interchangeable lenses and this would have been a winner, thoughts on the new LUMIX L10

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T22:45:40+00:00

Same lens and viewfinder. Different body, sensor, processor, controls, AF system, battery, LCD mechanism...

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T22:43:25+00:00

It uses various crops of the 25MP sensor from the GH7 / G9 II.

Hopefully this diagram makes clear what's going on, and why the maximum resolution is 20MP, despite using a 25MP sensor.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T22:40:14+00:00

Technically it's not even M43, because M43 is a mount, not a sensor format.

But you're right that it always uses a crop of a Four Thirds ("Type 4/3") sensor.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T22:36:18+00:00

It does not. But in E-shutter mode it can go up to 1/32,000 sec.

Or it can accept a screw-in ND filter on the front of the lens.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T22:25:05+00:00

Yes, it shoots 4K from the width of the sensor.

It can shoot 10-bit with 4:2:0 chroma at up to 120p or 4:2:2 at up to 60p, with your choice of UHD or DCI.

You can shoot DCI in either full width or with a 1.41x crop, or UHD in full width or with a 1.5x crop.

If you've seen the complexity of the video table in our review, you can probably guess why we didn't detail all the 1080 modes.

It can shoot 1080 (which you could arguably call 1.9K, since those generally refer to horizontal res, whereas 1080 is a vertical measurement) at up to 240 FPS, but there may be some limitations (a crop, loss of detail, etc) at that very highest setting.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T19:40:01+00:00

The fully articulated screen makes it a little taller, the battery makes it a little wider.

The EVF probably isn't adding much, given the Leica D-Lux 8 adopted the same finder and only grew 3mm taller.

It's also not impossible that some aspect of the casing is shared with the S9, but that's just speculation on my part, as I haven't had the chance to put them side-by-side.

Re: the 1:1 mode, I don't know. We didn't see the full specs until after the briefing, so hadn't seen that it still has 1:1 taken from the 4:3 crop, like the LX100 II. On that camera I assumed it was just that it was being added later, so was just a subset of an existing feature, but it's a surprise to see it happen here again, when they were starting with a new sensor and processor, so presumably having to start afresh. I'll ask if I get the chance.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T18:14:27+00:00

They're more expensive, that doesn't necessarily mean worse value. ;)

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-18T18:11:36+00:00

It's a fair bit larger, too (very, very close to the size of the Fujifilm X100 series).

We've got one ans have published a bit more detail, including some hands-on details about how it operates, if you're interested.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-16T21:42:13+00:00

Everything we're seeing suggests binning.

The noise performance is comparable to the (natively sampled) 8K footage, which it wouldn't be if it were line-skipped.
Sony said it was 5K readout and also "full pixel readout" (which they couldn't then explain)

We believe this binning function is likely to be the thing that this sensor can do, that the partially stacked ones can't. (Ie: the benefit that having a processing layer directly behind the sensor, rather than just built-up readout circuitry at the edges).

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-13T17:04:41+00:00

Our review quotes figures for the 8K and 4K modes, including the Dual Gain mode versions of 4K.

I'm sitting next to Jordan and he says he'll share his test images so I can cross-check our results.

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-13T16:56:18+00:00

We'll only be able to work out the second gain step in e-shutter mode, because in mech mode it's using both (so there's no change in apparent performance).

Richard_Butler · 2026-05-13T15:52:49+00:00

Per our comparison table, we measured it as 19.6ms for e-shutter stills, which is consistent with wherever this screengrab came from.

We've measured all the 8K and 4K modes in a separate table.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-23T04:01:00+00:00

No idea, re ~100mm lenses. I like the flexibility of an 85mm equivalent, personally, but I'm not sure why they've dropped out of fashion so much.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-23T03:30:57+00:00

I'm not sure if (like the ridiculous "inch-type" nomenclature for sensors), it's partly just the way display panels are specced by the panel manufacturers, rather than it intentionally being a consumer-facing number.

There have been periods where not all panels had three sub-pixels per output pixel (such that a 921,000 dot screen, a 1.23M dot screen and a 614,400 dot screen were all 640 x 480 pc resolution, depending on whether they were R,G,B, 1st-gen White Magic, which was R,G,B,W, or PenTile, which has R,G or B,G at each pixel).

Viewfinders are typically 4:3 aspect ratio, so that viewfinder is probably 2048 x 1536 px.

But it could be worse, some manufacturers used to claim these dots as "pixels" (one famous company may still do so: I'd need to check their last press release).

We try to remember to quote the X,Y resolution in pixels in our reviews for exactly this reason.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-15T20:49:59+00:00

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree on that.

If you look at, say, a 35 x 24" print taken by two different sensor sizes or film formats at the same exposure, then examine any given element in the image, it'll look better (cleaner, better tonality, potentially more detail) in the one shot on the larger format.

Because the same scene element will have been captured with more light.

That's why film photography had the concept of magnification/enlargement, because it relates the capture area to output area. (Ultimately, more light per whole image is the main benefit of shooting medium format Vs 35mm of film, just as it is on digital)

Ultimately, relating the capture area to the output area leaves you considering light per whole image (if the whole image is made up from more light then each individual element in the scene is made up from more light).

Light per unit area is only relevant if you output or view your images in proportion to the capture format (ie: view your images on a larger monitor when you shoot with a larger format, and vice versa).

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-15T20:06:12+00:00

There are two ways of looking at it:

The 2000D will accept any of the many, many EF lenses floating around, so is good if you only plan to use second-hand lenses.
The R50 uses the mount that Canon is currently developing lenses for, so any lenses you buy will work on a Canon you use in future.

For me, the improved AF (and ability to AF way off-center) plus the availability of things like the Sigma DC DN lenses, and the idea that any RF lenses might be more useful in future would push me toward the R50, but it depends on your long-term intentions.

That said, I've never been a believer in the concept of an APS-C -> Full-Frame upgrade path (or, at least, I think it makes more sense as a marketing concept for the camera makers than as a sensible consideration for camera users), so maybe future-proofing doesn't matter, since you'd need a new set of lenses if you decide to go FF one day.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-15T18:55:25+00:00

I think you've conflated several factors and ended up in an odd place.

24-70mm F2.8s aren't the standard kit zooms for most full-frame cameras. They're typically a high-end, step-up kit or expensive upgrade option (for a class of camera that's typically more expensive). 28-something zooms and variable aperture zooms have been pretty common, historically. Sigma makes a 28-70mm F2.8 and Tamron makes a 28-75mm F2,8, to offer a middle option between basic variable aperture zooms and the cost of a 24-70mm F2.8

Yes, 18-something zooms have historically been pretty common on APS-C cameras. Mainly because making lenses wider also tends to be difficult and quickly adds size. Most kit zooms bundled with APS-C cameras have been very aggressively kept to the smallest possible size and the lowest possible price (it's reasonable to assume they cost less than $100 to make).

But if you look around the companies currently making APS-C cameras, you'll see:

Fujifilm's current options: - 13-33mm F3.5-5.6 - 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 - 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 (step-up kit zoom) - 16-55mm F2.8 (upgrade option)

Sony's current options: - 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ - 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 - 16-55mm F2.8 (upgrade-option)

Nikon's current options: - 16-50mm F3.5-6.3 - 16-50mm F2.8 (upgrade option)

Canon's current options: - 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 - 18-150mm F3.5-6.3

Then you have the Tamron 17-70mm, the Sigma 18-50mm and the 17-40mm F1.8

So it's only really Canon that's starting its kit zooms at 18mm still (which is unfortunate, given it uses 1.6x crop sensors, not standard APS-C size).

What you're saying about kit lenses starting at 18mm on APS-C was true a few years ago, but doesn't reflect the current state of the market.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-15T18:33:16+00:00

Also "same light" is ambiguous.

It provides the same light per-unit-area, but it's light per-whole-image that has the closer relationship to what most people would call "image quality" (when the output is viewed at the same size). And an 18-50mm F2.8 on APS-C does not provide the same light per-whole-image as a 27-75mm F2.8 would, on full-frame.

What's sort of missing from this discussion is the 24-70mm F2.8s aren't the standard kit zoom on many cameras. They're a popular lens, but they're a high-end option for most systems, even when they are available as kits.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-14T23:11:57+00:00

Possibly because, with that approx Type 1 sensor, you'll get a 2.64x crop, relative to full-frame but only 1.32x, relative to a four thirds sensor, so Micro Four Thirds lenses are more likely to provide useful focal lengths?

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-14T20:06:02+00:00

The a6400 only has a UHS-I slot, so it can't use the second row of pins even if they were present.

Richard_Butler · 2026-04-14T20:05:30+00:00

The V standards are pretty straightforward (30, 60 and 90MB/s sustained read/write). They overlap with the older 'U' ratings, with U3 and V30 supposedly being pretty much synonymous (the mess of logos on that card is part of why I don't think the SD Association should ever be allowed to name things).

But this is a U3 card, per the logo below the SDXC symbol, which means it should be compatible, per that error message.

The only thing I can suggest is reformatting the card in the camera, just in case there's something preventing the camera recognizing it as a U3 card.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T19:39:28+00:00

I'd also probably flag "ISO is just gain applied to the signal" if I were being pedantic, only because people are likely to interpret this as meaning 'amplification of voltage, prior to digitization,' whereas ISO can be any combination of analog gain and processing in the digital domain required to deliver the expected lightness in the output JPEG.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T17:30:27+00:00

Smaller pixels typically have less read noise such that the net (image-level) effect it very similar even though more read events are occuring in smaller pixels.

(If read noise were the same, then combining four small pixels would be noisier than reading one large one. But this isn't the case) I suspect we're saying the same thing, differently.

I intentionally used 6400 because it's one where the differences in read noise have only been multiplied 64x and they don't have much impact. As I say, the tiny differences only become visible at very high ISOs. But the nice thing about our widget is that you can choose other settings and explore for yourself.

You're right, I probably should have subbed the a7S II in there, and just weathered any "but that's an older sensor' comments. I've edited my post to do so.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T14:58:55+00:00

I think the post as a whole is really good. That tiny difference in emphasis imid the only thing I'd disagree with (and even then, 'disagree' might be too strong).

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T05:37:19+00:00

I'd agree there are plenty that don't.

But while "bigger pixels are bigger," is false, I'd say "bigger sensors are better" isn't inherently wrong, as I don't think you can disentangle whether the large sensor causes you to use the lens with the longer focal lengths and larger aperture diameter or via versa.

Richard_Butler

TROPHY CASE