some revolution instead of the steady evolution of this year’s models.
As you write, it’s too early for such hyped organic sensors. Sony has that curved sensor, good for fixed focal lenght lenses, but no word yet from Panasonic/Fuji who are rumoured to be the developpers of those kind of sensors. Personally I wouldn’t hold my breath if I was looking for another camera: what we have available right now are already great products (I’m not just looking at the 1″ sized sensor cameras)
No argument there. I’m thrilled with the size and IQ of my current M43 system and am making lots more images as a result. But the “magical pocketable” has a powerful draw! 🙂 I’m excited to see a curved sensor in the RX1iii, or better, what it can do for the A7 line.
Carrying always a camera means you have more chances to take photos 😉
About the curved sensor: I think it will help to reduce the size of lenses, while solving some corner issue. On the other hand I don’t think we’ll see it on an interchangeable lens camera, not an a7 at least: a curved sensor would need a different lens construction and though Sony is quite famous to drop its products lines, I don’t think it will start a new lenses line up for an “old” system. I think we will see it on new rx1, coupled with a slightly faster lens (f1.8) while maintaining the small size
I was thinking that the curved sensor tech would start on the RX1 too, but it also seems like a lot of R&D to be limited to a single, fixed lens camera. I think the RX1 learnings are what lead to the A7, so would not be surprised to see the first year of curved sensor confined to that camera, then spread to the “A8.” Maybe the lens won’t need to change and they’ll handle it all in software. But you’re right — Sony has quite the checkered history of hopping from system to system and leaving customers behind, not just in photography. I actually don’t fault them — none of the photography efforts have become mainstream dominators, which seems to be their aim. If they come up with a Canikon beater they’ll be more likely to slow down and stick with that system. Until then, their furious pace of innovation is fun to watch. I won’t be buying a Sony again any time soon, however 😉
Sony products are often absolutely astounding when you look at the spec sheet: size, performance, feature set. But almost always, they’re completely devoid of any joy to use. That’s highly subjective and hard to quantify, but for me, a deal breaker. I experienced it with my NEX7 system. I hated using the RX100ii. Something about the handling, the UI and the controls of these cameras just doesn’t feel “right.” I’ve yet to spend much time with an A7 camera, but after the NEX, would never buy into a Sony system before the roadmap is delivered, and am skeptical of the user experience.
iOS8 is said to be opening up lots of camera APIs for developers. Once apps can control ISO, aperture and shutter speed manually, the iPhone camera will be a lot more interesting. Still no camera replacement, but way more fun, and always with you
I’m pretty sure that the release of organic sensors wont be in an $800 consumer camera.
1″ might actually be a “large” format for organic. My impression is that this is for very small devices. Cell phones, for example
Well, they could use a m43 sensor and make the lens 1 stop slower (same physical aperture size) which would keep the lens size down. Same low light performance and better DR at base ISO. And they wouldn’t need to buy sensors from anyone.
You will certainly gain almost a stop at high ISO bwith a mFT sensor which then would be lost with a slower lens. At base ISO the Sony 1″ sensor is pretty much on a par with the best mFT optio0ns regarding color depth and DR.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10___957_937
Regarding the news on the sensor …
If it had been the same, the LX8 would be announced with the FZ1000 … This did not happen … well you can Reflecting the release of a completely new sensor …. If it was then it would be an organic sensor that would sweep away throughout the competition. Already wipe out sony with the introduction of 4k 100mbps
1” is the new 1/1.7”…
Have you noticed?
“sources and I do not understand us”
japanese: ” ie ” means no. It’s pronounced ee eh.
I hope they include a mic input, otherwise the 4k would be somewhat of a waste.
M4/3 sensor?? Please. Please! The G1Xii was very exciting to me, but I was turned off by the size/weight, and more importantly the sensor performance fell short. If the LX8 has an m4/3 sensor and the rest is accurate, GREAT! That would mean less zoom reach than the G1X, but a better sensor, faster lens, smaller size, and articulating screen? I would buy this camera day one.
Edit: When can we expect an announcement? Or at least a firm leak…
It won’t be, it’s very hard, if not, impossible to have a Micro4/3 sensor AND a 24-90mm f/2-2.8 AND EVF and being just about 3% bigger than the LX7. Actually I bet on the impossible.
If the G1XII “fell short” in sensor performance (I imagine you conducted thorough tests), do you expect from nano four thirds will look better instead?
What you are trying to imply makes no sense, Micro4/3 already performs better than the Canon G1X. In theory, the G1X should perform very similar and slightly better, but it doesn’t, despite having a tiny bit bigger sensor. We already have a Micro4/3 sensor and the G1X tests, we don’t need to wait for the LX8 having one to know how it would perform – but it’s pointless since it will NOT feat a Micro4/3 sensor.
Yes, m4/3 has better sensors than the outdated sensor Canon has put in the G1X line, to my eye. DR is especially a weakness of the Canon sensor, which is surprising considering they kept the pixel count low. If you prefer numbers, DXO thinks that both the current gen m4/3 sensor, and even the smaller Sony 1″ sensor, are better: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III-versus-Canon-PowerShot-G1-X-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10___957_941_937
So admin – what sensor DOES the LX8 have then?
Yes, can admin confirm it is still a 1″ sensor?
Hope it will be at least m43sensor one is just too tiny useless for anything
Will be a 1″ sensor. The m4/3 sensor could easily fit in the body (the GM1 proves it), and they already have a sensor available with the needed specs (the GX7’s sensor could record 4k video, if you read the sensor’s spec sheet).
But no way a 24-90mm (in 35mm terms) with a f/2-2.8 aperture could fit. Just take a look in the size of the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 m4/3 lens; it have a shorter range (24-70mm) and slower aperture (2.8 constant) and it is a huge lens comparing to the LX7’s body size. It’s physics – if you enlarge the sensor, you have to enlarge the lens.
Compare the Canon G1Xii with its sensor which is essentially m4/3 size (actually marginally bigger) and a 24-120 f2.0-3.9 lens to the LX7:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#350,534,183.30,491.397,ha,t
Canon did a good job keeping the lens small, but if the other LX8 specs are right, and it has a 24-90 f2-2.8 lens, I don’t think the lens module itself needs to be much different in size from the Canon. The Panasonic would have about the same sensor size and same speed at the wide end, and a slightly faster at the tele end, but with less reach.
If that were the case, it could be about the size of a smaller m4/3 body like the GX1 or GM1 with a pancake lens mounted. Very reasonable size if you ask me!
I hope that at least the 1″ part is correct and I kind of like that this may not be the same sensor, it means that it may have a 16MP or even a 12MP and produce a much better 4K video!
If it’s smaller than 1 inch the lx8 will be forgotten before it’s released.
Well, and rightfully so, but with the things Panasonic pulled off for the GH4 and with the FZ1000 having one, I’ll give Panasonic some credit.
Of course I also still have hopes for 1″ . A very good one that will challenge all current aps-c sensors 😉
Hope it is true I personally dislike the look of the rx100 series raw files