UKH

Seems like every few months, pocket cameras take a leap forward in quality and function.

Just when I thought that the new Sony RX100iii was going to be the "best" all around climbing camera for some time, the folks at Panasonic have introduced a very interesting competitor. Micro 4/3 sensor, built in view finder, good lens, nice controls. A bit larger than the Sony RX100iii, but if I were in the market for a climbing camera, I think that the LX100 would be on my shopping list.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100

In reply to Kai:

Yep, looks really good!

In reply to Kai:

Oh bugger. I had just psyched myself up to buy a new compact, and now I'm going to have to wait!

In reply to davidbeynon:


Could be worse: I'd just psyched myself down from buying a new new compact!

Looks excellent (Aargh!)

In reply to Kai:

Been waiting for this to come out - it's technically the LX8, but they changed the name at the last minute. Not because I want to buy it, but because I'm hoping it'll knock several quid off the price of the LX7.

Martin

In reply to Kai:

Looks awesome and right up my street, but it's 800 notes for a compact. Jings.

If I'm spunking that kind of money I'd rather have a Fuji XT-1

In reply to Kai:

Don't any of you ever take price into account? Both these two look good but how many climbers can afford them? And as a climbing camera will, logically, be taken when climbing with all the scrunching and scraping this implies wouldn't it be best to keep price down a bit given it is quite likely to get broken?

So anyone know of a good quality compact, with a view finder that could fit the bill for more modest budgets?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Truly compact cameras with a viewfinder are almost unheard of. That is why it is amazing that Sony have managed to fit a viewfinder into an already remarkably small camera for its capabilities. The Panasonic is quite a bit heavier but has a larger sensor. It all inevitably comes at a price.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Good question Bruce - I have found this unbeatable for many years:
http://www.cameras.co.uk/camera-reviews/canon-powershot-a460.cfm
Takes excellent pics, is sturdy yet small enough, cheap.
DC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Depends on your definition of "modest". The Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60 is around £300 - I got one a few weeks ago and so far it's fairly excellent.

In reply to Kai:

Unless I'm missing something, this seems very poor value for money indeed. Surely you would be better off with a micro 4/3 CSC such as a previous generation Olympus PEN or Panasonic G-series with an appropriately sized lens which could certainly be picked up for less than $899 and you would then have the flexibility of interchangeable lenses?

In reply to planetmarshall:


Significant savings in weight and bulk? The first C in CSC is a bit misleading, being relative to SLR's rather than to true compacts.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Edited as I was comparing to the LX7 not the LX100

Depends on the model. My Olympus E-PL3 (2012) with Lumix F 1.7 20mm lens measures 115x65x63 compared to the LX100's 115x66x55mm (presumably with lens retracted). And only fractionally heavier at, at 405g vs 393g. The Lumix lens itself is quite heavy. With the standard kit lens it is lighter than the LX100 (though bulkier).

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

panasonic lx7 is a bit better at 350€

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Yes, Canon managed to keep a viewfinder in their compact cameras until quite recently so why can't the others? I bought a bridge, a Panasonic, because I need a viewfinder and it's very good but a bit bulky and not very cheap. I've tried to use compacts with no view finder and even on the beach you can't see very much, on the snow you can just point and guess.

What I was thinking of is way back in the time of film Rollei made a very good very compact camera with a good lens. There were two models one being fairly cheap. Something on the same lines would be good but maybe it's just too small a market?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Panasonic LF1.
Same size sensor as LX7, with a longer but slower zoom range, plus an electronic viewfinder.

Curiously, it's invariably overlooked in threads like these.

In reply to planetmarshall:

A micro 4/3 interchangeable lens camera with a similar zoom lens would be considerably bulkier than the LX100.

I own a number of micro 4/3 cameras and a bunch of lenses for them. These interchangeable lens cameras are great, but are not as convenient for climbing as a pocket camera. A high quality pocket camera is my go-to climbing camera now, because it's a lot easier to carry and keep available when actually climbing. Having it easily accessible while climbing means I actually take more pictures than I would if I had to rely on a bulkier interchangeable lens camera that I keep in my rucksack.

In reply to Kai:


I disagree, and while I'm all for high quality compacts I think that at nearly 400g and virtually the same size as the Olympus the LX100 is stretching the definition of 'compact' somewhat, and I don't really see how they can justify the price point they're launching at.

I carry my E-PL3 in a case attached to the back of my harness, and is always available when climbing. It only goes in the rucksack if the weather is truly horrendous, in which case the only camera I'll have to hand is a GoPro.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I've just bought a Canon G16 and that has a viewfinder. It's not super compact but it's certainly a bit smaller and lighter than the G9 was... And I got it for around £340, if I remember rightly, which is still expensive but not £800.

In reply to planetmarshall:

What lens are you using on your E-PL3 that makes the combination as small as the LX100?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Rollei 35 was the boll_cks.
Modern cameras need viewfinders - why do people put up with such poor offerings, same with climbing shoes.
DC

In reply to Kai:
It's an electronic viewfinder rather than an optical one. But because you have your eye up to the viewfinder it's not affected by sunlight like the larger LCD display.

In reply to Kai:

I use an Olympus E-pl1 (pen 1) with panasonic 12-32mm lens and use for mt biking/climbing. Brilliant compact set up.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Looking at some slides I scanned recently, I'm astonished at the quality of the lens on my B35 - iirc, I paid £35 for it in about 1976. My first camera; used it for 15 years!


Agreed. Still like my G10.


Like EBs you mean?!

In reply to maisie:

The LX7 was what I was looking at. I thought long and hard, and got one on the grounds that I wasn't going to spend that much on a camera anyway, and it'll be 200 quid by the time I'm ready to buy again

In reply to davidbeynon:

Yeah, my Fuji f100fd gave up the ghost a month or so ago and I'm looking for a replacement. The LX7 seems to be well regarded and the LX8 (now LX100) launch seems to have dragged a bit. But hopefully, by Christmas the LX7 will be a bargain. Either that, or the price of the 100 will put everybody off and there'll be a rush for the 7, including people like me who were waiting, and it'll go up in price.

I have no financial acumen whatsoever.

Martin

In reply to Kai:

its $899 which is £550 ish english!

In reply to Kai:

4/3 fixed lens:
LX-100 - 115x66x55mm ~£800
GM1 - 99x55x30mm ~£500

APS-C interchangable lens:
A-6000 - 120x67x45mm ~£500
A-5000 - 110x63x36mm ~£269

no contest..
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/12

In reply to malk:


GM1 is *not* fixed lens!

In reply to Kai:


LX100 is 24–75mm 35mm equivalent.
GM1 with 12–32mm kit zoom is 24–64mm 35mm equivalent.

LX100 lens is brighter, but GM1 is smaller.

In reply to petestack:
ok, but still..

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Agreed. I had two Rollei 35 cameras in the 70's, and similar sized Minox with the folding front) in the 80's. Often wondered why you can't buy digital full frame compacts of that size and quality today.

But:

1 - the Rollei and Minox had fixed focal length lenses - punters today expect zooms, and full frame zooms are large.

2 - you can I believe. It's the Sony RX1 with a fixed focal length lens and costs approx. £2600.

3 - I was willing to pay £120 for a Rollei 35 in 1976 when earning (IIRC) £1600 per annum. Now posters above are quibbling at £600 when earning (well I don't know what they're earning but you can work out the likely comparative figures).

Martin