Cinegain

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.

The 'underarm bag' could be worth trying... maybe it sucks, maybe it's really practical. Ships from China for around 10 USD on eBay ('Redalex' - 'R-lex' branded it seems). If it just needs to hold a lens cap, some spare batteries and some filters, it should do the job just fine?

Yeah, I just found out that a lens I ordered on eBay is part of this Global Shipping Program when I went and googled what the 'UPAAB'-tracking related to. But so far so good, it got shipped out promptly and I'm getting regular status updates, so fingers crossed.

I got mine through Vitaliy: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9086/rj-lens-turbo-m43-adapters/p1?Sort=newest Me three. That's a great idea. Would make for a good and valuable read I'm sure. I already have quite a bit of vintage/legacy glass and now got the RMC coming my way as well. What Andy said about the 28-70mm f/2.8 putting on a speedbooster basically covering three basic f/2 hollywood-look primes really got me intrigued too...

You know what they say: 'the best camera is the one you have with you'. What's the best camera to have with you? It all depends how you're gonna use it and what aspects in a camera you value most. Does it need to be small? Does it need good low light performance? Does it need to be 4K? Have great stabilization? Do you want to take great stills as well? You can get a G6, GX7, GH4, BMPCC, A7S, D5200/D5300, A6000 or something else completely, perhaps you don't want to swap out glass and go with the LX100 or FZ1000. There's no absolute right and wrong here. What works for one person, most probably isn't the most ideal solution for someone else with very different requirements. I feel like you can do great things with any of 'em. It's 2014, almost 2015. Now, content may be king, but there's no need for image quality to be subjected to it. It's not 'either .. or'. Yeah, for sure the GH4 is great. It shoots 4K internally, the MFT/M43 system is very flexible, the camera handles great and is still somewhat compact. That makes it definitly one to consider.

Or... that the most fun is 'learning and doing', therefor you should not postpone a purchase, but start shooting with any of the current means availlable, instead of holding off on buying because the next great thing is always around the corner and you feel like you should only be shooting with the very best and latest (which leads to a vicious circle and gets you nowhere). So... as long as you read it like that, it computes just fine. ;)

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.

Canon. Can. Non. Non-can. No can do. Cannot. Can't. Just sayin'.

A great to see you here, Steffen, I had linked to your article in the other LX100 topic a week ago: I agree with SteffenH and tosvus. You should not make assumptions based on a couple of videos where people either didn't understand how to shoot proper video, people that wanted an out-of-the-box-test, or those that just happen to like the very sharp detailled footage and embrace that it's 2014/15 and don't see anything wrong with that. You know, we're not used to all this new stuff yet. People still like the Canon softness and complain about The Hobbit being shown at high frame rate. But maybe all we need is a little time to adjust. But anyways... there's a reason people dial back their settings. For example: contrast... you can not get back detail from blown out highlights or crushed blacks. Unless you're working in journalism and you need quick turnarounds or something, you'll want to put the contrast to its minimum setting. Same goes for sharpening, out-of-the-box the Panasonics are a little harsh on sharpness. When you dial it down your footage will start looking more natural and pleasing. This also should take care of most moire that usually is induced by applying sharpening. And remember, you can always add a little sharpening in post, but good luck getting rid of any picked up moire. So yeah, personally I like to dial sharpening all the way down. And like SteffenH said, that doesn't mean your footage becomes super soft, the detail is still there and it's still pretty sharp enough. You'd do the same with a GH4 and for the LX100 it's no different, really. And then of course the 180 degree shutter rule, which basicly means you use double the value of whatever your framerate is... so 30fps you'd want to shoot at 1/60th (2x30). You can't use 1/48th for 24p, but 1/50 is close enough. This allows for natural looking motion. Movements within the frame start to look really organic, whereas high shutterspeeds will make motion look rather jittery. So basicly... first you decide at which resolution and framerate you're going to shoot. Then you use aperture to control depth of field, shutter for motion blur and a ND filter to control exposure. Lastly, when working in low light conditions you might want to ditch the ND filter, open up your aperture considerably, accept the narrower depth of field that gives you, keep the shutterspeed according the 180 rule and then use ISO to increase sensitivity to a point that you deem the scene properly exposed. And again, pick a picture profile that goes easy on the footage and take the effects of certain settings into consideration. Use common sense... if you see something you don't like, ask yourself 'can I do something to change that?', probably: 'yes, you can!'. A camera is not a magic box. There's some science to it. But a camera has no soul (although I bet there's some people with Leica's about to hit me in the head for that), it has no taste, it has no consideration of certain factors. It's not telepathically connected to you. It needs you to work together, it needs you to give it instructions, tell it what it is supposed to do. And when the two of you work together in synergy, beautiful things will happen! But don't expect the camera to do it all without you, straight out-of-the-box. You need eachother. Be a team. If you suck, the LX100 (or any other camera for that matter) will suck. If you know your own limits and that of the camera, you're probably good to go, though. To me there's no reason for putting off buying the LX100 if you're worried about quality, in my opinion the LX100 is very capable of taking stunning footage. But oh well, it's too late and I'm rambling. Sorry. :P I'll stop now.

I bet gun holsters would look pretty badass.

Oh, it's great. The FZ1000 is awesome. It just doesn't fit in your coat pocket and takes up a bit of space in a bag too. You do get the flexible zoomrange, the cinestyles, PSAM-dial, dedicated movie mode and the flippy tilty screen for example, which makes it more like handling a GH4 with 14-140mm. Albeit without the four thirds sensor of course and the GH4 features a touchscreen which is really convenient, not to mention adds a headphone jack to the audio interface for monitoring. The LX100 is great for on-the-go and B-roll, does have the big sensor and brighter lens to go with that compact form factor. The FZ1000 is more of a allround vacations camera (although not solely), if you do want quality and flexibility but not changing out lenses and setting up a tripod. Especially if you're out a lot during daytime anyways, for stills the increased megapixel count really gives you something you can work with, works great for high detail panoramashots for example. It's the perfect superzoom/bridgecamera, but it is a bit harder to get shallow depth of field (wide angle non-macro) and perhaps footage tends to look a tad bit more videoey. In the end both the LX100, FZ1000 and GH4 are very different cameras with each their own use (so, if you can, get all of them, use 'em individually and use 'em together). One is only better than the other depending on how you want to use it... stills vs video, compact vs feature set, futureproofing, et cetera, there isn't any clear answer, so wage the pros and cons of each and decide what suits your needs best.

Okay. So thank you for contributing to this topic, bye for now and good luck in the other threads.

Well, with the smallest system I know, the Velbon QRA-3, you'd be looking at something like this, so forget using any Q/R systems: And mind you, that's mounted sideways even. If you put a thumbscrew through a hole next to a cage cutout you're looking at something like this: You can just barely get the SD in and out. If you'd use it like this, you'll be needing a screw that doesn't block the cutout, but it could work. But then you're stuck with the camera on the cage more or less, because you haven't got a Q/R system and the screw would probably require a tool to remove.

It wasn't though. (And, eh... in-body stabilization as a firmware upgrade? That's something hardware related... so... unless magic is involved that's a no) I'm still going with... So unless 2015 tech innovation suddenly finds a way to improve significantly on data infrastructure and cooling (hardware; new camera), I don't really see this happening just yet? That's also why I'm taking this: (FT3) Few tidbits on the new OMD (4K with 24/25/30p, weather sealed)... with a fair amount of salt. They refuse to give the E-M1 anything other than 30p, although there's quite a bit demand for 24p and 25p... and the 4K rumors turned out to be bollocks anyway. So suddenly they care? Haha, well, we'll find out, but better not trust any anonymous sources, 43rumors, and Olympus to come thru for you. Just sayin'.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it should just do 24p (assuming 'ita' refers to 'Italia', being Europe), atleast it does here (in Austria, your northern neighbour). Unless you're in 4K Photo mode; then it only does 25p. Yeah, that's especially a bit of a shame with the GH4 when you want to shoot 4K in another aspect ratio and equip the camera with a taking and an anamorphic lens, but chances are we're going to see a FW update for that. Low-ISO performance is really great on the LX100 and the lens is gorgeous. But again, if you're only using it for video and you do not have need for a second camera or the requirement that you need something small to shoot with and you are just looking at it solely for the range... I would still go with the GH4 and 12-35mm f/2.8. Although I don't have one myself, I can't really imagine the 12-35mm f/2.8 offering insufficient quality. And I think purely for video you'd have a lot of benefits anyways shooting with the GH4. But of course, if you're convinced you need it... you're the one that needs to judge and execute.

That's because they simply don't know any better. 'Yeah, eh Canon right? I think that's the best, I always see people with a Canon'. They probably would walk up to a Nikon guy shooting away and asking him 'oeh, what Canon is that?', or have the same response to somebody showing them their Sony pictures. Canon's bred themselves a nice herd of sheeple. And although the grass is starting to get dry and there's soil patches and mud puddles everywhere, that's what they know... and apparantly it feels comfortable not having to go thru change or something, so they just stick with it, eventhough the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I didn't expect that much difference from the 70D, and surprise, it was very close indeed. Sure, if you had a 7D and was very pleased with it, the 7DmkII will give still give you that nice APS-C crop that turns your tele lenses into super tele and make it really usuable for sports and wildlife photography, especially with that nice burst and improved AF. But you kinda are allowed to expect something better when it has years and years to evolve. And what that concerned, I'm not sure if it has come far enough yet. I mean, it has pretty decent features and all, but if you want to bring your image quality to a new level, I'm not sure the 7DmkII is going to blow you away. And Nikon just shows how far sensor technology has come, the image quality you can get out of a Nikon is pretty amazing. It's like the turtle and the rabbit, with the turtle taking a nap. I'm not biased to any brand. There's some stuff every brand has going for them, it being Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm or whatever. But I feel like Canon is starting to have less and less going for them, whilst the others are sprinting away with evolution, innovation and new concepts. And we're on a forum for dSLR filmmaking... whereas Canon was very meaningful with the 550D, 7D and 5DmkII... the cameras we've seen recently still fall back to that one great period. But it's 2014, almost 2015, for crying out loud! They need to make something for this day and age! Everybody else is doing it... why not them? "Ok, if you want nicer video, get our multithousends pro gear." What are you talking about Canon? Really, c'mon, get real. I don't mind buying something that has 'Canon' on it, but it needs to make sense...

Yeah, you guys are right, in addition to not fitting in your jeans, it also isn't a video camera. Just look at it, it just oozes 'modern retro photo camera'. Just everything about it screams 'take photos with me!'. Except for the fact that it dóes take video. And does that very well so and in 4K. What other camera does that? None. The RX100 doesn't take 4K video. Yeah, maybe your smartphone shoots 4K... but it does so with its tiny sensor, crappy optics/range and shitty bitrate. Great degree of manual control? Forget it! So in fact the LX100 is definitly NOT like every other camera out there. So it doesn't have an audio interface. Well, record externally or if you're just shooting some scenic footage, put some music under there. So you need to manually select shutterspeed by turning a dial and if you don't want 1/60th but 1/50th of a second, turn two dials. That takes you maybe one whole second, wow, yeah, that's aweful guys, don't buy this, it takes you a second to change shutterspeed. Can you just imagine? It's not flat enough, I need my flat cinematic profiles. Well, just dial everything back, the colors will stay nice, but yeah, gradeability is slightly effected because it isn't thát flat and doesn't let you push it as far as let's say a BMPCC. Well, you should've gotten that one instead then. Except, unlike the LX100, it doesn't take any stills and 4K video for example. There's compromises lurking around every corner! Nobody's telling you to ditch your current gear and buy the LX100 as your exclusive camera for video! Nobody's telling you the LX100 is ideally designed for video shooting... but again, at the end of the day it does enable you to take very nice 4K video. And what other camera can say the same for 799 EUR? I already have the GH4, if I know I'm gonna shoot video, I will make sure to use that one. If I'm out and about and I'm not planning on shooting any stills or video, but when there's a moment I wish I did, it's nice that I don't have to settle for my smartphone's quality, I can take out the LX100 and shoot awesome stuff! When shooting video with the GH4, the LX100 becomes one hell of a B-camera! Like Andrew said, if you need another angle, the LX100 will help you out greatly! It also intercuts nicely with other footage. At the end of the day... isn't it all about getting the results you're after... or even the ones you before never dreamed of? It's not designed with the main feature being video. So they went with the clickety type (although a declick button would've been a nice feature). Just gotta use a variable ND-filter to gradually control exposure instead.

Yeah, the sensor inside still is four thirds. But in order to keep the lens as small as it is, in order to get the sharpest results without vignetting, they decided not to use any of the edge pixels of the sensor, so that leaves you with certain crops different for each of the aspect ratio modes. But you'll never get a full readout of the sensor installed, that's very true indeed. You're right, it's not a pocket camera, it's a premium compact. If it's too big, get the RX100M3. Although personally I still think the RX100M3 isn't much pocketable either (unless wearing really baggy cargo pants putting it in a pocket located around the hips, just above the knee). Anyways. I don't care that it doesn't fit a jeans' pocket. It still fits a coat pocket perfectly fine and you can throw it in a messenger bag/shoulder bag very easily with all of the other stuff you're carrying around on a daily basis, such as a tablet or whatever, without taking up all the space to a point that you'd rather not have it with you unless you know you're going to be using it. Since I already carry a bag around or outside of summer usually will be needing to wear a coat (it's no sunny southern California around here), I will have it on me always! I can't say that a FZ1000 would fit in my coat's pocket or that a GH4 with 20mm f/1.7 wouldn't add any bulk to my bag (besides, just the pancake would be a little limiting). But the LX100 is very compact. As I said in my first post of the thread, to me the essence is that I have a camera that takes considerable quality stills and videos in a small package. That doesn't mean I can fit it in one of my pants' pockets, it means that it is small and light enough to carry around without being a burden. If you carry it in your coat or bag it doesn't take up much space and you'll hardly notice its presence. But it is always there! So that means, that if you normally don't have your camera with you, because you'd have to carry it on a strap around your neck, which could be rather uncomfortable, especially if you're not even sure if you'll need it, or put it in a bag where it weighs you down and takes up quite a bit of space, now you can. Again, to me this is the answer to the use of the cameras on smartphones. Now, they're getting better, sure, but wouldn't you rather shoot something with the LX100? That's to me where the LX100 kicks in, because I would. And I very much prefer the LX100's handling, features and performance over the RX100's. But to each their own of course. It's just a bit silly to keep picking on the LX100 for not being RX100-sized. Yeah, we know... nobody's saying you can't buy a RX100... there's a good reason there are so many different kind of cameras. Everybody's looking for certain qualities in a camera and that all results into different cameras.

TCSTV had a nice video on the Ronin about a week ago, looks nice... There's a topic on EOSHD about these type of 3-axis systems: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ( >and ). And there are already some cheap solutions availlable... Of course, everything that's a little bit more DIY and cheap will come with challenges. That's the price you pay if you don't want to pay the price.

It's always been a FT sensor in these cameras. Only the mounttype is called differently to make a distinction between SLR and mirrorless, the mount these days is a MFT/M43 one, it used to be FT when the cameras where still using mirrors (to allow light being redirected to the optical viewfinder). So it still uses a 4/3" sensor (1.33"), but the mount flange focal distance due to being mirrorless (no mirror, so no optical viewfinder, that's why mirrorless cameras have either no viewfinder or a digital one) is greatly reduced.

That's some out of the box thinking. :P That could work (although I'm scared of reflections and stuff, it will be pretty crappy). I think the 808's are still a thing, right? http://www.chucklohr.com/808/index.shtml & http://www.rcgroups.com/aerial-photography-128/ - Oh, lol, there's already a topic on that... http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2247448 , well, I hope they're able to figure it out! - And if all fails, what aerial video concerned the Hero4 looks really promising (atleast in the hands of Luke):

No problemo! ;) Concerning autoISO... If I'm in fairly dim lit conditions and I just need a little more in focus, so I go f/4, if I go low ISO and auto shutter, I might get unwanted movement/shakiness because the shutter was set too slow to allow for a correct exposure. I would then set the shutter to 1/160th in addition to f/4 for example and let the ISO be controlled automatically. That way I know I get the required depth of field and should be sharp and steady and the exposure correct with minimum noise. So to me it absolutely makes sense to have this for photography. For video though... you're talking about taking 24 to 60 stills a second consecutively and repeatedly. Wouldn't you ideally be using a variable ND-filter or clickless aperture to control exposure whilst shooting with the ISO and shutter being set to certain limits you deem to be desired and acceptable? "Yeah, but I don't want to cut light (variable ND), I want to add light mid-shoot sometimes and I don't want to change my aperture because it's already wide open/need the corresponding depth of field and the 180 shutter-rule is holy". Well, okay, but I'm not sure if there's such a thing as smooth ISO transitions, so the change would be very obvious what exposure concerned. In addition you'd have two different behaviours from two different ISO-settings (noise levels most notably, maybe dynamic range a bit as well). Too be honest, I most likely wouldn't even use it if it was a feature. I haven't ever shot anything like that before (and an ND-filter or aperture ring you can control, you cannot control autoISO, so it might be going all over the place all the time), I'm not sure if others even do? When would you think that's a better idea than any of the other mentioned methods? If for some reason you really really want to shoot with another ISO? Stop - adjust - start is done quickly enough... Not really sure what you mean, but since there's no dedicated videomode; the settings/dial position dictates what will happen. The exception being the shutterdial, because you can in fact use the dial on the back to select 1/50th of a second for example since this value is not represented on the dial. Ah! Good find!

Yeah, the FZ1000 has 5-Axis hybrid OIS (mind you, not in 4K or high speed recording), the LX100 just Power OIS (not sure how many axis that is specifcally). Yes, 4K recording starts countdown from 15mins. No, you cannot use it like this unfortunately. They have to provide some kind of clear separation. Yeah, I know that it's fixed lens solution against an interchangeable lens system, but as someone that invested in a GH4 I would be pretty pissed if a camera would come out with almost the exact same features but put in a smaller and much more affordable package. So I guess that's one side of the story: cutting down on features as to protect the value of higher-end products. Everybody is crippling their lower priced products, it's just how things work at companies. And then on the other side of course it would bump productions costs and bulk of the camera a bit (it will take money and space to implement). And remember, the LX100 and FZ1000 aren't really targeting filmmakers and video enthusiasts per se. There probably only is a relatively small percentage of users actually finding use for these kind of features, although I have to say, some kind of optional connector unit with mic-in and headphone-out would be welcome... but again, that would narrow the gap between lines. I think it's the same reason why they won't give the LX100 a touchscreen. And who knows perhaps they could've given the GM5 4K video as well, but why would someone then still buy a LX100 or GH4? Pretty sure you'll love it! Enjoy! Actually, it hasn't. Because it has no dedicated videomode you can set auto-ISO, but as soon as you start rolling video this sticks with the initial ISO (unless that's what you meant, yeah it does pick that all by itself). Also, the feature completely disappears in 4K Photo mode. It doesn't do anything. Yes, it does indeed! It also features the same accessory ring you'll find on the LX7. Personally I would never put a RX100M3 in my jeans pocket. Maybe it would fit, but it would be uncomfortable and awkward looking. A thin 5.0" smartphone and a filled wallet is what I would carry around maximum... a camera? Don't see it happening. Not even with the LX7, although maybe if you're wearing baggy cargo pants.

Great write-up! I couldn't agree more! To me that's the essence of this camera. Great tip, thanks! Hadn't thought of that!

Wow lovely dreamy look and great low contrast. Me likey. ^_^ Yeah, those are some nice shots indeed. But I'm just not that artsy myself. :P