I used to have a Canon 300D for a long time. I barely can show a photo by me from that period. For me it was simply too big for taking it with me most of the times. Then four or five years ago I bought a Panasonic GF2, a humble mirrorless by today's standards. Then I _started taking pictures_ actually. Photography is a hobby for me, but mirrorless was the bridge to it. It gives me constant happiness. And as a hobbist, battery life was never an issue. You may check a small gallery here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55879631Most of these pics would have not been taken with the Canon 300D, not because it's incapability, but I would not have taken it with me.
This picture is fun! :) (Not for the poor frog)
photo perzon: The flash should tilt to the ceiling. The EVF should tilt. Then it would be more enlightened.
There's no point to tilt this built-in flash since it's too week to produce enough light for bouncing, even at high ISO-s. It's for fill-flash for nearby subjects.
If you want use bounced light, you should use at least a Nissin i40. Compare the size of the two flashes.
justmeMN: For comparison: On the Nikon USA web site, their D5500 currently goes for $849.95. That sounds like more bang for the buck to me.
I just don't get this.
The Olympus with a pancake zoom is smaller than the D5500 _body alone_. So, should we just skip size differences from the comparison?
Ruy Penalva: Do we are in the XXI century? A 16 MP sensor sounds like a sub smart phone sensor. If it were only video dedicated may be but a mixed still and video sensor should have more pixels.
So, maybe this cam is for those people, who think 16 MP is enough in 2015. I am one of them (actually happily using a Panasonic G5).
Dimit: They've gone crazy over there ay Panasonic!!! Should be mentally retarded not to grab A7ii instead of this m43 monster.Stupidity reigns !!!
Trk: these are Panasonic constant f2.8 lenses on those comparisons. Constant f5.6 in full frame equivalence terms. Check them again.
And this is just my favourite :D
FF wins with 1EV advantage.
@trk Why do you think Sony made a 24-70 f4 lens for A7 instead of the 'usual' 24-70 f2.8? Because people don't want a dark f4 lens, huh?
Let me show you the answer:
The f4 lens on the A7's FF body still seems too big, and front heavy. Imagine a f2.8 lens on it.
On the other side, the m43 cam with the 24-70 f5.6 equivalent lens seems balanced. The difference is 1EV. You choose.
@Trk: If the equivalent lenses don't even exist, then why waste your time to compare them?
Market will tell, whether the GX8 is worth that price, or not. And I don't really think that everyone should buy expensive FF bodies or the most expensive m43 lenses like the 42.5mm f1.2. There are a lot of great m43 lenses at very good prices for enthusiasts with more limited budget. Not to mention the flexibility of the system in size/weight/lens availability. Currently, m43 is a good balance for a lot of people. And personally I don't think that extra shallow DOF will make the difference between good and bad photos.
Not to mention, that today, the only 'rangefinder-styled' full frame cams are the Leicas. Compare their price to the GX8, please.
Hugo808: Why is it so big? The attraction with M4/3 is that it's mall. This looks Leica sized.
I really don't understand when people find m43 sensor 'small', while they never refer to APS-C like thad. The difference we are talking about:
Joe Ogiba: DPR : Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 makes leap to 20MP
Really ? So DPR thinks 20mp is a bigger deal than 4K. My Sony QX1 smartphone camera also has 20mp with a larger APS-C sensor but I would prefer it had 10mp with 4K.
This is the first m4/3 camera with 20mp sensor.
This is not the first m4/3 camera with 4k video.
So that's why the 20mp is the news. So simple.
But why for a 'sample image'? What kind of rendering capabilities or technical capabilities _of the camera_ can one seen on pictures like this?
In chapter 5: " (...) And it's extremely useful for manually placing the AF point with your eye away from the viewfinder."
Rather _without_? This is the feature I use on my G5 very often...
Tarheelnga: As a close to intermediate level enthusiast, can someone please help with recommending a mid-level or semi-professional camera? I am looking to upgrade from my entry level. My focus is on wildlife and landscape. Thanks in advance..
@Scottelly: Actually, I think you mean a "Panasonic GX7" instead of Pentax.
mrmiguel: I don't know. Those flickr pics are nice, but they seem to lack 'presence.' (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
You see?? ;)
icexe: Love the smaller focus are setting, but wow, talk about hard to find! After a half hour of searching in the menus I finally had to ask the Googles. It's buried in the focus area options in the Super Control Panel.
I found it, but it was accidentally. So when you are adjusting the focus point, you have to press "info", and then you can choose it from the menu appears in the left.
Vlastik: Small focus points are good but it was possible very simply even before...just try it, Menu B/Button Function/3rd row (video recording button)/Magnify...
Then pressing recording button you could get smaller focus point, if not so small press recording button again and set magnify to 14x. Next time you do not ned it change it will be remembered.
No, it is not the same. The new focus point is even smaller, and the 5x7 matrix layout is also very useful.
Peiasdf: RX100 / RX100 II is just too much camera in such small size that it renders small mirrorless / EVIL camera like GM1 and Pantax Q pointless. Unless the intent is to use 20 f/1.7 or 17 f/1.8 with the GM1, everyone is better served by a RX.
I don't get the point of his camera either. You can put the RX100 in your pocket. You can't really do that with the GM1, or just in a very unconvenient way. 'But you can put other lenses on the GM1!' - and you can put them on other similar bodies like the GX1, GX7, E-P5, E-PM2 etc. You can't really profit from a little smaller body, because finally you will put them into the same bag. But you will give up a better layout and user experience compared to a little bigger body.
I would not say that the GM1 makes sense just because it sells very well. I would not say the opposite too, based on selling.
I would say, it attracts people, but that's a different thing.
Loga: This DOF comparsion (if it is intended to be) is simply a lie. To get the same framing with the 25mm you should step back a little (or more, depending on the subject distance). But if you do this, the DOF changes because the subject distance changes.
With the same framing the DOF difference will be noticable, but quite small despite the slightly wider aperture and the slightly longer focal length.
I understand the intention of Dpreview to show the difference in field of view, but they should have been so ambitious to make a correct comparsion in terms of DOF.
Dpreview, please take some photos with the same framing, with short subject distance to see the _real_ difference in DOF. Thanks :)
I found a test with the correct comparsion of DOF. With the same framing the DOF is _almost the same_. For anyone who wants to replace his 20mm because of shallower DOF: DON'T! You will get nothing.
The real difference: different FOV, 25mm is a slightly faster lens (0.5 EV), has faster and quiet AF, is better for closer portrait, but 20mm is smaller, and cheaper.