Lx100 vs GH4 with 12-35mm

[ita149]

I've already the gh4 and I must buy either one very soon (12-35 or the lx100) but i want the sharpest.

Does someone has the gh4 with 12-35 and  the lx100 to make a 4k video comparison or advise about it ?

[tosvus]

there is some talk that 4k on lx100 is not quite 1:1 pixel crop so it has more moire than the gh4. The lens, while faster than 12-35 on wide end is realistically not quite as sharp. That said it depends on your situation what is better. I am putting in an order for the lx100 soon, but I don't own the gh4.

[Cinegain]

Yeah, you don't really get the LX100 for the range. You get the LX100 because you want a nice compact solution. To expand your range, having the GH4 already, get the 12-35mm f/2.8 and benefit from the GH4-profiles, Cinema 4K, 1:1 pixels, dedicated videomode and audio monitoring functionality of the GH4 and nicer focusring on the 12-35mm, just to name a few plusses. I assume you do not have much against the added bulk for shooting within this range by taking the interchangable lens camera with the lens instead of the LX100.

Unfortunately I can't tell you much about the 12-35mm, as I only have the comparable E-M1's 12-40mm f/2.8 kitlens to put on the GH4. But the lots of people that own one, must have a good reason for that. Besides, it has built-in stabilization, which is great.

I agree with tosvus, usually a collapsable zoom isn't quite as good as high-end glass and unless you need the range ánd a compact camera, the most sensible choice seems to be to go with just the lens to pair with your GH4. My 2 cents.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

It depends on with you want a second camera or not! I would rather have the 12-35mm on a GH4 vs a GH4 + a whole new camera with different profiles, functionality.

[Vesku]

I have read comments that LX100 has better video OIS than GH4 + 12-35mm.

[neverending]

If you not have the possibility to invest more than 2000$ in GH4 plus a good lens (for example the 12-35 2.8). Take, for a good compromise, the FZ1000 that has a good 1" sensor, a good fixed (relatively fast 2.8-4) all purpose lens and a lot of GH4 features like a luminance control, mic in, CINE styles, 1:1 sensor transfer in 4K, dedicated movie mode and a solid form factor with very similar control to GH4.

 

The LX100 not has these features and has a "hanged movie mode" with a non 1:1 sensor readout directly to 4K stream (a pixel in sensor is a pixel on 4K stream)

 

For a budget around 800$ take FZ1000 hand down. This camera impressed Andrew as he said in a previous thread or article.

[PeterGregg]

I have both, actually all 3.

 

It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.

 

But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.

 

The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.

 

The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.

 

Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.

 

Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.

 

Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.

 

I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.

 

The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.

 

Peter

[tosvus]

I have both, actually all 3.

 

It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.

 

But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.

 

The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.

 

The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.

 

Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.

 

Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.

 

Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.

 

I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.

 

The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.

 

Peter

 

Good points. Luckily for me, I'm in the camp that usually adjusts wb after the fact. If I am picky about it being right, I will throw in a gray card in the first picture, otherwise I will look for white/gray area to pick from, or worst case, go by memory. Even with focusing, I am slow at adopting new benefits from these cameras, so I usually just use center focus, lock focus and re-compose. If I am really lazy, I may even hope for face/eye-detection to work..

 

I absolutely agree though. This camera is not a replacement for a GH4 with a 12-35 (though it has the one benefit in that it is actually faster on the wide-end, there are many reasons why it cannot compete). I can definitely see it as an a-cam for most of the stuff *I* do (I would ironically use my gh3 as b-cam for longer or wider focal lengths, but I don't think it can compete with the lx100 4k material (downsized), so I would probably try to use the lx100 whenever possible.

 

For others, this camera should be a great b-cam for certain uses, like on handheld gimbal's, mounted to people, vehicles, quad copters etc.

 

Back to the topic though - since you have the GH4, and if you don't want a second camera for those uses, or perhaps just to have two focal lengths covered simultaneously, or a nice carry-around camera, the 12-35 seems like the more logical choice for *you* :)

[wobba]

I have both, actually all 3.

 

It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.

 

But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.

 

The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.

 

The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.

 

Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.

 

Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.

 

Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.

 

I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.

 

The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.

 

Peter

 

Thanks Peter. This is the most helpful writeup I've seen to date on the LX100.  I'll likely just use this as a holiday cam.  Quick question.  My preferred mode for stills is aperture priority and for video, shutter priority with the shutter speed set to 1/50s.  Is it possible to set the custom memories to reflect these settings?  I'm hoping that the custom memory settings will override the LX100's dopey aperture ring and shutter dial. 

 

Will

[Cinegain]

[..]

 

Peter

Good points, to make this a little easier to understand for people reading here, here's a video:

 

Although, to be frank, personally I don't repurpose my 4-way dial, so for me it isn't really an issue.

I've got the LX100 for it's size and to replace my LX7. Just carrying it around wherever and not having to use my smartphone when a 'kodak moment' presents itself. Nice for taking stills and videos on the streets, like on a short city trip. If you're really going on a holiday though, I'd much prefer to have the FZ1000 with me. It's very nice allround and has the range and the tilty flippy screen that makes life a little easier for example. And all that without the added bulk of a bunch of lenses, accessories and a tripod. Which you can take with you of course everytime you're dedicated to come home with the most awesome of footage. On holidays though, I don't want take too much time setting up shots and want to keep on moving... and keep on moving lightweight (especially in hot and humid environments), not with a bunch of gear in my backpack. Unless I'd be going to Iceland with stunning surreal sites everywhere, then the trip would become a dedicated project and all about taking stills and video and I gladly carry around all that.

[ita149]

Thanks you all - this is helpful !

[miguel]

I have both, actually all 3.

 

It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.

 

But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.

 

The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.

 

The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.

 

Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.

 

Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.

 

Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.

 

I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.

 

The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.

 

Peter

Nice and very useful perspective, thanks Peter.

[ita149]

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...

[Vesku]

How can LX100 stabilizer be better than 12-35 f 2.8 because most users has told 12-35 stab is very good and has zero jitter?

 

It leads to another question. Maybe the 12-35 stab is not good at all. People are just now figuring it out.

[animan]

the more I use the 12-35 the less i like it, so much electronic trickery to hide its problems

[ita149]

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.

[animan]

yep, the lenses on both the LX100 and FZ1000 look to be miles ahead of the 12-35, the pics look more like expensive primes than cheap zooms

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/fz1000/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/search?text=lx100&sort=relevance

 

These 2 cameras used together could be a great team!

[ita149]

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