tosvus

I wonder how these compare to say B+W that has filters with same qualities (UV + IR CUT). These are much more reasonably priced, and I may get one even if the benefits are marginal.

I would think filters like this have more value on older lenses (with less sophisticated design and coatings (if any))?

well you could get an external monitor with peaking.

In manual mode, focus assist is not available during recording, unfortunately.

If you have an AF lens (i.e. use a native m43/43 lens), you may be ok with just using auto focus, but turning off continuous auto focus. Then, during recording, it will only focus when you half press the shutter. Of course, this does not guarantee soft focus changes and even if you can use the screen to pick another focus point, it will hunt a bit when you half press the shutter afterwards.

Simply LX100 is a no video oriented device it laks a fundamental settings like a cine profile (aka gh4 for example) and a dedicated movie mode

zzzzzzzzzzzz......

By the way, anyone happen to know if there is a blacklist function on this site?

I won't compare him to Eastwood yet, but there are examples of people that turn out to be good both in front of and behind the camera.

I would love to get a Sony body for my a-mount lenses, but at this point, after seeing what my lx100 is capable of in terms of video, I think I'll hold off until Sony comes out with a a7/8/9 that does internal 4k + IBIS.

sure I understand you in this and I agree... but there was not so many talking about the HDMI and I thought this is a beta issue... becouse for what do I put a HDMI on a camera like this, that in the menu is capable of giving out 4k in 422, when no signal comes out at all and only the AV-Out in 480p works in playback mode...

o probably they expect that customers purchase a panasonic viera (viera link) so that you can use the HDMI?

 

than it#s better they completely leave away that fucking special usb port (wich no one needs) and also leave away hdmi out. make camera 100 bucks cheaper & smaller and all are happy. but manufacturing tools that can't be used at all is a really shame. I mean, this was Canon style to do it... not Panasonic

Chill out. No need to swear, and you would not save a hundred bucks by omitting having a HDMI and USB port - and it certainly is not useless to have either..

sorry but it does not make sense to have a 4k camera on the drone where you don't see any image that it will take... and where is the sense to put a FHD small fpv camera on it? The LX100 is at moment the best compact 4k kamera on the market, I have it, but it will NEVER EVER be used on drones as long as it has no video out signal while recording... or how do you think you'll be able to see what your gimbal does in 100m distance? and for sure I can speak for all drone flyers that want to have 4K on a drone and can't carry a gh4 due to law regulations (drone under 5 kg in total). So if Panasonic here is doing the same policy as Canon, this will be my last Panasonic that I purchase... it seems that also the German Panasonic PM want this feature, but the Headquarte will NOT integrate it... why, they don't tell you

 

so to recap this: LX100 is great, but its not suitable on drones... so this part needs to be canceled. I purchased the camera just becouse I saw Andrews good review, and now Im really angry that I can't use this camera for aerial 4k footage...

Ouch, I can understand your frustration if you assumed it would have this feature - I haven't had enough compacts to know if this is a feature that is normal (at least some video out). I would think HDMI live out is a fairly tall order for a compact though, so probably should have done due diligence there.

We can all wish for features they did not include (I have a few on my list too), but I did take issue with your assertion that LX100 will never be used for aerial images on drones. Obviously not on yours, and maybe many others, but I have already read about people that are willing to live with this flaw and will use a secondary camera for navigation/rough preview, so clearly it will be used on drones :)

Andrew you mentioned in your article that the LX100 is the best 4K small camera for aerial imaging. As I have mentioned in my post it is not as long as Panasonic does lock the AV & HDMI Out. So there is 2 things you could do:

 

1. change your article & mention that the LX100 does not work for aerial

2. or ask Panasonic and make pressure on them to change this in a fw update. We all know that the LX100 could do a HDMI out since it is the same engine like GH4... Im fine if the output is only 720p and with overlays, but we need a signal on the ground or the LX100 WILL NEVER be used for Aerial images on drones...

 

Thanks for your udnerstandign, I really would appreciate your help in this...

Thanks

Igor

I think this is a bit of a circular discussion, but I don't agree with your #1 (though I wish your #2 happens). I think Andrew's main point is that it is the lightest camera with the highest picture quality (great 4K plus really good lens), so it is capable of taking the best 4K video from a drone at the moment. For navigation, you can easily purchase a 1080p camera for 50-100 bucks that is extremely lightweight and can be attached to the gimbal where your camera is. I don't think you can speak for ALL drone owners :)

It is most definitely valuable to highlight the lack of HDMI/video out in the full review though.

Yeah, you appear to be right, I can't seem to replicate that.

Perhaps this wasn't the case to begin with and ISO200 coincidentally just happened to be sufficient when briefly testing that, making it seem the camera locked the ISO to match the lit scene and not dynamically adjusting the ISO to keep a balanced exposure when starting to pan away to something lit differently (the test was to see if the ISO (auto) changed throughout; it didn't, auto-locking an initial ISO was an unfortunate assumption, not tested for (apparently)).

 

Although again I still prefer not to use any automated settings. I don't want to touch the shutter (flickering/motion blur), I know the aperture is not clickless (exposure jumps, losing set depth of field) and you can not add more light to f/1.7 (maximum aperture), in lowlight you don't want to cut more light with a ND-filter (it's like that one guy you know that wears sunglasses indoors) and if you're out and about doing some street stuff, you can't just add light to a scene (or do you just happen to always carry around a huge lighting kit?)... so I get the only variable left to touch and add light is the ISO. But then again, I also like to control noise and think it's rather noticeable if you change ISO mid shoot, but okay, you can make a creative cut to make it less obvious... but then again. You can also do it manually. Just 'feel' what the scene needs and just adjust any of the settings you'd rather not change. Sometimes I do not mind under- and/or overexposing during a clip when I know I'll be back to the initial settings a moment later (I find this rather natural anyways, on a sunny day with blinds closed at home, you won't magically adapt from in- to outdoors in a second, it takes a bit). It's different of course if the change lasts and you're still under- of overexposing. But again, then I just press a button, twist a dial and Bob's your uncle. Not really a that big of deal. Especially if you considered it for intial ISO and knew it wouldn't change automatically thereafter anyways. Would you really mind setting it? Do you think the auto-mode would be that much faster/accurate? Maybe due to funky metering it might jump up to a higher ISO than you think the scene needs (or a too low ISO). I don't know. I guess that more options and features is always a good thing and that (extreme) situations (where you need to start rolling quickly and adaptively, or an oppertunity could be left unused), might require certain wishes to be fulfilled, I personally can't really say I'm bothered by the amount of manual control.

Thanks for the input Cinegain! :) 

It would be a neat feature to have, but no big deal. Fact of the matter is if you want to see the metering the camera does, it does indeed show the iso on the screen before you press the record button, so you can manually switch the iso to whatever that value is.  I would rarely have huge jumps in exposure, so tuning ISO works for me mostly (indoor that is). 

I didn't get a response on this, hoping someone knows...

Hmm...either I misunderstood something, or I managed to switch some setting that disabled it, but in manual (set shutter and aperture), auto iso only works for pictures. once I press record, it defaults to iso 200. Anyone have an idea? I thought it could still do auto iso measured at the start of the video (and then set for the duration)?

Last thing I'll say about this: Yes, with the various exposure and focus assistants like zebras and peaking, one can become quite proficient at doing manual adjustments on the fly. However, especially with a tiny camera like this one, the more you adjust dials during a shot the more you risk camera shake when handheld. The aperture dial is not clickless which makes it even harder to stay steady. Why not have make use of some automatic functions so you can focus on composition and moving the camera fluidly? So long as you can quickly revert back to manual of course, or at least lock the settings when being on automatic becomes a liablility, such as when things slow down and focus hunting is a problem, or the background lighting is changing making unnecessary exposure changes a problem. That's why this camera would be substantially better as an event camera if it had ae and af lock with a gentle button press, and even better if you could turn it on and off DURING a shot with a gentle button press, and if with that lock in place, you could adjust focus and exposure manually if needed. Okay, whatever anybody replies, I'm done.

If you use the function ring on the lens for ISO, and adjust that rather than Aperture, you will find it a lot smoother. Set it up to show 1/3 stops as well, and you can do pretty nice smooth changes, both in terms of motion and exposure look. I don't think it will jar the camera more than a press on the ae lock button, though I completely agree that Panasonic should add this feature in a firmware upgrade.

you can change "exposure" quickly by setting iso on the control ring.

Hmm...either I misunderstood something, or I managed to switch some setting that disabled it, but in manual (set shutter and aperture), auto iso only works for pictures. once I press record, it defaults to iso 200. Anyone have an idea? I thought it could still do auto iso measured at the start of the video (and then set for the duration)?

Another example of what can be done with this little camera (by Erik Hecht):

That's the thing though! I do like the old lenses and even cheap lenses look, flairs, etc... But budget being an issue I was wondering if the LX100 will do the trick, being good in low light, with a nice lens, and stabilisation, if the DOF an bookeh (in that range) wasn't far from what I can get with a GM1 I would go for it. I have a rather basic tripod and monopod, and I would like a small setup that gives me pretty much the same quality with the benefits of a compact yet complete package. 

More of a curiosity perhaps, but as most fast compact zooms, the LX100 does have some fairly pronounce flaring - maybe you can use it to your advantage ;)

Other than that, there are always filters and post processing to give some character too! - and don't forget, Andrew Reid actually used this camera for some shots in music-video that is in the article that started this thread.

The Panasonic battery is 7.2V so may need a special battery - not sure what connector the dc coupler provides is.

Maybe something like this with an additional plug adapter;

http://www.amazon.com/Venom-3300mAh-6-Cell-Battery-Universal/dp/B0007U9OF0

Not quite. There's a sealable hole in the battery door, which you can run a wire through. The compartment door itself would be difficult to get rid of without breaking it/being able to put it back together again, I'd say.

Still, couldn't you hook this up to an external battery with much larger capacity then? (unless the hole is also completely blocked by any mounting plate).

(wouldn't help if you need to swap memory cards of course, better buy a big one :))

What tempts me is the all in one gadget. No need for constant lens buys, bags, cases etc... Seems to be very portable. I can live with the f4.0 to f6.7 (taking crop factor into account). But what makes me doubt it still is the videos on the net showing some action/movement and what to me looks like frame drooping/jittering/similar. I know there is a lot of poor quality out there (like testing with full auto...), but... And I have yet to see something that looks more like film and not video.

The other point is that editing 4k will probably mean upgrading PC and I'm not going to do that before a new gen of Intel CPUs are well out.

So all in all perhaps better to sit on this for a year :-) If I can manage... Doubt it...

I've got a fairly old computer (but it was good back in the day). If you plan to output 1080p, it really isn't that heavy to work with. You may need to run pre-rendering more, but then it should work fine.

Eric Cote, who runs mirrorlessjourney.com created a really cute video, using the GH4 for tripod shots, and the LX100 for slider shots:

With Exiftool, read my previous post <_< ... Try it on the video and you will see the same informations. Im not guessing.
Too soft because ive downloaded his clip and ive downsampled it to 1080p and the result is not very good. Do the same if you don't believe me.
It's pointless to lecture people when you don't even read the post.

I think SteffenH meant your assumptions about what would happen if sharpness is lowered. SteffenH has seen both this and a C300 and an Alexa (I take it you know of these cameras??). Andrew Reid has probably touched most cameras you can ever imagine, and is very happy about the quality, plus he has shown great footage.

You on the other hand are interpreting footage that you did not shoot, and apparently never even used the camera. I think you need to gain some perspective here. Either borrow/rent the camera and try it out, or watch this thread for more footage that will show you that you are way off base with your conclusions.

I precise it's not my video, maybe his lens is decentered so it make sense if he want to test it at f2.8. Anyway, i've linked his video for the sharpness "problem", not really for the corner softness. If he had lowered the sharpness, his footage would have been really soft, especially if he want to downsample it to 1080p.
 

Too many unknowns - The lens is plenty sharp (on a working copy of this camera) to take outstanding shots. I will take some similar examples this week, so you can compare..

One more questions. The markings on the camera is 1.7, 2.8, 4 etc.. It does have stops between these right?

It is a tempting camera, just wished it had some more video focus as that would be my use, not photo.

Wish Panasonic could put stabilisation at the sensor in future cameras, as they produce few lenses with stabilisation.

Yes, between 1.7 and 2.8, there is also 2.0, 2.2, 2.5  etc.

It's a great picture taking camera that happens to take very good 4K video, but yes, functionality wise, not ideal for video.

I agree, I wish they had IBIS too.

Yes it's the original footage, just check with ExifTool.
If you want the settings :

Contrast -1, saturation -2, sharpness 0, noise reduction 0.
Iso 200, f2.8, 1/5000.

To be clear, i never said the camera was bad, and if if we are parrots when we are giving our opinion, very well then.
So yes the corner sharpness is not bad considering the small lens, but i've compared it to the gh4.

The real "problem" for me is the oversharpened video and the lack of IQ on landscape or far subject.

No wonder the footage is so jarring. Those values are insane. They might make some sense if you are using 4K photomode and only want to extract a single frame, but for video footage, that is fairly useless to look at. In this case, it would have made much more sense to run at 1/60 (since it is 30 fps), and the aperture should be a higher value to ensure all the footage is in focus. (Again, if it is all indeed on a narrow plane across the frame, and the intent was to look at a single frame for sharpness problems on the side, that makes sense, but looking at this for video quality makes no sense at all). If it is too bright still at say aperture 5.6 or 8 w 1/60 shutter speed, put on some ND filter. It looks like a bright day.

It is also clearly oversharpened, so he should experiment with less sharpness for sure.

It is fine to give opinion if it is based on a good foundation, I think. However, this clip, once I look at it in Premiere, shows:

-Oversharpened due to settings

-Corners seem a bit soft, but it could be the aperture chose makes this to be out of focus. In any case, while I have found this camera has good corner sharpness, it is not incredible. It can't compete with my gh3 and Nocticron there..

-I don't see any significant issue with moire. The little I see is likely from the fact that he shot very fast shutterspeed, and did handheld, so the jittering between each frame makes is stand out.

-Generally unpleasing picture, but again, due to settings. 

Conclusion: Don't base anything on this footage. Have you tried it yourself?? Have you seen all the great footage out there?

Of course, it's my monitor, what an idiot i am.

By the way, download this clip for vimeo : https://vimeo.com/111291938
Look at the trees, they are oversharpened. And when you downsample to 1080p, it just give a "bad" video quality for a downsampled image.

Seriously, there is no info about this video what-so-ever.

Is "Download original" the actual out of camera footage, or is it a edited version that was uploaded to Vimeo?

What settings were used? Andrew suggests some settings, and certainly you want to dial back a lot of the settings as much as possible to have more leverage in post.

Aperture, Shutter Speed, Iso?

Shot seems to move around a bit. A moire test would have been better done on a tripod.

The title mentions softness on the left side. I have not yet had time to look at the footage (but will), but if that is the case, it may be a faulty camera to begin with as well.

I have not yet done in-depth testing on my LX100, but certainly in pictures corner sharpness is quite good considering this is a fast small zoom lens.