As someone else pointed out, the sample gallery images are a very nice variety of usable images - that's a big help. Good job!
The camera has my interest. Great zoom range, lots of external controls, the detail and sharpness are surprising.
I just downloaded it and had a go with it. Some very useful filters there. I don't use filters as a rule, but included here are some B/W, tonal, contrast masking, etc filters - very usable stuff.
While installing I got a pop-up that my video card was not sufficient to run the program. I clicked OK and I figured the install would abort. But it continued and the program runs perfectly.
I was always impressed with the IQ right up to the edges with my G1X. Image #0135, the corners make me wonder what's going on here???
Uncomfortable, too big for the camera, lots of metal parts to scratch the camera/LCD screen. But it looks great so give it 4.5 stars.
Can you say S_H_A_L_L_O_W ?
There are a couple of interesting images there. Maybe two.
Please please please - dynamic range.
To help with making a decision one often makes two lists - One list of Pros and one list of Cons. When the Cons list is significantly longer, well.....
PeterF: I was actually interested in this camera until I found out it had no optical image stabilization in video mode and also not ability to take stills during video mode.
Page 233 of the manual - "Recording still pictures while recording motion pictures", "During motion picture recording, press the shutter button fully to record a still picture."
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.
onlooker: I take these were jpegs ooc? at higher ISO detail is smudged. Look at the face and eyebrows here:
they look like watercolor.
I've had mine for about 10 days. Lots to like if you prefer a rangefinder-style camera.
There should be a law against posting an image of someone's face that can be magnified to that extent. That ain't right.
I felt that ISO 3200 was a step too far with my NEX-6 - even with raw. On the GX7 I'm also comfortable with ISO 1600. In my experience any IQ difference between the NEX-6 and GX7 is too close to call.
The detail on the prop blades at maximum magnification might help you gauge the IQ of the camera. This image: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2717767/p9200378?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-samples
You'll probably be able to make a judgement on the IQ of this camera if you look at the detail on the prop blades - original size then zoom in.
MarcMedios: It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.
I have a Fuji X20 which cleanly outmatches the G16 in two areas which are important to me: shutter lag (the X20 has none) and small size. However, the G series is excellent; I've used several, a G10, G12, G14, G1X and they all perform admirably, much better than, say, the Leicas that are nothing but rebadged Lumixes.
You had a G14? Can you describe it for us please?
This makes me say, "Funny, you'd think that'd be interesting."
I loved the IQ from my G1X - it amazed me. But DR was just not up to the task. Why not tweak that sensor, tweak the lens, add a great EVF and win over a lot of M43 owners? I don't care if it's bigger, it's still much more compact and convenient than a bag of lenses.
They proved, with the G1X, that it can be done. Then they quit. Pity.
The specs say stabilization is via sensor-shift. In the review it says "optically stabilized zoom lens." Anyone know which is correct?
Are you re-assessing the forum names? Specifically, "Nikon Talk", "Canon Talk", etc. are related to their respective compact cameras. But that part isn't seen unless you bother to read the fine print after clicking on the forum title.
Consequently "Nikon Talk" is often assumed to be generally for all Nikon topics and posts are made there that are DSLR-specific (and would be better served in the appropriate forum.)
Looks like some very worthwhile improvements coming. Thanks!
nevada5: I'd love to see you eliminate the "photo sharing" that clutters up several forums here. There are dozens of sites for that. But here, where equipment is discussed, is not the place for "look at what I shot today."
"You could just ignore those threads?" Really? I'm pretty sure we could just ignore all of the issues that DPR are trying to improve on here - so what's the point of any of this?
How does one know which threads to ignore? No one titles the thread "Fluff that no one will care about". When the title is "3 weeks with my new Panasonic XYZ", I'm thinking it might be a thread with a personal review or a report about a quirk.
If you search photo sharing you will find lots and lots of sites. Why wouldn't someone want to post there, where the image, for the sake of the image alone, is appreciated?
I'd love to see you eliminate the "photo sharing" that clutters up several forums here. There are dozens of sites for that. But here, where equipment is discussed, is not the place for "look at what I shot today."