It's odd to consider recent Panasonic innovations like DFD and IBIS + lens IS to be a drawback. These features have improved performance using Panasonic lenses, but they have not hurt performance using other lenses.
I checked Snopes.com and this is not mentioned, so evidently it's a real camera.
eaa: A truly great picture, but too bad it's not oriented upright when seen in full view/scale.
Yes I am not sure what causes that-possibly because I have the camera set not to flip them. Thanks for the compliment.
Laszlo13: Take the concept further Panasonic! I think the GM1 is a great off-shoot for m4/3. I see this as an additional camera to a serious kit, not a replacement. But instead of a fixed lens, it offers a lot more flexibility - and can pinch hit as a backup body as well.
Ideas for further development: Action cam- Video - I understand the heat issue, but if solved, this could start to be a viable alternative to Go Pro, where more flexibility desired above absolutely compactness- Weather sealed - I really don't understand why not all m4/3 products are weather sealed. The compact size lends itself to be hauled around on hikes, ski trips, etc.- Lenses - the Leica 15mm will be great and expensive. I suspect lot of people would opt for a variety of less expensive fun lenses for this camera. The 35-100 mini zoom is great, so how about a small, cheap, ultra wide angle?
"I really don't understand why not all m4/3 products are weather sealed." Because it adds cost and many if not most users don't really need it.
abluesky: I don't understand how the percentage translates to a gold (or silver) award...?
The problem with the score is that it looks objective but it isn't. Most if not all of the factors that contribute to it are themselves subjective. The number is really kind of useless IMO.
TN Args: This "Gear of the Year" rating comes from a man who says the Panasonic GX7 deserves a second-rate rating from dpreview.
Even more hilarious this rating, when you consider his only clear reason for picking this camera is that he already has multiple Canon lenses. That is such a personal factor that it is irrelevant to so many readers.
Let' compare the two cameras.
The "Not Worth a Gold Award" GX7 has:- better sensor performance (check DXOMark or the dpreview widget)- faster focusing- more accurate and consistent focusing- silent mode option- bigger viewfinder- better viewfinder information- smaller body- better looks- many compact fast lenses- better manual focusing, and focus peaking- in-body image stabilization- better videography 1080p x 60p, with videoactive viewfinder
Gee, that GX7 is obviously second-rate, Shawn.
Whereas the "Gear of the Year" 100D has:- poor choice of compact lenses (lacks the very lens Shawn says he would most like)
WAY. TO. GO.
By the way, DPR liked the GX7 too, giving it a silver award.
PeterF: I was actually interested in this camera until I found out it had no optical image stabilization in video mode and also not ability to take stills during video mode.
It's possible the external mic input is deliberate product differentiation, but we can't know how much it have cost to add it. There is way too much second guessing about engineering in these forums!
mosc: I don't get it. If you really really must have small, why do you want ILC? Is the lens selection you have to chose from just SO awesome? Is somebody really going to go out and put on the 90% of 4/3rds lenses that outweigh this little thing?
I don't understand the point of an ILC for a tiny camera. If size is the top priority, an internal power zoom just wins. Why would you get a Nikon 1 when there's the RX100? Why would you get the Q7 when there's an S120?
Do people really view ILC as a feature even without carrying multiple lenses? If you buy an ILC camera and keep one lens on it you either have something big enough where ILC doesn't add size/weight (dslr) or something silly.
I get 4/3rds. You want to carry around glass without breaking your back. Cutting the total kit weight makes sense while keeping the flexibility of ILC. But this isn't like that. No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?
I don't get what you don't get. The GM1 means I can really really have small and still change lenses. The lenses I would use are the small primes, and more are on the way. There is no downside to interchangeable lenses here.
iconne: I am looking for a quick buy on a camera to take to Thanksgiving as our broke yesterday. Please give me your thoughts. Leica DLUX4 or Panasonic LX7?
I'm trying to keep the price point down and this will be a family camera.
S100 is a terrific camer for that price.
timo: The three 'What we like' and 'What we don't like' features are so arbitrary that this whole exercise is meaningless. For example, isn't the OVF of the X20 a standout feature? And then, as others have said, the very inclusion or otherwise of particular cameras in particular groupings is highly debatable.
Anyone who based a buying decision on one of these crazily superficial roundups would be doing themselves a disservice.
DPR will say, 'ah but, you can read the reviews, or the full text on each camera'. So we can. But the headline recommendations will grab the attention of those in a hurry or not familiar with the field, and they are basically silly.
I don't see why so many readers seem to resent these quick comparos. Seems to me I could pick a camera that best suited my needs from the info presented.
Andreas Stuebs: So there we have it: One camera suggested too expensive, the other too bulky for my taste and I really do not want a zoom with that coverage. And the 28mm equiv is really not worth writing home about. So this article is nice reading but not much help - as for apples and oranges well that goes without saying. OTOH a 1" sensor would be nice ... but if I spend that money I would consider Panasonic GM1 which would go nicly with my µ4/3 pancakes and in the end give me more flexibility ...
LX7 meets most of your criteria. As for a 1" sensor with fast aperture throughout the zoom range, in a small package, that doesn't exist yet.
Damo83: I wonder if this applies to reading forum comments...
LOL. No doubt!
danmar: Well, we know that learning something unfamiliar will fire up new brain synapses. But what happens once you've mastered the new skill? Does the brain go back to a state where it needs to learn something new in order to keep fit. I think that's more important. I find that a lot of studies are either incomplete or tell us things we already know. Well, some of us already know. Lots of wasted resources in human-related research.
I don't think that is true of this particular study. I've heard for years that we should exercise the brain to keep it sharp, but never have seen it proven that it matters HOW I use it.
Lots of things we think we 'know' are wrong, or at least nuanced. I love that studies that expose those.
This is right on for me. Research shows that learning new things is good for the brain. To that end, I'm learning a new language (Norwegian, as my wife is from Norway) and learning photography. There is a lot to learn! I am consciously trying to improve the quality of my work - composition and lighting. (Wish I had time to do more post processing, but there's this daily 8-hour nuisance of a job...) Simply using the camera (Lumix G3) well takes conscious effort, more than I would have expected; it's a little embarassing how often I've use inappropriate settings, so I've been studying them too. I turn 60 in a week and look forward to expanding my knowledge and, I hope, abilities. It's also a hobby that gets us out of the house, and there's so much cool stuff to buy :-).
Ths is like if BMW were to market Hondas with better leather seats and charge 5x the price. Nothing against Honda - they make fine cars . And Panasonic makes fine cameras.
Since the time I almost could not unscrew a CPL from a stepup ring, I now carry filter wrenches. They are cheap and weigh about nothing.
Spectro: Less is more. I used to try to carry all the things, but it just get too big and heavy. For a pro you got to have everything ready, but for a weekend photostroll, just a camera is fine. Since I am more of the weekend photographer, if I need a ND filter I will bring it only if I need too. Dust blower? This is done at home if need be, heck Lightroom spot removal is easy. Trigger cord, how about the camera timer? Tripod is a planed thing too, if you don't plan on it, don't bring it. Heavy to carry around if you don't plan on using it. As for a the mini tripod, they aren't very good. I find a ledge or some object on the fly. I use my smartphone for calling not photo related, you must be showing off your webpage with a tiny screen? I have a tablet too, used to carry it, but that was extra weight also.
Although some mini-tripods are no good, UltraPod is a good one. The small one will support a point and shoot up to an LX7, the larger UltraPod II works fine with a M43 camera. They are light, versatile, and inexpensive.
D1N0: Digital zoom doesn't exist, it's digital crop.
At this point, arguing against this phrase is a losing battle. Think of it as another term for in-camera cropping. And yes, it is misleading.
jkoch2: Panasonic appears not to promise much from the GX7's IBIS. There is no pretense to outperform the in-lens Mega OIS (around since 2008?), to say nothing of the 5-axis stabilizers available on the X920 or OMD EM5. The limitation owes, possibly, to the difficulty of getting advanced IBIS to work with "dumb" legacy lenses. But it might have been nice to have an advanced 5-axis mode available for 5-axis-capable lenses and a simpler mode for old lenses.
Good stabilization is a big deal if one is shooting hand-held video. Faster lens or shutter speed is no cure for hand jitters or walking motion. Casual or travel video can't always employ (or afford) a Steadicam, tripod, or jib, either.
Yeah, but why would any lens be incapable of being auto-stabilized by IBIS?