nerd2: RX100III is more compact, has much faster lens (even in equivalence), and has better ISO capability due to the BSI sensor.
Even the GM5, hampered as it is in the context of DxO's testing methodology by lower bit depth RAW output when the electronic shutter is utilized (in the service of facilitating faster sensor readouts so rolling shutter artifacts are minimized), still fared better than the Sony 1"-type sensor in SNR, DR, tonal range and color sensitivity at every ISO above 200 (which again should prompt us all to ask "what is the point of the overall sensor score, exactly?"). And in any case in the real world the mechanical shutter can be utilized most of the time putting the GM5's performance back on par with the GX7 at lower ISO's.
Sure, the RX100 III has some advantages. And for some people they are quite significant. Please feel free to talk about them. Brag about them even. But there's no need to exaggerate.
Potemkin_Photo: might as well bubble wrap and sell at walmart. not for the MSRP though, but more like $99 with 50 free prints.
Errr, what are "prints"?
The Sony 1"-type sensor isn't better at all. It may punch above its weight but the latest Panasonic 4/3"-type sensor remains superior in terms of SNR, DR, tonal range, color sensitivity etc. See: http://tinyurl.com/ozqvxkf
Peiasdf: If all you plan to do is use the kit lens RX100 and G7X are far better choices. In fact, my G7X with the "slow" option under auto-ISO amazes me with its IQ and IS.
Yeah, the super-compacts won't beat m4/3 or APS-C with fast primes or good zooms but those lenses are $500+ and requires an enthusiast to use.
Canon G7 X ≠ Panasonic GX7. One is a fixed-lens 1"-type format camera and the other is a 4/3"-type MILC.
Canon's marketing department really need a swift kick up for butt for this problematic similarity in designation.
Drama: No viewfinder = defect camera
He rolled a 20 as far as I am concerned.
rpm40: What is wrong with people wanting to take the occasional self shot or group shot with them in it? For many, if not most, hobby photographers, the documentary aspect of photographs is part of the appeal. Years later, photos of friends and family are often the most cherished. People like to be able to look back to remember their lives and loved ones.
Maybe people are lashing back more against the silly word "selfie" than anything else.
Maybe many people interested in photography feel more comfortable behind the lens and out of the spotlight (I see a bit of this in myself) and so they have trouble relating to those that want to be in front of the lens.
Maybe photography "purists" around here just see it as fueled primarily by new technology like smartphones and social media, and since for many of these folks new must be bad, so it puts them off.
Whatever it is- getting all riled up and raising your blood pressure about it is silly.
Who's getting riled up? Personally I am quite capable of helping to stir up a storm in a teacup without becoming the least bit tense about it. Really ;)
cainn24: I hate it. I don't care if it's irrational, or if six thousand million other people love it, I hate it. I feel that the encroachment of all this social media friendly nonsense somehow spells the beginning of the end of the unadulterated enthusiast camera tradition, and that bothers me deeply.
Swing and a miss.
Bluetrain048: Some of us go take pictures to get as far away from social media as possible..
Well apparently the internet is now "the cloud" and any form of online communication is "social media". I guess that would retroactively include mediums such as Usenet (back when it was mostly used for actual communication instead of sharing warez and porn) and dial-up bulletin boards.
Yeah, I don't buy it either ;)
straylightrun: "oh boo hoo I hate selfies, people shouldn't be having fun taking photos and sharing it with their friends online"
You guys sound old, lonely and bitter... someone call the retirement village, the grandpas have escaped again!
That's how I want to go out: a dramatic escape from a retirement village followed by the stirring up of a final batch of controversy.
Although I must admit to having bigger fish to fry than this epidemic of obsessive over-documenting of one's life (and face) ;)
rurikw: Maybe the front-facing screen feature should be renamed "cathedral ceiling screen", it is very useful when shooting architecture.
Real men don't care about vertebral compression and the ensuing headaches.
Pierre Couture: I love the French word for selfie: "Égoportrait" ;-)
This guy is the selfie master: http://tinyurl.com/pbm36ap
I said exactly what I meant to say, and I meant exactly what I said. No more, no less.
I hate it. I don't care if it's irrational, or if six thousand million other people love it, I hate it. I feel that the encroachment of all this social media friendly nonsense somehow spells the beginning of the end of the unadulterated enthusiast camera tradition, and that bothers me deeply.
tkbslc: Specs don't sound that bad to me, why the negative commentary?
Because essentially, it isn't anything.
sans culotte: One more article explaining why this "equivalence" concept is a complete rubbish:https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence
That article has been given the treatment it deserves here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54845745
daddyo: I guess I don't get the real purpose/benefit of this camera.Based on the Studio Test Scene, the Olympus E-M10 offers obviously better IQ at high ISO's. It also has built-in flash, a higher magnification LCD and EVF, a tilting LCD, IBIS, and a reasonable grip -- just to name a few advantages, not to mention a $200 lower price tag.
While I understand that the GM5 is a bit smaller and lighter, one still has to carry the clip on flash and a lens or two. If the idea is to simply use the GM5 with only the 12-32mm lens so you can stuff it in a pocket, what's the point of interchangeable lens design? Why not simply get one of the top tier P&S cameras with a reasonable zoom range - something like the Sony RX100 III?
Obviously pocketability is a somewhat subjective consideration just like almost everything else in photography. I can and do place my GM5 +12-32 in both pants and jacket pockets routinely without much fuss therefore it is, quite literally, a pocketable camera. But if you have small pockets, or are a small person, or just don't like the way a heavy (for its size) camera weighs down your pants, then I guess pockets are out of the question for you.
But regardless of whether or not it is a comfortable fit in my pockets, or yours, I think that most GM series owners would agree that the compactness is appreciated. The reviewer in this case is apparently fond of keeping her GM5 in her purse. And as big as that purse may be, if would likely have to be bigger still for anything else.
km25: X sync 1/50, mistake or ?. What would be nice is a LX100 with interchangable lens. And 16 MP in place pic-a-ratio.
Sure, but I assumed that the reason the OP was advocating for an LX100 body in an ILC context is because it can sync at all available shutter speeds (since I'm sure he's already looked at cameras like the GX7).
But I could of course be wrong.
What you're describing is basically just a slightly smaller GX7 with different external controls. And once you make the lens interchangeable you lose the central diaphragm shutter which is what gives you super-fast flash sync speeds.
"If it's not pocketable in a normal sense, then why are you compromising usability in a smaller package when something a tad larger can give you better controls?"
Look, this is very simple. I'm quite fond of wearing loose fitting cargo pants. And the GM5 + 12-32 slides into a front pocket very easily. In fact the lanyard that I've attached conveniently hangs out by my side making it ridiculously easy to slide it out again. That's "normal" for me. As for usability, after some tweaks which include 5 customized virtual function buttons quickly and easily accessible at the right side of the GM5's LCD, along with a fully customized Q.Menu, I find it to be eminently usable.
"that aside, if anything but the kit results in a large package...what is the real point of this camera?"
Once again, how does the occasional use of a larger lens render the day-to-day benefits that a tiny kit brings to the table, nonexistent? It's a rhetorical question of course. It doesn't.
On and on the arguments go, and with an accusation of purposeful misrepresentation on the part of GM series owners no less. But again none of this nonsense changes the fact that this is as pocketable as ILCs currently get and that the level of compactness achieved here, while retaining some degree of ILC versatility, appeals to a lot of people.
But by all means soldier on and see if you can get me to realize that I made a mistake by buying a GM5. You might have to step it up a notch though because I know what it's like to own an even smaller camera (which is irrelevant anyway if one of the main draw cards of a GM series camera is indeed the retention of some degree of ILC versatility, which is indeed true).