A few people have asked for my opinion on the newly announced Panasonic L10 compact zoom. The news came while I was traveling, so I didn’t pay any attention to it. After learning more about the camera, I really don’t have any strong opinions. But, since some of you asked, I will share my thoughts, which probably aren’t worth a whole lot, maybe not even two pennies.
The first thing I noticed is that a lot of reviewers are comparing it to the Fujifilm X100VI. For example, Amateur Photographer says, “A new contender to dethrone the Fujifilm X100VI.” Another website states, “Move over Fujifilm X100VI.” I don’t know if there is a single review that doesn’t make at least a passing comparison, while some seem to make it the thesis of their article. But the Fujifilm X100VI is not a very close competitor; if there is an X-series model that would most closely align with the L10, it’s the long-discontinued Fujifilm X30. Should Fujifilm decide to revive that camera line, that would be a direct competitor to the Panasonic. The X100VI is not in the same class, nor is it a similar ethos, so it’s very much apples-to-oranges.
If you look from a distance and squint your eyes, the L10 has a vague design resemblance to the X100VI. I don’t mean this as an insult—it’s stated with humor [insert laughing emojis here]—but it looks like a Temu X100-series knockoff. I’m sure in-person, the L10 has a refined quality and feels good to hold. I’m making no commentary on the build quality, only that nobody will confuse the two cameras just by looking at them; however, they do have some rangefinder-style similarities, but the Panasonic is a PASM camera, while the Fujifilm has traditional tactile dials. The two cameras also have very similar size and weight specs, which means the L10 is surprisingly bulky for a fixed-lens M43 camera. The X100VI is only $100 more.
From there, the similarities end. If you want a fixed-lens compact zoom, Fujifilm doesn’t offer that right now. If you prefer traditional tactile controls, Panasonic doesn’t offer that currently. The comparisons between the L10 and the X100VI make very little sense, so I’m not sure why it’s so pervasive. I find it difficult to believe that there is anyone carefully considering buying one of these two cameras, and having trouble deciding. The differences are so significant, the answer should be immediately obvious, whichever way it goes.
None of this is intended to be negative towards the Panasonic L10, it’s more about the reviewers. I’m sure the L10 is an excellent camera that makes wonderful pictures and is fun to use, and everyone who buys one will be happy with their purchase. I’m not interested in it personally, but we’re all different people with divergent likes and needs. The L10 and X100VI can happily coexist in the camera market; the L10 will likely sell a whole lot of copies, and the X100VI will continue to sell a whole lot of copies. In both cases, they will sell as many as they make with no problems. I’m sure in a couple of years Leica will announce the Panasonic L10 under their own brand name for a bunch more money, and people will buy it up.
From a marketing point-of-view, the name “L10” isn’t very catchy. It reminds me of the old Lockheed L-1011. Or maybe it’s supposed to conjure “Elton” as in Elton John (maybe they should make an Elton John limited-edition model?). The camera won’t have any trouble selling, so I’m sure none of this matters even a little, but this isn’t the first time I’ve questioned name choices by Panasonic’s marketing department. Probably the best example of market-naming was the X-E1, which sounds a little like “sexy one”. Anyway, those are my thoughts. If the Panasonic Elton sounds intriguing to you, consider purchasing it; if not, don’t. If Fujifilm made an X30 successor, I would buy it, and I don’t think they’d have any trouble selling it if they did. Hopefully they will.
X100VI laughed a lot at this.
🤣 🤣
I still have and occasionally use an X20, it was a fantastic little camera, except for the basically unusable optical viewfinder which forced to use the display. The point I wanted to make however was: for me the greatest stroke of genius in the X20/30 was the mechanical zoom ring. Powered zooms are a terrible, terrible idea in anything large enough to ergonomically accommodate a mechanical zoom ring. They make perfect sense in tiny compacts but in something this size they are just wrong in my opinion, they are impossible to operate quickly, precisely, or intuitively. The L10 would be a great street photography camera, but the power zoom kills it.
I’m not a fan of power zooms, either. A mechanical zoom is always better IMHO.
L10 in-camera LUTs are not just comparable to Fuji film sims, but also technically much more flexible and customisable. It’s the one thing where I see the L10 potentially beating the Fuji.
LUTs have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, you can’t apply grain effects (grain has to be applied secondarily). A Film Simulation like Acros, which has built-in Grain that increases with the ISO and also various depending on the luminosity of each part of the image, is impossible to replicate with a LUT. Classic Negative, which changes depending on the exposure and luminosity, is also not possible with a LUT. The advantage of LUTs are that they can be customized extensively; however, while some people appreciate that control, a lot of people don’t want that hassle (they’ll use a LUT made by someone else). In a sense it’s six one half dozen the other, but in another sense they’re notably divergent. Personally, I don’t have an interest in LUTs (and I’ve been involved in the creation of LUTs in the past), and am very happy with Fujifilm’s Film Simulations instead. I suppose if those film sims weren’t available to me, I might consider certain LUTs as the next best thing. I think of Fujifilm’s film sims as the best option (designed by people who also created iconic emulsions), an overlay as the worst, and a LUT as a middle compromise. But that’s just me, each person has their own tastes and preferences and so forth, and nothing is a more correct approach than another, because it’s about what works for an individual.
Another issue with LUTs is the name. Thinking of this strictly from a marketing point-of-view, “LUT” is very blah. Film Simulation vs LUT (just the name) is dramatically different. One has all sorts of nostalgia and trendiness attached to it, while the other sounds like a word that rhymes with it but starts with an s (especially if the camera’s name also begins with an S, like the S9). While LUT is fairly commonly used and understood in the video world, it’s much less so in the still photography world. Getting it to catch on for still photography will be a bit of a challenge. I feel like Panasonic should have chosen another name (Visual Styles, Lumix Looks, Image Signatures, or something along those lines). I just don’t see LUTs truly catching on in the still photography world, for the same reason why GIMP will never become a mainstream software editor when it’s nearly as good as Photoshop but free. Marketing matters, and the name “LUT” is a tough one to market. This is all just thinking of the name, and not anything technical.
I do find it interesting that Fujifilm has released some LUTs for use in-camera, but those are specifically for video (at least for the moment). So far, that’s not created many waves. I highly doubt Fujifilm LUTs will overshadow Fujifilm Recipes, but time will tell. They obviously think some people prefer LUTs to film sims, or else they wouldn’t have made them. So maybe choice is good: you get to decide what you like best.
I think the biggest advantage of Panasonic’s LUTs is that they can be easily added to the camera. Fujifilm could do a lot more to make it easier to add Recipes, and I hope they do.