[shoplink 46868 ebay]
[/shoplink]
I hope the new LX100 looks like the gorgeus [shoplink 46868 ebay]Panasonic LC1[/shoplink] you see here on top 🙂
Good news folks! The Panasonic LX100 fixed lens and Four Thirds sensor camera will come with an exciting zoom lens: 24-75mm f/1.7-2.8!!! The camera can record 4K, has built-in EVF and will be announced next week on September 15!
I have no info about the price yet and no info about the sensor but I suspect it will use the same 16 MP GH4 sensor. I have been told the camera is surprisingly compact too! Here is the short question:
[poll id=”248″]
Stay tuned on 43rumors and follow the event live on September 15!
Note: One source told me initial aperture is f/1.8 and another f/1.7. But I “believe” the second source is right 😉
—
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
309 Responses
Sounds like one hell of a fixed lens cam. I can’t see needing one myself, but the appeal seems clear. Good that Sony has more competition in this range. The Leica designed lenses on many of Panasonic’s fixed lens cams have always been a selling point, I bet this will follow that tradition. I hope they give the lens both a focus and zoom ring, instead of just one selectable ring.
Cool stuff, Photokina is going to be very interesting this year. Now who wants to take me to Germany so I can see it in person?
24-75mm in what equivalent?
x crop factor= 48-150 in terms of 35mm format….
rather 12-37 in 43rds –> means 24-75 on FF
Four-thirds.
FF equivalent… everything else would be useless…
Are you serious? It’s obvious that with 24-75mm they already calculated to 35mm equivalence.
We can presume it’s 24/75 mm in FF equivalent so it’s in reality a 12/37.5 mm.
DOF calculator says you got a total DOF of 6 cms at a focal distance of 1 meter, 24 cms at 2 meters and 56 cms at 3 meters.
That’s nice for short-tele portait.
10×8 plates
Its a 24-75mm lens on a four thirds sensor, therefore it is 48-150mm equivalent, simples.
that would be a killer camera!
I would really like to know how big it will be and what the price may be… Will it be pocketable? Will it rip a hole in my wallet?
Hopefully this is not the LX7 successor…
I hope it stays at least f/2 by 50mm eq. Some zoom max apertures are pretty tokenistic.
If these numbers mean 35mm equivalents, it’s game on.
that’s got to be a huge lens
The price will likely be out of my budget.
Bravo Panasonic!
Hope it’s not too small and the lens does not retract into the body. If it’s sealed – I’m buying.
I guess LX100 will crop 4/3 censor for multi aspect.
great new
Going by these aperture values the camera is not going to be pocketable! 24-75 on 4/3 is about 12-37mm real focal length. So it is pretty similar to the 12-35 Panasonic lense. Even with optimization for beeing fixed to th camera I cannot see how it is going to be much smaller.
Canon G1x II has almost 4/3 sensor size and f2-3.9 lens. This LX100 has more speed but less range, so maybe it is about the same size! Not pocketable but relatively compact!
Maybe a “pancake zoom” with heavy software corection? With a “fxed mount” lens, it’s a possibility. Where is that “FT5: egami patent spot” rumor post? 😉
Hope the lens can also be collapsed into the body for storage. They don’t have to worry about interchangeable lens on this one.
I bet that it will be similar in size to the leica XVario, just a little bit smaller. XVario has an APS size sensor, but a “slower” lens also, so… My guess.
If it’s decently priced and records 4K like GH4 it will definitely sell like hotcakes!
I think it will be very expensive. At least RX100 MkIII, probably more.
I’m waiting for the LX100 before deciding between it and the RX100 III — like lots of other people I think —, so I’m hoping for the same target price… And maybe Panasonic will launch it with a great price (like 50-80$ less than RX100 III), just for marketing! :p
The sensor is two + times bigger than the 1 inch sensor from RX 100, I don’t think it will be cheaper, we must be realistic.
That’s for sure, mine was just a hope 🙂 Anyway, do you think it could be even more expensive than the Sony? I don’t think it would be a smart move from Panasonic…
I will defiantly be ore expensive, but with how much, we shall wait and see.
I hope and believe Panasonic will keep Sony under pressure and the price will be reasonable. If the specs are right, a price around RX100III is fair (bigger sensor, 4K).
I hope the price to be around 1000$, if so we have a real winner here!
WOW, what an amazing kick ass camera! Of course I suspect this means the price will be so high I won’t be able to afford it for another year or two…. :-/
Plus of course is going to be rather big too! Oh well, I suppose it is the original Sony RX100 for me instead.
This 24-75 is a tricky question. Normally the 4/3 cameras do NOT use equivalent focal length (12-35 -> 24-70). However this is probably an FF equivalent focal length. The other question is the f/1.7-2.8. Whether this is an equivalent F stop or the real.
It must be real, otherwise the lens would have to be 0.85-1.4
I find this inaccuracy very annoying, I understand it’s marketing but it’s just wrong.
Agreed, it is most def real aperture. The discrepancy though can be explained by the fact that this is not our traditional m43 camera, but rather a fixed lens compact, albeit with a m43 sized sensor.
It’s marketing, but compacts have always used FF focal lengths, because equivalents would look silly. This is not so much a problem for big sensor compacts, but if you change it now, it’s even more confusing and negatively impacts how “casuals” perceive your camera specs (Oh, this zoom range is short!)
No, my compacts have the right (ie the real) focal length written on.
“Equivalent F stop” is just so stupid it hurts, stop talking about it.
F stop of a LENS has nothing to do with sensor size. Mount a APC-C lens on a FF body, and you will have huge vignetting and distortion, but the center of the sensor receives the same exposure as it would on and APC-C sized sensor camera.
Yes, DoF is different due to different sensor sizes. But people(including that irritating dude that makes the “equivalence” video’s) do not seem to understand that F-stop is not a DoF measurement and that “Full Frame” is not the center of the universe where everything must be “equivalated” to.
hey “full frame” cultists…. my medium format camera wants a word with you! 😉
So yeah, I agree with you Mark.
Amen. (Though useless in this forum..)
The reality is actually quite simple, so it amazes me how convoluted this matter becomes in internet discussions. The fact of the matter is that a given lens will produce the same image regardless the size of the medium where the image is projected. The only difference is how much of that projected image fits on the frame, i.e. the size of the image circle and the resulting view angle. Even the depth of field difference is just an indirect result of having to use different focal length or different focus distance to achieve the same composition.
It doesn’t really help the issue that somebody invented “equivalent focal length” and used it for marketing. The focal length is what it says on the lens, there’s no “equivalence” of anything. If they had used “equivalent view angle” from the beginning, maybe we wouldn’t have these arguments.
No. The depth of field depends on the sensor size, all the rest being equal, including print size. It’s not that easy after all.
And yet, you keep schooling us…
But it is that simple. The equation for DoF does not have film size or sensor size as a parameter at all. A film projector does not know what size wall you are projecting on. If you project to a small enough wall, part of the image will be cropped away, but the image is otherwise unaltered. That’s exactly how crop factor works on cameras.
I’m not expecting anyone to take my word for it. You can easily test it yourself, if you have a FF camera available. Just take your favorite FF lens and take a picture from say 3 meters from subject. Then using an adapter, put that lens on m4/3 and take a picture from 3 meters using the same exposure values. You will have the same image, but the edges will be cropped away. The DoF will be equal. Now, move to 6 meters and again take a picture with same exposure values. Now you will have the same framing, but bigger DoF.
This is true, but it is only one part of the story. In your example, you have cropped out 3/4 of the picture area. Here lies the problem: you have taken two different pictures. You are comparing two different pictures.
If you try and take two identical pictures, you will end up using double the FL, double the F and 4fold the ISO on the 135 camera.
Here is a simple article to explain the math: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
It seems we agree on the matter, but as is well known, it is very difficult to have a meaningful conversation over the internet. Terms like “equivalent focal length” and “equivalent aperture” should be buried deep underground never to be seen again. They are both misnomers that confuse an otherwise rather clear-cut phenomenon known as cropping. Equivalent angle of view and equivalent depth of field are the meaningful terms here, and then we can start talking true focal lengths and true f-numbers again.
You can also throw in the noise: a 135 sensor at ISO x will have roughly the same noise as a 43 sensor at ISO x/4.
Lens size is also roughly the same, between equivalent lenses.
You cannot throw in the magnification ratio, which always gives an adge to larger formats.
But equivalences are very useful so we all know what we are talking about, never mind what we shoot. And they are fun to annoy those marketing clowns, who try and sell us things for what they are not 🙂
The one single mistake in your calculation is that when we’re talking about what is meant with “equivalence”, i.e. the comparison of two photographic apparatuses with the goal of producing two as-similar-as-possible looking images under as similar as possible conditions, we’re not talking about “equivalent” angles of view, but “identical” ones. There’s no need to calculate an equivalent angle of view for, say, 45°. It would of course be 45°, too.
The problem is, with recent compact cameras including those from Panasonic, the focal length actually is not what it says on the lens, as they print the equivalent focal length on it without even saying that it’s no real physical property of the lens. And it wouldn’t help at all to talk about angle of view instead of focal length, since many lenses on the market are made to fit cameras with different sensor sizes and thereby produce all kinds of different angles of view.
Correct, so it is a 12-37.5mm F1.7 – F2.8 lens.
However, if you start doubling the focal length to FF equivalent 24mm – 75mm (like Admin did) then it is F3.4 to F5.6 FF equivalent.
You can’t mix your apples and oranges 🙂
A F1.7 lens on small sensor would not have the same shutter speed at for example ISO100 then a F3.4 lens on FF. It would be 4x faster. I’m not going to change to a slower shutter speed just for the sake of equivalence(unless I want lower ISO). On FF you not going to bump ISO 4x for the sake of equivalence(unless you want faster shutter speeds)?
You have to recalculate ALL(SS, ISO, aperture, sensor size, focal length) to make sense. And then it makes no sense anymore because the FACT is that aperture is F1.7 on that sensor, resulting in possibilities to set ISO and shutter speed for that camera which we could then use to make the best picture in a particular situation.
Much better to except that smaller sensors have limits(DoF, noice levels), and do bigger sensors camera’s have as well(huge lenses). I’m not going carry a big camera bag if I can carry a smaller one that does the job just as well(but not in all cases of course).
I’m very interested in this camera, it sounds like the perfect travel camera. Anyone want a much loved E-PL1 with 20/1.7 & 14/2.5?
You should donate that E-PL1 to a museum …. just kidding, you should keep it. You do not simply give away your first camera of a system (assuming it was your first).
Why don’t you transform it into an infrared camera for b&w photography? There are companies who couple a lens to perfectly match the tuning, and the 20mm looks a great choice!
I’ve got an E-PL1, you want my GM1 or the new GM5
or the E-PL7 which is a E-M5 without the EVF and the price.
I do not understand this LX100 since they announced the GM5. I’m beginning to wonder if the LX100 wasn’t a false trail.
I am curious how they combine 4/3 senzor with 24-75mm f/1.7-2.8 lens .
I dont believe both of the info are true…I would bet its 1inch senzor
I kinda hope it *is* a 1 inch sensor! As that will help keep the price and size down, two things which are more important to me!
A 1-inch sensor was needed for the FZ1000 to give it its extreme zoom range, it’s a sensor size thing, the crop factor means an extra long lens can be a short focal length.
There’s a bigger jump between 1-in to 4/3 than 4/3 to APS-C.
And an even bigger jump from APS-C to full frame.
Panasonic have put rather a lot of work into the four thirds sensors in making them not just for themselves but for Olympus too. So why not.
They don’t.
That would be a very odd size for a four thirds sensor. Standard to portrait telephoto with as very short range?
It is a 12-37.5mm lens proposed and that makes f/1.7-2.8 a lot easier to make.
Based on this, I don’t expect a Four Thirds sensor. The LX line has always been pocketable, and 12-37 1.7-28 isn’t going to be pocketable on a Four Thirds camera. In fact, I’m surprised it’s considered plausible that there would be a Four Thirds LX camera. = /
definitely FT sensor.
You certainty is noted, friend, even if I don’t await its fruition with bated breath.
Have you seen the 12-32mm? It’s no Otus wide open, but it’s really good for it’s size.
The fact that the 12-32mm isn’t fast is the whole point. It’s one thing to have a small zoom cover 12-37mm. It’s another to have a small zoom cover 12-37mm and be bright all the while.
The LX7 has a fast 12-90mm because it isn’t workin’ with a large sensor. An MFT sensor would be MUCH larger and persumably require a much larger lens. = /
The GM1’s 12-35/F3.5-5.6 is fast enough when one considers it is mostly used at f/8 to f/16. It is by no means a slow lens.
It would have been a slow lens back in the day when ISO24 (24 ASA) film was normal and ISO100 was fast but now ISO100 is slow and often impossible on many cameras with a base of ISO200. We have gained 3 whole stops, a lot, by going from ISO25 to ISO200 and that knocks-on to the aperture.
“Mostly”. But it’s not even ‘potentially’ delivering f/1.7-2.8, so…
Brightness is about MAXIMUM aperture. f/3.5 is fine, until it isn’t.
I agree on the whole.
I do use the M43 12-35/F2.8 which is a fantastic lens but so enormous it will easily fit inside a coffee mug.
I also use the GM1 with its little folding 12-32/F3.5-5.6 and the whole tiny assembly will easily fit in a pocket.
That tiny lens cannot be made f/1.7-2.8 without making it bigger.
Now f/3.5-5.6 is adequate for normal shooting conditions, for one reason the base ISO of a digital camera is around ISO200 whereas when lenses were banded fast or slow we were using ISO25 film and ISO100 was a fast film.
The M43 kit lenses are f/3.5-5.6 which is quite a stretch and I for one would prefer to see them being f/3.5-4.5 which a lot of 35mm SLR zoom lenses were, it is doable. These lenses do shoot well and are more than bright enough in daylight where f/8 to f/16 is the norm.
I do understand where f/3.5 isn’t bright enough because that is why I do use that 12-35/F2.8
Absolute. Have we seen a GM1 with the folding 12-35/F3.5-5.6.
I’ve got one. It is tiny!
Please stop citing false or unclearly specified focal-length/aperture combinations. You can already see in the comments that people get confused, and understandably so. The way it is stated it would be a 48-150mm full-frame equivalent lens with an aperture of f/1.7-2.8, i.e. an equivalent aperture of f/3.5-5.6. What is really meant is a 12-37.5mm f/1.7-2.8 lens, with an equivalent FL of 24-75mm and an equivalent aperture of f/3.5-5.6. To mix equivalent FL with real aperture without clearly stating what is what is just plain wrong.
Actually, in terms of light transmission, aperture values are pretty much the same regardless. It’s only in (apparent) DoF that sensors make the difference.
Moreover, Panasonic refers to the LX line using the FF equiv. on the lens, not the actual focal length: http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-LX7K
Panasonic does indeed that, because they think they can con people.
Not con, they’ve just chosen to use a language more people will understand more easily.
Which conveniently glosses over a major difference. Yes a con it is…
Con people? All companies use FF focal lengths for their compacts. For most people this distinction is irrelevant because they won’t understand it (or do not need to compare it), and enthusiasts know it better.
If they would not want to concert people, then they should write real focal length and aperture and THEN state it in degrees what is angle of view.
A normal person knows how much is 45° or 15° but has a no idea what is 24mm or 75mm.
Which is what they do do. Except the average photographer has no idea what 45° means but they have been programmed with what 35mm lens focal lengths do. So they do that, I blame their parents, their parents shouldn’t have had kids.
No they don’t, at least not the better ones, eg Canon, Nikon, Pentax.
Yes they do. Canon for instance sells it’s EOS Rebels at: B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753762-REG/Canon_5169B003_EOS_Rebel_T3i_Digital.html . . . WITHOUT any mention that it’s 18-55mm kit zoom is actually a equivalent (whatever) 36-82.5mm . . . so is Canon, (the “better”) ,conning people with their nomenclature?
Or consider the Canon EOS Rebel T5i with a “18-55mm” kit zoom . . .
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/945054-REG/canon_8595b003_eos_dig_rebel_t5i.html . . . again, without any mention of equivalences or other confusion which you insist on forcing upon us in the m4/3 community. Is this just another Canon Con?
The new LX100 will use the same standard labeling as all other lenses since my first cameras in the early 1970s. Same as my LX7 and the Fz1000 and all other cameras. Like Narretz was saying.
I thought the 18-55 kit zoom was a DSLR lens,not a compact camera lens?
I am getting old so I may be missing something there.
On compact PnS cameras it is common practice to label them by equivalent 35mm lens FoV but the actual lens specs will be printed on the front ring of the lens.
With M43 cameras it is easy to get the 35mm equivalent FoV because they have a fixed sensor format with a 2.0X crop factor. But with the “APS-C” DSLRs their actual sensor sizes are all over the shop from just over 1.5X to nearly 1.8X depending on make and model.
Yes, but they are relative aperture values, and they are relative to the focal length. The real focal length, not the equivalent one. Stating a relative aperture together with a focal length that isn’t the real focal length gives a physically wrong result.
+1
With compacts the sensor could be any size (especially these days), so having a common standard for focal length comparisons makes sense. Whereas with an interchangeable lens camera you know the sensor size and you know that real focal length is specified.
It should collect the same light as a 24-75mm F3.4 -F5.6 on a FF sensor.
If the only difference is in DOF why does a tiny sensored point and shoot camera with an F2.0 lens look so much worse than a micro four thirds camera with an F2.0 lens ?
I’m not a FF evangelist and only own four thirds cameras (plus P&S) but the sensor size does matter as in the digital world the total light collected matters, not just the light intensity (sadly).
Assuming that lenses are of equal quality, then the only difference in image quality between smaller and larger sensors is due to different surface area, sensor technology or sensor generation. Assuming the same exposure time, f-stop and ISO, a larger sensor collects more photons, leading to a higher signal to noise ratio. This results in lower noise, assuming the sensor technology and generation is also equal.
@tempusername Well stated you are spot on , though that will not save you from the inevitable troll insults that follow anyone pointing out the truth about equivalence . Personally I do not see the problem , all formats are compromises I am happy to take a hit in DOF control and total light gathering ability to save a huge amount of weight and bulk
Sensor performance is seperate from lens performance. How a sensor handles ISO will vary from sensor to sensor. Using the exact same lens; a 1inch sensor, 4/3 sensor, and FF sensor will al show differences based on the sensors perfomance. That does mean that a lens changes it’s light gathering capabilities as it moves from one format to another.
What matters there is pixel size (and pixel density), not just sensor size, and we’re talkin’ sensor performance in terms of dynamic range and SNR, while I was talkin’ about exposure.
True, except it is actual not “pretty much”, it’s a fixed mathematical ratio.
Strangely the DoF has got a lot to do with lens design. For example one 50mm f/1.4 could have a completely different DoF to another make.
When we had 35mm SLR makers would go to a lot of trouble at our expense to design fast lenses with deep depth of field, bokeh (as it is now called) was undesirable.
I’m thinking of the variability of F-stops compard to T-stops. :T
I was actually agreeing with you but being a professional physicist had to make a slight correction 🙂
It is true except that relative aperture values (f-stops) are an exact measurement.
Whereas the transmission-stop (t-stops) are the relative aperture (f-stop) adjusted for light transmittance of the lens. However I feel it reasonable to assume that Panasonic lenses will have approximately the same transmittance i.e. some number less than 100% which unfortunately Panasonic do not tell us so we have to work with an estimate here. The t-stop is largely only of interest to cinematographers and then mainly due to variation in film stock making small changes in exposure noticeable. It is the t-stop that is the “pretty much” approximation.
It is not just Panasonic but all manufacturers that use the 35mm format for comparison on compact cameras (I hate calling 35mm “full format” because it is a miniature film format for compact cameras 😉 ) This normalises the focal length by incorporating the crop factor thereby removing the sensor size from any comparison. It can be confusing but I guess we’re stuck with this practice.
Wish people would get it through their thick head that in terms of exposure a f-stop remains the same, no matter what is the camera system (if we ignore for the moment the small difference between t-stop and f-stop).
We know that, and you insist on missing the point: there won’t ever be a 24-75/1.7-2.8 lens in such a camera.
You are missing the poin there, the lens will be eqivelent of 24-75mm FF focal length, and the light gathering will be equivalent to any f/1.7-2.8 aperture.
You got it wrong, since the “light gathering” exactly is what will *not* be correctly described by “f/1.7-2.8”, because it increases with the lit area.
You are just trolling, it’s obvious!
Nobody here cares about you equivalences and FF junk talk.
This camera will be a huge success if it records 4K like GH4 and it is in 1000$ range. None of you trolling can change that LOL.
I don’t think he is trolling. What he is trying to say is that if it says 24-75mm f/1.7-f/2.8 on the lens, the max aperture diameter would need to be 26.8mm. That is obviously not going to happen. He is taking objection to giving false specs that will cause unnecessary confusion.
You not only have your physics wrong, you completely misunderstand my intention. As stated elsewhere, I’ve been an avid Four Thirds shooter since nearly ten years and I plan to stay with (Micro) Four Thirds for the foreseeable future.
Maybe try to look at it this way: If the LX100 lens gets only its equivalent focal length printed on the lens, how can people compare it with an LX7 that does the same, saying 24-90mm f/1.4-2.3? Many people will think the LX7 was the better camera with a more light-gathering-capable lens than the LX100, but you know it isn’t, because the LX7 lens really is only a 4.7-17.7mm f/1.4-2.3 with a much smaller image circle, for a smaller sensor.
You are wrong my friend, the vast majority of the people don’t care about shallow dof, so your equivalence has no point. If you had shot MF for a couple of years then the FF sensor who’d seen puny and irrelevant. If you what real shallow dof then shot MF, People interested in this camera will know for what they are buying it. Besides, nobody said it will be written on the lens 24-75mm, only in the rumor those numbers appear.
I don’t know what you’re talking about and I suspect you don’t either. I, for one, am not talking about DOF anywhere in this comments section, I have not even once mentioned it around here. Didn’t you get the point of what I was saying about real aperture and light gathering capability? Both a major perfomance-determining property of any specific camera-lens-combination.
Let me repeat what my criticism is all about: One, that the site admin states equivalent focal lengths without marking them as such, causing major confusion even within his own readership which possibly tends to be more knowledgeable than the average camera buyer. Two, that camera manufacturers now tend to print equivalent focal lengths on their compact camera lenses without any pointer to the real focal length, and indeed even without clearly marking the figures as “equivalent”. Panasonic does so, and therefore I find it quite possible that they might do so with the LX100, too.
Yes, customers who know what they’re dealing with won’t be fooled, but an average customer who migh not even be informed about the different sensor sizes of a selection of compacts will likely be fooled. (And will probably mistake an LX7 for a more better camera than the LX100 because of the seemingly faster lens.)
Well you are right in what you say, but I don’t think people will chose LX7 instead of this LOL. You forgot the price. As for the focal length, in most of the cases it is more useful for the people to know the equivalence then the real focal lengths, because if you lack the knowledge of focal lengths and sensor sizes it will only mess with your understanding. The 35mm sensor equivalences are understood by everybody.
So why all the fuss?
How hard can it be to mark the equivalent figures as equivalent and at least hint at what the real figures are? All things considered, that would be the least of wishes one should have for the manufacturers, and even more so, of course, for this site’s admin.
By the way: If we let manufacturers get away with their lying about the real properties of their lenses, how long will it be until they start hiding information about their sensors, too? One of these days there will be the first compact camera with a sensor of unspecified size, and the lens of course will only show equivalent focal lengths, and then there’ll be absolutely no easy way left to even guess what’s really going on…
Well I understand you point but is it really something we can do about it?
To be honest, under “1 inch sensor” size, I don’t really care about how small or big the sensor is, the only thing that interest me is the resulted quality. The DOF is to big to blur something other than macro shots and the technology advances so quickly that a smaller sensor today yields better image quality than a bigger sensor from last year/s.
To be honest the “1 inch sensor” size is also a total lie, it has nothing to do with 1 inch, in reality is much smaller. One inch corresponds to an APS_C – 24 cm long.
That’s life.
But, but, but, but, look motor boat!
They do care about bokeh, all the magazines tell them shallow DoF is a really good thing, so they want it so bad.
Until they get blurred photos that is.
You’ve got that bit right, the LX7 has a 4.7-17.7mm f/1.4-2.3 lens. Which is a tiny lens.
But the LX100 is speculated to have a 24-75 35mm equivalent lens on a four thirds sensor which would make it 12-37.5mm and thus it would be a 12-37.5mm f/1.7-2.8 zoom lens
And it would still be a 12-37.5mm f/1.7-2.8 lens if one managed to put it on the LX7 or a full format DSLR although on the latter its image circle would probably vignette rather badly.
As we now know, it’s a 10.9-34mm f/1.7-2.8, since the sensor is only “nearly” Four Thirds. What the same lens would be or would do on another camera, though, is completely irrelevant, because to shoot the same pictures with another camera and a different sensor size, a different lens is what you need, and therefore it’s only this different lens which can sensibly be compared to that original lens.
You cannot break the laws of physics.
Exposure is one thing, optical equivalence is a broader set of properties. Got it?
Totally agree! The f stop is ratio betwen the pupill diameter and the focal length of the lens, so f /1,7 is f/1,7 regardless of sensor size. Not everybody is interested in ultra shallow dept o field.
The f-stop = focal length / iris diameter.
Conversely iris diameter = focal length / f-stop
Absolutely nothing to do with sensor format – agreed :-).
And which is why we can borrow 35mm legacy lenses etc onto M43.
It’s tricky to do that with a mirror box in the way.
Once upon a time when we was shooting 35mm with a compact SLR, shallow depth of field was a problem and bokeh would have been a swear word. So M43 actually has an advantage there in maintaining sharp pictures. If you want bokeh then just stick the subject in the front of the lens, sorted. The other advantage is we have just neatly doubled our effective focal length (field of view) which is great for wildlife. Plus these cameras will AF on our black cat in the coal bunker at night during a power cut, which no DSLR will do (try getting a DSLR to AF at smaller than f/8, good luck)
So by that logic [ or rather lack of logic} the Panasonic FZ220 from Panasonic would be the same as a mFT 12-40,40-150 , 150-300mm all at a constant F2.8 .The reason it is not the same as it gives POORER DOF CONTROL, and CRITICALLY ,GATHERS LESS TOTAL LIGHT [ TOTAL LIGHT IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS] . Hence a Panasonic FZ200 shot @F2.8 and say 800 ISO would look very different from an F2.8 shot at 800ISO on mFT . The FZ200 shot will have deeper DOF and more noise
Equivalence is as simple as it gets for all but diehard mFT fanboys who really seem incapable of understanding what is rudimentary. An equivalent image must have the same effective AOV, same DOF and most importantly same total light gathered
Total Light: The total number of photons that falls on the sensor (lumen·seconds, or, equivalently, photons): Total Light = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area.
Exposure :The total light per area (photons / mm²) that falls on the sensor while the shutter is open, which is usually expressed as the product of the illuminance of the sensor and the time the shutter is open (lux · seconds). The only factors in the exposure are the scene luminance, t-stop (where the f-ratio is often a good approximation for the t-stop), and the shutter
speed (note that neither sensor size nor ISO are factors in exposure).
Though I have serious doubts it will sink in please try and understand these profoundly basic priciples it will save you much embarrassment . The endless foolishness which mFT fanboys display in their forums is the main reason why mFT and FT forums before it are considered as comical playgrounds for users of other formats or those who understand the basic concepts.
If you hate m4/3 so much, why are you spending so much time on a website dedicated to m4/3?
Because there are funny guys like you. We don’t like you but we find you amusing.
Seems that our resident troll is in a full flame meltdown this morning as is his M.O. when m4/3 camera manufacturers release a breakthrough design. Reading between the lines it would seem that the troll mindset is extremely agitated with this coming announcement.
That will work out good for us serious users of M4/3 cameras. They won’t clog the pre-order lines ahead of us.
“Serious” and “M43” in the same sentence? But you also wrote “work out good”, so it’s probably all the same. Good luck with that 3rd grade test.
I am retired sonny, so I won’t be taking any more “tests”. You can take the tests now.
Duff and retired? That explains…
My issue is not with mFT , I exclusively use mFT since my GF1 in 2009 and I am very happy with it. On the other hands mFT fanboys are more than a little annoying lol. You seem annoyed are you a mFT fanboy?
Sensor performance is seperate from lens performance. How a sensor handles ISO will vary from sensor to sensor. Using the exact same lens; a 1inch sensor, 4/3 sensor, and FF sensor will al show differences based on the sensors perfomance. That does mean that a lens changes it’s light gathering capabilities as it moves from one format to another.
What matters is total light gathered honestly take a minute and read up on it it is pretty simple. Word of advice mFT fanboys are not a good source of data
“Total Light: The total number of photons that falls on the sensor
(lumen·seconds, or, equivalently, photons): Total Light = EXPOSURE x
EFFECTIVE SENSOR AREA
What? No such thing as equivalent f-stop. F-stop is f-stop.
If it’s f/1.7-2.8 then it is only the depth of field that alters when one changes format.
If we put your hypothetical 48-150 f/3.5-5.6 onto a M43 camera it is still a 48-150mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, it will still only let the same amount of light through, it will not magically gain a couple of stops.
What is being said is that it will be a 12-37.5mm f/1.7-2.8 lens.
That will give the same field of view as a 24-75mm 35mm SLR lens.
A very usable focal range.
As I see it this can only be done in such a compact package if part of the lens is within the body of the camera, which cannot be done with an interchangeable M43 lens, plus being a folding lens as used on the LX7 predecessor.
I agree with your last paragraph. On the other subject, everything has already be said. Yes, the equivalent F-stop exists and is a sensible figure, and even dpreview have adopted the good practice to draw equivalent-F-stop diagrams when they compare compact cameras with different sensor sizes and different lenses, because the equivalent F-stop tells you two things: 1st, the total amount of light a sensor gathers (which is NOT the same as “exposure”, which is determined by the nominal F-stop) which is a determining factor of a camera’s potential for image quality, and 2nd, an exact measure for the ability to reduce depth of field – both important attributes for any camera.
That’s pretty much what we could expect from an LX camera, slow lens would just be a major disappointment. Unless of course admin actually meant what he wrote and not what I think he meant, in which case that would be quite an unique camera.
Can this be true? What is basically being said is that There will be a “GM1 + Pana12-35mm” with a longer focal range faster max aperture. . . . all in the size of an LX compact Camera. . . . . .. . . . not sure I believe this.
It probably/certainly is bigger and bulkier than the LX7 was, more like a Canon G1X I bet.
It’s probably bulky, and the sensor may have been shrunk a little. Still very interesting, of course.
shrunk? nope.
Maybe the outer part of the sensor is not used? Do you happen to know the exact focal length yet?
The effective sensor area in 4:3 mode will certainly be shrunk a little if the LX100 continues the multi aspect tradition of previous LX cameras.
Let’s get real here. This camera (if the rumor is correct) will feature a 24 to 75 lens . . . not an equivalent anything. 24mm is just right for indoor photography and will take into view most of a small room – and – 75mm is good for a head and shoulders portrait at 4.5 feet. There is no reason to impose an equivalency factor because the lens is NOT interchangeable.
At 24-75mm, (which is a 3X zoom), the lens is typical for a regular zoom lens. The really wild part is having such a bright lens in a fixed zoom! It would seem to me that this camera will be just about ideal for all shooting other than specialty photography.
It will NOT fit into a pocket, so what? If pocketability is essential . . . last year’s Samsung Smart-phone will take a 16MP photo, 4k video and will fit into a pocket.
Seems that the LX100 will be a BIG hit and will sell like crazy. Count me in.
If that’s what you describe it means it’s a 35mm equivalent. Physical 24mm on M43-sensor camera wouldn’t take into view most of the room – it would be more like standard 50mm lens.
PLEASE would everyone stop being so pedantic and just use some common sense. It is pretty obvious (when you apply some common sense) that the 24-75mm refers to 35mm equivalent FL. All these shouting and screaming about 48-150mm or aperture equivalence is such BS.
No, it isn’t. As someone who’s been using cameras with Four Thirds sensors for nearly ten years, my standard prime is a 25mm lens, not a 50mm lens and not an implicitly equivalent 50mm lens. What if the news item was about a 35-70mm f/2.8 lens? How would you know whether it’s a real 35-70, making it a 70-140mm equivalent telezoom, or an equivalent 35-70, making it a real 17.5-35mm standard zoom, if photography sites stopped using the correct numbers and descriptions?
Still being pedantic and not using common sense it seems. Look, if you really think there is a good chance this article is about a 48-150mm 35mm equivalent lens on a fixed zoom compact then pls feel free.
I don’t and I didn’t. It still is bad practice, and if a manufacturer does it, it still is lying, and it still is a malevolent kind of lying, because it leaves the customer in the dark about the real, i.e. absolute aperture of the lens (with the pretense of it being larger than it is), even if a customer is well aware that they’ve been presented with a fictituous number for focal length.
when it’s 35mm equiv. it simply says so in every description of the camera. just be patient and look for words “35mm equivalent”. no one is lying
If it was like that, I wouldn’t complain. Firstly, I was complaining about the site admin stating the equivalent focal length without saying so, and he clearly didn’t. Secondly, Panasonic indeed labels its compact cameras’ lenses with the equivalent figures for focal length (but of course not with equivalent aperture values) without saying so. Which is the more problematic as there are several different sensor sizes, which aren’t printed on the camera, either. The LX100 now will introduce another new sensor size, making it even more difficult to know what such a lens really is.
So then it it should be stated it has a 12-37.5mm f/1.7-2.8.
Do NOT add format factor calculated to one format by default, that is lying. Give the real focal length and aperture and that’s it!
Agree. If you want to give the FF equivalent focal length then you should also give the FF equivalent apertures which would also double.
Tom, I think you might be trying to make this more difficult by comparing it with other formats and cameras. Look at it this way the Panasonic LX7 (which I have and carry everywhere I go), features a: Leica Vario-Summilux 24-90mm f/1.4 Lens – 3.8X Optical Zoom Lens.
This rumored LX100 features a larger sensor but Panasonic is striving to please the same zoom range and functionality. I would say you can count on it being very nearly ideal for a typical tourist or family photographer.
It probably will cost more than the current LX7 and hopefully as practical.
You’re wrong. There is no such thing as a real 24-90mm f/1.4 in the whole world, and there might never be such a thing. Look at the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 (which it really is) and what a beast it already is. What the LX7 actually has is a 4.7-17.7mm f/1.4 lens. Otherwise the aperture number would never have been achievable.
Hubertus Bigend, I am only stating what my LX7 says on the front of the lens; Leica Vario-Summilux 24-90mm f/1.4 . . . I am not qualified to argue with Leica about lens specifications. I do know that this particular zoom range is immensely practical for everyday photography. Panasonic wouldn’t make it any other way.
There is no need to beat us over the head with your theories about equivalences because the lens is NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. On the LX100, which is the only camera this 24-75mm zoom will ever be used with, it functions just like any sensible photographer would expect which of course is the same as what is marked on the camera. Simple.
So, unfortunately, Panasonic (who is who’s printing the Leica label on their lenses) has decided to lie about focal length. That does not excuse photography sites doing the same. It is wrong and it will stay wrong to state equivalent focal lengths as if they were real ones. Without knowing what either the real focal length is or the exact sensor size, which never gets printed on any lens either, the customer is left in the dark about the real aperture of the lens, which is a significant aspect of a camera-lens-combination with regard to its capabilities.
Hubertus, you are one of the most frustrating idiots I’ve ever met on a forum, and there have been some real doozies. Either that, or you are deliberately confusing the issue.
I agree that there are issues around focal length equivalents, but there are none around “real aperture”, as you put it. This is is defined as the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil. It is completely independent of sensor size.
As far as the focal length equivalency goes, the “35 mm equivalence” is the only reference system to have gained any traction. Rail against it how you will, it serves a purpose. As does the metric, or imperial, or any other bloody system of measurement.
I would rather the camera manufacturers used a “field of view” system, like many binocular manufacturers do (eg Leitz Trinovid 6×24 have a FOV of 212m at 1000m. But they don’t, so get over it, or write a white paper and take it to the industry.
Exactly. And that’s why you can’t even guess what the real – as in absolute – aperture of a lens is, if only a fictitious “equivalent” focal length is stated with no hint whatsoever as to what the real focal length might be.
Of which I’m quite aware. But if someone knew the sensor size and thereby the image circle, they could calculate the real focal length and thereby the real aperture, even if only the equivalent focal length was given.
Your position is wrong, will stay wrong and insulting people doesn’t make it better. Without knowing: either the real focal length, or the image circle through the sensor size, when only an equivalent focal length is printed on a lens, there is no way to know the real aperture of the lens, and there is no way to know the light gathering capability of the camera with the lens.
By the way, that’s true even if the printed focal length was clearly marked as being “equivalent”, as long as information about the real focal length is withheld. To not even mark the numbers as “equivalent” is just more audaciously cheating.
“Your position is wrong, will stay wrong and insulting people doesn’t make it better. Without knowing: either the real focal length, or the image circle through the sensor size, when only an equivalent focal length is printed on a lens, there is no way to know the real aperture of the lens, and there is no way to know the light gathering capability of the camera with the lens.”
This is where you don’t seem to get it. The “light gathering capability” is exactly what the F stop values give us. Sure, focal length as given here is not strictly accurate. But the “light gathering capability” of this lens/ sensor combo is exactly the same as that of a 24-75/1.7-2.8 would be on a 135mm sensored camera. The light intensity per square mm is exactly the same. That’s why the F-stop system was invented, to allow photographers to calculate correct exposures for the film speed they were using, regardless of whether they were using a large, medium or small (135mm) format camera.
Wrong again. Light gathering capability stands for the total amount of light to be gathered in a shot, meaning the total number of photons, which is the light density multiplied by the lit area. This is not about exposure.
Light gathering is part of exposure. If you are talking about light gathering, you are talking about exposure.
No… You need to look at the flux, which is light vector product surface vector. Rings a bell?
No? Wrong. I know what the vector flux is and bringing this down to further microscopic levels won’t change reality.
Check it again, but only if you know what vectors are. There is nothing microscopic here.
Light has something to do with exposure – so far, so trivial. “Light gathering capability”, though, does in no way determine exposure, and no, I am not at all talking about exposure when I’m talking about “light gathering capability”.
So it’s a con then, easy. You can probably return it for a full refund.
No it will feature a 12-37.5mm lens , I am pretty sure my mFT cameras have a 2x crop. Though it is de rigueur in mFT to forums to state the effect of this on the equivalent focal length , when the consequences to aperture regarding DOF control and more importantly total light gathered on larger formats, folk go ballistic and the troll allegations start to appear.
Ignoring this lol, if true it looks like a real winner, I take 90% of my photos in the 24-70mm range mostly at low ISO so if this is correct I will be in like Flynn. The only fly in the ointment is the potential size , the comparison below shows the smallest mFT the GM1 { no EVF} with either the 12-35mm F2.8 or 12-40mm F2.8 { which are slower than the suggested lens for this camera] next to the RX100mk3 . My favorite combo is my GX7 and Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 if this rumored cameras was smaller than that combo it would be amazing . I don’t care about pocket-sized but I would like a decent reduction in the size/bulk of my GX7 combo , otherwise why would you buy it
The really wild part is bright lens + 3x zoom in a 43sensor. 1 inch won’t cut it!
I concur with your statement here. Completely!
“24mm is just right for indoor photography and will take into view most of a small room”
Mmmm, I would rather use a 9mm m43 or 18mm FF equivalent to take a picture of a small room…with a 24mm you’ll have a part of a single wall at best…
No, it will be equivalent to 24-75. With a 4/3 sensor, 24mm is too narrow for indoor photography.
just 6 more days and all these questions will be answered…patience my friends…
Might we hope for a similar lens made for M4/3 some day?
Would love that!
It will be a Zeiss and cost $4500
Try the PZ14-42 X-lens. It folds.
Try the 12-35/F3.5-5.6 off the GM1, it folds and it is small in use.
Try any of the fast primes.
Try any of the fast zooms, ok they’re bigger and cost as much as a cheap car.
All of the M43 Olysonic lenses are good glass.
Me, I’d like a fast extra-long M43 lens, like 450mm f/4 with AF and stabilisation.
After the megapixel race has cooled down a bit, we might be in for a focal width race. Starting with 1,7/24 (equiv.) – let’s see if it performs better than Canon’s Powershot G X2 with about the same width (and abysmal perf wide open).
I hope.
There again Panny/Leica lenses (LX7 et al) have a reputation of being good wide open all the way to the edges.
For example, the 20/F1.7 is slightly soft wide open, which just makes it good for portraiture. Most lenses are soft wide open but the 20 is sharper than most.
Most m4/3 are sharp wide open. Much sharper than for other formats.
They have the advantage of two very good lenses design houses: Leica and Olympus. Panasonic make nice microwave ovens but as they also invented the SD card they’re pretty good with the electronics package.
Abysmal? Did you test it? How?
I did use the Canon Powershot GX Mk II for a while and it was very bad with wide angle + wide aperture. So bad that this combination wasn’t usable at all.
I never said that i tested the Pana camera introduced here. I just said that after boasting many megapixles manufacturers now seem happy to boast wide angles, wide apertures and that i just wonder how the Pana performs here.
I’d love to use wide angle + wide aperture to have a strong foreground with heaps of background that’s still (slightly) blurred. But there shouldn’t be lots of CA etc.
I have one and it works admirably. Not as well as my Distagons on 135 sensors but very OK indeed.
I actually doubt Panasonic can do better. Maybe more responsive but not better IQ. Maybe you got a lemon?
That’s a very good news. I had doubts about the previous rumor of an f2.0 lens, since LX7 has f1.4.
If the LX100 really has a 4/3″ sensor, it is significantly larger than the 1/1.7″ sensor inside the LX7, meaning the aperture numbers of both are not really comparable.
Rats, I just got me a GM1. The LZ100 looks a bit bigger?
The LZ100 has an EVF? more info needed. I like EVFs, a lot.
The lens is interesting if we can make our minds up what focal length it is. Will it be a Leica?
It will fit in my pocket. The GM1 fits. The G5 fits. The E-PL1 fits. The GX7 don’t fit and the GH4 is a house brick. The E-PL1 resides in my camera museum next to the Brownie No.2. I got big pocketses.
Similar lenses are made for M43, they’re called the 12-35/F2.8 and the 35-100/F2.8
They’re quite large and they ain’t cheap.
LX100 has EVF yes!
How big? What size eyepiece? Whereabouts? (don’t say on the back 😉 )
Nah, the EVF is on the front 😉
You can fit a G5 in your pocket but you can’t fit a GX7 in there?
The G5 is bigger than the GX7.
We have both G5 and GX7: the GX7 is slightly larger and more awkwardly
shaped.
The G5 is taller at the EVF hump but has a slopey shoulder.
The G5 hand grip is thicker but that is negated by any lens fitted.
The GX7 EVF sticks out in the wrong place and gets caught up on stuff.
The GX7 is longer and squared off.
Whereas I can squeeze the G5 with a pancake into a trousers pocket (not tight jeans then) I can’t do the same with the GX7 and PZ14-42.
Maybe being a little facetious, they’re not really pocket cameras like the GM1.
The LX100 is I suppose, a travel camera and as such should be pocketable.
Maybe they had truncated flange focal distance to 12mm, therefore lens size should be smaller than 12-35/2.8 for MFT.
Probably – my wife’s camera! Definitely – if she decides to buy it. 🙂
FUNCTION . . . . I was taught in college mechanical design classes that, “The first consideration in ANY design is FUNCTION”. The function of this camera (which, of course drives the design process), is to:
Increase the sensor size from the LX7’s – 1/1.7″ – to the larger m4/3 sensor.
Add an Electronic Viewfinder (compared to LX7 which doesn’t include an EVF).
Design the entire package around a universally practical FIXED zoom lens with excellent low light capability – so as not to backtrack from the design specs of the LX7.
The camera being rumored here is an LX7 with a greatly improved sensor and 4K video . . . so what’s not to like? I even like the concept of the non-interchangeability of the lens just to keep it as simple as possible.
All the hysteria about “equivalency” is, of course, a red herring.
Really? I thought the function of a camera was to take photos.
Exactly, which is why I am saying that the lens zoom range for the LX100, as well as all its other design goals is to produce the most practical picture taker possible, – which of course would leave out all the equivalency nonsense.
I have stated below that I always carry my LX7 because it is immensely practical. It takes adequate photos in most situations and, of course, is easy to carry and requires no other gadgets or lenses.
I see also (by your other comments that you never have anything positive to say to anyone. Maybe YOU are a red hairing, or possibly just a clown.
Personal insults already? Wow, you move fast. Which community college did you get your degree is social retardedness in, exactly?
Equivalence *IS* very revelant, it says how can camera be used, whereas sensor size is only a *MEANS* of reaching roal – making pictures.
Every camera takes pictures. So what is your point?
So equivalent angle of view is a about 46-15°.
It is about same as 50-150mm on 35mm camera.
And people are excited?
Too narrow. No wide angle at all! What is this?!
24-75 on 35mm 🙂
24-75mm is the 35mm EFL.
WOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
1st day preorder !!!!
A terrific storm for all other manufacters coming
Definitely a professional tool. Period.
(Though voted not to buy.)
How do you know? Have you tested it? Are you an experienced photogrpher? I mean photographer, no pixel peeper. We are eager to learn more.
GH4 definitely is, with no doubt. Mainly due to its IQ, focus/drive speed and ergonomy.
I can consider the former two as given (same sensor, engine and DFD focusing), and the lack(?) of the latter one is compensated by its compacntess, mainly taking in account the exceptionally bright zoom lens.
So I feel inclined to affirm that this camera would be a perfect companion for a pro (beside the main camera which obviously has its limitations due to its presumably huge size.)
I doubt the LX100 will have the GH4’s quad processor which is what drives its speed. The GH4’s metal frame is a heat sink and radiator to cool it, and it needs that. The GH4 can produce movie files (and continuous burst) that requires >200Mb/s and a $pecial card. I found it doesn’t behave well with only a 95Mb/s SDHC.
Different Venus engine perhaps then?
The DoD focussing on the GH4 relies on that quad-processor’s speed to do its tricks so fast.
Will the LX100 actually have DoD?
Having zebra would be a bonus.
The FZ1000 indeed has the quad-core engine of GH4, thus all interesting facilities like DFD or zebra pattern.
Cannot see a reason why LX100 wouldn’t have it.
FZ1000 has indeed the same quad-core Venus engine (confirmed), thus DFD, zebra pattern, 4K and high drive speed.
FX100 is intended to be a premium category camera so it would be a suicide from Panasonic to give up these features.
BTW I think the professional 4K recording is the one which really needs extra cooling so I wouldn’t worry too mach about it.
That’s the FZ1000 bridge camera which is quite big like the FZ200, enough to accommodate the heat sink and extra electronics, but as we know, Panasonic often dumb-down their lesser cameras. The LX100 is a much smaller compact travel camera more along the lines of the LX7. I’m not sure the LX100 will be big enough for that. It is not just pro 4K, it is the frame size and frame rate, it is something of a geometric progression increase in write rate needed to achieve it.
If you don’t have zebra then you /can/ use the histogram but having once used the zebra on the GH4 you won’t want to.
Depth From Defocus (DFD) needs a blindingly fast database lookup, again needing the ultra fast processor which gets hot.
I’ve had the GH4 burst over 500 shots, not at its fastest rate but until I got bored, without slowing down.
F2.8 on a MFT sensor – Does what it has to do and beats the rx100mk3. But, at what size/cost? (dont care! gonna buy one!)
i imagine a price of 1200$
The GH4 had a 4/3 sensor? Does this site know the difference between 4/3 and micro 4/3?
This site does, you don’t.
Please explain how a 4/3″ sensor is not a 4/3″ sensor.
In four-thirds format and micro four-thirds format, the 4/3 part refers to aspect ratio only.
No, it refers to diagonal size of the sensor.
Oh yes, I keep forgetting the video camera tube size standard reference. You are correct, it is indeed same image diagonal as a 4/3″ tube would produce.
No, “4/3” defines the sensor shape and size.
lol….
They are the same sized sensor The difference is the flange distance is shorter and there is no mirror. Go back to sleep.
Are you serious? 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras have the same sensor size.
Micro 4/3 is the mirrorless version of 4/3. They use the same sensor.
same size. difference flange focal distance
Everything points to one thing .
This new camera is born to compete against the all time compact winner , the RX100 .
The name of LX100 even convincing it’s directing to rival the RX100 .
Kudos to Pana for creating such lovely camera , a FT sensor fixed camera .
Can’t wait to have a look of the camera .
No way this camera will have a 4/3 sensor, it will be the “compact” version of the FZ1000, same 1″ sensor, very bright fixed zoom and EVF
my 2 cents…
nope. FT multiaspect sensor
I would love it if they choose the lens-circle so that we will actually get 24mm wideangle for 4K video.
Be gland if you get 4K (a la GH4) at all. 🙂
A 30 mm 4K equivalent is not that bad, actually is wide enough for most situations.
Probably. I am no physicist but IMHO designing such a lens would defy the law of physics 🙂 It is unthinkable to have 24-75mm f/1.7-2.8 on a small camera with a comparatively large sensor like FT/mFT. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 for a sensor that is only slightly larger is huge.
SLR lens sizes are irrelevant. Now each mirrorless system has collapsible kit zoom twice as small as corresponding DSLR system.
…and every one of those collapsible lenses is slow, 3.5-5.6…
Manufacturers need some time to make lenses. After 2-3 years, you’ll see f/2.8 zooms shrinked in size, too. Oh wait, we have that with RX100 already…
Yes – with a 1 inch sensor. I have the RX100 M3 and the lens is really compact, the Panasonic can also have such one (there is not only Zeiss in the lens world). But the same lens for a 4/3 sensor would be another thing – it surely can be done, but the camera would be much larger. Don´t misunderstand me, I would surely appreciate this sensor/lens combination, but it will be either 1 inch or really large.
1″ sensor is only 25% smaller than 4/3″. Not much.
25% smaller? The 1 inch sensor area is half the size of the 4/3.
Of course we are talking about camera thickness, and it’s linear, not an area. Camera width and height are mainly determined by LCD size, not lens.
laws of physics people pay attention to the aperture specs of a lens. Those kit lenses are typically start at f3.5 not f1.7. Therefore they can be smaller.
I am not arguing than f1.7 lenses to be as large as f3.5 ones.
With coming of mirrorless, we saw very large reduction in size of f3.5+ kit zooms. Why there can be no similar reduction of f1.7+ zooms?
Well the Panasonic f2.8 zooms are a lot smaller than the full frame equivalents. So I’m not sure why you don’t see the large reduction in size. If you’re thinking about a constant zoom faster than f2.8 then only recently one company has a constant f1.8 zoom and that’s Sigma.
How big is the 12-35/2.8 on a m4/3 camera? Very big – and now everyone image it even faster, on a compact camera, and retractable. If it has to be compact, it´s not really possible to be done. If it´s a 1 inch sensor, that´s more probable to be done.
Even a 1″ sensor with the rumored LX100 specs would be a very competitive camera. I share your skepticism about a lens that fast being small and 4/3, but here’s hoping!
1″ sensor is only 25% smaller than 4/3″ sensor. RX100m3 shows it can be done, and even if you scale RX100m3 without any improvements linearly, it still be pocketable. After all, nobody has said LX1000 is ultraslim, it has only to be slimmer than m43 f/2.8 zooms. More likely, LX1000 is about as large as GM1 + 12-32.
There is very short flange focal distance.
Look at the Canon G1X ii… that lens is quite nice (24-120mm f2.0-4) as well attached to an even LARGER sensor than m43’s.
Quite nice. The sensor is roughly the same size as the GH2’s 18Mp multi-aspect job that gave you a 16Mp photo in 4:3 or 3:2 or 1:1
Ever larger as in nothing in it.
Come to that, APS-C aren’t all that much bigger than 4/3, Canon’s are only 20% bigger. To get any significant increase in quality one has to go to full frame (which is the “compact” film format)
I am a physicist and no it is not.
It would be a 12-37.5mm lens on a 4/3 sensor.
It would therefore require a maximum iris diameter of 13.4mm
Which is doable if ultimate quality is compromised to make it fold, some of the lens may be within the body which an interchangeable M43 lens cannot do.
The H-HS12035 12-35/F2.8 is one of the best ever lenses of any format and is considerably bigger but it is still a small lens that can fit inside a coffee mug.
Perhaps you didn’t notice that this rumor is (FT5). According to this website’s rumor ratings system FT5 pretty much means that it is settled.
FT5 was given two times to 4K video in E-M1…
You didn’t cite any references . . . allow me to point you in the right direction:
http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-new-source-insists-e-m1-will-get-4k-and-discloses-more-details/
or how about this one:?
http://www.43rumors.com/ft2-e-m1-silver-edition-and-4k-firmware-upgrade-coming-in-september/
Neither rumor is an FT5 . . . one is FT2 the other FT3
Why do they keep it to 75mm? I’d rather have a 28-112/2-2.8!
Most people need longer range rather than an extra wide lense!
Crop. And 112/2.8 is bigger than 75/2.8, by a lot.
Yes but you loose some megapixels. And a 24mm eq. is WAY more complex than a 112mm…
The size of the front element is determined by the biggest ratio. Divide 112 by 2.8. Now do that with 75. The size and weight are proportional to that number squared, everything else being equal.
24mm-equivalent on 4/3 (especially cropped) does not have to be big if you can bring rear element to the sensor close enough (and you can in the fixed-lens camera).
Teleconverters are a much better option.
Do your research.
are you talking about front mounted converters?
Yes.
I have one of these: https://www.google.pt/search?q=olympus+1.7+teleconverter&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=750&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_QoPVJG1K8jkaMDngsgK&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
and it’s very good quality!
You’ll probably need some sort of step up ring, though…
The best thing about it is you don’t lose any lens speed. The worst is it’s no feather weight…
The G1X has a 24-120 (equivalent) lens and a larger sensor, with fantastic usability, only a bit sluggish at times.
If somebody finally one-upped Sony RX100 after more than 2 years, it’s a big news. I hope it is not as big as G1X MkII though.
it is probably going to quite a bit be bigger… if not: why the fuck are the 12-35/2.8 and 12-40/2.8 so big? just to piss us off?
Great! Now scale it 2x times, and kill all CaNikon and Sony FF.
any info about the shape and form?
It looks close to the pic here..But not 100% correct. 1-2 more buttons on the top. Exposure-comp etc..
Miraculous if this is 4/3, those specs and still small. I hope it looks like that too. Camera of the year? Even with a 1″ sensor, that camera would be impressive. But with 4/3? Goodbye Sony RX100iii, Fuji X30 and hypothetical 1″ Canon! 😉
And the winner is, GM5
Having seen the spec of the GM5 and owning a GM1 makes me wonder whether the LZ100 is a goer.
BTW the GM1 is great with the monster 100-300 M43 lens even if it looks like a lens with a litle adaptor on the back.
Compact with such lens?
Is whether the price will be as attractive as the lens’s specs.
If the lens specs are correct, then the lens will be quite large with a 4/3 sensor. The Panasonic 24-70mm f2.8 is quite chunky for a m4/3 lens. I’m thinking that the LX1000 will have a 1″ sensor.
The Panasonic 12-35/F2.8 will fit inside a coffee mug which is quite small for a lens really. It is bigger than some M43 lenses, it suits the GH5 but looks good on the G5 and GX7, it works well on the tiny GM1 too although you now have a much larger assembly.
Much of its dimension are dictated by its aperture. Same applies to the Oly 12-40. Same will apply to any LX100 lens. Simple engineering and the laws of physics:-
focal length / f-number = iris diameter
Did this come from the same source as the E-M1 4K video rumor? This camera will not be small with those lens specs. Just look at the size of the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. Seems more likely it might be a 1″ sensor to compete with the Sony RX100 mkiii
well I guess, it is going to be compact for such a lens/sensor combination, but I highly doubt that it is going to be even close in compactness to a gm1 with 12-32. which begs the question why not release a 12-37.5/1.7-2.8 lens for mft to go with the upcoming gm5 (but which would be very popular with all mft users I think. even me I’d probably buy one if affordable and not too big (I would be willing to sacrifice image quality wide open for compactness), and I really don’t like zooms, in fact I have never owned an interchangeable zoom lens so far… ) and make a really compact mft camera with integrated lens (either slow zoom or fast prime)…
So maybe the GH4 sensor, but with a lens with a smaller than normal image circle to allow multi aspect and keep the size down?
The last Panny to have multi-aspect at full res was the GH2. That oversize 18Mp sensor was used in the G5 and possibly the G6 but they dropped the multi aspect trick to only using the 4:3 at 16Mp
All the M43 and indeed the likes of the FZ200 can produce multi aspect photos 4:3 3:2 1:1 16:9 but only 4:3 at full resolution. 16Mp is the optimum size for a 4/3 sensor, squeezing more photosites into it makes the photosites (pixels) too small.
“24-75mm f/1.7-2.8″ …this is screaming 2 things:
(1) >>> this will be a 1″-competitor of the RX100 series!!
IMHO. I just cannot believe in a m43 lens (12-27.5mm) with such an aperture. And….I already got disappointed with the X30. Thus, I would BET it´ll be 1”.
and
(2) >>> buy me instead of the RX100III as I am “faster at 24mm equiv.”
That would be 12-37.5mm which is very usable on a 4/3 sensor – extra-wide angle to portrait telephoto.
The thing with lenses is that they can focus an image onto a sensor larger than their iris, think projector. In practice the image thrown will be bigger than the 4/3 sensor because Panny generally use a few photosites outside the main imaging area for metering etc.
The Panny PZ14-42 X-lens folds away neatly to pancake, it is f/3.5-5.6 and the non-folding Panny 20mm f/1.7 is equally small but to get a 12-35 (37.5) down to f/1.7-2.8 and pancake then I suspect some baby gets thrown out with the bath water
TO all those saying the lends would be too big….
Have you ever seen a full frame 30/35mm prime? Massive lump of glass.
Seen the Sony RX1? Nice compact camera.
How?
You can shave off many mm having no mount, and push the end of the lens inside the camera body.
Some of the electronics and drive mech can also be spread around the body too.
And with a fixed sensor and fixed lens you can handle some optical properties/distortion matching the two, in electronics and in software (like it or not).
And maybe they have a curved sensor! (unlikely).
All this means you can shave off a lot of size compared to the Panny 12-35 f2.8.
I just HOPE you´re right. But as often with rumors: most things aren´t eaten as hot as they´re cooked…
The latest specs show the dimensions to be slightly smaller than the G1X. About 15cm deeper than the LX7. I wonder how much it will weigh?
Part of the problem is the f-number. To get a long lens fast it has to be wide. Nothing to do with the sensor size although that does determine field of view.
Iris diameter = focal length / f-stop (that’s why there’s always a “/” slash on an f-stop)
For this lens which we suppose is a 4/3 sensor with a 24-75 equiv to 35mm i.e. a 12-35 lens vaunted to be f/1.7-2.8 then 35/2.8 = 12.5mm diameter iris and at the other end 12/1.7 = 7mm diameter iris. Plus this is a folding lens which will have some of the lens/mechanism within the body cavity which a M43 lens cannot do. I do not expect its IQ to compare well with the excellent glass H-HS12035 12-35/F2.8 but do expect it to be as good as the PZ14-42 f/3.5-5.6 which does fold away (good on GX7).
Fast glass is great when you need it but my 12-35/F2.8 is used at f/8 to f/16 most of the time, with low ISO too.
And, I really hope at 24mm equi., the WHOLE sensor is used….not as with the FZ1000 where one third stays black and gets blown up to 20MP 🙁
That’s only in 4K video, isn’t it?
Unfortunately not… Just google search for “fz1000 13mp dpreview”…THAT was/is the reason I have no FZ1000!!
Imo this is typical vignetting and is usually fixed by the “Shading Comp.” function in the Panny Record menu. All lenses do this, some are better than others.
You refer to a forum thread not a pukka review.
The fz1000 doesn’t go to 24mm….
of course 25mm. but the problem is the same!
Same 1″ sensor like the FZ1000, will be styled as LX7, direct competitor to the RX100MK3
And same pricing strategy as FZ1000 vs rx10…it will be slightly cheaper than the RX100MK3.
99.9% sure.
Still living in denial…. 🙁
Wrong. 4/3 sensor, doesn’t look much like an LX7, and while it will be sold against the RX100M3 it won’t be cheaper.
One thing is clear: with so many people definitively stating either “impossible for the lens to be small” or “of course it’s possible”, a lot of people in one camp will be eating crow next week.
Nah, who am I kidding? Nobody is ever wrong on the Internet.
Personally I think the truth is probably somewhere in between with a size that will make the naysayers say, “See? Big,” and the cheerleaders say, “See? Much smaller than 12-35mm f/2.8.”
It’s a bit bigger than an LX7, but not huge. Same size range as Canon’s G15 or Fuji’s X30. I’ve used it and it’s sexy.
I think people who are trying to compare it to the 12-35mm f2.8 don’t really understand camera design. Look at the size of the G1X II – it has a 12.5-62.5mm f2.0-f3.9 and its lens is the same size as the 14-42 3.5-5.6 pancake lenses on M4/3, despite having an ever-so-slightly larger sensor.
Having a fixed lens camera lets you affect a lot more of the variables that limit lens size. Your lens can collapse into the body. The exit pupil can be almost touching the sensor. You don’t need self-contained motors and physical zoom and focus controls. You don’t need a lens mount!
Heck, the RX1 has a full frame 35mm/f2 lens that half the size of the 12-35/f2.8…
I think these specs are clearly possible. I think it’s probably more likely that it has a 1″ sensor, because that would be easily doable. But if Panasonic is able to accomplish this with a 4/3″ sensor, I think they have a clear winner on their hands. The RX100 M3 is barely pocketable at this stage anyway due to its thickness creep, so this one will be at least playing in the same ballpark, size-wise, if not completely competitive.
Ideally it will be thinner than a GM1 + pancake lens, but that may be asking a lot.
The exemplar is the Olympus XA – a (sharp) 35mm f2.8 that’s barely there. But I’m sure it angled light in a way that no digital sensor could cope with – which is why we’ve seen nothing like it lately.
Actually, for a fixed lens camera, you don’t have to worry about incident angle to sensor because you can redirect the light right on a mirror layer on the sensor. You can’t do that with ILC cameras because each lens has a different incident angle.
A mirror layer?
Sorry, I meant to say microlens layer that redirects the light.
24-75mm: is it the real (physical) length, or 35mm-equiv. length? ( I hope equiv. one)
Equivalent.
If it has a multi aspect 4/3 sensor. The lens will not be a 12-37 mm lens. More like a 10-30 (or what have you). it’s not using the entire sensor. The USEABLE sensor size will be a little larger then the one in the rx100. So the lens is perfectly possible…
Fast lens, 4/3 sensor, EVF – so far, so good.
Awwwwww….. please let this be wrong. I love fast, but 75mm is short for portraits, 90 would be much more doable for me. The 70mm tele is by far my least favorite part of the rx100 III.
Well, you can always crop a little and the LX100 would have more shallow DOF than the RX100iii
Sounds great. I’ve been waiting for the Digilux 2 successor for a long while now. I hope this LX100 looks like a Leica rangefinder, too.
I… I think I just wet myself. I abandoned Panny over Oly after GF3. This LX100 may very well pull me back in. Awesome specs for, I’m sure, not so reasonable price.
Very tempting, needs IBIS in video and this would be a perfect travel system.
IBIS doesn’t/cannot work for video because it overheats the sensor, it may well have Power.OIS though (because other Lumix compact/bridge do), which can be used continuously. The Oly system during video is a digital stabilisation, not the vibrating sensor, that has to be halted or you get a lot of noise.
Correct. Hopefully Panasonic introduces the 5-axis stabilization they used in the FZ1000 that combines OIS and Digital Stabilization.
I recently found myself sole and unrequited admin/moderator for the FZ100 Flickr group which I swiftly resigned as I do not have a FZ1000 (I do have a FZ200) but as a long-standing member I have got to know a bit about the FZ1000, plus I can read a manual.
The FZ100 does /not/ have body stabilisation 5-axis or otherwise. It does have Power.OIS which is the Panasonic Optical Image Stabilisation in the lens mechanism and which is every bit as good or better than 5-axis IBIS, point in favour is that Canikon use lens stabilisation too. Point not in favour of Canikon is their AF packs up over f/8 and their AF packs up in low light (dusk) whereas Olysonic will focus faster in near darkness and down to f/22 or more perhaps (‘cos that’s as small as I’ve got).
“IBIS doesn’t/cannot work for video because it overheats the sensor”
Where did you get that?
Did you do some measurements?
In my E-M5 it is definitively sensor shift in video. And yes, you can hear it. And no, it does not overheat.
a) it was explained by Panasonic techs.
b) I spent the last 30+ years as a radiological metrologist. Until I retired I was running the ISO8769 international primary standard for photon emission rate. Cameras are photon detectors. I may know what I’m talking about.
c) you’re probably hearing the lens focussing motors because the sensor vibration is hypersonic, you can’t hear it unless you’re a bat. Try to hear it doing dust cleaning?
Olympus are definitely using a bit of flannel by implying their IBIS is operational during video and burst whereas they do have a new nifty digital stabilisation system, do read between the lines of their sales blurb.
What do you mean you cant afford it , your are boasting about your MF rig a couple of posts up the page lol. Joking aside ,that is my only worry that they may decide to price it pretty high, if all is true it is after all a mFT camera , with EVF, and fast {very fast] standard zoom that shoots 4k , if they can pull it off in a kit size that is considerably smaller /lighter than my GX7+12-35 F2.8 I am definitely interested
ha, fair enough point about “affording it”…
But there is a big difference between what I’d pay for my main camera (such as the GH4) vs what I’d buy for my casual secondary P&S camera which is more like a RX100mk1 or LX7 kind of thing that I’m thinking about (and even that could be a stretch….).
But hey, still exciting to read about the LX100! As it is camera I may get in the future after a few price drops 😀
Need to wait for actual IQ results to know if it is a big deal or not. A camera and the lens can be made small by having huge amount of vignetting, distortion, slow zooming, and other faults. It’s hard to see everything perfect and no compromises. Panasonic is well known for small but imperfect lenses requiring massive (and lossy) software corrections. It is also known for sacrificing other things like EVF quality for size (rainbowing, tunnel vision). It is too early to know whether this is a RX100 III killer.
@ Don: could you be more specific about the software correction topic? I am not saying it’s impossible but the widespread Sony bundle NEX 6 / 16 – 50mm is the most prominent example of massive in-camera correction in the ILC space.
Twice the sony weight and 2.5 times the volume
Sounds like it going to be a Different Animal than he Amazing LX7 with a 4/3 sensor and different lens set-up. I got a feeling the Lx100 wont be a Macro beast like the LX5 and LX7 was. I really hope they still come out with a LX8 with similar size, sensor, and Lens setup as the LX7. Just needs higher resolution (16 MP or so) and better high iso performance than the LX7.
If LX100 has the 4/3 sensor, then an LX8 with 1″ sensor might still be a possibility. I am guessing the LX100 is not intended to compete with the Sony RX100 (the LX8 would), but will rather be a new category of camera sitting between the LX1000 and the LX8 (will it be bumped to the LX10, to match the naming convention?).
The 3 models would have enough differentiation to justify their existence:
LX1000 bridge SLR camera with 4K recording
LX100 new RF-style camera with 4K recording
LX10 compact camera with no 4K recording
Any word on an external microphone input??
No, it wont be. Sorry.
So awesome if it was 24-85mm 1.8-2.8
I agree, looks like it will be closer to G1X II.
Weighs twice the sony rx100iii
I do not see how they can give it the focus and zoom and aperture rings all if it is a folding lens and they need to make it small. The rings would have to be so thin or they might have a multi-purpose ring as they have done before.
Then they announced the GM5 … I love my GM1 but I hate its dial ring and do wish it had an EVF.