Panasonic Rumor - Panasonic LX8

[bartjeej]

Tomato Potato. I know that you know what I mean, but for the sake of pedantism let me rephrase that by asking if there is an m4/3s lens that I can slap on a GM1 that will give me the same attributes as the rumored lens on the rumored LX8? And by attributes I mean effective range, size, speed.

The rumored lx8 lens has a full frame equivalent of 24-90mm f/5.5-7.7.

The only m43 lenses that come close in terms of size are:
The panasonic 12-32 with a full frame equivalent of 24-64 f/7-11.2;
The panasonic 14-42 with a full frame equivalent of 28-84 f/7-11.2;
And the Olympus 14-42 with a full frame equivalent of 28-84 f/7-11.2;

So even if both the focal length and aperture are converted to full frame equivalent, your conclusion holds that a similar lens is not available for m43. The rumored lx8 would therefore allow shallower DOF at all focal lenths, and assuming equal sensor efficiency, also better high iso noise performance.

 

[Ray Sachs]

The rumored lx8 lens has a full frame equivalent of 24-90mm f/5.5-7.7.

The only m43 lenses that come close in terms of size are:
The panasonic 12-32 with a full frame equivalent of 24-64 f/7-11.2;
The panasonic 14-42 with a full frame equivalent of 28-84 f/7-11.2;
And the Olympus 14-42 with a full frame equivalent of 28-84 f/7-11.2;

So even if both the focal length and aperture are converted to full frame equivalent, your conclusion holds that a similar lens is not available for m43. The rumored lx8 would therefore allow shallower DOF at all focal lenths, and assuming equal sensor efficiency, also better high iso noise performance.

I wouldn't assume equal sensor efficiency, but it's not that far behind. It won't measure up to a current m43 with either the Pany 12-35 or Oly 12-40 on either DOF or noise, but it'll be a WHOLE lot smaller too. And, as you're showing, it'll beat the smaller m43 zooms on both DOF and noise. But that's not surprising. I always contended that the smaller sensor LX5/7, S90-120, GX1-2, G12-15, etc tended to measure up really well against m43 with kit lenses and the LX8 will be notably better than those in terms of high ISO...

-Ray

 

[Crsnydertx]

After largely abandoning MFT at the GX1/G5 stage a year or more ago, I recently tried a GX7. I really wanted to like it, but after a few days I realized it wouldn't displace my Fuji X-E1 - even though it's arguably a more capable camera. The GX7 felt bulky in my hands vs. the Fuji, and the tilting LCD looked like something that would eventually break. So back it went, to be replaced with a very nice Fuji X-E2 (which came with extra mojo because it had been used by Ray!).

Having said all that, I still watch Panasonic closely for innovative gear. The LX8 - if configured as rumored - would be a really attractive option for me. In the meantime, the LX7 rocks on when I don't feel like carrying the Fuji.

p.s. I have a couple spare batteries for the GX7 that I wasn't able to return. I'll post them soon at a very attractive price.

 

[bartjeej]

I wouldn't assume equal sensor efficiency, but it's not that far behind. It won't measure up to a current m43 with either the Pany 12-35 or Oly 12-40 on either DOF or noise, but it'll be a WHOLE lot smaller too. And, as you're showing, it'll beat the smaller m43 zooms on both DOF and noise. But that's not surprising. I always contended that the smaller sensor LX5/7, S90-120, GX1-2, G12-15, etc tended to measure up really well against m43 with kit lenses and the LX8 will be notably better than those in terms of high ISO...

-Ray

Actually, at 24mm equivalent, the rumored lx8 is at f/5.5 equivalent and the 12-35 and 12-40 are both at f/5.6 equivalent, so no better. It's only upon zooming in that these cameras/lenses will gain an advantage because they can keep that f/5.6 equivalence throughout the zoom range.

Also, I haven't really followed the nuances of sensor efficiency, mainly because I don't really mind noise, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 1" type sensor is even more efficient than the m43, with its BSI design.

 

[Ray Sachs]

Actually, at 24mm equivalent, the rumored lx8 is at f/5.5 equivalent and the 12-35 and 12-40 are both at f/5.6 equivalent, so no better. It's only upon zooming in that these cameras/lenses will gain an advantage because they can keep that f/5.6 equivalence throughout the zoom range.

Also, I haven't really followed the nuances of sensor efficiency, mainly because I don't really mind noise, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 1" type sensor is even more efficient than the m43, with its BSI design.

At 24mm equivalent, they may be equal on DOF, but it's not like most folks are looking for really narrow DOF at 24mm. But in terms of low light, the LX8's f2.0 is just flat out faster - there's no equivalence there. So if we assumed equal sensor performance, the LX8 would have a notable advantage over m43 with the kit lens. But I used an RX10 for a while and I don't believe that sensor is equivalent to the current m43 sensors. It's very good and better than good for it's size. But I shot the RX10 back to back with the same constant f2.8 lenses on my EM1 and I was doing a good deal better in low light with the EM1. Being able to use faster lense increased the advantage by a good bit, but even at the same f2.8, I was getting more keepers with the EM1 in low light...

-Ray

 

[bartjeej]

At 24mm equivalent, they may be equal on DOF, but it's not like most folks are looking for really narrow DOF at 24mm.

I am! :tongue: wide angle narrow dof is sort of my holy grail of cameraland

But in terms of low light, the LX8's f2.0 is just flat out faster - there's no equivalence there. So if we assumed equal sensor performance, the LX8 would have a notable advantage over m43 with the kit lens. But I used an RX10 for a while and I don't believe that sensor is equivalent to the current m43 sensors. It's very good and better than good for it's size. But I shot the RX10 back to back with the same constant f2.8 lenses on my EM1 and I was doing a good deal better in low light with the EM1. Being able to use faster lense increased the advantage by a good bit, but even at the same f2.8, I was getting more keepers with the EM1 in low light...

-Ray

There's a difference between equal efficiency and equal performance. Efficiency is about maximizing the amount of usable signal for any fixed number of photons. Performance is about maximizing signal (period), regardless whether that is achieved by receiving many photons or by efficiently converting just a few photons. The larger size of an m43 sensor means it receives a larger number of photons to work with and will therefore, with equal efficiency, have better performance - unless the smaller sensor is receiving its photons through a lens with a larger aperture to make up for the difference in sensor size.

In the case of a 1" type sensor at f/2 versus an m43 sensor at f/2.8, the aperture is just as large (in absolute terms) for the both of them,* meaning the number of photons received by each sensor is the same. All that is left to make a difference there is the efficiency, which has nothing to do with sensor size. As I indicated previously, I wouldn't be surprised if the 1" type sensor with its BSI design was more efficient at converting whatever number of photons it's receiving than the m43's non-BSI design. Combine that with an equal number of photons due to the 1" type sensor having an f/2 lens, and the LX8 might just have lower noise.

The rx10, using f/2.8 for a smaller sensor area / shorter absolute focal length, has a smaller absolute aperture size and therefore fewer photons to work with than the m43 at f/2.8, explaining the difference in quality.

*the 1" sensor actually has a tiny advantage as I showed in my previous post, but I'll ignore that here as it's less than a tenth of a stop.

 

[dhazeghi]

The more I read about it, the more interested I am. A lot comes down to the lens though - will it be sharp, edge-to-edge, at most apertures? And will it focus close enough to allow near-macro shots.

 

[Ray Sachs]

I am! :tongue: wide angle narrow dof is sort of my holy grail of cameraland

There's a difference between equal efficiency and equal performance. Efficiency is about maximizing the amount of usable signal for any fixed number of photons. Performance is about maximizing signal (period), regardless whether that is achieved by receiving many photons or by efficiently converting just a few photons. The larger size of an m43 sensor means it receives a larger number of photons to work with and will therefore, with equal efficiency, have better performance - unless the smaller sensor is receiving its photons through a lens with a larger aperture to make up for the difference in sensor size.

In the case of a 1" type sensor at f/2 versus an m43 sensor at f/2.8, the aperture is just as large (in absolute terms) for the both of them,* meaning the number of photons received by each sensor is the same. All that is left to make a difference there is the efficiency, which has nothing to do with sensor size. As I indicated previously, I wouldn't be surprised if the 1" type sensor with its BSI design was more efficient at converting whatever number of photons it's receiving than the m43's non-BSI design. Combine that with an equal number of photons due to the 1" type sensor having an f/2 lens, and the LX8 might just have lower noise.

The rx10, using f/2.8 for a smaller sensor area / shorter absolute focal length, has a smaller absolute aperture size and therefore fewer photons to work with than the m43 at f/2.8, explaining the difference in quality.

*the 1" sensor actually has a tiny advantage as I showed in my previous post, but I'll ignore that here as it's less than a tenth of a stop.

Bart, you just jumped all the way over my head - there's a lot of technical talk there that I don't doubt but I also don't fully understand, nor need to. My very strong impression from using the RX10 (same sensor) back to back with an EM1, both with lenses at a constant aperture of f2.8 and a focal range from 24 to 200 mm (this takes two lenses with the EM1) is that m43 is capable of better low light results in the same shooting situations at the same focal lengths with the same aperture. That's all I needed to know... As such, my assumption is that the LX8 will better the low light performance of an m43 body with one of the smaller kit zoom lenses but will not with similar aperture lenses. I suspect it will meet many/most of my needs/wants very well, but not all of them...

-Ray

 

[bartjeej]

^Sorry Ray, I do get over-excited by technical details sometimes!

I guess the easy way of saying what I did above is that m43 has a one stop sensor size advantage over a 1" type sensor, so if the LX8 lens is at least one stop faster it'll be just as good or better than m43; if not, then m43 will be better. Which fits nicely with what you found comparing the RX10 and m43 at the same aperture.

 

[MoonMind]

I think the images from the sensor in the newly announced FZ1000 as posted on dpreview are worth a look in order to get an idea of what Panasonic can do with a 1'' sensor. Very convincing, really (I looked at the raw files only ...). If they put that kind of sensor behind a lens that optically equals the jewel that is the LX7's lens, I absolutely think they'd be onto a winner, at least as long as they can keep the size in check. I'd still love to see the lens as bright as possible, though - 2.0 is the bare minimum here after the 1.4 aperture of the LX7. I know enough of the theory behind it all to appreciate that it won't happen if the LX8 is to stay close enough in size to the LX7, but I'd happily lose a bit of reach in exchange for aperture ...
M.

 

[Crsnydertx]

The LX3, highly regarded in its time, was f/2.0-2.8, 24-60mm zoom. The LX5 "slipped" to a max aperture of 2.0-3.3 while expanding the zoom to 24-90. The LX7, as mentioned, made a substantial improvement in the max aperture to f/1.4-2.3 while holding the 24-90mm zoom. What compromises will be needed to accommodate a 1" sensor while keeping the upward trajectory of quality and attractiveness?

 

[Rhino123]

With the FZ1000 being announced... I am seriously hoping that the rumored LX8 become a reality and that the price is lower that what I can see in Sony RX100mkII... Lucky I still haven't been able to find a time to get down to town to get my RX100... now there are more cameras to choose.

Soooo happy

 

[john m flores]

The LX3, highly regarded in its time, was f/2.0-2.8, 24-60mm zoom. The LX5 "slipped" to a max aperture of 2.0-3.3 while expanding the zoom to 24-90. The LX7, as mentioned, made a substantial improvement in the max aperture to f/1.4-2.3 while holding the 24-90mm zoom. What compromises will be needed to accommodate a 1" sensor while keeping the upward trajectory of quality and attractiveness?

IIRC, the LX7 sensor was marginally smaller than the LX5 sensor. That likely helped the lens speed. That said, I do think that it will have a 1" sensor; I believe the 1" is the next big thing...

 

[bilzmale]

LX8? To my memory the LX range skips even model numbers so LX9 should be next. Just wondering.

 

[MoonMind]

There was actually an LX2 ... But to be frank, I couldn't care less about the naming scheme as long as it delivers. LXx whatever, they should just go ahead and amaze us

 

[Edgar]

LX8 as a better-than-kit-zoom for m4/3 shooters

I always contended that the smaller sensor LX5/7, S90-120, GX1-2, G12-15, etc tended to measure up really well against m43 with kit lenses and the LX8 will be notably better than those in terms of high ISO...

That's been my experience too.

And if the rumours are true, then the lens on the LX8 would be comparable to an m4/3 that's 12-45mm f/2.8-4.

No such m4/3 lens exists, but if it did, you can bet that it would be a lot bigger than the LX7, and certainly bigger than the m4/3 kit lenses. This makes the LX8 a very exciting prospect for m4/3 shooters.

 

[Jock Elliott]

Your friend had you to recommend a camera though. For the average person who is walking blind into camera retail, their perception of a 'serious' camera that can take 'nice' photos in all kinds of situations, it's the big black DSLR (usually the cheapest entry level models with kit lens). This is especially the case if the price of an entry level DSLR is about the same or cheaper than a smaller sensor camera.

My sense of it is that most camera retail now takes place either (a) online or (b) in big box stores. In the big box stores, if you ask the clerk about a camera "What can you tell me about this?" They look at the box and say "It costs $499.95." Real, actual, retail knowledge of products appears to be a thing of the past, except in actual camera stores, and I don't know of any within a 50 mile radius of where I live.

Cheers, Jock

 

[Jock Elliott]

John used the key phrase "sweet spot". Every sensor is a trade-off. .

What's interesting to me is that the "sweet spot" shifts according to whatever you need the camera to do, and of course the size of the sensor (and as a result, the size of the glass) and the crop factor enter into it.

I've never even seen or handled a Nikon 1 in real life, but I understand that they can deliver lots of reach and lightning-fast autofocus. But if you want tons of creamy bokeh and want to make huge prints, you may well want something else. For me, it's fun to consider what various cameras can deliver with their own particular sweet spots.

Cheers, Jock

 

[Luckypenguin]

I agree that the "sweet spot" for sensor size varies for different applications. Smaller 2/3" and 1/1.7" sensors allow for combinations of big zoom ranges and small bodies. A 1" sensor seems to be work very well in a super compact zoom camera (RX100), but for larger mitts that require a bigger body there is more room available for a larger sensor (a la G1X). For fixed prime lenses we have APS-C sensor cameras that are plenty small enough (GR, Coolpix A). If you prefer something a little larger then you have the RX1 with a full-frame sensor. For interchangeable lens cameras again you can some very compact primes lenses in an APS-C sensor (Samsung NX for instance), but when you start talking zoom lenses then Micro 4/3 seems to have the better overall balance. I don't see there ever being a "dominant" sensor format.

 

[kwaphoto]

My sense of it is that most camera retail now takes place either (a) online or (b) in big box stores. In the big box stores, if you ask the clerk about a camera "What can you tell me about this?" They look at the box and say "It costs $499.95." Real, actual, retail knowledge of products appears to be a thing of the past, except in actual camera stores, and I don't know of any within a 50 mile radius of where I live.

Cheers, Jock

You've got this one right! The big box places have no clue about cameras...or really anything they sell. Sure, there is the rare exceptional employee, but its the exception that proves the rule.

For the LX8/9 or whatever a name...maybe something totally new too, if it's got a 1" sensor, an EVF and a lens in the range of 24-90 (maybe 100-110mm) at f/1.8 - 2.4 I'd be very tempted. I think if they could do a 24-90mm f/2.0 lens that would be great. I like constant apertures.