Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Shoots UHD movies
Movie format
UHD @ 30fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.67x
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Digital
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Aperture
Wide aperture
f/1.4
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
Usually standard

galleries

Explore our gallery of 10 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Competitors

Placeholder

Fujifilm XF10

Boutique

$499

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Aperture Significantly narrower aperture
Placeholder

Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 (Lumix DC-TZ200)

Travel zoom

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Placeholder

Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$998 with 12-60mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Image stabilization Worse image stabilization

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15) Competitors

Placeholder

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI

Travel zoom

$1,198

Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Aperture Much narrower aperture
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Pro digicam

$574 - $648

Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Touch screen No touch screen
Placeholder

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV

Super zoom

$1,698

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Size Much larger

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100
Lumix DMC-LX100
Panasonic

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)
Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments