Malcolm Hopkinson: Rather than produce a new model every 6-9 months, most photographers would prefer to see a new camera in 15-18 months but with real progress and innovation. For example, the GX1 is just a step up from G2 and G3 and core Panasonic supporters are likely to feel shortchanged. With the mirrorless market on a roll and Canon's effort probably appearing this Summer/Fall, our observations are that Panasonic need to pay attention to the camera using public. Incidentally, for first hand experience, have used/ traded GF1 and currently have GF2, G2, G3 and Olympus E620 in the immediate family's camera assortment. How much longer we have to virtually give away one camera to purchase another of the latest upgrades?
Just check on models every 15-18 months and then you will see a greater change rather than complaining about more incremental models being released more often. No one is forcing you to consider a new camera every 6-9 months.
JonSr: GF3 was a cursed crippled miserable creature. I couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Panny is showing their determination to produce crapware to lure unsuspecting buyers a junk they have to replace as soon as they purchased this. Total Assory of a Product representing true nature of the management. Shame on you.
Nothing wrong with the GF3 at all other than they should have changed the naming convention. If you can't figure out that the GX1 is the successor to the GF1, and that the GFx line now is targeting a different demographc, then you really need to take a valium.
Janitors: GPS: None. So, at least another year till they realize that geotags are a must?
Maybe because they aren't a must. I've amazingly been able to take pictures for decades without it.
Rubenski: When I've saved up enough money I'm going to buy this camera for my girlfriend. Beats the crap out of the G1 X!
'Lomography has announced the Diana F+ Sahara special-edition medium-format film camera. Decorated with palm trees and pyramids, the Diana F+ Sahara is wrapped in printed leather and comes bundled with a flash unit. Using 120 Film, you can experiment with multiple exposures, long exposures and even pinhole shots. The Diana F+ Sahara is available for €99..'
It is the G1 X.. Does it self destruct?
BJN: It's amusing to see the poor optical viewfinder show up in the "pros" list. It's a little better than nothing, but a camera this big could incorporate a better EVF.
@deep7 Which $800-900 barely compact class fixed lens cameras cost this much and have no viewfinder are you referring to?
Most compact cameras don't cost even close to what this does. the ovf is a joke and should have found its way into the negatives.
Francis Carver: Wow.... This camera looks cheap-cheap-cheap. It even TALKS plastic.
Wow, where is the VIEWFINDER on this thing, Panny? I just don't see it. Surely... it must have an optical or LCD electronic or OLED electronic or.... something else for a viewfinder. Anything, anything at all?
Also, Panny, why is the LCD screen's resolution so retroactively low?
Also, how come your camera's still record interlaced video, when just about everyone else out there had switched to progressive quite a while back?
Also, Dear Panasonic, please try to come up with a new model name designation system. What they have now, nobody can figure out.
Lighten up, Francis.
Michael Klein: can't see them...getting forbidden when i try to open the images up...
Same here on all of the images
540x540 resolution? ROTFL
I think the technology used has promise, but this isn't ready for prime time for anything but 'novelty' uses. A cell phone camera is much more appealing than this as it will always be with a person to take pictures and they will be of a much higher resolution and nearly always be in focus anyway because nearly everything is in focus with the tiny lens and sensor on the typical cell phone cam.
kwa_photo: This is no surprise, other than it took this long. Buy your b&w film now while you still can. I loved Tri-X and TMAX in my film days.
As for their digital products that were supposed to help them make the transition from film? Their DSLR business went away years ago once they stopped making them based on Nikon/Canon bodies.
Most of their sensor business is gone as well (I really like the Kodak sensor in the Olympus E-1).
Their consumer grade digital cameras are really sub-par compared to most everyone on the market and its VERY rare I ever see a happy snapper using their products.
How about inkjet printers? Sure, people still use them. But more and more people are moving away from home printing (and it's frustration) towards easy/cheap prints at their local WalMart, Target or online services like Shutterfly. If you are a pro and printing in the studio, you aren't using a Kodak printer OR you use a pro lab.
Goodbye Kodak. I don't think you will survive. Patent sale!
kwa_photo... I agree with the vast majority of your post but have a question for you. What evidence do you have that people don't print at home as much? Are sales figures on the way down for printers and their consumables? I don't see any immediate evidence in the people I know that have computers, they all seem to semi-regularly buy new printers and consumables to print pictures and documents with at home.
M Aryan: Am I right? Is this camera competing against Sony NEX-5N with about same size and megapixel senor BUT has:1. APS-C size sensor (micro 4/3 for GX1)2. ISO range of 100-25600 (160-12800 for GX1) with really low noise and very good detail on ISO 1600 and above3. Tilt touch LCD (Fix On GX1)4. 920,000 Pix True black or whatever (460,000 on GX1)5. 1080 60p (1080 60i on GX1)6. Build in EyeFi Compatibility (No on GX1)7. 12 m build in flash range (7.6 m on GX1)8. 10 fps full resolution continuous shooting (4.2 fps on GX1)9. Optional OLED EVF with 2.4 megapixel (1.4 Megapixel LCD on GX1)and in defense:1. Hot shoe external flash (some sort of accessory flash on NEX-5N)2. 60 sec Maximum shutter speed (30 on NEX-5N)3. And damn cool and useful pancake(compact) 14-42 mm X series (No on E mount Sony “it is so blamable”)with “SAME PRICE”?In my opinion: with huge disadvantages and few not so important advantages (except one) again at same price, “not acceptable!”
The NEX also has far fewer lenses and those that are available are large and bulky. If lenses aren't important to you when you take pictures, then by all means use the 5N.
Clickie McPete: You lost me at touch screen interface. Touch screens are fine on a cell phone but not on a real camera. Loved the GF-1 but why can't they go the old school route and give us manual and mechanical controls? Fuji X10 will be my new digital toy this fall.
The GX1 has nearly every single manual control that the GF1 did and Panasonic's menu systems have been navigable with both physical and touch screen controls without difficulty.
JimHancock: Panasonic doesn't have a micro 4/3 lens worth owning, besides being painfully slow, especially the zoom lenses, what possible use is a power zoom on a lens that doesn't have a constant aperture? I bought the af-100, the video camera with the large sensor so you can have a nice shallow depth of field, but you aren't going to have it at f freakin 5.6! what a bunch of idiots, those panasonic boys. There is one lens that works on that camera, one that takes advantage of the other features of the camera.... and it's a F4-5.6! .... just give us an f-2.8 zoom, that stays 2.8 throughout the zoom, please.
They have four m43 primes that are all 2.8 or faster. 14, 20, 25, and 45. The 14-140 is a great all around 10X still and video shooter, the 7-14 is a well respected UWA lens, and they have two fast zooms on the horizon. What is the problem exactly? That doesn't even cover the newer Olympus 12 and 45 primes, any other Olympus lens, any 43 lens that you could use with an adapter, or any manual focus lens that you could also use.
Why is this shaped like a box of fig newtons and what is the bloody resolution of the image? The ergonomics of this wondercam need a lot of help.
Carol Stee: The Nikon V1 costs $200 to $300 more than the 'peers' it is compared with. With a kit zoom the prices are: Nikon V1 $899Panasonic GF3 $599Sony NEX-C3 $649Olympus E-PL3 $699It can't compete with similarly priced cameras:Olympus E-P3 $899Panasonic GH2 $999Nikon D5100 $899Canon T3i $899Or even cameras costing $200 less:Sony NEX-5N $699Panasonic G3 $699Which shows that it is ridiculously overpriced.
Marike... you mention the V1 has a viewfinder and seem to forget the G3 which slams the V1 all over the map or are you leaving it out for a reason? I'll agree that the V1 has better image quality than the G12 (a step in the wrong direction compared to the G11 IMO) but you have to be joking or there is something wrong with your monitor or vision if you think the V1 is better than the G3. The V1 simply costs too much for such a dumbed down camera. 3-4 years ago it would have rocked the world for the price, but now it simply has too much superior competition and is too big and heavy compared to it.
zwania: No, my vision is pefect. Some of you people need to go down to Target and ask the pharmacist for some http://www.frmpc.com/teknolojiforumlari.htmobjectivity pills. I realize you love your Olys, etc, but there's no way that much noise/washed out contrast could escape your notice. Or could it?
With that logic, there are hundreds of lenses available for m43 to use with adapters, albeit manual focus only. But then again that isn't the point... NATIVE lenses that EXIST are what the other poster was talking about.
The only problem with your argument, Ivanaker, is that no one here is talking about DSLRs, odl was comparing one mirrorless SYSTEM to another.
Ok, actually there are others... The rediculous statement that five companies are producing lenses for DSLRs... odl, was referring to lenses made for a specific platform m43s. If you can't figure out that difference, you really should take some time to reflect upon it.
If you think DSLRs are great, more power to you. But the V1 isn't one and neither are the other -----> mirrorless <---- systems. They can never be by definition.
nawknai: Nikon doesn't deserve this much criticism when the V1 appears to produce great IQ. I'm not a Nikon groupie. I have no horse in this race. I used to own a Nikon DSLR system, but I've sold it all and intend on sticking exclusively with my Fuji X100 for now. In fact, I am more likely to stick with Fuji when/if they release their own ILC.
From what I can see, Nikon is NOT behind Panny and Olympus in image quality, particularly when you go to ISO 1600 and beyond. In the comparison, zoom in on the threads to the left of Mickey Mouse. Look at the RAW files at ISO 1600 (and beyond) of the Nikon V1, Oly E-PL3, Panasonic GF3, and Sony C3. The micro-4/3 sensors are rubbish. Absolute junk. Nikon has done a fantastic job with the sensor, especially considering its size.
And yes, the V1 isn't much smaller than the micro-4/3 cameras, or the Sony NEX cameras. However, the lenses are, and they will be the difference-maker when it comes to overall size.
Using the GF3 as a comparison point is a joke. Use the G3 or GH2 and you'll see a marked difference. Your rubbish comment is rubbish and the weight and size differences are basically nonexistant.
Yes, the V1 has better quality than the prosumer fixed lens bridge cameras, but it is either as big and heavy or heavier than m43 models and they have a much more varied and mature lens offering.
michaelrz: The V1 holds up very well against the best of the 4/3s. This is quite remarkable.
Nikon acted very wisely to limit the sensor to "just" 10 MP and resist the megapixel craze.
I wish I could say the same about Sony and the NEX7...
It doesn't hold up well if you put in the G3 or GH2, especially raw. It doesn't come close if you take the raw from either of those and either downsample to 10mpix size or upsample the V1 to G3 or GH2 size. If the size/weight of the Nikons were an advantage, I'd concede the image quality hit. Since there really is none with the V1, what is the point?
wildbild: It was interesting to see that the panasonic GH2 with its even smaller pixels (on a smaller sensor) delivers more detail at ISO 800 and 1600. To me the new kid from sony looks like a 15yo who is almost to strong to walk.
It is pretty well known that the playing card should not be used as the ultimate reference point in this studio shot comparison due to focusing differences. Nice try though.