joexu: 100Mbps is very high compression rate for 4K, let's see how it perform against Sony's XAVC-S which can reach up to 150Mbps
you're comparing the GH4 with a $4500 handicam with a 1/2.3" sensor that is in many ways crippled compared to the GH4.
DPR's categories are outdated thus far less useful than they could be.
Mirrorless compete directly with DSLR's and have the same image quality (or near enough so for m43). The biggest difference is the viewfinder and body size.
Say I've got $700 to blow on a camera for my kid who's getting into photography & video. What do I get? DSLR? Mirrorless?
Throw out the mirrorless/dslr/dslt distinction. Use the umbrella description "System Cameras" and then break them down by average price points or desired use: Entry / Intermediate / Prosumer / Pro / Video.
It makes so much more sense, and is far more useful.
Don't quite understand why something like the Panasonic GM1 isn't on this list.
It's interchangeable, but so what? With the kit lens it's still more compact, I believe, than some of the cameras in this list. It's too compromised to get mention in a normal mirrorless category. This is where it belongs. One simply gets the added bonus of being able to put on other lenses with it - including some small bright primes.
OldZorki: Not enough dials to justify the price. :)
Kidding aside, a great looking camera. People will have an ability to get D4 image quality at half the price, while using any Nikon lenses from any era. What not to like? For people without collection of Nikon FF lens it is probably a hard (but not impossible) sale.
What's not to like?
Rotten ergonomics. How much will one use a camera that's uncomfortable to hold for any real length of time.
harold1968: Inexplicable scoring.Dpreview's own partner DXOmARK has Nex 7 (just about to be replaced) significantly better then EM5 on every score.Sure the Olympus sensor (now they are using sony) is better then previous versions, but the quality of picture is still far behind APS-c. I know, after editing both, the Nex pictures take far more battering in pp.It is simply misleading to say otherwise
1) sensors are actually pretty close.
2) Surely there is more to a camera than just a sensor? Ergonomics, viewfinder, weatherproofing (and level of weatherproofing), focus speed, continuous shot speed, native lenses, stabilization, etc. Sony does some neat stuff, and in some ways their cameras push boundaries, but in other ways they're playing catch-up.
miketala: Was thinking yesterday that Apple is perhaps the most innovate camera maker in the world. For example, the 5s is the only camera in the world to have:1. dual flashes to help get proper white balance regardless of ambient light (1000+ variations of how the flashes fire).2. ability to take 10 pics/second, camera then chooses the best and potentially eliminates remaining motion blur using the remaining pics.3. ability to take slow-motion video (120fps at 720p) and, at any point in the video, speed that part of the vid to real time on the fly.
Not only are these new, but they're totally accessible and useful, even to the lay person.
Thom Hogan speaks directly on all of this at bythom.com.
You're being silly, an iPhone is no more a phone than it is a camera or videocamera. It's also a calculator. A gaming device. A GPS. A computer. etc.
And you've utterly missed the point of my comments: Apple, a company that really isn't known as a camera company, is doing more real and useful innovation on the photography front than the major camera makers. Apple's innovations can easily be applied to P&S cameras, mirrorless, and DSLRs. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc, are probably kicking themselves today for not implementing these ideas first.
Was thinking yesterday that Apple is perhaps the most innovate camera maker in the world. For example, the 5s is the only camera in the world to have:1. dual flashes to help get proper white balance regardless of ambient light (1000+ variations of how the flashes fire).2. ability to take 10 pics/second, camera then chooses the best and potentially eliminates remaining motion blur using the remaining pics.3. ability to take slow-motion video (120fps at 720p) and, at any point in the video, speed that part of the vid to real time on the fly.
Ullrich72: This GX-7 raises expectations, it comes with nice ingredients. But as a "mostly daylight shooter" these first samples are disappointing to me. As a APSC User with 2.8 Zoom there is nothing in these (daylight) pictures that attract me in any way. High Iso Performance seems to be good but what I see in bright light or orange saturated evening light is just not a reason to change system. A DSLR might be heavier, but takes just the better picture.
"A DSLR might be heavier, but takes just the better picture."
A few shrunk jpegs from an otherwise untested camera and you've already cast judgment that all DSLR's are better, especially in bright or evening light? Surely you're joking.
Dimit: Nice little thing,it seems to have everything accumulated over the last couple of years.By the other hand Pana always seems not to have this little ''something''.Call it ''put this on and this and this..'' syndrome but never go ahead of their competitors.Just 3 thoughts: Any good reason for the existence of G series? GF,GX and GH seem to cover the whole spectrum.And..what on earth this tilting vf is useful for?Really,anyone?The whole 90 degrees angle of the tilt can be easilyhandled by the respective movement of the camera WITH the eye on the evf.Last and least: Better looking and similarly equipped with its direct(uglier) competitors EM5 and EP5,the latter being damn expensive,considering the luck of built- in evf.For the time being best choise seems to be nex7,since most of e mount lenses are OSS,disregarding the 5 axis feature(overated?).It will sell well.Besides Pana prices tend to drop faster than those of Olympus and Sony,no?
The sensor in the GH3, EM-5, etc, are not at all the same as the one in your old GX1. The better m43 cameras compete nicely on IQ with the NEX 5 & 6.
This looks like a neat camera!
I wonder how this compares with a Panasonic G6. G6 i understand would have better video, but similar body styles. the m43 lenses would be smaller. THough the G6 sensor is a bit old it's fairly similar to the Canon with its older sensor.
This report is ids the worst fanboy garbge i cannot believe. MTI is a college for ;arty retrds. I cant blieve that DPR would print so stupid things al the time! duh. Those persons who wrk DPR are totum pole bottom to, but they think they so wiley!!@ theyh contstatn ely remove things i say hear and refuse to let me put up shots my wife. never trust crafty MIT or wiley DPR fanboy. they out to trick you jest like they trick me by make up kit remove dog blimesh.
rfsIII: The one question I have is why does everyone denigrate articulated LED screens like they are only for video shooters and amateurs? It is a truth oft repeated that all the really good photographs exist at very awkward angles; greatness can only be achieved when the camera is either too high, too low, too sideways, but definitely not at normal eye level 1.5 meters above the ground. So why the hating of a feature that makes it easier to stand out from the mediocre photos crowd? Is it that people are too inhibited artistically to look beyond their normal field of view? Are they afraid that using unique and compelling angles would make them look foolish to their peers? Are they ashamed of producing something truly beautiful?
I agree, and the believe the same goes of touch screens. Touch screens and articulated screens can be powerful tools.
I've got a G3, which has a sensor that performs similarly to the GH2, and my biggest gripe with it is that it's rather easy to blow highlights. Most reviews pick up on this problem too.
The new Oly's and the GH3, I believe, hold onto highlights much better, and that's why I would like to see a better sensor in the G6.
IcyVeins: So he's using the 7-14, 12-35, and 100-300, but I figure he must be using one of the cheap telephoto zooms too. I wonder if it's the 45-200, 45-175, or 45-150.
Bet it's the 35-100 f2.8.
It's odd to compare this with cameras that cost--at most--1/2 the price. I get that it's mirrorless, but with lenses it's simply not as compact as m43, and at least one of the adapters appears to be as large as the camera itself.
A comparison with a similarly priced camera using a similar sized sensor, e.g. the D7000, is highly warranted and it's simply silly and unprofessional that DPR failed to do this.
It looks like a nice camera.
I notice that a lot of people complain about the G3's plastic body. It's actually aluminum.
its like chartreuse-colored lipstick on a pig.
poor steve jobs just rolled over in his grave.
If you've got an advantage, you should take it. Nikon seems to have a potential lens advantage with a smaller size sensor -- this is their ONLY absolute advantage as far as I can tell -- so it's truly stupid of them to not have taken advantage of this (eg, a super small fast zoom). The GX lenses for M4/3 look to be superior, even smaller, than Nikon's. I just don't understand Nikon's thinking. Any other technical advantage they have right now will be fleeting as competitors roll out new models.
> Although the gf3 or ep mini with the 14-42 gx lens would make > smaller combined size, the j1 and v1 could be competitors if the price is right