Panasonic's Pocket-Sized 4K MFT Camera

TaranItUp

TaranItUp

Active member
http://nofilmschool.com/2014/11/panasonics-pocket-sized-4k-mft-camera-lx100-hit-stores

lumix_lx100.jpg


It's like having a GH4 that fits inside your pocket.

Earlier last month, Panasonic introduced two of their new compact 4K cameras, the LX100 and the CM1, and though the CM1 is still testing in Europe, the LX100 is now available and ready to purchase for $899.

Though this camera will probably not be the one you use to shoot your feature film, it's one very exciting little shooter thanks to its incredible image quality. It has a large micro 4/3 sensor, Leica DC Vario-Summilux f/1.7-2.8 Lens (35mm-equivalent focal length range of 24-75mm), and 4K video at 30 and 24 fps -- essentially making it, yes, for all intents and purposes, a pocket-sized GH4. It'd make a great travel camera, especially if you want better image control and image quality than, say, your smartphone can provide, but don't want to carry a heavy and expensive DSLR around your neck all day.

Here are a few videos to get you acquainted with the LX100:




And some Specs:

Technical Specifications

16.8MP 4/3" Multi-Aspect MOS Sensor

Leica DC Vario-Summilux 10.9-34 mm (35 mm equivalent: 24-75 mm) f/1.7-2.8 Lens

3840 x 2160: 30 fps, 24 fps

1920 x 1080: 60 fps, 30 fps

1280 x 720: 30 fps

640 x 480: 30 fps

24-75mm (35mm Equivalent)

2,764k-Dot EVF

3.0" 921k-Dot Rear LCD Screen

200-25600 (Extended Mode: 100-25600)

Manual Control Rings and Dials

Built-in Wi-Fi Connectivity with NFC

External Flash Included

Seems pretty sweet for a pocket camera with a fixed lens, thoughts?
 
Looks awesome. I think i'll always prefer a DSLR over something like this, but exciting for the future none the less
 
I'm not sure what a large micro 4/3 sensor is? all micro 4/3 inch sensors are the same sizes roughly

I would consider micro 4/3" sensors on the small side when compared to most other sensors, unless you mean it has a larger sensor than most other compact point and shoot cameras.

not sure how the 4k will compare to the gh4 with more dynamic range.

Also looks like it may have a battery problem like that bmpcc. Panasonic's spec sheet say it only last for 350 photos, doesn't sound like it will last long shooting a lot of video.

still a pretty cool camera for the compact point and shoot market.
 
13208886:Dr.Laurent said:
4K at this moment in time is overhyped.
Click to expand...

I totally agree! companies are just throwing 4k on to every product but don't add or explain more important features like wider dynamic range, higher color bit depth and less compressed recording codecs. Things that improve image quality more than just adding resolution.
 
13208902:Rdwagner2 said:
I'm not sure what a large micro 4/3 sensor is? all micro 4/3 inch sensors are the same sizes roughly
Click to expand...

I think they are just saying that a micro 4/3 sensor in this size camera is larger than the norm.
 
13208902:Rdwagner2 said:
I'm not sure what a large micro 4/3 sensor is? all micro 4/3 inch sensors are the same sizes roughly

I would consider micro 4/3" sensors on the small side when compared to most other sensors, unless you mean it has a larger sensor than most other compact point and shoot cameras.

not sure how the 4k will compare to the gh4 with more dynamic range.

Also looks like it may have a battery problem like that bmpcc. Panasonic's spec sheet say it only last for 350 photos, doesn't sound like it will last long shooting a lot of video.

still a pretty cool camera for the compact point and shoot market.
Click to expand...

if it's really 16.8 mp, that's a tad bit "bigger" than the gh series/omd series sensors haha, not a lot big difference by any means though
 
13213193:Stud_Muffin said:
Definitely wouldn't use it as a primary camera, but it would be a pretty sweet travel/pocket camera.
Click to expand...

Too bad much better travel/pocket cameras already exist.
 
i know this isn't the right thread to post this in, but i'm so curious about sensor size. my current P&S has a 2/3" CMOS sensor that produces 12 MP effective size images (4000x3000). this has a 4/3" CMOS sensor (literally double, right?) but produces 12.8 MP effective size images (4112X3088). I'm just so stuck on the physical size of the sensor, why in the fuck isn't the image output proportional?
 
13214251:loganimlach said:
i know this isn't the right thread to post this in, but i'm so curious about sensor size. my current P&S has a 2/3" CMOS sensor that produces 12 MP effective size images (4000x3000). this has a 4/3" CMOS sensor (literally double, right?) but produces 12.8 MP effective size images (4112X3088). I'm just so stuck on the physical size of the sensor, why in the fuck isn't the image output proportional?
Click to expand...

Because magic!

Or science that requires a wall of text to be explained, i'll try it briefly

The size of the pixels > the amount of pixels.

Each pixel, is a semiconductor material that absorbs photons and generates electrons, the larger the pixel, the more photons that can be collected in a given amount of time. And therefore smaller pixels have lower dynamic range and the accuracy of the signal measured is directly proportional to the size of the signal. In the physics of photon counting, the noise in the signal is equal to the square root of the number of photons.Too few pixels are bad for image quality and too many pixels are bad for image quality. So there must be an optimum but there's also a minimum set by the consumer who wants at least 12MP.

Therefore the first thing a camera company will do when increasing sensor size is the size of the pixels, it's where you can get the most performance.

It's the reason why the D4S has a mere 16MP compared to the D810's 36MP, It's a press camera, you can't control the light at events so it better be able to shoot at ridiculous ISO's, 16MP is plenty for almost all editorial work, you trade-off a sharper image at low-iso's for a far lower noise at high iso's

And the light eating machine know as the A7S has a mere 12.2MP instead of the A7R's 36MP same deal, it's pixels are massive, so again you trade off that low-iso resolution for far lower noise at high ISO's.

this post is a bit of a mess.
 
13214304:Dr.Laurent said:
Because magic!

Or science that requires a wall of text to be explained, i'll try it briefly

The size of the pixels > the amount of pixels.

Each pixel, is a semiconductor material that absorbs photons and generates electrons, the larger the pixel, the more photons that can be collected in a given amount of time. And therefore smaller pixels have lower dynamic range and the accuracy of the signal measured is directly proportional to the size of the signal. In the physics of photon counting, the noise in the signal is equal to the square root of the number of photons.Too few pixels are bad for image quality and too many pixels are bad for image quality. So there must be an optimum but there's also a minimum set by the consumer who wants at least 12MP.

Therefore the first thing a camera company will do when increasing sensor size is the size of the pixels, it's where you can get the most performance.

It's the reason why the D4S has a mere 16MP compared to the D810's 36MP, It's a press camera, you can't control the light at events so it better be able to shoot at ridiculous ISO's, 16MP is plenty for almost all editorial work, you trade-off a sharper image at low-iso's for a far lower noise at high iso's

And the light eating machine know as the A7S has a mere 12.2MP instead of the A7R's 36MP same deal, it's pixels are massive, so again you trade off that low-iso resolution for far lower noise at high ISO's.

this post is a bit of a mess.
Click to expand...

nope, that makes perfect sense. thanks a bunch lawrence!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top