On the GH3 page - must be a typo. "What we liked""What we like" ..... should read "What we don't like."
Everywhere else - this camera is a slam dunk. Strange that DPR thinks differently. The GH3 almost suffered the same fate. It was only for it's "video capabilities" that GH3 reluctantly gained the Gold award.Looks like anything in this bracket is and will be compared to the OMD-EM5 from now on and for evermore. Fair enough, but the viewfinder eye cup will not fall off the GX7, the flash doesn't require two pieces of plastic to be removed and a separate flash installed, the menu layout on the GX7 doesn't require a diploma in frustration and the button layout and grip allows for one handed "eye-to-viewfinder" use- unlike the OMD-EM5.I say this as a GH2 user and someone thinking of getting an OMD-EM5 if only for the fact that I've now got a fantastic collection of Olympus prime lenses. That said - the GX7 looks so much better on paper. It even shoots 25p video! I know the GX7 viewfinder is suspect but it's still so much better than the GH3 and OMD-EM5. IMHO.
Lack of in-camera RAW processing. What is that exactly and when would I ever use it? Strange score. Something' up.
One of Cartier Bresson's most famous photographs is of a man jumping over a puddle. When interviewed he said the photograph was taken "blind" from a very low angle between pickets on a fence. And so it is. Some of my best action shots have been taken chasing my kids around the garden with auto focus and motor drive. 1 in 100 and I nail it.It's entirely believable to me that the photo is real.
I find with the right auto focus technique, I can achieve a better success rate with a moving subject with my Panasonic GH2 than my Canon 5DMKII or my Canon 50D. The truth is that if you are serious about action shots then only the absolute top of the line DSLR cameras (Canon 1DX etc) will achieve the desired result even without great technique. When it comes to static subjects - particularly people shots - mirrorless really comes into it's own with face recognition. No longer do I miss the shot because I'm searching around for the right focus point to select. I have easily 3 times as many successful shots with mirrorless over my Canon DSLR's.
Fascinating subject. One of the main reasons why FF has become less desirable is the size and weight of lenses. A different design approach to the lens/ sensor relationship could help miniaturize lenses.
dw2001: love these focus tracking test where you shoot at like F22 and absolutely everything in the frame is in focus...that really gives you an idea of how the focus tracking performs....
yeah right dw2001 - whatever.
I try to avoid a smaller aperture (higher f stop) than f5.6 on m4/3 due to diffraction. Good thing many m4/3 lenses have fantastic performance wide open.
King Penguin: Ok it sure is a cute and attractive camera with great form and controls............but why would you purchase this when for the same(ish) money you can have a camera with a sensor FOUR, yes that's right, FOUR times the area, ie, a Nikon D600.
In 2013 bigger does not necessarily mean better. Come on guys keep up!
tjbates: I'm one of the many selling my DSLR gear and now enjoying the benefits of m4/3 for capturing people. My 5DMK2 is still in my kit for landscape/ architecture photos, but honestly I really don't need it.
I mostly photograph my kids. Back in 2008 I thought getting the "best" was getting a FF DSLR. To my surprise, a few years later, I discovered for many situations that applied to me, that this not necessarily true. Now with a m4/3 camera, I'm nailing almost all of my shots due to face recognition. Always eye ball sharp. My composition is not compromised due to the silly diamond shaped focus arrangement and my lenses are extremely sharp and contrasty at their widest aperture. Not so for my Canon L glass. No more stopping down to get a sharp shot. For me, the bokeh argument is dead.
And now without doubt, for many who have actually tried m4/3, it is abundantly clear that handling, speed and accuracy is no longer owned by FF. FF and their slapping mirrors are a hang over from film days.
Antonio. Sorry, I meant the DOF argument. I think you get the idea.
"FF may all be mirror-less sooner or later." Mirror or no mirror - FF or not, the laws of physics will always determine the size of the attached lenses to cover a sensor. Hence one of the main reasons for the popularity of m4/3. Tiny lenses!
Amazing technology. Sadly in Canon's hands the best we can expect is that it'll be put into a camera body with no headphone jack and lousy downscaling to produce horrible moire and aliasing artefacts.
rxbot: Would be interesting to know how many 4/3s users would pick GH3 over E-M1 for video and GX7 over E-M1 for form factor and E-M5 over E-M1 for $550 cost savings.
I agree with all three as written.
I'm one of the many selling my DSLR gear and now enjoying the benefits of m4/3 for capturing people. My 5DMK2 is still in my kit for landscape/ architecture photos, but honestly I really don't need it.
I really like the EM-5 look - but unfortunately going larger like the GH3 did after the GH2 doesn't work for me aesthetically. I also think going even bigger betrays the m4/3 system (keep it small and light) philosophy. That's why the mini (car) isn't a mini anymore - just a puffed up version of what it was originally intended to be. Marketing folks - God bless them.
I studied the high ISO samples and can't pick any difference between most of the recent offerings printed on 8x10 paper.I'm staying with what Iv'e got until I see how nice in the hand the Panasonic GX7 really is.
tjbates: Nicely written!
"Cynics might suggest that it's been purely to protect sales of the X100 / X100S, which use a 23mm F2 lens, at least until the X system became more established on the market."
This may sound a little cynical - but I still find it far more realistic and less cynical than Fuji's explanation.
Note to Fuji - consumers may have held off buying into the Fuji system until the release of the XF 23mm f1.4 lens. Meanwhile these same potential customers may have discovered that the micro 4/3 system meets their needs (faster auto focus, smaller form factor etc) and have abandoned the idea of purchasing Fuji altogether.
Marketing spin is amusing.
Personally, I've never wanted to shoot wider than 24mm. For wider angles, sometimes I've stitched and sometimes I've simply taken two steps backwards.Remind me, what's the crop factor on the Fuji system again?
Crop factor is x2 on m4/3 - easy math really.12mm f2 = 24mm 17mm f1.8 = 35mm17.5mm f0.95 = 35mmWhat's not fast and wide about them apples?
Anyone know the specifics of silent mode (beyond what's already been written above) Specifically, I'd lke to know if the silent mode produces higher resolutioin images than the silent mode on my GH2. The GH2 can shoot 4MP in 4:3 ratio but only in the SH burst mode - 2-40 shots per burst. It is truely silent.
Couldn't agree more with this opinion. For me though THE number 1 reason to use my m4/3 camera over my FF Canon is face recognition auto focus. I bought a GH2 for video but quickly realised that the face recognition auto focus for photographing my children was a winner. I'd spent years hunting around trying to engage the correct focus point on my DSLR and the moment was gone - or I'd successfully select the correct focus point but realised the composition was compromised. The m4/3 system cameras have such extremely fast auto focus and the accuracy is soooo much better than my DSLR. The other realisation is that many of the best m4/3 lenses are already at their best wide open. Not so with many of the best FF lenses. Bokeh - not a problem.
love_them_all: 150/3.5 eq isn't exactly attractive. Lenses just sound more exotic in the smaller sensors. 75/1.8 sounds so much more interesting. :) Although given a real 135/3.5 on the ff or this lens, I may get this lens because of the faster shutter speed. Noise and everything else put aside.
150/3.5 isn't attractive until you stop down a Canon EF 85mm 1.2 L or 50mm 1.2 L just enough til it looks as sharp and contrasty as the Oly 75mm 1.8 wide open.