Mike FL: Actually, Canon G3X is kind of smaller than just released Pana FZ300 even G3X's SONY sensor is 4 times larger.
The lens is kind of slow, but it seems reasonable as :
- RX10 is F2.8 @200mm.- FZ1000 is (one stop slow) F4 @400mm, and- G3X is (one more stop slow) F5.6 @600mm
Not sure about G3X's lens IQ, but FZ1000 is bad comparing to RX10.
Canon should release two version of G3X liking SONY. SONY always has two version of very much the same camera, a6000 and a5100 for example. One with EVF, one without.
FZ1000 bad....it got a Gold award. And this was noted: "For those looking for a superzoom camera that excels at both photo and video quality, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 delivers.""
Only the wide end was (quote) " a tad soft". That is very good performance for such a zoom lens. Try to find somehting comparable in the mirrorless market...
MFiftysomething: If only this was APSC and has PDAF BSI sensor. It would still be top money but it is crazy price for M43 and minimal image improvement over the bargain GX7
mFTs has a huge size advantage when it comes to lenses. And a huge advantage again if you want when it comes to bodies too. No one demands anyone to buy a GH4 or a GX8. GM5 is readily available if small is your thing.
AshMills: Please can you add a picture of the behemoth next to a DX DSLR to put these comments, and the headline into perspective. Anyone would think it was the size of a dining table.
@ Sam: I have had three mFT cams before GH4. DFD is a vast improvement over any other focussing system Panny had. EVF: vast imrpovement. Sensor is unknown, so who knows. 4K video is a vast imrpovement over 1080. Weathersealing adds to these improvements.
I think GX8 is probably a very very good cam, but not necessarily what many mFT users had in mind. Other users however might be tempted. We'll see.
Tom Frerichs: Disclosure: I own a Panasonic GX7, and, on the other side of the weight range, I own a Nikon D4. The primary reason I purchased the GX7 was because I wanted a smaller, lighter body with good enough IQ as a convenience camera. The GX7 has performed admirably, but it doesn't replace my other cameras. They have their own advantages.
Understanding this allows me to ignore most of the comments below. Equivalence? That's for people who don't understand purpose driven form. It's like saying that a Porsche is equivalent to a semi...you just have to scale the load to be equivalent.
However, I have noticed that DPReview's stories are going in a bad direction. I know that many new cameras are iterations, but instead of reviewing the camera as it exists, it's always compared to either the older model or some other brand. This leads to some silly headlines (as above).
I saw the same sort of lazy writing in the D7200 review, for example.
Whatever it is, I know when I read the reviews by Phil Askey I loved them a whole lot. Lately, the level is simply not there...
samfan: Nice tech but still and ungodly ugly camera and now it's also big. Good thing Oly makes nice and small cams, hopefully the M10 successor will be good.
Yes sadly Panasonic really has no smaller options. GM5 is an Oly isn't it? Yes and the Oly menu's are really a godsend too...
And APS-c would get you substantial image improvement? Actually: we don't know, we'll have to wait and see but I think the image difference between m43s and APS_c currently is not big. If this sensor IS a step up over the 16MP ones that difference almost negligable.
Agreed...big beast? Is that the main thing? Was Fuji XPro1 called a big beast? Well no. And with lenses it is quite a bit bigger. We can compare to the A6000 and than the GX8 indeed it is big. With lenses: that is gone and I think some lenses simply do not match that cam all too well. But we can compare that cam to the GM5 and now the A6000 is big.
All in all I can understand such remarks in the tekst, but do not see how its size is a standout feature.
steelhead3: Since this camera uses the new Sony 4/3 sensor, it means all cameras have better DR than Canon.
? All recent mirrorless cams already did, including GX7.
Photato: Almost certain the GX8 uses the Sony IMX269 sensor.
The list very clearly shows the Sony is 4/3. We do not know whether the GX8 has a Sony sensor or whatever.
Mirfak: In general, I think that the G7 is a better buy, even with its stone-age 16mp sensor. Unless you must have 4K, the Fuji X-10 with kit lens is a better buy.
I think this is a nonsense statement, unless you mean it is a better buy for you. For others, for their reasons, it is not.
Complaints complaints complaints. When it concerns the price from what I have seen, I tend to agree on that one. However: get a G7 if price is too steep. Or EPL7. Or Sony A6000. All of these have their up and downsides, none of them offer weathersealing, 4K video, or even an EVF (Oly). No swivle screen either. Etc. But there are other options easily available.
But otherwise:- In general: let's await tests/reviews- Size: zero problems. Panny is the only one with an extremely small alternative with EVF AND tiny lenses of good IQ to go with it. Get that one.- Weathersealed- great EVF- Every one wanted (better) IBIS: it seems it's there- Sensor: 20 MP is a lot sooner than most expected, as some thought OLy would do it. It is Panny- Etc.
The biggest let down to me though is the cropping of the 4K video. I think G7 is a much better solution here.
Jorginho: The only way I can see here that silver is justified, is a heavy weight on the shuttershock problem. A 2/3 stop difference with the best APS-c sensors is what you can expect given the size, so it is not a poor performance. Comparetively it is on the same level and 2/3 of a stop is barely notable.Menu: I am all for better menu's so I hope Panasonic listens but if it is similar to my GH4 (and I think it is) I would like to note that by far the most reviewers I came across actually liked Panasonic menu's a lot. I barely have to use my booklet so to me it seems rather intuitive.
So you get very good stills, virtually state of the art video, fantastic autofocussing that does allow for all sorts of shooting including action, a great EVF, a swivle screen, I think they mentioned good ergonomics. And that at that price. What do you have to do to take the gold?
Ichiro: it is 2/3 of a stop according to dpreview and it is 2/3 of a stop according to DxO throughout the range. COlour sensitivity fares a little better for the NX specifically at higher ISO and DR fares a little better throughout the whole range for the GH4 9bein 1/2 of a stop behind).
These two seem good proxies for G7 and NX500.
The only way I can see here that silver is justified, is a heavy weight on the shuttershock problem. A 2/3 stop difference with the best APS-c sensors is what you can expect given the size, so it is not a poor performance. Comparetively it is on the same level and 2/3 of a stop is barely notable.Menu: I am all for better menu's so I hope Panasonic listens but if it is similar to my GH4 (and I think it is) I would like to note that by far the most reviewers I came across actually liked Panasonic menu's a lot. I barely have to use my booklet so to me it seems rather intuitive.
joelakeland: Panasonic seems to take the smallest of steps with improving their image quality for stills. Because I don't ever hit the record button for video, the latest models are pointless.
If that would be true, the differencebetween this and the best APS-c sensor would be more than the 2/3 of a stop. In fact that difference is what is to be expected based on the size. Compared to the Canon APS-c sensors it does in fact very well delivering far more punch per square mm...
Having said all that it is even so that I would like to have seen a 30 MP sensor with the very same technology for this cam. I have the GH4 with the very same sensor. I do not miss anything compared to the D800E to be honest, even not in stils IQ (there is difference but how many times do I see it. And I shoot landscapes mostly..)? So that is what I would like. May be het G8will have such a sensor.
creaDVty: Was the autofocus test done with a Panasonic lens? If so, how well can it focus with an Olympus lens?
Read the review, it is in there.
Azbeen: Please Sony.....create an RX10 'Landscapers' version with a 20-100 (equiv) lens !
Then I'll open my wallet !!!!!
Sigma has abhorent colour reproduction in skies, lacks dynamic range (blocked shadows, blown skies) and has no clue what to do with low light situations. Unless this new one does something significantly better to my mind Sigma's are precisely not good for landscapes. When you can leave out skies and low light, they indeed do excel.
Jorginho: Not impressed by 36 to 43 MP jump...That is not a significant jump. WOuld have loved to see 50 MP. BSI...what will it bring on such a sensor. I have always leanred not much.
Good is the OSPDAF, 500.000 shuttercount and hope it is much more silent. If they have done it good this time, it simply raises the bar for all other mirrorless systems again. Can't for instance see how FUji and mFTs keep dragging their feet in the sub 20 MP category...
I hope they will get good lenses for this one soon btw.
From 36 to 43 is simply not big. But I agree that the new sensortech might add a lot to it. I have simply seen very little gain in larger sensor with BSI. The clearest example are the RX100 series where MarkII and for sure III has BSI but it does not perform much better than the non BSI first version. Also Samsung NX1 is a good sensor but not much better than the one on the NX30. SO this is what I know and why I am sceptical.
Not impressed by 36 to 43 MP jump...That is not a significant jump. WOuld have loved to see 50 MP. BSI...what will it bring on such a sensor. I have always leanred not much.
nelo: Does the new Lumix DMC-G7 have better specs/tech than the Lumix FZ1000? I'm trying to decide which one I should I purchase. I would mostly be using the camera for video.
Yes it does. Better IQ for photo and video with a much larger sensor, you need the right lens to benefit from it. Also I remember that DFD on the FZ1000 for shooting action is nt as good as on GH4. If true, G7 which probably is as good as GH4, will be better for that too.
jonathanj: Personally I think it's good to see real photos under real conditions. Yes, he probably could have used an ND filter for those panning shots, but I suspect most of us have had similar experiences of forgetting gear and shooting under sub-optimal settings. Much better to post the images you do have than post nothing at all! (And maybe my standards are lower, but I'd be quite happy with them myself!)Edit: I forgot the point I was planning to make: *but* I'm not sure that these images couldn't have been taken with the G3. I'm considering upgrading the G3, but there doesn't seem to be a particular improvement in IQ in good light, or am I missing something? I'll wait for the RAWs to make a full judgement.
G3? G3 is improved over G1/G2. If you mean G7: it is much better also in low light. Much better tonality, colours and above all dynamic range. GH2, better than G3 still, canot come close to GH4 hence G7.