Demon Cleaner: Judging video quality based on static scenes? You guys sure know how to test the encoder...
The quality of a camera's video performance is entirely predicated on how it renders 'movement'. The raft of tests you perform make it appear as though you are completely oblivious to this.
No elements moving through the scene? Not even a single pan? *sigh*
Please (sincerely) get someone who has a basic understanding of video to undertake the video component of the reviews. Outsource if you need to (and you need to).
@ 2eyeseeCon: "bit rates not competitive"Conclusion: "arguably has the best video quality that we've seen."
Talk about a logical fallacy. It really is amateur stuff.
Judging video quality based on static scenes? You guys sure know how to test the encoder...
Ha! This is hilarious. DPR turning the tables and trolling their members with an unboxing video. And everyone fell for it!
Nice to see the DPR crew have a sense of humor :)
BarnET: Where is yabokie the x-trans thrasher.I expected the usual "x-trans is an stupis cost saving piece crap " comment.Maybe he finally found his she-troll.
What an invaluable pearl of wisdom. Thanks ever so much for your wonderful contribution. Now if you would be ever so kind as to delete your account and never post again we'd all be much obliged.
mailman88: Where's the lens selection for this camera? Can't find any 300-400mm lens
Don't forget you can use almost any lens from any system with adapter.
Also the Ex. Tele mode in video, which adds a further 2.6x crop with almost no degradation in image quality (small increase in noise.) So that 100-300mm lens becomes a 260mm - 780mm at the press of an Fn button.
Jogger: Although there is a lot of hype on this forum for this camera, the fact is that m43 is a non-player in the cine market. Others such as Sony and Canon have long released dedicated S35 and FF cine cameras (C100, FS700, F55, F65, etc). This market is dominated by S35 cameras. Whereas, the only m43 cine camera, the Pana AG100 never took off. The m43 mount BMP is even more of a compromise, and after the hype, its fading away.
So the reason you dont see these specs on Sony/Canons is that they dont need to... they are already catering to this market, but, you wont see the F55, F5, etc mentioned on here.
Of course there is a market for a true hybrid stills/video camera that has pro level features/performance and retails for under $2k (likely).
There are many confusing elements to your post, but the one I find most perplexing is that you're referencing dedicated video cameras which retail into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Demon Cleaner: It looks a beautiful camera, certainly much more aesthetically pleasing than the E-M1. However the ISO lock issue and the convoluted & antiquated means of moving the focus point completely detracts from the purity of the shooting experience (for mine).
After initially being a non-believer, the wheel has well and truly turned, and I simply refuse to purchase a camera that doesn't have a well implemented touch screen control anymore.
I'm impressed with the aggression you display towards someone who expresses an opinion that doesn't align with your own. Admirable work my friend. Keep it up.
It looks a beautiful camera, certainly much more aesthetically pleasing than the E-M1. However the ISO lock issue and the convoluted & antiquated means of moving the focus point completely detracts from the purity of the shooting experience (for mine).
Demon Cleaner: "Though the GM1 has a larger sensor than the Sony RX100 II, it doesn't really offer better depth of field control."
So if I attach one of the fast primes or constant aperture zooms I'll pretty much get similar depth of field to that of the RX100 II?
@peevee "They mean with the 12-32 kit lens."
Well that's kind of an important caveat to omit. The main differentiating feature, sensor size aside, is that one is an ILC with over 30 native lenses available.
Making blanket statements that depth of field is similar is dreadfully misleading.
"Though the GM1 has a larger sensor than the Sony RX100 II, it doesn't really offer better depth of field control."
JJ Rodin: EOSHD said the video was essentially superior to the GH3 by a small margin, and only short of the BMCC/PPCC in rendering shadows. So equal or better than GH3 which we all know is only inferior to 5DIII & BMCC/PCC is a solid statement for its video.
So either DPR or EOSHD are not judging well.
The GM1 sensor is a new Panasonic built one, unlike the Sony sensor in GH3, some believe the GM1 foretells what to be expected for GH4 but full 4k video, &/or full sensor scans downcasting! Likely just good 4k video.
Good that Pan did not cripple GM1 like many other cam makers likely would! Good price considering.
Yes the video review section is amateurish in many respects. They write from the perspective of a consumer who would just as readily use their mobile phone for video purposes, but will use the camera if they have it with them.
I wish they'd just leave the video section out entirely if they're not going to bother doing it competently.
Peiasdf: RX100 / RX100 II is just too much camera in such small size that it renders small mirrorless / EVIL camera like GM1 and Pantax Q pointless. Unless the intent is to use 20 f/1.7 or 17 f/1.8 with the GM1, everyone is better served by a RX.
@Jogger. Perhaps the reason why they're so enthused about it is because their photos aren't blurry? Exactly how many GM1 owners have you personally visited to assess their files anyway? Scores I suspect, for you to be able to draw such a definitive conclusion.
Gear lust: engaged.
Francis Sawyer: Does Panasonic really prevent third-party batteries from working with their cameras? If so, no one should vote for this rip-off with their money.
Send a strong message that this anti-customer offense will not stand.
I'm using cheap ebay knock-offs with both the GH3 and GX7. They work just fine.
Benarm: I wonder if it will get a Silver or Gold award on DPR. Its Canon after all!
The fact they chose not to review the original was just as telling.
plasnu: A professional and unbiased review. I'm sick of Steve H or someone's unprofessional impressions on their commercial BLOG.
Huff's only objective is to stoke the flames of Gear Acquisition Syndrome to the point where you rabidly click on the affiliate purchase links on his website. It's literally how he makes a living.
okfuture: I'm a little confused about the review in terms of performance.
"The Lumix DMC-GX7 certainly does not disappoint in the performance department. ... Focusing is nearly instantaneous ... met or exceeded Panasonic's speed estimates."
There wasn't a single negative in the narrative description. Not even a lukewarm statment. Either the score is poorly aligned or the narrative is incomplete.
I'm truly curious -- what am I missing?
The x-m1 received a higher score with this narrative on performance: "It's not quite as snappy as, say, the Panasonic Lumix GF6 .. makes subject tracking difficult ... the battery seemed to die quicker than one would expect ..."
"I'm truly curious -- what am I missing?"
You're not missing anything.
Unfortunately you're applying logic, reasoned thinking and common sense to the situation. Which means you're not DPR's target audience.
babalu: Hey, can this be true ??The one point which probably has led to this camera not getting the highest award, is : No In Camera RAW conversion. Well, that feature IS available with the GX7. See user manual page 140 .Quality modes available include RAW+JPEG, whereby JPG can even be set to high or low quality . Am I blind or completely off the topic, or what ?
"The point is that it's a handy feature that most of the GX7's rivals offer and the Panasonic doesn't."
Similar to how the electronic shutter is a handy feature that none of the GX7's rivals offer. Or the incredible flexibility of the wifi control that leaves its competitors floundering.
Compare the glowing verbosity of the E-P5's Pro's against the colourless description of the GX7's Pros, particularly those aspects where the GX7 is clearly superior. Similarly, compare the gievious failings of the E-P5 (shuttershock) against the innocuous shortcomings of the GX7 (in-camera RAW conversion), and it quickly becomes apparent we're reviewing by brand name here.
Comparing the Pro's and Con's of the GX7 and its direct competitor the E-P5 are enlightening.
E-P5 Pro:"Superb, high-res optional electronic viewfinder"
Yes, it costs $300 extra. You can get one for free with the GX7, but we're going to lob that in as a Con because we feel you need a $15 eyecup to use it effectively.
Leaves you dumbfounded after reading reviews that downplay poor ergonomics because you can purchase a $50 aftermarket add-on by Richard Franiec.
So compared to the E-P5 the following is worth 1 point I take it? Congratulations DPR, you've outdone yourself once again.
* E-P5 is more expensive;* E-P5 has no EVF, requiring a $300 add-on;* E-P5 has a major fault: shuttershock;* E-P5 applies focus peaking as an art filter, which reduces the display frame rate, stops the use of other art filters, and is unusable in video (where it's essential);* E-P5's video quality is a mess with no 24/25/50/60p (no PAL frame rates);* E-P5 has no electronic shutter;* E-P5 wifi is only usable in iAuto mode (and unlike the GX7, no control of: WB, ISO, aperture/ss, exposure comp, focus mode, burst mode, bracketing, photo style, image quality, metering, flash mode, video quality and record options, stop animation, etc etc);* E-P5's time lapse is limited to 999 exposures and doesn't put the camera to sleep between shots;* E-P5 has no sweep panorama