cgarrard: The best serious compact on the market- it and the GR.
No VF...the older folk will miss it, the younger crowd will not. If you hold camera at ridiculous arms length away, just to see the LCD screen, that would be you, lol.Others can see it clearly from 6 to 8" away, and much more stable to hold (those holding camera so far away, DO look like they are holding a toy.)
Nothing about the GR series spells toy...great I.Q. great menu, loads of buttons, to make adjustments without ever taking eyes off the LCD. Excellent I.Q.
Marty4650: You gotta love the fact that Panasonic keeps pushing the envelope.
They have come a very long way since I bought a TZ1 back in 2006. And note the TZ1 also had a 10X zoom (28-280mm, and not as useful as this 25-250mm lens) but had a tiny 1/2.5 inch sensor.
Interesting thing wth the. TZ1 is the lens.Part of the lens is actually inside the camera (at 90 degrees)
Think that first version also had the largest , thickest grip .Newer models became smaller and smaller :(
keepreal: "No compromises in optical quality." Now there is a joke. Almost all mirrorless lenses rely upon software to correct distortion. That obstructs use of my chosen RAW developer for HDR.
For me the main issue with mirrorless is the viewfinder. An LCD is hopeless in bright light, not that good in any light. Also, it is much easier to hold a camera steady against your forehead. I would be happy with an Albalda optical viewfinder of Leica M quality especially if covered 21mm or wider on full frame or 14mm on APS-C.
My first camera is an APS-C DSLR and the second Olympus Micro Four Thirds. The VF-4 EVF for the latter is not bad but does not compare with an optical viewfinder. Against the light if the sun is nearby is a problem. The Fuji X is a nice camera but the EVF on it is dreadful, flat and I find very distracting. I have not bothered to look at anything else but initial comments on the Leica SL suggest it might be better. But look at the weight of it, let alone the price. Crazy.
LCD's of todays camera's are more than good enough.Trouble is, the older crowd can't see too well, close up and have to hold camera at arms length just to see the LCd in focus.
This is not the LCD problem, but the users eyes.
I often wondered why folk wouldn't just hold camera 5 to 7" away...but then was told many folk can't see it....they have to hold camera farther away to see clearly.
i'm sure the day will come when I will be one of these folks, who get sun glare from holding camera at arms length.
then I will relate....but for now, the hi resolution LCd, added with an anti glare screen protector works great!
Aleo Veuliah: Great all around Camera.
Well done Panasonic.
You fail to see the quality one can get with these small sensor cameras, Tim.Granted , if low light is what one mostly shoots in, then surely these will disappoint, with noise above ISO400, and if shooting jpegs, then smearing of fine detail also will give lower I.Q.
Who wouldn't like these shots? :http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3900660http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3898248http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3899007
But, if shooting at ISO 400 and lower, then these give quite good results, with feather detail retained, having sharp glass, and amazing O.I.S.
AF is quite fast these days, and fps burst as well. No camera phone can compete...and no camera phone can zoom to 600mm optically.
Many folk here are hobbyists, and don't make money with their camera's...nor do they need top I.Q. from FF or APS-C sensors.
Have you seen the results from the FZ200 ?
For display on Tablets, cellphones, and HD Monitors/TV's I.Q. is very good.
Lan: OK; sounds great - what's the catch?
There's a trick...my Epson R340 never dries out, and it's a good 4 to 5 years old now.It sits for 3 to 5 months, before it gets used, and it always works.
Leave it on all the time....NEVER shut it off. Ink stays hot and never dries out. Cost pennys a month to keep it on, too.
Cartridges last me at least 8 to 10 months
Retzius: I'll wait for the Endangered Species edition with white rhino hide covering and crystallized Panda tear LCD cover
Cool, I didn't know Hasseblad was doing a remodel of this...Sony might be jealous, lol
And only $123,000 for their version :)
BigShooter: I'll stick with my 645z for now...
Hasseblad should do a remodel of this...although Sony might be jealous, lol
They'd only charge around $123,000 for their version :)
@TimmbitsTimmbits is still here...He still is into photography ??
Look at his gallery...wonder why he didn't give up this hobby....
He thinks smartphones have zoom lenses...that zoom from 25mm to 600mm?? With excellent O.I.S that avoids tripods at 600mm??
Still waiting for 1 or two decent shots from his superior cameras/ lenses.
I'll come back next year and see if that's enough time for him to improve
(unknown member): At what focal length does stabilization without a viewfinder start to drop off in effectiveness? I remember with the FZ200, 600mm was about the absolute limit of effective stabilization but that was with using a viewfinder. Handholding it was impossible. Same with the SX50 HS, 1000mm was shaky as heck handholding and even with the viewfinder it was very difficult to keep steady at those lengths. So how is using the high end of the tele zoom range on the G3X without a viewfinder?
At Celsus Huh?1200mm at 1/100 shutter is pretty easy with SX50, IMHO.That's using the LCD.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3869882
One needs some better technique in handholding cameras.I do ' twist' the camera , to obtain better stability, and my eyes can still see the LCD about 7" away. If eyesight limits one to arms length, then that's a different story.
Francis Carver: "Panasonic announced the first-ever 20MP Micro Four Thirds camera."
Product announcements are usually not reviews. Also, since we have had cameras with app. 20MP sensors for seemingly ions, and including all sorts of form factors and size sensors to boot -- why is it a "big deal" if Panasonic now is announcing one such camera with the same pixel density sensor?
Whereas I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade, summertime is usually not the time to get overly excited about new camera products and announcements about them. Let's hope this autumn and winter will bring a more palatable crop of them to fruition.
Um, because after years of the 12MP sensor, they finally moved up to 16MP. That was years ago, and now, they finally moved up to 20MP.
First time any micro 4/3 had this much resolution. Panasonic was first to do it. If Olympus came out with it first, then they would be mentioned. But I don't think they ever made a sensor, so they wait, whereas Panasonic does make their own sensors. Not saying it's their sensor in this new camera, but not an impossibility.
This is the best the GH4 can do, for a moon shot ?I think todays superzoom can easily outperform this...showing more detail..perhaps do to better optics, and less need to crop. Plus no need for tripod, with their superior O.I.S. Surely I don't miss my GH2 with 45 to 200mm lens.
mosc: the lens comparison isn't working for me here...
mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?
Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.
I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.
My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?
This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.
Have you seen any real photo's from experienced users of these small sensor superzooms? They have GREAT O.I.S. and sharp lenses:
thanks Ruth !
Neither is the composition...but thats another story.Why f8?
Bad choice,IMHO.These small sensored camera's have huge DOF compared to D-SLR (APS-C ) and FF sensors. You didn't need any more DOF, and shutter speeds would of been faster if bigger aperture was chosen.
Use lowest aperture possible.Avoid auto mode.Takes a bit of time to learn a camera.Go to Nikon Coolpix Forum, and see the results some folk are getting...clearly much better than yours.
Sometimes, It's the photographer and not the camera
Have a nice day
Cane: I love to see all the old people grab for their oxygen masks when a camera is released without a viewfinder.
It's the older crowd, and those who lost their near sighted ness, that really need a EVF. These folk have to hold camera at arms length, to see the LCD, but that far away, and the glare from the sun, as well as lack of stability, make it difficult for them.....but the younger crowd can hold camera about 5 to 7 inches away, avoid sun glare, and get more stable photos. I take plenty shots between 600 and 1200 mm, and an EVF is optional. See my posts , to see images obtainable at these focal ranges. I use pinhead sensors...FZ200 and SX50...and for 8x10 prints, or viewing on monitor, IQ is more than good enough.
mpgxsvcd: My 8 inch diameter telescope is only 800mm! Why in the world do people think they need 16 megapixels with 1200mm? Spotting scopes for rifles don’t even have that kind of focal length.
If they can shoot people miles away with a shorter focal length then you certainly can take a picture of them with a shorter focal length.
There's plenty to shoot with a 1200mm lens .Birds, wildlife, Here's a link ...first shot is handheld@1200mm, and shot through a fence!http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3784410
Actually few more of these are at close to or 1200mm!http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3778779
Thanks in part to the focal length, you can't tell that i was 5 feet in front of a fence, nor can you see the fence.
For 8' x 10' prints, these smallish sensors, with big telephoto zoom lenses have their place.
Timmbits: @DPR, with a title like that "High End Compact Roundup"...
one would expect an Actual Roundup of High-End compacts.
But no... 3 out of 6 have a tiny sensor, 1 has a very small sensor, of which none are "high end"... only 2 out of 6 is a failing mark in everyone's book.
Who composes your article titles? Someone who used to work in a paparazzi sensationalism newsroom?
A more apt title would have been simply "Xmas gift ideas" I know it sounds disappointing... but so is the roundup.
PS: " large sensors (compared to those in smartphones)" seriously, anything larger than a smartphone sensor is a "large sensor"? When did this new standard come about?
Some need to learn to read better...this is strictly a 'pocketable' category.
What composes their article titles?
Or do you mean' how do I learn to actually READ the titles, before I comment, and thus discredit myself ' , lol.
Small sensors are needed for such smallish camera's, in case you didn't know.
Gee....thanks for making me feel smart, after reading your comments :)
Paderborn: Why oh why have viewfinders disappeared from point and shoot cameras? Having to push the camera out at arms length to look at the screen virtually eliminates any possibility of candid photography. I find it far easier to shoot discreetly with a Canon 7D with a bolt on battery grip!
Funny...shooting discreetly with a 7D.....quite big for discrete, no ?Especially in that this review is for pocketable camera's.
nikon power: For all the cameras with zoom power that I've owned, my first shots with them was the moon. God had placed the moon up there in synchronous orbit for a reason. It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras.
Haha...so Google knows everything...Mmmm 4 billion years ago the Moon collided, etc.Funny, wait another 50 years or so, and a different story will be told about how things came to be...or is the earth still flat , lol.When I was in school Pluto was the ninth planet...heard that isn't what they teach any more. I know we keep learning more, and that changes info....but Science states facts, when they aren't always facts. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, is that...a belief, a theory, since no one can go back in time, especially billions of years, lol.To believe all life and order came out of chaos, or an accidental explosion...well....no deep minded thinking going on there, IMHO.Still no scientific proof of the Earths origin, nor how old it really is.