Excellent video! Great review! I been using older digital cameras for sometime and have accumulated a variety of EDCs. Pentax MX-1, Pentax Optio Vs20 and several lower mega pixel CCD sensor cameras from Kodak and Konica | Minolta. Started to explore some of the forgotten bridge cameras too. I am still amazed at the images some of these older cameras can produce. Knowing the limitations of each camera and just having fun is the best. Thanks for sharing!
I can't say I have been affected by it as I shoot mostly manual ISO (especially on those small sensors where I don't want the ISO to go too high without my consent), but I can definitely see this as being an issue for people that use auto ISO a lot
The LX7 does not have exactly the same sensor, it's slightly smaller - 1/1.7" (LX7) vs 1/1.63" on this LX5. That's what helped them to achieve the 1.4 max aperture of the Vario-Summilux in the LX7. And I think they also compromised a bit on the IQ wide open, to get the marketing effect and brand the lens on the LX7 a Summilux. So I think this LX5 might be slightly better to be honest at least better value.
@@JC-XL I don't think the difference makes that much of a difference. The sensor sizes themselves are really similar (we're talking about a move from a 9.8mm diagonal to a 9.3mm...), and absolutely not enough to make a 1/3rd of a stop of difference. On top of that, the LX5 is CCD, while the LX7 is CMOS, leading to lower noise levels and slightly higher dynamic range in average. In my opinion, both sensors will give about teh same results. As for the f/1.4 lens, it seems to be very sharp in the center at 24mm equiv / f/1.4, but sharpness decreases a little bit in the corners. It seems to have a bit lower flare resistance than the LX5's lens but i think that's about it. All of those things taken in account, + the straight up upgrades (autofocus is better, it can record 1080p video instead of 720, it has a built-in ND finter in the lens as well as an aperture ring, the optional EVF is highier resolution, etc...), I think the LX7 is a better camera than the LX5. Maybe not as good of a value though, as the LX7 still hovers around the 300€ mark while the LX5 is a third of that.
@@uncertainrelease I agree the LX7 is a much better camera, especially AF, operation and the LCD. What I meant is that compromises were made with the sensor size, 5% smaller sensor (linear) is 10% smaller area (squared). So on the LX7 you lose 10% light from the sensor size, but gain 33% from the faster lens (1/3rd stop). A bit better, but you lose the CCD colors, which I like, and the photos will have a slightly smaller sensor look (small 5% difference I agree), but is it worth it, especially at the current used price? The iPhone 13 Pro has 1/1.65" main camera sensor and 1/1.6 max aperture, and then phase-detect AF, miles better image processing, operation, screen, etc. And these are selling used under 300 pounds in the UK ebay. Even a used full frame A7 is just over 300 bucks. You can have much more fun with this and a manual focus vintage prime. I mean LX5 for 150 makes sense, LX7 for 350 does not.
@@JC-XL I 100% agree with you that the LX7 is not worth it for the price, and that a modern smartphone will genrally outperform both of them anyway. Staying in compact panasonic camera world, a Lumix LX10/15 with a 20MP 1" sensor, and a 24-72mm equiv f/1.4-2.8 lens will be around the same price and a much better image taker than both the LX7 and any smartphone in my opinion. Though, the wider aperture is a 100% light increase, not 33% (f/2.0 to f/1.4 is 1 stop difference, not 1/3rd of a stop. 1/3rd would be at f/1.8). If you want to go int eh ILC route, there's much better deals for the money than an A7 I guess (you could get a 5D classic for about 100 bucks, to which a lot of lenses can be adapted too, I use mine a lot with M42 glass), but then we're not talking about a small ECD you can slip in your pocket anymore, it's a whole other debate.
@@uncertainrelease Try to show raw from LX in the capture one program with the proposed sharpness settings (about 180) and then there will be doubt about the smartphone's superiority. The result is much more detailed than in the raw or lightroom profile. I also output the result +25% to the frame size. I have lx3 and 7 . The picture on the lx3 seems denser and sharper throughout the frame (apparently it's a less variable lens). Another interesting point is that this program opens the file much wider than you see in the camera (which aligns the corners of the image), that is, you get a focal length of about 20mm without editing, and the lx7 is almost a fisheye lens. I hope I made myself clear in a non-native language)
you can't fined them new lol, the camera is from 2010 I bought mine €109 on MPB earlier this year, and the day before thais video was posted tehre was one for €99 on MPB as well. There was one yesterday on the same website for €104 I can't say for the states but you can definitely find them for around €100 in Europe.
@@uncertainrelease obviously they're not new, I collect cameras. my point being that you can only rarely get them for $100. Due to people making youtube videos, tiktok videos, and what not, the aftermarket for vintage digital cameras is expensive and prices rose. Right now on MPB for a good or well used condition model, it's either $274 or $209. on ebay, they're priced even more.
Actually, I do at 4:10 Color-wise the sensor of the LX5 isn't anything special as the sensor type would suggest. It's a very standard color response, and it can have a little bit of a nostalgic look... but no more than my Nikon D300 or D700 or even my Fujifilm cameras... that are all CMOS.
@@uncertainrelease If you don't find the color characteristics of this camera, such as the vividness that is unique to CDC, particularly appealing, I will drop this camera from my shopping list. Thank you.
@@hiroakitakagi7724 it's a good camera for what it costs. The sensor is nothing special in my opinion. The dynamic Black and White profile is nice. I made a whole video comparing CCD to CMOS, the difference are more down to the image processing engine in the camera than the actual sensor itself. 2010 is pretty late for CCD cameras, and you can see that in the processing that Lumix gave to this camera, compared to earlier cameras (like the LX3), or even CMOS cameras that are older than this (like the Nikon D700, D300 or Canon 5Dc)
Excellent video! Great review! I been using older digital cameras for sometime and have accumulated a variety of EDCs. Pentax MX-1, Pentax Optio Vs20 and several lower mega pixel CCD sensor cameras from Kodak and Konica | Minolta. Started to explore some of the forgotten bridge cameras too. I am still amazed at the images some of these older cameras can produce. Knowing the limitations of each camera and just having fun is the best. Thanks for sharing!
I have the LX7 and the one thing I dislike the most about it is that when I put it on manual mode, it does not allow me to set the ISO to auto.
I can't say I have been affected by it as I shoot mostly manual ISO (especially on those small sensors where I don't want the ISO to go too high without my consent), but I can definitely see this as being an issue for people that use auto ISO a lot
The LX7 does not have exactly the same sensor, it's slightly smaller - 1/1.7" (LX7) vs 1/1.63" on this LX5.
That's what helped them to achieve the 1.4 max aperture of the Vario-Summilux in the LX7. And I think they also compromised a bit on the IQ wide open, to get the marketing effect and brand the lens on the LX7 a Summilux. So I think this LX5 might be slightly better to be honest at least better value.
I mean f1.4 vs f2.0 sounds like an enormous difference, but the slightly larger sensor compensates a bit and the difference is more like f1.4 vs f1.8
@@JC-XL I don't think the difference makes that much of a difference. The sensor sizes themselves are really similar (we're talking about a move from a 9.8mm diagonal to a 9.3mm...), and absolutely not enough to make a 1/3rd of a stop of difference. On top of that, the LX5 is CCD, while the LX7 is CMOS, leading to lower noise levels and slightly higher dynamic range in average.
In my opinion, both sensors will give about teh same results. As for the f/1.4 lens, it seems to be very sharp in the center at 24mm equiv / f/1.4, but sharpness decreases a little bit in the corners. It seems to have a bit lower flare resistance than the LX5's lens but i think that's about it.
All of those things taken in account, + the straight up upgrades (autofocus is better, it can record 1080p video instead of 720, it has a built-in ND finter in the lens as well as an aperture ring, the optional EVF is highier resolution, etc...), I think the LX7 is a better camera than the LX5. Maybe not as good of a value though, as the LX7 still hovers around the 300€ mark while the LX5 is a third of that.
@@uncertainrelease I agree the LX7 is a much better camera, especially AF, operation and the LCD. What I meant is that compromises were made with the sensor size, 5% smaller sensor (linear) is 10% smaller area (squared).
So on the LX7 you lose 10% light from the sensor size, but gain 33% from the faster lens (1/3rd stop). A bit better, but you lose the CCD colors, which I like, and the photos will have a slightly smaller sensor look (small 5% difference I agree), but is it worth it, especially at the current used price?
The iPhone 13 Pro has 1/1.65" main camera sensor and 1/1.6 max aperture, and then phase-detect AF, miles better image processing, operation, screen, etc. And these are selling used under 300 pounds in the UK ebay.
Even a used full frame A7 is just over 300 bucks. You can have much more fun with this and a manual focus vintage prime.
I mean LX5 for 150 makes sense, LX7 for 350 does not.
@@JC-XL I 100% agree with you that the LX7 is not worth it for the price, and that a modern smartphone will genrally outperform both of them anyway. Staying in compact panasonic camera world, a Lumix LX10/15 with a 20MP 1" sensor, and a 24-72mm equiv f/1.4-2.8 lens will be around the same price and a much better image taker than both the LX7 and any smartphone in my opinion.
Though, the wider aperture is a 100% light increase, not 33% (f/2.0 to f/1.4 is 1 stop difference, not 1/3rd of a stop. 1/3rd would be at f/1.8).
If you want to go int eh ILC route, there's much better deals for the money than an A7 I guess (you could get a 5D classic for about 100 bucks, to which a lot of lenses can be adapted too, I use mine a lot with M42 glass), but then we're not talking about a small ECD you can slip in your pocket anymore, it's a whole other debate.
@@uncertainrelease Try to show raw from LX in the capture one program with the proposed sharpness settings (about 180) and then there will be doubt about the smartphone's superiority. The result is much more detailed than in the raw or lightroom profile. I also output the result +25% to the frame size. I have lx3 and 7 . The picture on the lx3 seems denser and sharper throughout the frame (apparently it's a less variable lens). Another interesting point is that this program opens the file much wider than you see in the camera (which aligns the corners of the image), that is, you get a focal length of about 20mm without editing, and the lx7 is almost a fisheye lens. I hope I made myself clear in a non-native language)
nah, you can't find these for $100 anymore. you can find it for $100 broken/repair. But for new without a charger - they're like $279 or more lol
you can't fined them new lol, the camera is from 2010
I bought mine €109 on MPB earlier this year, and the day before thais video was posted tehre was one for €99 on MPB as well.
There was one yesterday on the same website for €104
I can't say for the states but you can definitely find them for around €100 in Europe.
@@uncertainrelease obviously they're not new, I collect cameras. my point being that you can only rarely get them for $100. Due to people making youtube videos, tiktok videos, and what not, the aftermarket for vintage digital cameras is expensive and prices rose.
Right now on MPB for a good or well used condition model, it's either $274 or $209. on ebay, they're priced even more.
You did not mentioned on the photo sensor type and the color of this camera, CCD.
Actually, I do at 4:10
Color-wise the sensor of the LX5 isn't anything special as the sensor type would suggest. It's a very standard color response, and it can have a little bit of a nostalgic look... but no more than my Nikon D300 or D700 or even my Fujifilm cameras... that are all CMOS.
@@uncertainrelease If you don't find the color characteristics of this camera, such as the vividness that is unique to CDC, particularly appealing, I will drop this camera from my shopping list. Thank you.
@@hiroakitakagi7724 it's a good camera for what it costs. The sensor is nothing special in my opinion. The dynamic Black and White profile is nice.
I made a whole video comparing CCD to CMOS, the difference are more down to the image processing engine in the camera than the actual sensor itself. 2010 is pretty late for CCD cameras, and you can see that in the processing that Lumix gave to this camera, compared to earlier cameras (like the LX3), or even CMOS cameras that are older than this (like the Nikon D700, D300 or Canon 5Dc)