Originally posted by clockworkrat How does the LX100 compare to the RX100? Is there a noticeable improvement in image quality?
In regards to the sensors, DxO got it about right. They are fairly similar overall, but the RX100 provides more detail at lower ISO's due to the increased MP, and the LX100 produces cleaner pictures at higher ISO's thanks to the larger sensor.
But on the more general question of image quality, I much prefer the LX100. The larger sensor allows for more shallow depth of field, to get closer to that DSLR look, and the lens is much faster (f/1.7-2.8 vs f/1.8-4.9). It maintains a large aperture, even at full telephoto, which further increases the noise advantage of the LX100, since you can stay at lower ISO's.
Since I like to shoot portraits, I spend a lot of time at full telephoto. So with the RX100-II, the lens would close down to f/4.9, killing the shallow DOF and requiring a higher ISO. It has also been demonstrated that the lens on the LX100 renders OOF areas much nicer in many instances. It just seems to be a higher-quality lens overall.
When used indoors, the RX-100 was frustrating for me because of the smaller aperture. And the fact that it was not very good at focusing in low-light made it even worse. I ended up mostly using it for video. The video quality of the RX100 series is outstanding, so it makes a great camcorder that can fit in a pocket. With the LX100, I'm shooting pictures again.
It should be noted that with version III of the RX100, Sony gave it a faster lens. But I never used the III, so I can't really compare it.