Michael She: Almost a winner ... no built in flash is a killer for me.
I have the LX-7, one thing I don't understand is why the buttons on the lens barrel are so easy to move - Panasonic should introduce switches that "lock" in place so they're not bumped to the wrong setting so easily.
Curious if the Olympus clip-on flashes would work (should since they share a standard interface). Might be more versatile than the one Panasonic provides. I also concur with the usefulness of the high speed sync. I use my LX5 for outdoor portraits with fill at mid-day in the Southwest, off camera radio triggered. As long as it has a hot shoe and leaf shutter it's good to go. 24 to 90mm equiv. (like the LX 5/7) on the lens would have been nice.
Storky: Hi there, as I'm in the lucky situation of owning both G1X-es (I was able to obtain the G1X mark II while I was in Japan), and a Canon 6D with some L lenses, I've done some informal comparison tests between the G1X mark 1 and the G1X mark 2, both set on maximally wide (as this is usually the most critical setting) and also the 6D with the 24mm 1.4L ii, for comparison.
The pictures are taken of one of my bookshelves, on a tripod, with manual focus (using live-view & the magnifyer). They are RAW pictures that I've converted to JPG using DPP, with no explicit post-processing at all. I don't know what DPP and/or the G1X-es do in camera, and to me it looks likely that some in-camera processing is performed in the G1X-es.
Here are the JPGs on Flickr.
For me, even though I can see that these lenses are not perfect, they are all clearly good enough for making fantastic pictures. Feel free to disagree.
JP, thanks for the reply. With the limit to 1/2000 it looks like the flash sync is the same as the G1X-MKI. 1/2000 is fine by me as most flashes lose a lot of power after 1/1000 anyway. I did down load the manual and couldn't find any specs on flash synchronization. Unlike you, this is a critical spec to me and is the first thing I check prior to considering for purchase.Thanks again for the reply.
Johno23: This Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 has pretty good features! It will definately please any buyer out there. However there is a newer model out which has not yet been released and is now available for preorder!It is definately worth the wait with superb features like 4K video and new auto focus technology.Check out the review! :) http://1stdigitalcamerasreviews.blogspot.com.au/
GH4 and GX7 are in completely different class and cost category.
JP, are the flash specs on the G1x-II the same as the G1X-I? Namely; 1/250 sync with external Canon ttl flash, HSS to 1/4000, and 1/2000 sync with internal flash? Also, are the flash control options (such as manual control of 430ex) the same (or better) than the G1X-I. Thanks in advance.
I also find this an interesting camera at a "fair" price. I just wish there were some confirmed specifications out there. For example:Flash sync speeds (couldn't even find in the manual). Type of shutter, if similar to Fuji x100s, does it have the same limitations? Does the data port for the viewfinder also support mic/headphone input/output?Since this is really a m4/3 format camera, the price seems very fair compared to the hideously overpriced m4/3 lenses, making this a strong contender for my $ compared to a Pany GX7.What they (Canon) needs to fix to really sell me: Flash pass-through port on the viewfinder - so I can have flash AND viewfinder not OR viewfinder.KILLER ACCESSORY: True optical viewfinder with superimposed info (zoom-able or three position (24/50/100) with FOV brightlines).Wishful development: Same camera but in-body shutter and m4/3 compliant mount with Canon made adapters for mounting M/EF-S/EF lenses.
FrankGr: Has anyone made excellent quality, sharp, very large prints - up to 20x30 inches with the GX7 files? Is it possible with a small sensor ?
And does it have eyepiece diopter adjustment ?
The need for 300 DPI to get good prints is misleading if not a myth. 300 DPI may be the theoretical limit on certain print types but I have found 180 to 200 DPI to be a better gauge to determine "practical" largest print without extensive processing. That said, the 16 MP 4/3 sensor should handle 16x20 print size easily with good exposure and good glass.
KBarrett: The flash sync speed is 1/50? Holy K1000, batman!
Samuel, You may be correct but I don't believe the shutter opening/operating speed is a true limitation on electronic sensors like it was on film. It may be more to do with the CMOS sensor verses the CCD sensor design but, once the shutter is open in "electronic mode" and exposures are as brief as 1/16000 of a second, this has to be an electronic on-off not a mechanical on-off. I would think the only limit should have been the exposure start timing, namely matching the sensor start to the flash trigger. Something doesn't make sense and it might have been a R&D development budget or timing decision rather than a actual limitation. Might be a possible future firmware update or released with the next generation Panasonic cameras
yabokkie: has anyone found anything special with the shutter?
Olympus PL-5, now on sale pricing, looks like a better speced serious camera at about $200 less. Equal sensor and better Jpeg engine, 1/250 flash synch, hot shoe, accessory finder available, in body stabilized, tilting LCD, etc.
Ditto, ditto, and ditto. An electronic shutter and a flash synch of 1/50 WTF were they thinking! My LX5 gives wonderful portraits with full sun backlight at 1/1000 full synch with my manual strobes. Until the GX7 Panasonic seemed clueless about flash synch and support. Of course with reported non-sales of mirror-less cameras in the US, this is obviously targeted to the bus load tourists at the Grand Canyon, high noon, mid-summer, auto HDR mode. Fill flash - what's that?
Ed Gill: Yes, yes, and yes. definitely my next m-4/3 camera! Been waiting since the G1 for Panasonic to finally get it together. Everything I have wanted. Real flash sync speed, articulated viewfinder in the right location for people with noses, both types of stabilization, better sensor, beautiful and compact, customizable layout. Time to dump APS-C junk and go with m-4/3 and full frame. APS-C ( 1/3 frame) no longer has enough advantage to justify the bulk and weight. This, the OM-5 and Pen-5 are game changers in my mind.
Ah Andy! Are you also left handed? If so, you're hosed anyway :). Personally, I think Ricoh missed the boat by not offering a left and right hand version of their GR modular cameras. Serious question, which camera do you find most comfortable to use as a left eyed shooter (like Joe McNally).
Yes, yes, and yes. definitely my next m-4/3 camera! Been waiting since the G1 for Panasonic to finally get it together. Everything I have wanted. Real flash sync speed, articulated viewfinder in the right location for people with noses, both types of stabilization, better sensor, beautiful and compact, customizable layout. Time to dump APS-C junk and go with m-4/3 and full frame. APS-C ( 1/3 frame) no longer has enough advantage to justify the bulk and weight. This, the OM-5 and Pen-5 are game changers in my mind.
First, my thanks to DP Review for it's service to the photo community. The information is essential to making informed perchase decisions. Still wish Panasonic would address the lame flash systems in the G cameras. Oly has really put effort in advancing their flash capabilities but Panasonic seams to ignore this essential component. Of couse they could always come out with a Leaf shutter portrait lens, 1/500 synch should be easy with the small diameter shutter for 4/3. So much potential, for wildlife, travel, portrait - sigh. No serious long lenses, badly overpriced primes, no real macro, no alternate power sources, oh well.
Ed Gill: Dear Mr. Terada,
There are a number of improvements and perhaps inovations needed in the MFT camera systems that would cause a consumer like myself to abandon APS-C for MFT. Please consider long lens users also. We need the 250 - 400 mm range covered by f4 lenses. (500 - 800 mm FOV) Please address the macro/micro field. Olympus has a wonderful history supporting photograpers for macro (1 to 3x), but MFT is lacking lenses. The spectacular 90mm f2 Olympus macro lens made for MFT would be very welcome, even if manual focus, but with full electronics (aperature+AF confirm). A product to seriously consider would be 75 -150 f2.8 macro zoom. (150-300mm FOV) No market competition for such a lens. Please provide ability to use batteries simultaneously in grips for heavy lens group focus and cold weather (same voltage more amps). Please consider Pen/PL/PM viewfinder mount on side (RF style), not top, so I can use flash and VF togehter plus more comfortable holding.
I may be confused - often am but if so, why is he 'discussing the role of the OM-D"? And the first title was: "Progress of Mirrorless in the USA". The mirror box 4/3 may have another generation left (everyone has dropped it except Olympus). The advent of Phase detection on sensor and rapid refresh EVFs should pretty much kill the need for more mirror box (read large) cameras with small sensors. Olympus needs to re-issue their fine 4/3 lenses as MFT and lead the pack - just IMHO. Competition can be fierce and Panasonic is pushing hard - just see their latest offerings.
Dear Mr. Terada,
Pythagoras: with a lens that size, what's the point of using mft?
Marike6 - you are correct, my typo, meant to say 200-400 f4, not 100-400. My comment was directed at Pythagoras who appeared to question the point of long lenses or long zooms for MFT cameras. The point is weight and transporting the equipment. The comparison I offered was a close to even as possible for folks photographing birds or small animals who would typically use grips (I do for battery capacity and steadiness with long lenses and more secure vertical orientation). Yes I am well aware of the weight and price of the nikon 200-400 f4 which is "the point". You need that weight and expense to get 400 f4 coverage in a zoom on full frame whereas a 200 mm f4 gives the same FOV and speed with a lot less weight and cost. I'm also aware the 50-200 is not a native MFT lenses - my point is .. why not? The OM-5D is now a serious pro level camera with IQ, weather sealing, frame rate, AF, and a grip for extended shooting. We already have enough amature slow plastic zooms for MFT!
Here's the point:
Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 + OM-5D + Grip = 1645 gramsnikon 100-400 f4 + D600 + Grip = 4384 grams
Same FOV, advantage to Nikon in IQ but for 2.7x the weight not counting batteries!
Ed Gill: How depressing. I have been waiting four years for the MFT market to catch on with lenses but it seems like these cameras and lenses are designed by the junior engineers with no imagination. Three major area of still photography that are perfect for MFT. 1. Long lens telephoto - is a 250/300/350mm REALLLY that hard - with a tripod ring mount please. 2. Macro - 75mm f2 and 100 f2.8 marco with tripod ring please or a 50-100 f2.8 macro/micro zoom. 3. TRAVEL, how about some alternate power sources like AA battery packs/grips. Yes you can take spare expensive batteries but spare chargers(?) if the fry? I really don't need to comment on the lens prices either do I - 20mm f1.7 at $350 - really?? Great potential poorly executed, the blunders in this industry are breath taking.
Dave, Couldn't agree more. I didn't think Cy's comment deserved a response but you said it well. Olympus jumped into the 4/3 market with some spectacular lenses but the mirror boxes on the 4/3 bodies caused the size-weight bonus to be minimal to no gain for the trade off in sensor area. Now MFT offers the real benefits promised but - where are those beautiful 4/3 lenses remounted to native MFT? And TAMRON, I love TAMRON, I have three of their lenses and bought another for my son. TAMRON has two wonderfull Macro's 60 f2 and 90 f2.8 perfect to release in native MFT with competition from what? Panasonic 45 f2.8 (too short and overpriced) and Oly 60 f2.8 (good but not as fast as the Tammy). Instant market advantage again little competition and virtually no R and D to develop. So what do they do - R&D yet a THIRD 14-150 mega zoom - priceless! Just what we needed. To make matters worst they are going to have to also R&D the in-camera lens corrections protocals for both Oly and Panasonic!!
oklaphotog: Sure wish someone would make a faster long tele for m4/3. A 300/4 would be great.
Amen and I second that! I hope Sigma re-releases the 100-300 f4 zoom in MFT. They had it in 4/3 for a short while, no redesign needed except re-mount to MFT registration - killer lens. Told this to the Sigma reps at Bosque del Apache last Nov, hope they listen. A 10mm f2.8 from Panasonic would also be nice along with a macro zoom.
Artpt. My choice was engineering and construction management although optical engineering was my first love, just chose another path out of necessity (eating). I would be happy to provide comments on camera designs, as a user for over 40 years experience. Some companies (like Fuji) seem to take the comments to heartand incorporate them for better more usable designs. I am well aware of compromizes needed in design and the issues with first costs and time to market, etc., etc. but there seems to be a lack of imagination in the current crop of lens for MFT. Olympus seems to "get it" mostl,y and the feedback I see has been positive (fast quality primes but a bit over priced). My point is that there so little development in the macro, telephoto area after so many years is amazing Sorry still depressed and looking elsewhere. No comment on the second reply needed.
rayman 2: what we always said and nobody wanted to believe....a lens doesnt have a resolution... it has a resolution on a body andthe higher the pixelcount of the body the higher resolution that combinationgets.....So if you have some old lenses and want to make them perform better you canbuy a new highres body to do that..Its not like many people in the forums believe that a lens is like a resolution barrier and that the quality can get to a certain point over which it cant go further.. sort of like bad lens and it cant get any better witha better camera...thats proved wrong....
Actually not. Either the lens or body can be the limit to resolution. The point Roger made is that these are systems and like any system there are multiple limit points, the contolling point can either be determined by analysis (theory) or empirically (testing). Very basic engineering. And yes a lens can be a resolution barrier just like the sensor, just which one controls is not always easy to determine.