Tom Caldwell: I don't think the GM1/5 "systems cameras" are really truly comparable with the RX100III in any way other than physical size. The are quite different solutions for different purposes. No disparagement of the RX100III intended - it is a fine camera for its specific role.
The only place they show something in common is a configuration where ability to stuff in a pocket is compared.
Just the following lenses do make a lot of sense:
-Pana 14/2.5-Pana 15/1.7-Oly 17/2.8-Oly 17/1.7-Oly 25/1.8-Oly 45/1.8-Pana 12-32, kit zoom,-Pana 35-100, kit zoom,-Oly 9-18, angular zoom,
And then you have some fisheye (8mm), small cinema lenses, and so on.
I can assure you that all these lenses fit nicely on my GM1. Results, specially, using fast lenses are, sometimes, incredible..
Timmbits: I'm puzzled as to why there is marked difference in sharpness and contrast between the Oly omdem5 and the Pan gx7 test images. They do test with the same lens, right? Why would the Oly be sharper then? I'm not sure I get it - same sensor size, same bayer pattern, both have olpf... I see nothing to explain the softness of the gx7 other than bad focus?
ps: Merry Christmas everyone!
I am almost sure that the OMD review was the last done with the Zuiko 50 mm macro while both GX7 and EM1 were done with the Panleica 45 mm instead. At base iso, EM1 and GX7 seem to me almost identical in the dprewievs test.
In my own tests between Epl5 and GX7, using the Panasonic 20mm I find better corner resolution with the Pana. I was rather surprised witth this finding as I didn't expect it.
I found the new test scene to be excellent. After playing with it for not too much time, I have to say that I will no miss the old test (though I have used it a lot).
Great job Dpreview!!.
It seems to me that hight iso shots are at least as good as those from the previous G15 (already very good and with excelent color rendition).. I also guess that if you use raw than you can expect to maximize dynamic range as you can do with the previous model.
Being faster is good, but not enough reason, at least for me, for upgrading from the previous G that I own, and currently use as my "allways with me" camera.
I would like to see an abatible or foldable lcd screen in the next model as some improvement in the viewfinder, especially increasing its percentage of view.
All in all, I have to say that G cameras are still very good cameras, with excellent ergonomics, bright lens, good AF and what is more important nice results, don't fool yourself with the not good comments from some people here and give it a try, I guess you could be surprised as I was after purchasing mine.
patoth66: Really hope they put a Kodak sensor in it! I mean whats the point calling it Kodak without there sensor technology in it? its like calling a intel based computer for Amiga!! I also like the Kodak sensor, like I like the Foveon sensor!
As an e400 old user, I still remember the fabulous low iso images that I used to take with its Kodak sensor. As you said, hight iso was not so good. But all in all, it was an excellent small camera.
Francis Carver: Limited zoom range fixed lens. "Viewfinder" is basically totally useless (I tried the camera, that's how I know). Nikon P7700 gives plenty more features and better specs for about the same dough. Of course, this one has the word "CANON" emblazed on it, so for some, that may be worth a few hundred bucks right then and there, huh?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. I currently have a G15 and found myself using the viewfinder a lot. As for me, no viewfinder implies no purchase (and I am sure that the Nikon is an excellent camera).
Thank you for the review. As usual I found it to be informative, precise and well written. Almost absolutely agree whith your views respect to the camera.
As a G15 recent user (before it, I had a G12) I love its results & usability (yes, ergonomy is a big factor here as, for example, I never will consider purchasing a camera without some kind of ovf/evf in it).
I am sure thet there are another good compacts out there but the G15 is clearly a very serious contender. As for me, DPR's review makes justice to that.
Quito, from Spain
Clearly, there are some durst particles in the sensor. Yo can see them in those blue skies. Is a pity.