While Panasonic’s new L10 compact bears the name of a new series, its lens, sensor, and set of features make it a clear continuation of the work the company did with the LX100 II line. But these similarities also invite comparison on one of the areas where the two cameras are substantially different: size.

As I’ve been testing the L10, I intellectually knew it was larger than the LX100 II; a glance at the spec sheet will tell you that. The newer camera is 127 x 74 x 67mm (5.0 x 2.9 x 2.6″) and 508g (17.9oz), while the older one is smaller in every dimension: 115 x 66 x 64mm (4.5 x 2.6 x 2.5″) and 392g (13.8oz). But knowing those numbers didn’t really prepare me for just how much more compact the LX100 II would feel once I got my hands on it.

To be clear, I don’t think it’d be fair to call either camera a “pocket camera.” One thing that hasn’t changed is the size of the lens, which protrudes far enough off the body that even the largest of pants pockets would struggle to contain it. However, I’d say the LX100 II is just small enough that it could comfortably fit in a jacket pocket without being too much of a burden (or on a, I’ve been told, very in crossbody strap in warmer seasons). But while I’ve been able to (uncomfortably) fit the L10 in the massive drop pocket of my Patagonia R1, it’s definitely approaching the size where I’d want to put it in a bag, rather than in my coat.

While the cameras use the same size sensor and same class of lens (Panasonic says it’s updated it in some way, but wasn’t specific), there is still a benefit to the L10’s larger size. It now uses the much larger 16Wh BLK22 battery, the same one that powers the company’s full-frame mirrorless cameras, like the S1RII. The LX100 II, meanwhile, uses a 7.4Wh model. The difference in longevity should be quite noticeable; the LX100 II is rated to get around 270 shots per charge using the EVF, and 340 using the LCD. The L10, meanwhile, is rated for 410 EVF shots, and 420 ones using the display.

There are other upgrades with the L10, though it’s unclear what, if any, of them have to do with its size. Those are features like autofocus recognition for a variety of subjects, crop zoom, open-gate video recording, and more. It also has a fully articulating display, rather than a fixed one, and has an upgraded EVF, fixing what was one of the major complaints with the LX100 II.

There’s always the possibility that the L10 isn’t bigger because it has to be, but simply because Panasonic chose to make it so. It’s almost exactly the same size as Fujifilm’s X100 VI a camera that has proven to be slightly popular, so it’s possible the company is targeting a similar target audience (which it knows for sure is willing to buy a camera that large). It may be that it started with a different concept for the L10 than it did with the LX100, partially evidenced by the fact that this camera wasn’t called the LX100 III.

The size isn’t the only change to the camera’s build quality. When Panasonic announced the L10, it touted its “signature saffiano leather-textured finish” and “high-quality metal exterior with magnesium alloy front case.” Holding the L10, it feels slightly more solid than the LX100 II, and not just because the thicker grip fills out my hand more.

The LX100 II’s rubber thumb rest versus the L10’s hard plastic one may be one of the biggest differentiators when it comes to feel.

The rest is a bit more of a mixed bag, though. The top plate dials and buttons feel decidedly cheaper and more plastic-y to me. The rear plate buttons aren’t especially pleasing to me either, though I appreciate that they’re more prominent and easier to press. I also prefer the leatherette wrap on LX100 II to the L10’s; it feels grippier and softer to the touch, while the L10’s essentially just feels like textured plastic.

When I took the LX100 II out of the box my coworker had shipped it in, I’d been using the L10 for a few days, and I was immediately struck by how much nicer the LX felt. I wasn’t the only one with that impression. I handed my wife the LX100 II and then the L10 without any context. Upon receiving the later she immediately said “this one feels cheap.” Of course, these are two subjective opinions – I’m sure some people will prefer the L10 – but we both preferred the feel of the older model.

It’s not an unalloyed win for the LX100 II, though. I find the L10’s aperture ring feels and sounds quite a bit nicer, though I appreciate the noticeable detent when going into and out of ‘A’ mode on both.

We’ll be comparing these two cameras in more detail later, after we finish our initial review of the L10. But given that we have both available, and that the L10’s size has become one of its more widely-discussed aspects, we felt it was worth taking the time to show what that difference looks like side-to-side.

Source link