steve_hoge: Does anyone think the GH4 and GX7 are sharing the same sensor?
Andrew Reid (EOSHD) thinks they are the same or very closely related.
Ruy Penalva: I think, besides the poor lens inventory, it is not a camera for serious still shooters.
A serious shooter has a grim face and is weighed down by all the equipment he carries (it is always a he). I guess the likes of Kirk Tuck and Michael Reichmann are not serious shooters (as both are known to use GH4's)? Poor lens inventory? There are currently over 60 lenses in the native mount and of course countless others that can be adapted. See http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html
RickPick: Just noticed a couple of small mistakes in the comparison chart above - you call the GH3 "GM3" - and the GH3 actually does support time code. Trivial, I know. Thanks for giving the camera a full review, I know you got some stick (Brits will understand) for your comparison with the A7S.
Richard, I think one reason is that people really like your summary conclusions including a score and (as in this case) an "award" if appropriate. We are simple creatures really.
Just noticed a couple of small mistakes in the comparison chart above - you call the GH3 "GM3" - and the GH3 actually does support time code. Trivial, I know. Thanks for giving the camera a full review, I know you got some stick (Brits will understand) for your comparison with the A7S.
Jogger: Sensor is far to small considering the size of the camera, they need to take some lessons from Sony.
Well, many current video cameras use a much smaller sensor than the GH4 and yet are many times the size! Sensor size is not everything in spite of current "informed" opinion. You need to actually be able to handle the thing!
Wes Syposz: good specs,and pleasant colors but, $800 more than FF Sony Alpha 7S?
No - you mean A7 surely, the A7s costs quite a bit more than the GH4 (and doesn't record 4K internally). Not disputing it is a very good camera too.
InTheMist: IMO, the default threaded view is kind of dumb. Long after the OP's topic is beaten to death, the thread is full of comments that have been duscussed ad nausium, and you have many, many duplicates statements occur because of this.
Placing half of the text of a message in the title of the message is patently ridiculous usability quirk.
Threaded forums are so Y2K Internet, if not 1990's BBS.
Flat view is where it's at.
Any reason why flat view can't be also threaded?
In spite of all the negative comments here, the price of the 14-42 X lens on amazon.co.uk today is £340.66. If the camera with X lens comes in at £579, that makes it a rather cheap combo. You may think the lens is over-priced, but it is the smallest kit zoom lens on the market when collapsed and makes the camera one of the smallest CSC's available - and it has a large sensor. If it has the same image quality as the GX1 for example, or near, that makes it very useful even to "serious" photogs, maybe as a second (3rd or 4th) camera.
This is the low-end model in the whole G range and as such it has a place.
The red dot on the lens, by the way, is on all micro four-thirds lenses and bodies and is used for lining them up for fitting (bayonet mount). The red X is just a marketing symbol and is a bit silly, I agree.
Jon Stern: It's silly that we are still calling these cameras "mirrorless". We don't call DSLR cameras "filmless"; film cameras weren't called "glass-plateless"; and glass plate cameras weren't called "portrait-painterless".
Equally, we don't normally name things by what they don't contain. Otherwise my computer would be called a chickenless, pyramidless, stuffed-toyless, Andromeda-Galaxyless, swimming-pooless, 5000-foot-statue-of-Charlie-Chaplinless, Pope Gregory-II-less, etc., etc., etc., ... laptop computer!
It was exactly the same when Henry Ford brought the Model T to the market. Cars were called "horseless carriages". Sound familiar? Of course, as carriages drawn by horses became things of the past, reserved for ceremonial occasions and the like, the name "automobile" came to the fore. Same with digital cameras, undoubtedly. Not that there weren't some advantages to horses....