chj: Does it have auto iso in manual mode?
Yep, love the GM1. The better control wheel and evf are both welcome improvements, but not enough to trigger another purchase. Auto-iso in manual and image stabilization would. If they also added a 180 flip screen, it would really have everything.
I'm not sure why they ditched the Fn button though, I re-assigned it to lock the focus point, I use it all the time.
Paul Rumohr: These blow away the LX100- just blow them away.
The body and lens combos may cost more, but since neither are pants pocketable and both are probably going to go in a bag or a jacket pocket, I would save extra pennies for the GM5.
Panasonic, you don't totally suck right now to me as a brand.
I have a GM1, the touchscreen AF is its strongest asset. I was very interested in the LX100 until I found out it doesn't have a touchscreen. It's a huge omission. I'm expecting the next version to correct this omission, so no reason to buy this version.
Glad to see they stiffened up the physical controls in the GM5. It was definitely the GM1's main weakness. Not enough of an improvement to justify trading in my GM1, but if I didn't already own a GM1, I would buy the GM5 over the LX100 for the touchscreen alone.
(To Panasonic: Auto-iso in manual mode and a bit of image stabilization in the next GM camera WOULD justify trading in my GM1.)
RichRMA: I don't know. The Olympus E-M10 is cheaper and IMO, a better camera. A used Olympus E-M5 body is only about $500.00. Unless each last mm reduction in size is vitally important, it seems on the high side for nearly $900.00.
Panasonic autofocus is better, especially in low light. If you like catching spontaneous moments, it's hard to beat the Panasonic GM5/GM1/GX7, no matter how much you pay.
I can't be the only one that wants this:35-85mm equivalent with f/1.8 available at 85mm, make it as portable as possible.
Bah, looks like AF/continuous shooting is terrible. I guess I'm still waiting for the perfect pocket camera.
great street shots
Great shot, great set. For me it's the most interesting set of sample photos on DPR that I can remember. I like to shoot dynamic motion and very few sample sets provide any indication of how well a camera performs for such shots. But regardless of camera performance, these kinds of photos are simply the kind I love to see.
Barretlight: OK now who would shoot this at ISO 12800? A real life example would be to shoot wide open at a normal eg. 1/30 sec shutter speed at an ISO no more than 3200.
but it does help you see what kind of quality you could expect if you needed 1/160 in a bar setting, i.e. dancing.
photo perzon: More Panasonic jpeg skin colors?
@zos xavius I don't know about JPG's, but one of the first things I noticed when getting my Panasonic GM1 was how much better the RAW color was versus my previous brand. Just a simple white balance adjustment often gets the majority of the color adjustment you need. I've always loved Leica color and it looks like Panasonic cameras have inherited a bit of it.
I've been asking for shutter speed control for the longest time and now it's finally here. We can shoot indoors without a flash at faster than 1/8s now! I haven't tried Manual Cam, but it works well on Camera+ and makes a big difference in many situations.
chj: Finally APS-C touchscreen with good autofocus!!!! Hallelujah, did it really have to take this long? I held off on buying a camera for so long because I figured Sony's next good mirrorless would surely be touchscreen. Model after model, they disappointed me. This was the camera I was waiting for. Unfortunately for Sony, I lost patience, bought the Panasonic GM1 and invested in m4/3rds lenses. (I freakin' love the GM1). Too slow Sony, now get a touchscreen on the RX100 before the competition beats you to it again.
"Too slow Sony, now get a touchscreen on the RX100 before the competition beats you to it again."
Um, too late, Canon beat you to it.
viking79: DPR: I imagine your click meter is messed up or it is being manipulated some how, as I can't imagine this camera has that many clicks relative to 7DII, could be wrong, but didn't think this was a point and shoot board :)
@ttbek Really? You're so subjective that you don't realize that the innovation you speak of is something a miniscule portion of the market would appreciate?
This is the camera everyone should want. Even if they don't know enough about photography to know it's what they want. There is no other camera that has this feature set (touchscreen AF, pocketable, takes photos in low light without a flash). If you want to get spontaneous shots of life with a camera that is with you all the time, this is the best camera ever made. On paper at least, we still don't know about autofocus speed, accuracy and continuous shooting.
This is the camera that makes all those poor quality grainy night shots of your friends into great spontaneous shots. This is the camera that makes all those blurry kid shots into great photos of life.
On paper, it's almost (no touchscreen) perfect, fast aperture and excellent zoom range. The ugly zoom lens may seem like a superficial reason to not like it, but in the end, that's why I wouldn't buy this when I have a GM1. But it's not just aesthetics. I love the 25mm f/1.4, and even though it is larger than I would like, it's still more compact than the LX100 powered on. And if you want a camera to capture spontaneous moments, the camera is always on.
Add to that, the lack of touchscreen. It's a HUGE mistake. The GM1 and GX7's combination of touchscreen and fast autofocus are BY FAR their greatest strength. You cannot get spontaneous focused shot faster on any other camera, PERIOD. Actually you can, if you always focus in the center. But if you want to compose and focus a shot as fast as you can see it, the GM1 and GX7 are unmatched.
wow, it has everything you could ask for (if the continuous AF is good)
Does it have auto iso in manual mode?
Yes everyone I did know those models had touchscreens, but as Dave Andrade said, not with good autofocus.
And Rob Sims, the GM1 does not lack in AF speed. As far as I've read and experienced, it's the leader of the pack, especially in low light. As far as image quality goes, of course an APC has an advantage over M4/3rds. That's why this Sony would have been my camera, if I hadn't already invested in a GM1.
Finally APS-C touchscreen with good autofocus!!!! Hallelujah, did it really have to take this long? I held off on buying a camera for so long because I figured Sony's next good mirrorless would surely be touchscreen. Model after model, they disappointed me. This was the camera I was waiting for. Unfortunately for Sony, I lost patience, bought the Panasonic GM1 and invested in m4/3rds lenses. (I freakin' love the GM1). Too slow Sony, now get a touchscreen on the RX100 before the competition beats you to it again.
VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.
How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?
Excellent points. The origin of the photo is definitely owed to a human being. Regardless of the fact that the monkey was holding the camera at the time. The photo would never have been produced without all the conditions the human set up, including retrieving the camera and converting the data into an image. The monkey held a camera. The photographer produced a photo.
OliverGlass: Any photographer/artist doing something creative and showing something different is way better than the armchair critic who has no work to show.
@The Name is Bond That's your criteria? Something USEFUL?
FYI one could say ALL art is pointless. That's why it's art, it's made to be appreciated, not to be USEFUL. A painting won't get you to work, a novel won't cook your food, a song can't put a roof over your head. Is the Mona Lisa "useful"? Is watching "Romeo and Juliet" useful?
A map is useful, so should I start taking aerial photos as my "art"? That would be useful right? Would it satisfy your criteria for what photographers should do?
The Name is Bond: Gimmickry, not photography.
"Gimmickry, not photography"
And if you were alive when the camera first came out, you would have said, "gimmickry, not a real painter". The artist probably doesn't care if it's considered "photography" by you or anyone else. Newsflash: creative artists probably shouldn't spend time worrying if their work conforms to definitions set by others.