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).
Catalin Stavaru: The m43 advantage should be compactness, smaller cameras, smaller lenses. And yet, Panasonic unnecessarily increased the size of the GM1. This camera will not sell well.
Sure, that too. Profiteering and consumer satisfaction very often go hand in hand.
Well all know the game we are playing.
You can limit the GM to lenses that allow it to be a pocket camera when you want it to be a pocket camera. You can use other lenses when you don't care about compactness so much. I don't really understand why this concept is so hard to fathom.
I wear cargo pants often. And jackets too. So I find this whole "if you can't slip a camera into the pocket of your jeans you might as well just abandon the whole concept of pocketability and go with a larger camera" argument quite silly.
The GM series is small. I like how small they are. Heaps of people do. And all the arguments in the world aren't going to suddenly change our minds about that particularly when those arguments seem to stem from an inability to even imagine walking a mile in someone else's shoes.
The tiny focal plane shutter that Panasonic squeezed into the GM1/GM5 has some mechanical limitations that prevent it from offering shutter speeds above 1/500s. And when the fully electronic shutter is engaged beyond that range it outputs lower bit depth RAWs in order to maintain a fast sensor readout (presumably in the service of minimizing rolling shutter artifacts). So any slight differences are at least partly attributable to that.
Thing is, though, that I can't imagine many scenarios in which I would want to be shooting at ISO 6400 while also needing shutter speeds above 1/500s, therefore probably all of my high ISO shooting could be done using the mechanical shutter which would give me proper 12-bit RAW output.
1. It's not just a _bit_ smaller. It's quite a lot smaller when you actually handle it.2. Not everyone cares much for flash photography.3. The general idea might indeed be to use the GM5 with only the 12-32mm _most_ of the time. But then there is the _rest_ of the time (where you might want a small prime instead, or the tiny new 35-100, or whatever else)
I'd say that the inclusion of an EVF and the associated tiny increase in volume was pretty necessary in order to capture that segment of the market that simply wont buy a camera without some sort of viewfinder and don't really care much for flash photography (or would rather use a better flash if they're going to bother with one at all).
PeterBM: "Sadly, the FZ1000 doesn't offer a touch screen."I disagree. I wouldn't buy it if it has a touch screen. All photographers are not working in studio or preparing photos for hours.When travelling, walking, hiking, you often cannot keep your hands clean enough for a good use of touch screen.
I don't really understand the whole "I wouldn't by camera X if it had feature Y" sentiment in cases where you can turn feature Y off.
My GM5 has a touch screen. I don't really like touch screens. So I turned it off. Done. Same with every other camera I've owned that has had a touch screen. Of course some cameras have touch screens that you can't turn off [completely] but Panasonic seem to be a bit smarter than that these days, at least with the enthusiast models.
Daniel Keutmann: In the studio test scene at iso 6400 and raw the panasonic uses aperture f/4 and 1/1250 shutter speed while the g1x mark2 uses f/5.6 and 1/2500.
Since exposure seems to be the same the ISO of one of the two cameras must be quite a bit off...
The issue here isn't about equivalence, it's about exposure (in the exposure triangle sense of the word). For example if you bring up both the Nikon P330 and the Nikon D810 in the comparison tool you will see 1/40s@f/5 vs 1/30s@f/5.6 for ISO 80, which is the same exposure (or amount of light per unit of sensor area). Ideally that's what we should see every time two cameras are compared at the same ISO. But in the case of the LX100's high ISO shots, the exposure is actually being controlled by reducing the scene illumination instead of increasing the shutter speed. So instead we see, for example, the LX100 at 1/1250s@f/4 vs the G1 X MKII at 1/2500s@f/5.6. That's a two stop exposure difference. But again, compensated for by essentially dimming the studio lighting by two EV.
For ISO 3200 and beyond dpreview are reducing the illumination in increments of 1 EV and then correcting the brightness. They do this occasionally, and you'll have to ask them why it was necessary in this case.
Kjell Olsson: Nice pictures - not always the case coming from the DPreview staff......But it would be interesting to know what lenses were used..... does not show on all pics....
Again, the 12-32 wasn't the only lens used. Some of those shots were taken with the new compact 35-100mm lens, and one was even taken with a 45mm prime.
Based on the full EXIF data all the images where the lens model isn't displayed on the gallery page were either taken with the 12-32 or the new 35-100 f/4.0-5.6, and you can work out which based on the reported focal length.
JohnFredC: That Seattle view is ISO 200? No better than my little Sony TX-30 at 200. The shape and distribution of the noise granules may be different, but the LX100 shows just as much noise as that tiny camera does at 200 (meaning entirely too much for such an expensive camera). Sorry, not impressed.
Also, I must have been spoiled by my X-A1, which was substantially less expensive than the LX100.
The shot you speak of is 3-stops underexposed (which is pretty obvious even if you can't be bothered checking the EXIF data), and then +3.85 EV corrected in post, as mentioned.
Beat Traveller: Thanks for publishing this. It sounds like a very capable camera.
Too bad the Australian price is an absolute gouge :(
Here's a another option: http://www.leedervillecameras.com.au/products/lenses/panasonic-/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-digital-camera--black-
Great option if you live in Perth.
The game continues: http://www.discountcameras.com.au/view_product/58153
(this outfit do indeed sell Aussie stock with Aussie warranties. They are affiliated with Michael's in Melbourne according to an Olympus rep I once spoke to)
$986.54 with free shipping anywhere in Aus (Gerry Gibbs will hit you with an additional 20 bucks or so if you need it shipped)
In fact you could just walk into Ted's and get them down close to 1K with a price match request if you prefer, which gives you a 2-week exchange option as well.
Darrell500: It took me a long time to get my mind around the equivalence debate but I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. This is a good article for those new to the debate and will help give them an understanding of this concept.
I have to comment about those that are always pointing out that f4 on FF is the same as f2 on f 4/3, they always forget to mention that as far as exposure f2 is f2. If you are shooting at f4 what I'm shooting at f2 then you obviously have to raise your ISO, partially negating the noise advantage.
Of course the detractors will point out that a FF sensor at f4 has the same amount of light falling on the sensor as a 4/3 at f2 which is true. You need to remember the amount of light per mm of sensor real-estate is the same, which is why f2 is still f2 unless we are talking DOF and noise.
The above said, I'm not a fan of m43 because I hate the tiny little cameras, they don't fit my large hands. Maybe the EM1 with a grip will be large enough for my needs in the future.
One additional point though:
"If you insist on using the same f number and SS, the smaller sensor will be noisier. Equivalence explains why and what to do to make the smaller sensor create a file with the same noise levels as a larger sensor. If you don't care about this or DoF, then equivalence is not for you."
For as long as you say things like this a reply will be necessary. Why? Because your statement is incomplete and therefore potentially misleading. It's omits the fact that it is not always possible to achieve the same noise levels with a smaller format.
"the same f number will create a smaller effective aperture on a system with a smaller sensor. Use the same sized effective aperture and you will have the same noise levels."
omits the fact that you can't always do that either. In other words, you're framing everything as if it is possible to routinely match FF performance whenever you want.
You may think it all goes without saying, but apparently it doesn't.