Shooting with a 4K pocket camera - the exceptional Panasonic LX100

[PrebenR]

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.

One more questions. The markings on the camera is 1.7, 2.8, 4 etc.. It does have stops between these right?

It is a tempting camera, just wished it had some more video focus as that would be my use, not photo.

Wish Panasonic could put stabilisation at the sensor in future cameras, as they produce few lenses with stabilisation.

[ita149]

No wonder the footage is so jarring. Those values are insane. They might make some sense if you are using 4K photomode and only want to extract a single frame, but for video footage, that is fairly useless to look at. In this case, it would have made much more sense to run at 1/60 (since it is 30 fps), and the aperture should be a higher value to ensure all the footage is in focus. (Again, if it is all indeed on a narrow plane across the frame, and the intent was to look at a single frame for sharpness problems on the side, that makes sense, but looking at this for video quality makes no sense at all). If it is too bright still at say aperture 5.6 or 8 w 1/60 shutter speed, put on some ND filter. It looks like a bright day.

 

It is also clearly oversharpened, so he shoot experiment with less sharpness for sure.

I precise it's not my video, maybe his lens is decentered so it make sense if he want to test it at f2.8. Anyway, i've linked his video for the sharpness "problem", not really for the corner softness. If he had lowered the sharpness, his footage would have been really soft, especially if he want to downsample to 1080p.

 

 

 

It is fine to give opinion if it is based on a good foundation, I think. However, this clip, once I look at it in Premiere, shows:

-Oversharpened due to settings

-Corners seem a bit soft, but it could be the aperture chose makes this to be out of focus. In any case, while I have found this camera has good corner sharpness, it is not incredible. It can't compete with my gh3 and Nocticron there..

-I don't see any significant issue with moire. The little I see is likely from the fact that he shot very fast shutterspeed, and did handheld, so the jittering between each frame makes is stand out.

-Generally unpleasing picture, but again, due to settings. 

 

Conclusion: Don't base anything on this footage. Have you tried it yourself?? Have you seen all the great footage out there?

-Oversharpned at that point with default sharpness and noise reduction is not really good i think.
-Corners are a bit soft yes, but nothing bad.
-I don't see moire on this video too and i ve never said it.

Thanks you for your advice but ive tried it myself and it's not the only case, a lot of videos posted on the net show the oversharpening.
Download this video and you will see by yourself  :

A first I thought the LX had better IQ than the 12-35 but absoluty not, it's only oversharpened.
 

 

[tosvus]

One more questions. The markings on the camera is 1.7, 2.8, 4 etc.. It does have stops between these right?

It is a tempting camera, just wished it had some more video focus as that would be my use, not photo.

Wish Panasonic could put stabilisation at the sensor in future cameras, as they produce few lenses with stabilisation.

 

Yes, between 1.7 and 2.8, there is also 2.0, 2.2, 2.5  etc.

 

It's a great picture taking camera that happens to take very good 4K video, but yes, functionality wise, not ideal for video.

 

I agree, I wish they had IBIS too.

[tosvus]

I precise it's not my video, maybe his lens is decentered so it make sense if he want to test it at f2.8. Anyway, i've linked his video for the sharpness "problem", not really for the corner softness. If he had lowered the sharpness, his footage would have been really soft, especially if he want to downsample it to 1080p.
 

 

Too many unknowns - The lens is plenty sharp (on a working copy of this camera) to take outstanding shots. I will take some similar examples this week, so you can compare..

[SteffenH]

Ita149,

Where do you have all this information from? If he had lowered the sharpness why should it be "too soft especially for downsampling"? The word "especially" makes no sense at all in that sentence. Don't post stuff you are just guessing from a camera you did not run tests with.
The camera is still incredibly sharp even at VERY soft 4K settings when downsamped to HD. Compared it to C300 and an Alexa.

[ita149]

Ita149,

Where do you have all this information from? If he had lowered the sharpness why should it be "too soft especially for downsampling"? The word "especially" makes no sense at all in that sentence. Don't post stuff you are just guessing from a camera you did not run tests with.
The camera is still incredibly sharp even at VERY soft 4K settings when downsamped to HD. Compared it to C300 and an Alexa.

With Exiftool, read my previous post <_< ... Try it on the video and you will see the same informations. Im not guessing.
Too soft because ive downloaded his clip and ive downsampled it to 1080p and the result is not very good. Do the same if you don't believe me.
It's pointless to lecture people when you don't even read the post.

[tosvus]

With Exiftool, read my previous post <_< ... Try it on the video and you will see the same informations. Im not guessing.
Too soft because ive downloaded his clip and ive downsampled it to 1080p and the result is not very good. Do the same if you don't believe me.
It's pointless to lecture people when you don't even read the post.

 

I think SteffenH meant your assumptions about what would happen if sharpness is lowered. SteffenH has seen both this and a C300 and an Alexa (I take it you know of these cameras??). Andrew Reid has probably touched most cameras you can ever imagine, and is very happy about the quality, plus he has shown great footage.

 

You on the other hand are interpreting footage that you did not shoot, and apparently never even used the camera. I think you need to gain some perspective here. Either borrow/rent the camera and try it out, or watch this thread for more footage that will show you that you are way off base with your conclusions.

[fuzzynormal]

it has a limited very limited video mode and lacks some essential video features. LX7 at least had a separate video mode.

The fact you can buy an imaging device for $900 that trumps most gear film making masters from the 70's and 60's would have loved to have is incredible.

Look, if you can't do creative stuff with a piece of gear like this, you got the problems, not the camera or lens.

I love technology and equipment too, but if you want to actually do something creative with motion picture making, fretting so much about which camera does this or that the best-- man, it is such a complete waste of time.

Although, to be honest, If you want bragging rights and affirmation that you own the latest and greatest imaging kit, that's something else, I guess. It does seem to be a popular pastime on tech-centric blogs.

I'm just amazed though--and what a wonderful time for real legitimate filmmakers (the ones that actually do stuff) -- for less than 2k one can easily buy a camera, editing system, light kit, and audio package.

What to do with all that capability? Use it or talk about it?

[someguy]

I doubt this clip could be more relevant than on this forum right now.

 

[Cinegain]

A great to see you here, Steffen, I had linked to your article in the other LX100 topic a week ago:

 

Interesting read: "LX100 vs. 5D MK III" ~ http://hackermovies.com/panasonic-lx-100-vs-5d-mk-iii-english .

 

His verdict...

 

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.

[tosvus]

Eric Cote, who runs mirrorlessjourney.com created a really cute video, using the GH4 for tripod shots, and the LX100 for slider shots:

 

[someguy]

Looks great.

 

[Inazuma]

As far as I can see there is no camera that is not compromised in one way or another. The lx100 is no different. Everyone picks their camera based on their needs. The canonikons have dedicated movie modes but no evf or native focus peaking. The Panasonic g6 and gh3 have mic inputs but their iq isn't as good as the gx7, gm1, lx100 etc. The blackmagics have superb iq but a small sensor and no 60fps. The REDs have superb iq and slomo but require multiple expensive attachments to work well. Etc.. My point is that if a camera doesn't suit your needs then move on. There's no point arguing about it in forums. I have seen way too much of that on dpreview . Personally I think the lack of touch tilt screen says to me that there will be a mark ii coming next year. So I'm holding off.

[PrebenR]

What tempts me is the all in one gadget. No need for constant lens buys, bags, cases etc... Seems to be very portable. I can live with the f4.0 to f6.7 (taking crop factor into account). But what makes me doubt it still is the videos on the net showing some action/movement and what to me looks like frame drooping/jittering/similar. I know there is a lot of poor quality out there (like testing with full auto...), but... And I have yet to see something that looks more like film and not video.

The other point is that editing 4k will probably mean upgrading PC and I'm not going to do that before a new gen of Intel CPUs are well out.

So all in all perhaps better to sit on this for a year :-) If I can manage... Doubt it...

[tosvus]

What tempts me is the all in one gadget. No need for constant lens buys, bags, cases etc... Seems to be very portable. I can live with the f4.0 to f6.7 (taking crop factor into account). But what makes me doubt it still is the videos on the net showing some action/movement and what to me looks like frame drooping/jittering/similar. I know there is a lot of poor quality out there (like testing with full auto...), but... And I have yet to see something that looks more like film and not video.

The other point is that editing 4k will probably mean upgrading PC and I'm not going to do that before a new gen of Intel CPUs are well out.

So all in all perhaps better to sit on this for a year :-) If I can manage... Doubt it...

 

 

I've got a fairly old computer (but it was good back in the day). If you plan to output 1080p, it really isn't that heavy to work with. You may need to run pre-rendering more, but then it should work fine.

[Igor Campana]

 

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:

 

 

I even tryed the super thin Cullmann CX420

no way to get it mounted and be able to access battery... this is a holy crap thta Panasonic did... and if you put the plate complete on one side, the camera doesnt stand leveled... a shame

 

Is there any way to get a cinelike D profile....? and what about an AV out cable, there is no one in the package...

[fuzzynormal]

better to sit on this for a year

I just don't get this mentality. Get something. Use it. Make things.

The alternative is just... shopping. How's is that any fun?

That's a serious question. I truly don't understand. If anyone wants to try to explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

[Eric Cote]

Eric Cote, who runs mirrorlessjourney.com created a really cute video, using the GH4 for tripod shots, and the LX100 for slider shots:

 

Thanks to Tosvus and Someguy for posting my videos here. I got the LX100 last Wednesday and I'm in the honeymoon phase. I did the Coffee video as a first test and I like the results. For the Baby Workshop video, I mixed the GH4 and LX100 video and honestly, I think the quality is very close if not the same. I shot both cameras with the Natural Color profile (which I keep reading gives better results than Cine-D) with Contrast -3, Sharpness -5 and NR -2. The only thing I did in post was adding a bit of sharpness and I crushed the black a little.

 

someone asked about the stabilization in video: It does a good job. the problem is the camera is so light and small, it's tough to get a good handle on it. What I did was used my camera strap as a stabilizer and for shots without movement, the result is perfect. Trying to walk around like that though is tough. I did not have time to try to balance my Steadycam with the LX100. I think I might actually have to put some weight above because I fear the LX100 will be too light.

So far, I love the camera. It is not perfect but it has a character of its own. If you want to see some pictures I took with it, I'll be happy to share. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.

[hmcindie]

I just don't get this mentality. Get something. Use it. Make things.

The alternative is just... shopping. How's is that any fun?

That's a serious question. I truly don't understand. If anyone wants to try to explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

 

I don't get that either. Why are you even buying cameras if you don't really need them?

 

I mean shopping can be quite fun! I had fun when I bought the a7s and played around with it a bit. But that fun goes away in like a couple of weeks and then it's time to make something. I had way less fun when I bought the Canon 7d four years ago but damn I learned a lot using that bastard for years.

 

People who just skip and wait and skip and wait, will also skip learning and doing. And that's way more fun than buying a great camera.

[ifum]

Hi guys, I have my eyes on the LX100.

Currently I'm using a GM1 with a 35mm 1.7 cctv lens, as budget is an issue... Previously I've used a GH2 with the 20mm, nex 5n 16mm, and Sony rx100, 

I'm a hobbist who needs to take pictures as well as video, with the biggest quality I can afford.

 

I'm quite happy with the GM1 and specially in low light (which is very important to me). I was conidering to buy a 14mm pancake as well as the Oly 45 1.8, as this is the range I'll use the most, I shoot music videos and making offs of events, etc..

 

The thing is that range of lens is almost the same as the fixed lens on the LX100, so I'm wandering if considering my needs, I would be off selling my GM1 and going to the LX100, you guys thinks is worth it??  I also considered the FZ1000, but I think is too bulky (I like small cameras that I can always carry with me) and although I'd appreciate the 120fps, low light performance is more important so I guess the LX100 is better there with a bigger sensor and a brighter lens.

 

Please give me a heads up! I'm not sure which move would make more sense (I'm almost decided for the LX100, but I won't compromise!)

 

Cheers,