Philly: This is a very surprising recommendation from the same reviewer who wrote the "First Impression" on GM1. If you look at that "First Impression", it was very negative:
with only the camera's negatives highlighted. What changed?
@Philly, it's old news. DPR is pretty cold to the Panasonic brand. Not much we readers can do if they do not like the brand.
Ha. Sounds very much like compatibility problems the FourThirds lenses had on MicroFourThirds bodies: AF was all over the place. That's CDAF vs. PDAF compatibility for you. Oly and Panny fixed it with the lens firmware updates. But even after the update, the lenses would AF slowly in the live view mode anyway. Their motors were not intended to work with CDAF.
Jimmy jang Boo: Blunty did a very interesting comparison between GM1 and the Pentax Q7. The results are *very* interesting and NOT what many might suspect...
Yes, I've seen it. The thing is, in most of his scenarios, a good smartphone would have performed just as good. That's how good some smartphone cams have gotten. But if you get out of the comfort zone more often than Blunty, then both Pentax Q and smartphones would start showing IQ degradation sooner. (Or later, if you would first hit the subjects unsuited for the e-shutter of the GM1.)
fishywishy: i dont get people being excited about the size. no way that fits in a pocket, so who cares if its 1 cm shorters?
Not every camera can be the RX100 or LF1.
Especially not the ILC.
But smaller the cameras get, more pockets of more people they can fit.
HappyVan: OP has expressed a personal preference. That's fine.
Just got to remember that the majority of DPR regulars are enthusiasts, not opportunistic snapshooters.
Versatility over portability. Depth versus weight.
"Just got to remember that the majority of DPR regulars are enthusiasts [...]"
You probably should visit the DPR forums without "SLR" in their name too.
DPR community is surprisingly diversified. But to notice that, you have step out a little bit out of your comfort zone.
To me personally, the new lens - the 12-32 - is much much more interesting. Sadly it doesn't have the built-in lens cap.
marike6: Another camera choice for "Gear of the Year" based mostly on convenience for walking around?
This new DPR theme of staff exaggerating DSLR size and the amount of effort it takes to shoot a DSLR is getting a bit old.
When you consider all the great cameras released this past year to have an untested, unreviewed camera that is Pentax Q tiny, and really TOO SMALL for even average sized hands is truly puzzling. Add the fact that it has no eye level viewfinder or the possibility to add one, makes this "Best of the Year" choice suspect at best.
If convenience for walking around and size/weight have become the new criterion for judging "the best of the best" cameras on DPR, I'll be inclined to seek out other review sites more focused on actual photography and less focused on ease of use and portability.
"This new DPR theme of staff exaggerating DSLR size [...]"
Let me bring you up to date.
The new benchmark of the camera size is the invisible camera which takes zero additional space - because it is inside your phone which you carry around anyhow. P&S is dead - long live the P&S.
So yes, DSLR size, esp glass, is a huge limitation.
"I'll be inclined to seek out other review sites more focused on actual photography [..]"
Oh, we are again at the tired "only D800 can make a good photograph" argument already.
IMO, this days DPR is actually more focused on photography than ever. Less on camera gear - more on the rest of the photography. You get interviews with photog. You get accessories and software overviews. You get the shooting techniques articles. You get the articles about lighting and flash. And so on and so forth. More photography - less gear. Because most of the gear is good enough already.
OneGuy: On the Image Quality/Studio (p 10), I noticed DPR continues to use non-native lens (with adapter, no less), presumably because it is "the best." But I'm not so sure and wish DPR could test a native lens such as the 20 mm F1.7 to see if the new sensor does better with in-house optics. (If I were Panasonic, that's what I would focus on.)
"But I'm not so sure [...]"
E-M5 IIRC was the last m43 cam to be tested with the 2.0/50mm. Newer reviews (like GX7, E-M1, E-P5) use the native 1.8/45mm lens.
"[..] and wish DPR could test a native lens such as the 20 mm [..]"
1.8/45mm is also native m43.
DPR commented before that for studio tests they use closesest lens to provide the coverage similar to 85mm FL on 35mm film.
The 1.7/20mm shots you can see only in the samples gallery.
katy C.: Tried to compare with the Canon M but could not find it in the drop down menu. Why?
You can compare GM1 with 70D instead. IQ of Canon M would be very very similar to the IQ of 70D.
After so many years of penalizing m43 for a lack of better sensor, the outdated IQ of the 70D didn't even made to the cons!
OneGuy: If somebody (anybody) could post a shot of this cam with 1.7/20mm lens then THAT would be relevant to this hands-on preview. Include the Equiv. Aperture graph point for this lens, too.
Note for dpr: mix-and-match is at the heart of ILCs. 1.7/20 is a popular lens, etc.
"Now, I would love to hear how it does on AF compared to GF1."
All new Olys and Pannys have much faster AF compared to the good ol' GF1. Though since the 20mm lens itself isn't a speed demon, there would be only a mild improvement overall.
ThePhilips: That's just crazy, Panasonic.
OK, it had to be done at least once, I'll give you that. And you did it right too: the cam is very very sexy.
But otherwise, your own LX7 would own GM1 in all relevant - portability - aspects. RX100 even more so.
P.S. And funny thing is, the GM1 body is smaller than the LX5 which was too small, the reason why the LX7 was made larger.
> Why is the only "relevant" aspect portability?
Because IMO there is no reason to shrink an ILC below what GF and E-PM and NEX-3 are already are. Smaller camera body doesn't make sense, because lenses already dwarf even these camera bodies (and even more so the GM1). And on top of that, lack of grip makes the cam highly unbalanced with anything but the pancake lenses. GM1 trades off the size but gains very little in exchange - because of the lenses. The only way one can balance the whole package is by integrating the lens with the camera and miniaturizing the lens, precisely what XZ2/LX7/RX100/etc do.
If I were not warmed up by the Panny FZ200, I would have said "no way!" when hearing the Sony announcement. f/2.8 lens, 24-200mm is a pretty awesome deal (even though Sony is charging a high premium for it right now).
Let me be the (far from) first to declare: days of interchangeable lens cameras are numbered!
Sony should also release a wide-angle and tele adapters for the cam (to 18-20mm and to 300mm) and then it would be almost complete package.
That's just crazy, Panasonic.
pellicle: err:"but enters the market with only one lens designed to fit it without tipping over. "
what about the 14mm or the 20mm or even the Oly 17mm all are shorter than this zoom...
perhaps you should re think this and review your review...
That reminds me: the Oly's 2.8/17mm pancake should fit the GM1 perfectly.
Frank_BR: This camera is a proof that M43 is the sweet spot of sensor size. What other format allows better combination of high quality of image with small size of camera?
I bet Henri Cartier-Bresson would love the GM1.
@amipal, I frankly blame the lack of motivation on part of the APS-C manufacturers. Mirrorless in APS-C is still a niche, while mirrorless in 43 is the mainstay. Thus, lenses for APS-C remain sort of afterthought. Because I see no reason why the compromises which go into m43 lenses (esp pancakes) can't be applied to the APS-C lenses.
As it stands, at the moment there are very few pancakes for the APS-C, couple from Pentax, one from Fuji and one from Canon. The difference in the mounts doesn't really help here either: 3 pancakes for m43 is more than 4 pancakes for APS-C...
Weather sealing would have made the cam into something really special.
Why so much empty space inside?
It appears as if it could have been made into a pancake, yet...
I wish you'd write more about shutter shock.
On one side there are so many discussions going on about it and so much confusion.
On the other side there are the manufacturers who don't even acknowledge the problem exists.
ThePhilips: "The issue is most prevalent at shutter speeds between 1/80th and 1/250th of a second, and most obviously visible when using short telephoto lenses [...]"
Wow. That's a biggie. No, that genormous and unacceptable for a camera positioned that high.
P.S. Gotta try to see whether the touch AF would do anything with the shutter shock on my GX7.
E-shutter is slow. It is said that it takes 1/10 of a second to retrieve image from the sensor. My observations are that GX7 is even slower, at around 1/7-1/8 of a second. That causes moving object to appear distorted in the frame. That also causes any flickering light source to introduce dark/light bands to the image. Because 1/10-1/7 of a second is real long time.