To solve the JPEG softness, as Pana users have found out, it is sufficient to set NR to -3 and i.Resolution to "Standard". See the two images in the thread:
with new settings: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54742335
deerings: Can someone explain aperture before I decide to get this camera? My decision is between adding a superzoom 18-300 Nikkor to my old Nikon D60 DSLR or going with the fz1000. But as far as I can see, the fz1000 only has a minimum aperture of 8, where the nikkor 18-300 superzoom lens has minimum aperture of 32. The dp review only mentions the maximum aperture - I don't understand why. thanks
"the fz1000 only has a minimum aperture of 8, where the nikkor 18-300 superzoom lens has minimum aperture of 32."
It is purely technical limitation of how small the aperture can be made. Beyond the limit, mechanics becomes very tricky, while the IQ deteriorates too much (due to diffractions) to be of any use.
The minimum apertures for systems are: m43 - f/16, APS-C - f/22, 35mm format - f/32. That means, the lenses designed for the system *must* allow closing aperture to this diameter.
Generally, smaller the sensor, larger the min aperture f-number would be. E.g. on m43, the aperture diameter of f/32 (if it had allowed one) at 25mm would be (25/32 = ) 0.78mm!
It is simpler for the fixed lens cameras. Here, manufacturers have the free hand how to design the aperture. Some decide to make the aperture closing to a very small diameter - some not. Why the FZ1000 has min aperture of f/8 is the question only Panasonic can answer. E.g. Sony RX10 has min aperture of f/11.
Raist3d: I don't understand why this is big news. Or why so important. Wow, and older camera model going out of production? Really?! Never heard of that before in the market.
And reporting a rumor? (!) Not that it makes a difference true or not true.
> but they are NOT in continuous production.
True. But I also think you are off by quite a lot regarding the size of the batches.
Most consumer electronics vendors use the "slow phase-in" method. Initially small batches are produced, to iron out the initial manufacturing QA problems (thus the long wait after the launch). Then, after initial QA is finished, big batches are produced to satisfy the initial high demand. Later on, only small batches (e.g. once per quarter) are produced to satisfy the projected demand.
Just a Photographer: Its not going that well with 4/3 at the moment.Hope they'll be able to come up with a game changer.
Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance.
"Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance."
This gearhead perspective is not even funny anymore.
You compare an average Fuji X combo to carefully cherry-picked m43 combo to support your opinion.
Fuji lacks cheap small lenses and small bodies with VF. If you own only Fuji X, you can't scale down as much as you can with the m43.
Scrapping a camera model before xmas sales season?
A very sound business strategy. /s
Master Yoda: The DPR rating scale has truly become a joke. A Silver Award with all those negatives? Thanks to DPR for the honesty in the review but giving this camera the Silver Award after all you disliked about it is laughable.
"The number of cons doesn't matter - it's how significant they are."
Never stopped you from downgrading the non-CaNikon cameras before. Just saying.
"Image quality-wise, this will trounce almost every compact ever made."
And the opposite never stopped you giving awards to the CaNikon either. (Well, mostly Canon recently.) Just saying.
chiane: How can so many people have such different AF experiences?
Some consider 0.5-1s AF acquisition to be fast. It's all about expectations. If one comes from Canon G series, then G7X might be fast in comparison. Because Canon Gs are very slow.
It was the same with the Fuji X100 when it launched. Even by the standards of those days, it was glacial speed. (E.g. Pana m43 cameras back then were already AFin in less than 0.2s.) Yet, some said that they do not experience slow AF - and it is instanteneous. And they kept telling that til firmware update which improved AF speed almost by factor of two...
justmeMN: Strange. In Camera Labs review they state "I tested the Canon G7X alongside the Sony RX100 III and found for Single AF acquisitions, the G7X proved quicker and more confident under pretty much all conditions."
They are pretty much only review which says that about G7X AF speed.
> The Leica X typ 113 would be a great camera if it carried a different name (Panasonic, perhaps?)
Pana GX7 or GF6 + 1.7/20mm pancake (or Oly 1.8/17mm) is a better deal.
pdelux: Pretty average images. I dont mean to be disrespectful, but those images could've come from any camera released in the last 5 years. Where is this "leica" look Leicaphiles are always raving about?
> Where is this "leica" look Leicaphiles are always raving about?
The Leica magic was always in the lens. That particular lens lacks it.
Leica branded/Pana designed and manufactured lenses for m43's 25mm and 42.5mm have much more of the magic.
Has Leica lost it?
Flashback: Really nice set of samples. pin sharp with good colour.
Panasonic, why oh why didn't you put 4K in this camera?It would be in my hand now!
LX100 isn't larger - but it is also fixed lens, which helps to design around issues. That is tad bit more complicated with the ILCs.
Otherwise, I think Pana simply slacked. If they have managed to cram it into the LX100, they could have crammed it into the GM5 too. But they haven't tried hard enough - probably to protect the sales of GH4.
DPR, do you have any "agents" in the Europe?
I'd love to see indoors shots with the cam - with the 50Hz mains, and hopefully different kind of bulbs.
In Germany, e-shutter on my GX7 is useless due to the banding with the fluorescent and halogen lights. Haven't tried the LED lights, but they are still rare novelty. But fluorescent (energy saving) lights are literally everywhere.
Thatcannonguy: Let's sum up the facts here;
-The f4 version weighs 780 grams, that is a FF weight. The f2.8 will not be lighter.-The f4 version costs around 1600€. That is a FF price. The f2.8 will certainly not be cheaper and will probably cost a lot more.-The size doesn't matter in this case. For this price i don't care about the size but i DO care about the weight since in the case of Olympus PRO lenses, the weight would be the only benefit over FF. I have plenty of room in my bag, but i don't want the weight of FF. That was the reason for buying a GH4.
So, ask yourself; if the price and weight are in the FF category, does it still make sense to go for m43 ? And keep in mind that this lens is a f5.6 lens compared to FF.
I have a GH4 and i love it when i travel. But i won't let Olympus spoil my fun with their heavy and way too expensive lenses. These lenses don't make sense in any way !
"But i was talking about the Olympus PRO lenses."
You have broadly generalized the "FF", and compare it to single lens line of a single vendor of a multi-vendor camera system?
That makes no sense.
And the flip-side is the advantage of the m43: the freedom of choice. You can have the bulky, near-perfect Oly 2.8/40-150. Or the smaller and lighter Pana 2.8/35-100. Or the cheaper Oly 4.0-5.6/40-150. Or the even smaller Pana 4.0-5.6/35-100. You can have the big bulky Oly E-M1 or Pana GH4. Or the smaller E-M10 or G6. Or even smaller E-PL7 or GM1.
> if the price and weight are in the FF category, does it still make sense to go for m43 ?
Yes, because there are also much smaller/cheaper m43 lenses/bodies.
Plus:> And keep in mind that this lens is a f5.6 lens compared to FF.
Which is - larger DOF - in many real world shooting scenarios is actually an advantage.
The number 6, from the EXIF:
The New Zealand team perform the Haka after winning the Cup Final between England and New Zealand during the 2014 Hong Kong Sevens at Hong Kong International Stadium on March 30, 2014 in Hong Kong, Hong Kong. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Shiranai: I don't get why they're releasing their interesting lenses just for uncommon systems like Sony and Fuji X. Makes no sense...
Sony officially announced that they are not planning to produce more lenses for the E-mount, only EF-mount.
ealvarez: i wish this was apsc for better low light capability
Why not ask FF while you are at it?
http://camerasize.com/compact/#566,569,ha,t - X100 vs LX100. And that prime lens vs. zoom lens.
Otherwise, people keep asking for the "low light capability" but I'm pretty sure that only few of them actually know what they are asking for. In my experience, decent ISO 3200 + f/2.8, in presence of OIS, is enough for 99% of real world scenarios.
LarsLeibgott: I would very much like DPR to run a simple dust test on all these cameras. A Google search for the X100/X100s, RX100 line, Ricoh GR, X30, and so on down the line, reveals that sensor dust is a fairly serious problem (serious in relative terms, of course) with fixed lens compacts. I think it should be par for the course once DPR finish their hands on - f/16 at the sky and check for dust. These are cameras that have street photography very much in mind in terms of design, so it's not like shooting at f/11 and above is an abnormal condition. What do you say, DPR?
I wouldn't mind buying from Amazon a camera "touched" personally by Richard Butler of DPR.
You can easy throw in a signed card "tested by DPR. Love, Richard" and add $200 on MSRP. ;)
Mike Ronesia: How is the macro mode on this camera? It could be perfect for an underwater housing.
Spec says MFD is 3cm. Or, according to Google, 1.18110236 inches.
> sensor dust is a fairly serious problem with fixed lens compacts.
I think we can /safely/ assume that it is the side-effect of the collapsible lens design, which when expanding/collapsing acts like a pump.
Pretty worrying development, which IMO worth DPR's attention, since pretty much all of the compacts have them now.