I'd have been pleased with nothing more than a tilt screen. I'm not a fan of add-on viewfinders. However a tilting LCD screen makes shooting so much easier in bright sunlight and makes those odd shooting positions do-able. Oh well.
nevada5: As with predecessors, a great design. But in front of that technology you need a great lens, and that's where Sony falls short. I bought the II model and found what some other owners reported, the lens is soft away from the center. Perhaps it's copy variation, but I can't afford to buy and re-sell in the event I don't get lucky.
I have one of those sharp-from-corner-to-corner-even-wide-open lenses. It's on a lowly Nikon P330. Fantastic sensor or fantastic lens, pick one cause you can't have both. Sigh.
As with predecessors, a great design. But in front of that technology you need a great lens, and that's where Sony falls short. I bought the II model and found what some other owners reported, the lens is soft away from the center. Perhaps it's copy variation, but I can't afford to buy and re-sell in the event I don't get lucky.
Very informative article, thank you for the work put into it.
ag80: I'm not judging if price is right. But the value of this photo is not about canyon which has already been photographed many times, but about the genuine moment. It's a unique moment in time when dust formed a shape of a 'phantom' in the ray of light. Do other photos that were claimed to be the same have that? Can you repeat that easily by just driving there and sitting all day waiting for the 'right light'? Nope.What makes it art too is the ability of author to recognize a strange play of light quickly and press the button. It may also be random and could be discovered later, but that doesn't make it any worse. Somehow good 'random' photos happen to good photographers a lot more often.So if you bring that shadow of a phantom in any less picturesque surrounding or convert to color back it would still be interesting and unique by itself.
I've shot Antelope Canyon - upper and lower - 3 times. At or near noon the sun will provide the beam of light as shown. You have someone stand in a crevice and throw dust into the light. Lots of photogs do the same thing there. It's fun and creates drama. I'll have to check my archives and look for the right phantom. Maybe I'm rich??? I'm calling my realtor.
Several times, with the X20 I clicked "add to cart", but the words "Tends to smudge fine details (even at ISO 100)" kept me from purchasing. I can compromise on a lot, but not IQ.
Now I read that the guts of the X30 remain the same as the X20. Ughhh!
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.