Sony RX100 Mk4 vs Panasonic LX100 Which is the best advanced compact ?

Sony RX100 Mk4. This hand held photo was made on a clear windy afternoon at focal length equivalent 49mm.  See the crop below.

I have been a compact camera enthusiast for many years. In the film days I would usually have an SLR and a 35mm film compact. My favourite was a Contax T2 with a 35mm prime lens.

In the digital era I complemented a DSLR or MILC kit with a compact for those times, increasingly frequent as I age, when I did not care to carry the larger kit.  For several years this was one of the Canon G cams of which I had several up to the G16. But Canon’s failure to fit any of the G cams with an EVF and the rise of models with a larger sensor put an end to the G series for me and probably Canon.

These days I have given up ILCs altogether in favour of a Panasonic FZ1000 as my main camera. But there are still times when I want to have something smaller but preferably no less capable than the FZ1000.  I also want a compact which works well in low light indoors without flash most of the time.

What about travel zooms ?  Many of these do a good job for their purpose. However all but the Panasonic TZ100 have a small sensor, most with a diagonal of about 7.7mm and modest image quality as a result.

Travel zooms have their place but not as a high quality complement to the FZ1000 in my kit.

What about fixed prime lens compacts ?  Those for whom ultimate image quality is of primary importance may well be attracted to one of these models.

I am very fussy about picture quality and like to make large prints of my favourite photos.   For my purposes the quality I get from, say, the Sony RX100(4)  is good enough for my purposes.   Modern zooms are so good I find no need to give up their versatility for primes.

When I look closely at 40 x 60cm prints from the hand held RX100(4) I see more information than I could get from my tripod mounted Mamiya 7 medium format camera in the film era. That’s plenty.

This is a crop from the photo above, from an area about half way between the center and the top right corner. The crop is 1436 x 925 pixels for a size of 1.31 MB.  You can see that despite the extreme crop, subject detail is quite well preserved. All this from a pocketable compact with a sensor about the size of the nail on a little finger.

In their 2014 review DPR’s Richard Butler and Jeff Keller described the Panasonic LX100 as “probably the best zoom compact ever made”. I bought one and have been using it frequently for the last 18 months.

In their 2015 roundup of advanced zoom compacts DPR nominated the Sony RX100(4) as best with an “also consider” recommendation for the LX100.

Moving on to 2016  and DPR posted an updated roundup of compact enthusiast zoom cameras, again nominating the Sony RX100(4) for the top spot.

Our family has had two of the original RX100 models for several years. I have never been attracted to this camera due to the awkward controls and user experience.

But the RX100(4) promises improvements over its predecessors in several key aspects of picture quality, performance and the user experience so I bought one recently.

The main subject of  this post is a comparison between the LX100 and RX100(4). They are both interesting cameras but each takes a different approach to the same problem, namely how to get top picture quality into a compact package.

I find the functional and ergonomic comparison interesting.

But before going further  I will just mention some cameras which I did not buy and which also did not get the top ranking from DPR.

Most of Canon’s G_X series compacts use the same 15.9mm diagonal (a.k.a. “one inch”) sensor as the Sony RX models (the G1X 1 and 2 use an even larger sensor). These cameras should be competitive with the Sony RX100 models but suboptimal lens quality, sluggish performance with RAW capture and ergonomic deficiencies (no EVF on most of them) keep these Canons out of the running for my purposes.

I read on a camera industry website yesterday that Canon Australia made a loss last financial year. If they continue to produce second rate cameras like the G_X series I suspect that trend might continue.

The Fuji X30 lacks the image quality I desire. In addition this camera is not particularly compact by modern standards considering the small sensor inside, which is of the X-trans type, of which I am no fan as it does not work well with Adobe Camera Raw.  The X-Q2 has no EVF.

Panasonic’s TZ100 breaks new ground in camera design and specifications, packing a 10x zoom in front of a ‘one inch’ sensor in a genuinely compact body with a built in EVF. But the lens maximum aperture is a bit small and lens quality while good is not outstanding.

I looked at but did not buy the Sony RX100 (3) and am pleased I did not as AF performance in the Mk4 is reported to be significantly better. In addition some of the other upgrades in the Mk4 are important to me such as the user adjustable auto ISO implementation.

Nikon has nothing on the table that might be suitable for my requirements. Nothing.  I had a P7800 a while back. This thing has a decent lens and quite good picture quality but uses the old Expeed C2 processor resulting in tediously slow shot to shot times (3.5 seconds) with RAW capture.

They announced the DL series of three cameras with a ‘one inch’ sensor in February but thus far no product has appeared. Nikon is citing the earthquake in Japan as the reason for delays and that may well be the case, but I wonder if something else is holding up the works there.

I noticed just today that Olympus has discontinued the Stylus 1 and 1s along with a bunch of other compact cameras.

All of which leaves Sony and Panasonic the two most recent entrants into the digital still camera marketplace to battle for the top enthusiast compact ranking.

I have the view that the dominant camera type in the very near future will have a fixed zoom lens with advanced specification, picture quality, performance and ergonomics.

Thus I regard the outcome of the battle for best advanced compact to be a guide to the future prospects of the various camera makers.  And right now it is not looking too good for Canon and Nikon……or Olympus, Fuji, etc…..  I could be wrong about this of course but I do not know anybody  who likes changing lenses. Consider that.

Returning to the main theme of this post let us look at the Sony RX100 (4) and Panasonic LX100 in more detail.

The RX100(4) is smaller than the LX100 and so is the carry pouch required. The RX100(4) will fit in a smaller pouch but I use the Lowe Pro Portland 20 on a waist belt. This pouch has room for the camera, two spare batteries, microfiber cloth and memory cards.  The LX100 goes in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 5 with two spare batteries, microfiber cloth and memory cards. The TTMM5 has straps for belt fitting or over the shoulder carry style.

Lineage

The ‘LX’ prefix has been used by Panasonic for several years for a series of compact digital cameras based on the ‘1/1.7’ inch sensor, actual size about 9.35mm diagonal. Although the LX100 uses the same naming prefix it is a completely different camera, using 19.2mm of the 21.5mm diagonal of a standard ‘four thirds’ sensor.  As such it has no real predecessor at all. There is also thus far no follow up model nor rumors thereof.

The RX100 Mk4 is the fourth in a series of RX100 cameras each with the same sized 13.2x8.8mm, diagonal 15.9mm sensor. The RX100 series has evolved and improved with each iteration having more features, better picture quality, better performance and better ergonomics than the previous model.

Dimensions

Model	Width, mm Excluding lugs	Height, mm	Depth, mm Including filter and lens cap on LX100	Mass, Including battery and card	Box Volume cc. WxHxD
Sony RX100(4)	102	59	41.5	295	250
Panasonic LX100	114	67	74	400	565

You can see that the LX100 has more than twice the box volume of the RX100(4). It is a substantially larger camera and it requires a substantially larger bag or pouch in which to carry the camera.

You can see the different approaches to the user interface here. The Panasonic has a fixed monitor, fixed EVF and traditional style controls. The Sony has a swing up/down monitor, pop up EVF and Mode Dial+Control Dial controls.

Controls

The LX100 has a hybrid traditional/modern control layout with aperture ring on the lens, shutter speed dial  and exposure compensation dials on the top plate. Some people say they think this is a really great system because it is ‘logical’ (it is, but that is head logic not finger logic) and it provides ‘direct’ control of the aperture and shutter speed (which is not quite the case as all controls on modern cameras are electronically mediated)  

However I find it slower to operate than a well realised version of the modern ‘Mode Dial+Control Dial’ system as found on the RX100(4). As it happens I don’t think the  control layout on the RX100(4) is as efficiently implemented as it could be but I still rate it more streamlined than the LX100 particularly if you want to use the P,A,S,M Modes and switch from one to the other.

Try using the LX100 in shutter priority mode and you will discover how awkward this is with the shutter speed dial.

The basic layout of the RX100(4) works well enough but the camera has more functions and options than there are controls to work them. So inevitably choices have to be made about what items can  be allocated to the hard controls and which have to stay in the menus.

Both cameras are serviceable but each has its idiosyncrasies,  quirks and irritations.

Specifications,  features and functions

Each of these camera comes absolutely loaded, some might say overloaded and I would be inclined to agree, with a multitude of features and capabilities for still and video capture at a high level including 4K.

There are more similarities than differences but some of those are worthy of note.

I will mention just a few in no particular order:

* Auto ISO. Panasonic’s auto ISO algorithm is very basic.  It takes no account of the lens focal length, does not allow min/max shutter speed settings and does not allow the user to nominate slow/medium/fast shutter speed range. The RX100(4) does have these capabilities, which Panasonic should implement  ASAP.

* Changing AF area position. My view is that all cameras should be fitted with a JOG lever (Joystick) for this purpose although that would require a major design rethink in the case of the RX100 as there is no space for one on the current body configuration.

Both cameras use the 4 way controller for changing AF area position. On balance I find the Sony implementation slightly preferable as full function of the up/down/left/right keys is retained but if Panasonic Direct Focus Area is used the default cursor key functions are lost.

The underlying problem for Panasonic is that the Menu key is allocated to the center button of the 4 way controller. Sony has the Menu button elsewhere which frees up options for the 4 way controller.

* Each camera has a close up mode (‘macro’) mode but each works properly only when the lens is very close to the subject which is not well suited to many subjects. Of the two I prefer Panasonic’s approach which allows you to control aperture, shutter speed and AF area position. The Sony implementation is fully automated, providing hardly any user control at all.

Update: I discovered that the Sony can be brought very close to the subject with the A setting on the Mode Dial. This allows decent close ups with full control over exposure and focus parameters. 

Both the Panasonic and Sony only allow close up work at the shortest focal length which can bring the camera inconveniently close for some subjects.

* Raw + JPG. Inexplicably, Sony only allows RAW + JPG Fine but not Super Fine.  Why ??

* There are issues with Exposure Compensation on both cameras. Most Panasonic cameras allow you to set EC to revert to zero when the camera is powered off or the mode is changed. But of course the LX100 has the EC dial so no auto reset is possible.

Unfortunately the RX100(4) doesn’t provide for an auto EC reset either although it presumably could with a firmware update.        

* Panasonic Q Menu and Sony Fn button have a very similar function, being particularly useful for adjustments to be made in the Prepare Phase of use. I find that setting up and using the Sony system is easier than the Panasonic.

* The LX100 comes with a separate battery charger, the RX100 models use battery-in-camera USB charging which I dislike as I cannot use the camera and charge a battery at the same time. The problem is exacerbated by poor battery life from the small Sony batteries.  I bought a separate charger and three spare batteries for the RX100(4).

* Sony allows auto exposure bracketing to be combined with the self timer. Thus AEB can be done without the user having to touch the camera during exposures.

Panasonic does not have this desirable feature.

* Both cameras support auto panorama in camera and both do a good job. The Panasonic allows a considerably wider and slower sweep so is easier to use. Both systems have difficulty with very fine foliage and diagonal architectural lines.

* The RX100(4) has a built in, pop up flash which can be useful for fill light in many situations, but no hotshoe.  
The LX100 has the hotshoe and a separate flash unit supplied in the box. As the LX100 flash is separate and will not fit in my TTMM5 carry bag I have never used it. So much for the separate flash idea.  Of course you can use all kinds of sophisticated on and off camera flash setups with Panasonic's advanced multi flash capability but I doubt many users will choose the LX100 for that role.

Picture quality

* The stacked BSI sensor in the Sony is smaller than the 4/3 chip in the Panasonic but is of more advanced design with more pixels and a higher DXO Mark score. This translates to the Sony having visibly (but not dramatically)  greater capacity to render detailed information in a subject with no penalty on luminance noise, color rendition or dynamic range.

I am no great fan of either Panasonic or  Sony JPGs but at least  Panasonic (but not  Sony) allows user control of noise reduction which can be dialled down to minimise smearing and watercolour effect at high ISO sensitivity settings.

* Each camera has a lens of similar specification although that on the LX100 is more ambitious as it has to cover a larger image circle. Maybe this explains why the RX100(4) has better sharpness across the frame and into the corners at all focal lengths and apertures.

The RX100 (4) lens is very good but not quite perfect. I noticed mild softness in the corners at the wide end of the zoom and at the widest aperture. In some shots the out of focus parts of the image showed a double line effect and in others I saw a ‘bright donut ring’ out of focus appearance.

I did notice on close examination of matched photos that although the RX100(4) reveals slightly more information (detail) in a subject the LX100 has better acutance. This is the subjective perception of sharpness related to edge contrast. In practice, for those readers familiar with Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom,  RAW files from the RX100(4) will often benefit from moving the ‘Clarity’ slider to the right.

The combination of more pixels and a better lens results in slightly but consistently better picture quality for the RX100(4) at all focal lengths and apertures and all ISO settings.

I have to admit I was a bit surprised to discover this when I tested the two cameras side by side. I had been using the LX100 for 18 months in a wide variety of conditions with very few concerns about picture quality. The only real problem I found was decidedly soft edges at 75mm focal length and 16:9 aspect ratio. Otherwise I have hundreds of photos which look just fine  printed up to 40 x 60 cm size.

The LX100 delivers very good picture quality. The RX100(4) is consistently just a bit better. 

Performance

Both cameras have commendably fast, accurate AF Single. I had read comment from users about AF problems with previous models in the RX series but I have thus far had no problems with the Mk4.

In fact during tests I noticed a few incorrectly focussed frames with the LX100 but not the RX100(4).

Panasonic utilises the ‘low light’ AF feature for slightly more reliable AF in very low light levels than the Sony.

Both cameras can combine AF +MF but I find the Panasonic way of doing this more user friendly. On the LX100 if you set AF+MF in the Custom Menu you can half press the shutter button to achieve AF then while holding the shutter button half pressed simply turn the lens ring for instant MF with PIP display and peaking.  After focus is achieved the lens ring returns to its normal function as set by the user.

The Sony equivalent is DMF which does the same thing BUT the normal function of the lens ring is always disabled in favour of MF. This makes DMF most unappealing for me.   

Panasonic has DFD which makes AF Continuous and follow focus on moving subjects more effective on the LX100 although the RX100(4) can keep up with slowly moving subjects with a reasonable percentage of sharp frames.

This is not really much of an issue as neither of these cameras is likely to find much use for sport/action  work.

Ergonomics

Setup Phase: Menus

Both cameras are burdened by such a multitude of options that their menu systems are quite dense and complex. The Sony menus have gotten more criticism from reviewers than those of Panasonic but I find them very similar in ease of use which is low and  capacity to bamboozle the new user which is high. Both makers need to rethink their menu structure for greater clarity and coherency.

Prepare Phase: Fn and other configurable buttons and dials

Prepare Phase is the few minutes before starting a new photo session. This will usually see the user wanting to set the various modes such as focus, drive, AF, exposure and so forth. Both cameras have a similar problem which is that there are far more items to adjust than there are control modules to do the work. The LX100 uses set-and-seedials for Capture Phase parameters when those dials could be more productively used for Prepare Phase actions. The RX100(4) is so small that there is not enough real estate for the number of hard controls the user might like for optimum control of the many variables.

So both are serviceable, both get the job done but with more workarounds than would be required on a well designed larger camera.  

Capture Phase:

Holding   Note: my comments about the RX100(4) all relate to the camera with the Sony AG-R2 stick on handle in place. I regard this as essential and would prefer to see Sony include it routinely in the box with every unit.

The LX100 is larger, has a larger handle with more width on the right side (as viewed by the user) of the front of the camera, a much larger thumb support and a bit more mass. So it is easier to hold with the right hand and easier to keep still.

The LX100 is also better configured for the left hand.  I have found after much experiment that the best holding position for my left hand is with the wrist straight, index finger around the EVF eyepiece and third finger on the lens ring. I find the left-hand-under-lens position usually shown in promotional photos of these cameras to be awkward,  uncomfortable and a bit unstable  with excessive twist on the wrist. Young people with more flexible joints might wonder what I am talking about.

This works fine on the LX100 but when the RX100(4)  EVF is up it disrupts this posture in both landscape and portrait orientation.  A serviceable position of the left hand can be found but it is not elegant.

Viewing

The ergonomic challenge for these small cameras is to provide a built in EVF.

Panasonic’s solution is an ergonomic one, namely build in the EVF so it is always ready for use.

The pop up Sony EVF is an engineering solution to an ergonomic problem. It works in the sense that it provides a built in EVF in a very small camera body but it is not so good ergonomically. The EVF has to be popped up and pulled out every time you want to use it, there is no way to fit an eyecup so stray light gets in and the left hand hold on the camera is adversely affected.

Of the two approaches I find the Panasonic one easier to live with.

Operating

Both cameras are serviceable but their operation is suboptimal in various ways.

The Sony has insufficient real estate to house the number of controls such a complex camera really needs. The buttons are small, flat and recessed, even the shutter button, making them difficult to find and operate by feel.  The shutter button has no clearly felt ‘half press’ position.  Fortunately the rear dial is easy to find and operate by feel.

The Panasonic has more buttons which are slightly easier to find by feel. The set-and-seemodules for 

Capture Phase adjustments take up a lot of real estate which in my view could be better used for  a standard Mode Dial + Control Dial layout.

There is no consistency about which way the LX100 dials turn for ‘value up’.

The action of the Sony lens ring is a bit disconcerting in practice. It is smooth with no clicks so moving from one aperture or shutter speed to the next has a disconnected feel about it. Fortunately the ring moves in the proper direction (push right at the top of the ring for ‘value up’) and the head up display which pops up as the parameter is being adjusted is rather nice.

So both cameras get the job done but both have numerous impediments to optimal operation.

I have made several mockup cameras with the purpose of investigating how the ergonomics of small cameras could be improved. I will describe my findings in a separate post.  

Review

 * On playback the Sony can jump in one step to a 100% enlargement at the focus point. This is very useful for checking correct focus. The Panasonic cannot do this.

Conclusion

Either of these cameras can make excellent photographs in a wide variety of circumstances.

Is one better than the other ?

The Sony is smaller and can produce slightly better pictures.

But smallness is not always a wonderful thing when you are actually using the device.

The Sony has been reported to have overheating problems when recording 4K video.

The Panasonic being larger is easier to hold and the always-ready EVF is more user friendly.

I suspect that each individual’s priorities will determine which of these cameras they will prefer.

What’s next ?

Each of these cameras is well into its product cycle.

People on user forums are posting quite frequently asking about the advent of an LX200 and a RX100(5).

I have no idea what is coming of course but I can express my own desires for follow up models.

I think Sony has gotten itself the kind of problem a camera maker would like to have. The RX100(4) is so capable I suspect it will be difficult to improve the camera if the same size and control layout are retained. I do have some thoughts about this on which I will elaborate in a post about my compact mockups.

Panasonic has a different kind of problem. They can go after Sony with the same sized camera using the same (Sony) sensor.

But I would rather see them pursue the ‘larger-than-the-Sony-but-still-compact’ theme started by the LX100 but using the Sony sensor.  

My preference would be for them to renounce the ‘traditional’ control layout and concentrate on a well designed ‘Mode Dial+Control Dial’ layout with a lens starting at f1.4 at the wide end and with a bit more range, say up to 90mm equivalent at the long end.  This camera would have much more appealing ergonomics than the RX100 series Sonys.

I have put my thoughts about this into a mockup which I will describe later.