ita149

I agree, I want the NR setting since the beginning =).

Yes better low light and better IQ.

It not just you, it's obvious ! I don't understand why Panasonic have released a little camera faster and with better IQ video than the GH4 with 12-35mm combinaison for just 900$. Many people are in the process of reselling their GH4 or at least their 12-35 now. Moreover, their prices are dropping ...

Interesting, Panasonic should lower the 12-35mm price now.

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 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 to 1080p. -Oversharpned at that point with default sharpness and noise reduction is not really good i think. -Corners are a bit soft yes, but nothing bad. -I don't see moire on this video too and i ve never said it. Thanks you for your advice but ive tried it myself and it's not the only case, a lot of videos posted on the net show the oversharpening. Download this video and you will see by yourself : A first I thought the LX had better IQ than the 12-35 but absoluty not, it's only oversharpened.

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 with the 12-35. The real "problem" for me is the oversharpened video and the lack of IQ on landscape or far subject.

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.

I had the opportunity to use it again today, and while i still find that on a close subject, the picture quality is great, on a distant subject or for landscape, it's less convincing. Soft corners, more moire than my gh4, and mostly, the sharpness is too high (if I reduce it, the picture is a bit soft but a lot of moire disappears), it seems the camera sharpening is overused.

and yet the 12-35 is more expensive than the LX100 ...

Yes it do 24p but not 30 in my country, it's 25p "max", sorry i misspoke :).

While it's true the LX is less practical than the Gh4, several things surprised me. First, the stabilizer ! Better on the LX than the 12-35, a real pleasure (but apparently less good when recording while moving) ! Then, for video image quality, the LX is not very sharp at f1.7, stopped down to f2.8 with 400 ISO give better result but with a bit more noise. In fact the LX at f2.8 is sharper than the 12-35 at same aperture, quite a feat ! Otherwise, there are equal, maybe a bit sharper on the LX ! However, the frame rate is limited to 25fps on the LX in my country :( and CINEV is missing (CineD too but i dislike it). I hesitate to sell my 12-35 now !

The 12-35 stabilization is not bad if you don't record with your hands stretched upwards, but the LX100 is better, especially at 35mm. I've read on several sites that the LX is less steady while moving or paning, this explain why some people prefer the lx100 stab and others the 12-35 stab. Unfortunately i haven't done the comparison while moving, but it seems obvious. But the most surprising is the lens, better than the 12-35 on a gh4, it's a gem.

I come back with news, i've bought the 12-35 and i've compared it to the LX of a friend. While it's true the LX is less practical than the Gh4, several things surprised me. First, the stabilizer ! Better on the LX, a real pleasure ! Then, for image quality, the LX is not very sharp at f1.7, stopped down to f2.8 with 400 ISO give better result but with a bit more noise. In fact the LX at f2.8 is sharper than the 12-35 at same aperture, quite a feat ! Otherwise, there are equal, maybe a bit sharper on the LX ! However, the frame rate is limited to 25fps on the LX :( and CINEV is missing (CineD too but i dislike it). I hesitate to sell my 12-35 now ! The choice is really hard since the Lx has better image quality and stabilization; but the 12-35 could still be used on a future camera, not the compact...

Thanks you all - this is helpful !