jagge: lol, who cares ?? this review is so desperately late that it is utterly meaningless. Every single cam site out there has made reviews I guess a year ago, its a cam widely used in productions.
Using energy on this is close to a joke. It just highlights the speed issue on this site. It seems to be very bad use of the time that so obviously is in short demand. Using the time on a current and newer release would make much more sense.
And dont get me wrong its a super relevant cam to review, but at this point in time its a waste of energy
@MPA1No really... the Nikon D7000 still takes the same great photos it did when it came out to universal acclaim. It didn't suddenly stop taking good photos because the D7100 came out. Same goes for the GH4 and whatever its successor is.
Wes Syposz: good specs,and pleasant colors but, $800 more than FF Sony Alpha 7S?
Haha ah yes... The Nocticron. Quite possibly the world's best kit lens ;)
GRUBERND: i find most astonishing that the Panasonic G6 is just a small GH4 with a few less buttons, a slightly less powerful cpu and lacking some video-tools. but it spits out the same quality of still images at almost the same rate and precision.
hence i declare the G6 one of the most underestimated camera these days.
PS: fixing the broken studio-testscenes (found two images) and the missing LowLight charts (except iso200) for the G6 would really be cool. =)
This pretty much goes for most of the 16MP m43's cameras though. You can get an EPM2 for under $200 with IQ close to a GH4 (not quite as good, but within 1 stop).
Regardless, I think the G6 is very underrated overall, and a smart enthusiast looking to break into an ILC should definitely consider snatching one up on ebay for $400.
Terapixel: I'm just a still shooter, so that 85% is way lower when video is not taken into account, below 84%. So for just still shooters Fuji X-T1/ Samsung NX-1 is more interesting (not talking about Bokeh).
It's even better to play with the cameras in a camera store. I originally considered getting a D7100 or a Sony A7. Then I played with those and an EM-10. After evaluating the cams for many different aspects besides just IQ, I ended up walking out with an EM-10.
Lab D: If the GH4 had the Olympus 5 axis stabilization it would be the dream camera for many, many people. As Jorginho points out it is a fantastic stills camera already, and at the moment the best ILC for video in its price range.
No one knows jkoch2. There have been some rumors of Oly working on a 4K firmware update for the EM-1 but that turned out to either be an internal test at Olympus for future products, or just a hack photoshop job. My guess is they are working on it, and I'm sure they will only put it out in their cameras if they can retain their excellent IBIS.
Until that time, it would be nice to at least have 1-minute 4K recording for 4K photo stills and at least 1080p quality of a Panasonic GX7.
Because, in context of camera reviews, dpreview is still one of, if not the most highly regarded review website. For those that like to have more data, this late review is in no way meaningless and its not like every GH4 that will sell has already been sold.
Cane: Hey look, another m43 camera that can't af track worth a lick! Wash, rinse, repeat.
The camera store puts the GH4 ahead of all other mirrorless cams for tracking with their real world tracking shootout video. It beats the EM-1, A6000, and XT-1. Of course, it doesn't match a D4S, but what does?
If you need even better tracking, where getting the shot at the right moment is more important than anything else, you could just take a 4K still grab.
Uhh... the A7S is $2,500 which is $1,000 more than the GH4.
Paul Kersey Photography: Videographers can rejoice, dedicated still shooters are better served elsewhere. Cool for Panasonic to pick a lane that they can dominate in m43land. The a6000, not renowned for high ISO performance, looks better than GH4 at 1600. That's the rub on m43, close, but always will trail larger sensors.
I would agree, except... the a6000 only looks noticably better when shooting with the great 55mm SEL f1.8 lens. All other lenses are either poor to focus (I'm looking at you Zeiss Touit), or have pretty poor border and corner performance (Sony 35mm 1.8 non SEL version, Sony 16mm f2.8, Sony f4 zooms). I see the allure of the A6000 as a camera body, but the system is just not fully baked yet.
Paul Rumohr: Wow the A5100 is amazing by comparison
Remember though Zeisschen... The A7s only has 12MP to work with so, the noise on a 50MP medium format sensor once shrunk down to 12MP will likely look as clean or cleaner than the A7s.
teeranui: LX-100 is very good indeed.
RAW shooting yes... it definitely retains more detail than its 1" competitors (try 3200 ISO RAW and set it to Print). JPEGs on the other hand... I have to give it to the Sony and Canon.
Realll: Just saw the review of Photographyblog. Even my LX7 does better.
What is interesting is that the photos shot at f2.8 or lower all show better center sharpness than the f4 and up shots. Some of the shots are so bad, I can't tell if the camera just didn't focus on something, or it did and this is just what you get.
piezoe: None of the photos are sharp. Something is seriously wrong! These are a far cry from the shots used to promote this camera on the panasonic Lumix site. I had planned to purchase this camera as soon as it is out, but I'd return it immediately with results such as these. The main reason for purchase is the lens. Surely this can't be the fault of the lens. Could these files have been condensed before uploading to this site.
The EM-10's kit lens, if it isn't the pancake, is actually quite sharp for a cheapo lens. That combined with the full 16MP would make the difference. Still, many of this images lack the crispness we would be expecting from a camera like this.
Peter Gurdes: i said from the begining that the lens will ruin it.
my A6000 images look way better (even with the kit lens) and the package is not much bigger but cheaper.
This just in... ILC camera with a bigger sensor has better IQ than a hybrid compact camera. Did you also post this nonsense when the Sony RX100 iii came out at over $1,000?
What mush are you talking about? Looks pretty dang sharp for a 12MP compact camera, and even the higher ISO photos retain good detail without getting too bogged by artifacts.
JordanAT: The size advantage of the integral lens is staggering. You might suspect that the interchangeable lens teams are designing to be sold based on weight or volume given the massive size of the optics compared to the on-camera version of the compact cameras. Now, I'll grant you that the optics for the LX-100 are built for a 1.2" sensor instead of a 1.33" sensor, but that 42.5/1.2 fixed lens looks every bit as large as a Nikkor 85/1.4 built for a 2.7" full frame sensor.
For those of us who have abandoned an FX (or DX) with a gaggle of lenses for something jacket-pocket portable, a 4/3 and a lens makes very little sense. I like the idea of a 4/3 mirrorless, but every time I look at the lenses they're either half the speed or twice the size of the fixed compacts.
@ptoxWhile unconventional, it makes a TON more sense than saying m43's APS-C and FF as they give you literally no practical description as to their sizes and differences.
cjep1: Fuji should be afraid as well.
It's really a bummer that LX100 hasn't touch'n'tilt LCD screen. That would make it a no brainer to me.
I have had next to no luck making images look better with a pop-up flash than just bumping the ISO another stop or... using a real flash.
ThePhilips: The LX100 made me realize what's missing.
No matter how hard I look at it, I see LX100 as nothing else but a m43 camera with a premium 12-35 zoom glued to it. There is no point for me to buy the LX100 as a camera - (if I decide to buy it) I would be buying it as a "lens" for my m43 collection.
And that made me realize: the missing are an LX101 with 100-300mm eq lens and an LX102 with 7-20mm eq lens. If Pana engineers have managed to cram the 12-35 into such dimensions, I'm pretty sure they can also do some magic with the longer and the wider lenses. LX100 is targeted at pro/semi-pro/enthusiasts. But to cover the market better, they also have to differentiate with the lenses: some users like it wider, some users like it longer. I'd definitely buy the LX102. And very likely the LX101. But LX100? I have already two lenses covering the "standard" range...
@ValentinianAgreed except... not having a touchscreen is a pretty big difference between the LX100 and the rest of the m43's cameras. Once you start using focus-shoot with one touch of the screen, you always want to have that option in your camera.
Scottelly: Seriously? One is 12.8 MP and one is 16 MP. On top of that, the one that's 16 MP is not only cheaper, but it's got the ability to have interchangeable lenses. I think it's a no-brainer . . . until you look at how much they weigh. The more expensive camera is actually about 20% lighter. And if you want to shoot high quality video, the fact that the more expensive camera does 4K video is likely to appeal to you. I'm sure there is more to the equation, but frankly, if you want ultimate low-weight and compactness, you get the more expensive, new LX100, and if you want to shoot landscape photos or the ability to change lenses to wide, macro, or telephoto lenses (or use some old Leica lens you love), then you buy the cheaper GX7. Isn't it just that simple?
Actually no it's not. The older, cheaper, but heavier GX7 also has a fold-out screen and tilting viewfinder.
I hope I'm not just repeating what it says in this article. I figure reading the article is probably just a waste of time.
Yes but the instant you try to put a fast piece of glass on that GX7 or GM1 the price difference between those cameras and the LX100 skyrockets.
Seems like an amazing oversight by Panasonic to not have a touchscreen in this camera. Its like they packed so much in, that the touch guy at Panasonic just forgot about it.