Micro 4/3 LX100 vs. FZ200 -- head to head, extreme low light

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Jan 3, 2012
Troy, NY
I put both cameras in P mode and iISO mode, letting the cameras make the choices for ISO and exposure.

FZ200 (ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/4 sec.)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


LX100 (ISO 3200, f/1.7, 1/40 sec.)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Comments?

Cheers, Jock
 

lenshacker

Veteran
Nov 21, 2014
In light such as this you would be better to set exposure yourself, either dialing in ~ +2ev, setting manuually, or using exposure lock. I can't make out any detail in the shadow era. The FZ200 choice for shutter speed is too slow for most hand-held shots.
 

KillRamsey

Hall of Famer
Jun 20, 2012
Hood River, OR
Kyle
For me the color details in the FZ shot are much, much poorer than the LX100. The FZ's sky goes from almost white to a thick, daylight rich blue, whereas the LX's sky fades much more gradually and accurately. Dynamic range is much better on the larger M4/3 sensor, I would assume?
 

demiro

Serious Compacts For Life
Dec 15, 2011
For me the color details in the FZ shot are much, much poorer than the LX100. The FZ's sky goes from almost white to a thick, daylight rich blue, whereas the LX's sky fades much more gradually and accurately. Dynamic range is much better on the larger M4/3 sensor, I would assume?
I would assume the same about DR, but you have to also consider the exact focal point and metering mode for these shots. Shooting both P does not mean the shots are apples-to-apples.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom