Greg VdB: Recommendation for pixel peepers: put it on "print size" and investigate how much difference you really see with your preferred camera... Personally, I'm quite comfortable in the comparison to my feeble Eos 70D, especially since I realize they are entirely different tools for different needs.
That said... Let the pixel peeping war commence!
I too for a laugh did that - I was really quite impressed with the quality of my humble toy, so does that mean pixel vs pixel across the brands the difference is quite (in relative terms) small?
spqr_ca: I think we can now, officially, lay to rest the idea that Nikon or Pentax, or any of the others, are particularly unique when it comes to issues like this. On the upside, this will now save you from having to apply the "polka dot Instagram filter" in Photoshop...
Re: Japanese quality isn't what it used to be. It's a bit sweeping and lacks rigor, most manufacturing is done in China as labour costs are lower and often by well educated people thus we get cheaper products, nobody minds that. The products are getting ever more complex and so manufacturing yields have to be amazing to have a product leave a factory defect free, so inevitably there will be outgoing defects on a few products. I am ambivalent about China & Japan, but since the 70s product quality is much, much better. Most outgoing defects are random - in this case it could be batch related, and I suspect Canon do not normally look for this defect as it simply has not been anticipated. I suspect they will now & be looking across all suppliers for sensors just-in-case
ravduc: Just rub a bit of Vaseline on an old filter and save yourself 500 dollars.
I was playing with the art effects in my GM1 - quite similar to this and I got a camera included for $500.
b craw: Much of the commentary here stands as simply petty territorialism, representing weak defenses of expensive equipment. And the comments relating to the titling of the article have little to do with the merits of the photography, nor does the resolution provided; both things are not the decisions of the photographer. Criticism of the photos themselves are valid opinions expressed in a frank manner. Fair enough. But despite my potential minor criticisms relating to processing (perhaps a bit heavy handed use of vignetting and the like), these stand head and shoulders above most members' wildlife imagery. They represent, what is in the contempory environment, a bit more of a fresh take on subject matter in a formal regard. I've looked at the work of many whom criticize so vehemently. Quite honestly their work undermines credibility.
Many people have views on art, that does not mean we are or should all be artists to have a view and we don't dismiss the effort either - he's a professional thus we have, not unreasonably, expectations.
£400 phone, good location, ordinary pictures - c'mon, I want to be inspired
saralecaire: Goes to show that technical know how and skill plays second fiddle to the people/connection you have.
I thought the same vis-a-vis lack of mention of talent in this article, however go to his website and there is some good stuff on there, which I think balances this article
I checked a few out, got some good scores, then some were quite low for what I thought were atypical popular images, and they were lower than I expected. However, it seems to work, but what I really want is a tool that can tell me which are the commercial images :-) then thinking it through a bit more - I think we all know what that is... lots of flesh tones I guess.
Is this just an Android tablet with the slideshow (Galley app) feature? I have a Sony Tablet S, when dropped into the cradle it goes into slideshow mode, so what is different about this product?
racketman: Amazon will be hoping the appeal by the FAA is unsuccessful assuming they intend to go ahead with their drone delivery service.
In the UK Radio Control modellers are obliged to have insurances if in public spaces - though often recreational flyers don't bother. As above, I'd be more concerned of being filmed with someone's wife and it turning up on the net :-)
ThePhilips: I have the irrational lust to get me one.
I also did and no regrets - love it!
Mike Ronesia: Just got mine yesterday and so far I love it!
Me too, puts the fun back into photography and really impressed with the IQ (LX2 & GF1 - glad I waited)
nevada5: Gold or silver, tin or cow patty - why would this matter? I've never walked around with my camera, feeling better that a reviewer called it gold.
I've had my GX7 for about 5 weeks and it continues to please me more each time I use it. The level of customization available is fantastic, ergonomics and build quality are top-drawer, EVF and IQ are on a par with my NEX-6. The icing on the cake is that the menus make sense to me.
The review seems to be a fair one. (But I must have the only GX7 ever made that consistently UNDER-exposes. Hmmmm)
I suspect anyone who prefers a rangefinder-style camera will find little to fault with the GX7.
Jorginho: I wonder: will the 14 mm f2.5 tip it over? Will the 20 mm do that? I am not being sarcastic, but that seems unlikely.
I find the first impressions rather negative. So you need to compare it with the Q and the RX100II but in the end you seem to compare it with DSLRs or so. Tiny cams have tiny controls and few controls in general. That is to be expected. If you do not wan that, get the GF6 or GX7. Etc. But the comment than is: not really pocketable Etc. A last sentence with: "but it is an engeneering succes" or somehting similar does not make up for the negativity. Of course small cams of this size mean large hands will almost surely have trouble..It is a bit like knowing there is a large sensor in it and ten be disaapointed that it does not offer a 24-100 mm f2.0 lens of that size. like the lX7 or something similar.
I concur, as is states in the preview: ...but we don't want to sound negative, I think they are never-the-less - it's like they are, and saying their not, eh? If I did not have problems with my aged eyes, I'd buy it, I like the 24mm WA and often borrow my partners FX37 for interior shots and its (GM1) compactness, of course its not the GX7/OMD! *sigh*. Much as I dislike some of the cameras available (hideous colours/designs etc.) at least the manufacturers are bold, stretching the envelope, and that is a really good thing.
KariIceland: Marc newson is a terrible designer and is known for the worst camera design in human history, marc you should be FIRED, and apple designing a camera? God help us all.
Are Zvonimir and DPR are just being provocative? The mocking of Hasselblad, then this and the vitriol about whether cameraphones should be in the DPConnect site, etc. would imply a loss of focus (geddit?) about what DPR does. It seems to me brands are being usurped by stupidity also, IMHO. Yeah, I am traditionalist, but sometimes I just sigh and throw my hands up and watch another legend loose its way.
kgreggain: Why the F is dpreview reviewing phones? The phone has a camera but is not a camera, it's a phone.
Stop the insanity.
Aw, come on, we should embrace this, along with reviews on webcams, anything from Fisher Price and VTech, ooh what about oil & canvas too? Too much? Sorry, my bad :-)
WACONimages: Come on DPreview! For every photo challenging a newbie smart-phone can be used! Are you gonna post that as news every-time?!?!?
I'm a experienced full-time event/concert/press photographer. So next time I take some nice pics at a gig with a new smartphone you will post this on your front-page?
I'm a gadget freak to quiet a bit myself. But I'm getting real tired about the smartphone hype. Use that time maybe to post more! lens reviews and camera reviews as well. Just saying.
It is getting wearisome, this banging on about mobile phones and their cameras. I got a free upgrade to a Xperia Z, my Lumix LX2 is better. The Xperia is on eBay - as a phone? Dreadful! So many HW/SW problems, I gave up. Friends have Galaxy's which routinely lock up and require SW updates, re-boots etc., etc. So I too can have a 41mpx camera with a shoddy phone attached? yay, with a small y... Notably these reviews fail to mention the usefulness as what the item is meant to do, make calls. BTW: the pictures, what is so special? Sorry to whinge, but DPR need feedback, and reluctantly, this is mine.
Menneisyys: Cool, there are 20mm equiv shots there too; for example, http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2656086/p1000361?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz70-sample-gallery
EDIT: also this:
re: 3rd para, agree, also only doing 2 high ISO photos and the rest base ISO, maybe less quantity and more diversity in ISO would be more helpful. 2/39 = <5% is not that representative, or is there some other rationale at DPR?
Mikhail Tal: I'm thrilled that my request for DPR to review the GX7 quickly and start reviewing more m4/3 cameras was so popular. I have never seen another comment get even close to 70 likes before (it certainly helped that I got it in early). Thank you to all who gave a thumbs up and I encourage you to keep visiting and posting comments in these previews and reviews, it is the biggest thing that Simon and DPR pay attention to, how much traffic they get. If we blitz the previews with page views and comments they will reward us with a quick review, at least that is my hope.
You're welcome - you spoke for the silent majority also, the comment re: SLR garners more traffic - a quick look on the Reviews & specs: 57% (SLR) vs 43% (Rest). I am not that convinced as the top 10 is still only 30% of all activity. I suspect the GX7 was fast tracked due to rumours, leaks and Panasonics' goodwill/PR machine. Never-the-less I will be buying one, it's what the GX1 should have been as I have the GF1 with external EVF and far from ideal.