Extensive comparison to Sony RX-100 III

Extensive comparison to Sony RX-100 III

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100EGK Premium Digital Camera (12.8 MP, Four Thirds MOS sensor, electronic Live View Finder, 4K Ultra HD recording with 25p, 24-75 mm Leica DC Vario-Summilux lens, exposure compensation, flash shoe, WiFi, NFC) black (Electronics)

Customer Review

I have the LX (Panasonic LX-100) intensively with the RX (Sony RX-100 III) compared, and almost always the LX RX is superior, or pulls at least equal. Still, I've finally bought the RX ...

(1) Image Quality (JPEG and RAW). The RX account when creating a JPEG a bunch of effects. Colors and brightness are intensified, there is an extensive noise suppression in homogeneous color areas instead, and in particular a (local) is allowed for contrast enhancement. All this means that the images out-of-the-box look is often better than the LX and with other cameras - but sometimes, unfortunately, much worse. For example, in the RX colors are sometimes unpleasantly strong, wool structures (sofas, sweatshirt, etc.) are unpleasantly clear and the RX is prone to moiré effects in filigree regular structures (eg parallel wooden flutes). The RAW images of the RX do not show these eye candies / problems. The RAW images of the RX and LX are very similar. Most but the JPEGs are now times compared what causes the RX on the quick glance tollere pictures as the "flat" (realistic) shoots pictures of LX. The latter, however, that the realistic figure is more to my liking. I'd rather Intensify later in the follow-up still targeted. In RAW still show two major advantages of the LX: the RX can not make some of the functions at the same time recording the RAW data, the LX has no problem, so you can RAW images always mitaufzeichnen (parallel with JPEG images). In addition, you can in the LX later (!) Produced from the RAW images more JPEG images, and, for example, try different contrasts, noise suppression, image effects, etc. and save. Such profiles can also be used as a standard for JPEG photos. If you can easily raise the noise reduction of the standard profile, for example, so the LX rushes in comparable settings even * less * than the RX! In summary: RAW data both equally well, the JPEG engine of the RX often makes much sharper looking images, but sometimes crap. Overall, the RX edited the images "courageous", while the LX is intent on a realistic image. For the LX provides, in particular due to the higher possible depth of field, often "cinematic", "epic" looking images, with respect to the usually quite "plastic" images of the RX.

(2) Automatic White Balance. The LX is this excellent and has always given realistic colors and brightness in all natural and artificial lighting situations. The RX fails every now and then. Often euphemistically yellow warm white, and extremely greenish in many LED light. The brightness is mercilessly pulled up until they are manually lowered again with the exposure in the dark. The incorrect color temperature although you can easily correct later on the computer, or you can make a custom white balance the photo, but both annoying at the RX.

(3) feel. The tangible experience of LX is actually a poem (such as beautiful by someone else described here). Just as a camera should feel! Everything is very valuable, handy and robust. Compared to the RX is a rickety plastic folding knife Swiss (although still better than many other cameras!). The feel of the LX I miss in my RX.

(4) operating logic. LX wins clearly against RX. The concept to waive a mode wheel is very good and intuitive! Either one provides aperture and / or shutter speed to A (uto), or just one / both to the desired value. Implicitly you that all four PASM directly and intuitively available - awesome! Also therefore we see before / during startup settings, not only afterwards on the display! In particular, it has in the LX total 5 collars / s (1x aperture ring, 1x zoom / multi-function ring, 1x Verschlusszeitrad, 1x Belichtungskorrekturrad, 1x thumbwheel) in the RX 2 (1x zoom / multi-function ring, 1x thumbwheel). In particular, in manual mode so you can adjust in the LX comfortable aperture, time and focal simultaneously on wheels. In the RX has the M-mode, however, necessarily the thumb ring doubly occupied with aperture + shutter speed, so you need to always multi-click switch between these two. Ever you have in the RX much more common in the menu because it provides a total of fewer buttons: Both cameras allow to assign individual features some buttons, but at the RX has ultimately only 1 button really left, where you assign then any desired function can. The LX has 4 instead, and in addition another own slide (for example, image format, and AF / MF, etc.). So: The LX can thus be adapted to that you almost never have to descend to the menu, while advanced features such as AE lock, focus point selection, etc. directly with a click at its disposal. In the RX one must constantly press FN key, and then change the parameters to be set in the corresponding menu. Some Live functions (such as AE lock) you have even first into sub-sub-sub-menu somewhere else to temporarily assign the desired function to a button, so that then, for example, AE Lock is available during the photos.

(5) control panel and viewfinder. Clearly, the LX has the better quality - very clear and high resolution. It was always an eye-opener to switch from the RX to LX.

(6) Manual zoom. The supporting edges highlighting the RX I find something better than that in the LX, since the adjustable sensitivity can find more * * edges, which is quite helpful for manual zoom. Otherwise, both of which offer an expanded view during zooming - the LX even a sliding PIP Vergößerungsbereich.

(7) Maximum aperture course. Once you zoom with the RX, you have no aperture 1.8 more, but already from 33mm only Aperture 2.8. The RX is thus really more a 2.8 fixed aperture camera, which up to 1.8 can be pulled only in strong Wide range - but still. The LX enforces Aperture 2.8 until 52mm (and even offers the same aperture value as the RX more free parking potential, see next point).

(8) Free parking potential. One should not, for example, aperture 2.5 the RX 2.5 LX compare because the LX has a larger sensor screen, which allows more exemption / depth of field! Unfortunately, the aperture value is not (such as common in focal length) is given converted on small picture format, otherwise you would see the difference immediately to the numbers. In my comparisons shows that it almost has a stop difference for the depth of field! The RX with Aperture 1.8 has so much depth of field as the LX 2.5 (which see point (7) In addition, at the same focal length is always still air has to larger diaphragm!). The LX allows thus a clearly perceptible increased exemption! Whenever you want to play creatively with the depth of field, the RX unit quickly reach the limits (blurry, but recognizable), while the LX a decisive eating more allowed (blurred lights, etc.). But of course, does not reach the LX the free parking potential of a fully-fledged DSLR! On the flip side, this also means that caution should be exercised in the LX: While usually shoots with compact cameras with the maximum aperture (and then still the image actually everywhere is sharp around the focus area), this is in the LX often * not * the best choice, because the exemption is already relatively strong (as can sometimes be sharp fast the face, the ears, but no longer). For simple scene pictures should be the aperture prefer something more close (eg, 2.5, which corresponds to approximately 1.8 in the RX).

(9) Grey filter. The RX has a built 3-aperture-density filter. So you can, for example, in daylight increase the shutter speed (z. B. to achieve Verwischungs effects). But: The LX has a 43mm thread on the lens, to which you can screw it separately sold filters of all kinds as opposed to RX. But even with the LX you can take pictures without a filter in the brightest light, as it (electronically) may reduce the shutter speed to 4000th to even 16000stel.

(10) Folding screen. Has the RX (180 degrees up and 45 degrees down), but the LX unfortunately, although on the ground or overhead is not close just at pictures quite practical.

(11) Built-in flash. Has the RX (even indirect lightning because diagonally pivotally connected to a finger up at the ceiling!). The LX has a hot shoe and instead provides a powerful mini-shoe mount with. Unfortunately, this is not pivotable, therefore a TTL cable is possibly still a sensible purchase in order to align the flash arbitrarily.

(12) speed. Both cameras allow continuous shooting with multiple activations per second. The LX shoots but much faster (with and without focus tracking). In the fastest level recorded sequential shots as 1 single image is displayed in the screen view of the LX. This may select one in order then to look at the countless individual photos behind. This is very convenient and not müllt the image view with countless photos!

(13) Snapshot capability. Here wins in my opinion, the RX: switching, mode dial check, (possibly flash out), Knips! When LX: lens cap, then the "indirect" mode-check by reading the wheel settings, and then Knips! This is felt a bit more work. However, you can implement setting change requests quickly and directly to the LX then, since you have more wheels and buttons available.

(14) low-light quality. I have both cameras especially in poor lighting conditions tested (runtergedimmtes living room, cellar). At first I thought that the RX shoots the better and sharper pictures until I noticed that is simply due to the increased noise reduction (see Figure 1) and the lower depth of field (see Figure 8). Increasing the noise reduction in the LX, so I find the results of the LX just in nonhomogeneous image areas better - even if one continues to close the aperture in order to compare with the same depth of field! The larger pixels appear here so but to bring something a bit - however, the RX is also very good! I would have expected the LX as clear winner (because it has larger pixels = more light). But this is not the case. I suspect that here actually makes the Backside technology of the RX-sensor, the smaller pixel size largely betting! All in all I had but my hopes of both cameras even more. I would like to shoot in low light with 400 100th-second shutter and ISO - but that takes more than two cameras. But at least both are much (!) Better than the Panasonic TZ-61 (in low light).

(15) lens reflections. If you have slightly beside the sun in the sight edge or, the LX is a colorful spot in the image that can be changed and move through aperture value and tilt but not prevent. Maybe you can indeed now and then use artistic, but as a rule, I find that rather disturbing. The RX is hardly susceptible, but even here one creates lens effects such as rays around the sun. So: When LX must watch in strong back light! I had a similar effect at night with bright streetlights. The LX was not here light circles that RX.

(16) Lens Cap. The RX has an automatic lens cap, the LX only a lens cap, which is troublesome for the occasional snapshot. However, it is separately a screw-automatic closure available.

(17) size. The RX is a handy compact camera (compared to even slightly smaller than the Panasonic TZ-61). The LX, however, is considerably bulkier and more akin to a small system camera.

(18) video quality. The videos of the LX are clearer and sharper than that of the RX. In particular, in 4k recorded movies that can shut counted later on HD, are again better than directly in HD. The focus range of the LX is well matched to the Drehradlänge, so you have to start the new fingers during manual focusing is not (as in the RX). Also the video shows that the RX sometimes too thinks, and suddenly initiates eg drastic fluctuations in brightness. Shortcoming of LX: The continuous recording length is very limited (15 minutes at 4K, and 30 minutes otherwise)!

(19) Remote Control. Both cameras offer an Android app that allows you to remotely control the camera. The app from Panasonic is very good, fast, and has a good live view. However, can be adjusted neither Aperture nor shutter speed in the app, even when the wheels are set to Auto. The Sony-app takes forever to load (should be well resolved with new firmware), and the image transfer takes so long that it actually has no live view, but only now and then sees a new image. The LX has virtually no shutter lag, the RX but about 1-2 seconds!

(20) Special Features. The Panasonic has the 4K video a comfortable frame extraction in the camera! The shooting allows "4K photos" with 24fps! So start and run single 4K film, after the most beautiful pictures in at least 4k raussuchen (4k is still 4x "bigger" than a HD screen!). Even things such as creating a stop-motion video, or time-lapse (eg 500 images, 1 image per minute, starting from 21:45), everything is included! The RX contrast brings with fewer gimmicks, but has a connection to the Sony Camera App Store. This can usually costs (5-10 EUR) buy camera apps for the RX, for example, for fast motion, etc. In general, Sony makes all details with money. A rubber finger grip must be purchased as expensive as a stronger power supply that can operate on the power cord, the RX. A nice gimmick of the RX is that the facial recognition allows the self-triggering when a detected face smiles. The LX has a silent mode, which can be absolutely noiseless shooting photos instantly (in particular by means of silent, electronic shutter)!

(21) price. Both cameras are "actually" too expensive :)

I could probably write here even entire novels, but everything has an end ...

My conclusion: I want the Panasonic LX-100 in the size of the RX-100, with folding screen, and a 24M-Four Thirds sensor with backside technology, and automatically lockable lens cap, and without lens reflections.
OR
a Sony RX-100 III with better displays, better menu, more buttons and wheels, and even the operating concept, the feel, the free parking potential and all the other features of the LX.

So why do I have ultimately bought the RX? I needed to take pictures of my offspring a small camera that is always with me, and that you "just" switch on and thus snapping can (if sometimes indirect lightning), and especially in bad light is not creepy grainy. Nevertheless, they should offer me some photographic design possibilities when time is the time for it. These ideas fit the RX just marginally better, although I miss the LX every now and then. But in particular, the size (excl. Accessories) of the LX is not suitable for my use projects. Should my artistic photography Passion pack even more, then I compare the LX-100 again to correct system cameras, or against the LX-100 II :)

Massive Home appliance Rank: 5/5
December 8
Cases for LG G PAD 8.3 Rank: 3/5
November 26
Surprised 5 1 Rank: 4/5
December 13
very well in January 1621 Rank: 4/5
August 15
Good product and very cheap Rank: 5/5
June 6
Excellent 259 50 136 1791 Rank: 5/5
August 21

Related Reviews


LX100 Lumix vs Canon vs Sony RX100 G7X III vs GM5Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Digital Cameras 16.84 megapixel 3x Optical Zoom (Electronics) unfortunately disappointing compared to the Sony DSC-RX100 IIICanon PowerShot G7 Digital Camera X (20.2 megapixels, 4.2x opt. Zoom, WiFi, NFC) (Electronics) E-PL7 vs. OM-D E5 vs. Sony RX 100Olympus PEN E-PL7 Compact system camera (16 megapixels, electric zoom, Full HD, 7.6 cm (3 inch) screen, wifi) incl. 14-42mm pancake lens silver / silver (Electronics) CF Ultra II 16GB for Sony Alpha 100SanDisk SDCFHS-016G-G46 Ultra CompactFlash 16GB UDMA7 memory card up to 50MB / sec. Read (Personal Computers) Sony HVL F 20 M as an ideal companion to the Sony RX 100 IISony HVL-F20M compact flash (Guide Number 20 - 50mm lens, ISO 100 for multi-interface accessory shoe system) (Accessories) Caution The instrument does not replace the Sony ZSR 100 CPSony ZS-RS70BTB Compact disc digital audio system (Bluetooth, USB, CD, DAB / DAB + function, NFC) (Electronics) Just the bag for Sony WX 100Lowepro Apex 10 AW camera bag black (Electronics) super matching bag for Sony DSC RX100 IIICarat Electronics DCL 4 leather camera bag with memory card slot (100 x 65 x 35 mm) (Electronics) Protective cap for Sony RX-100Lens protective cover, black, Ø 58 mm (electronic) Cheap and good extension for Sony RX 100 MK1DiCAPac WP-570 Outdoor Underwater Case for Samsung, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony digital camera with dimensions approximately 120x60x40mm (Camera) The world's best pocket camera - and a comparison with Sony A6000, Fuji X100S and X20Sony DSC-RX100 III digital camera (20 megapixel Exmor R sensor, 3x opt. Zoom, 7.6 cm (3 inch) display, Full HD, WiFi / NFC) (Electronics) As before, the best buy - even in comparison to grade II and IIISamsung Galaxy Note N7000 Smartphone (13.5 cm (5.3 inches) HD Super AMOLED touchscreen, 8 MP Camera, Android 4.0 or later) Carbon Blue (Electronics) Absolutely recommendable addition to Sony RX-100 IISony PCK-LM15 LCD Robust protective cover for DSC-RX1 / DSC-RX100 (Accessories) !!! There is a leather covering for the RX 100 iiiSony LCJ-RXF camera bag for DSC RX100, RX100 and RX100 II III (Accessories) Fits very well for Sony RX 100 IIStarter Set camera bag leather black plus 8 GB SD card (electronic) Sony RX 100 Protectordipos Sony RX 100 / RX 100 II protector (6 pieces) - crystal clear film Premium Crystal Clear (Electronics) Flash shadow with RX-100 III52mm filter adapter for Sony RX100 (II / III) (Electronics) Not for Sony RX 100Cullmann Granada Compact 280 camera bag black (Accessories) very good matching camera bag for DSC RX 100 IIISony LCJ-RXF camera bag for DSC RX100, RX100 and RX100 II III (Accessories)