goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!
I always think m43 is about portability.........
At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...
@Martin Hind - you'd need to be more specific about what you mean by 'lets in *as much light* as a FF 2.8 lens'.
It lets in the same light-per-unit-area as *any* other F2.8 lens. But, if you consider how much light it lets in, in total, then you'd find that it illuminates the Four Thirds sensor with the same amount of light that would be seen by available to a full frame sensor at F5.6. This, in turn, affects [shot noise](http://bit.ly/shotnoise).
F2.8=F2.8 but ISO 100≠ISO 100, so the different effect of F2.8 on different systems is slightly obscured.
Or, looked at another way: its aperture (35.7mm diameter) placed in the 200mm lens to which you're saying it's equivalent, would only be 200/5.6.
yahoo2u: The EM-5 can still be had for $500. A lot better deal.
I don't think it's any surprise that a three-and-a-half-year old, probably out-of-production body can be picked-up more cheaply than a newly-announced one.
Buy, even just based on specifications, the GX8 would clearly be a better choice if you've any interest in video.
lacikuss: I can't find the "eye detection" feature in the camera, only face detection. What I'm missing?
There isn't an eye detection feature, *per se*, but the Eye AF feature is something that can be assigned to a Function button.
We'll discuss this more, including how it interacts with your other focus mode choices, in the full review. (Coming soon).
Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).
The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.
Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.
Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)
@Timmbits a lot of what's been said about the megapixel race (including on here) is wrong. There are various factors that have contributed to this but, although more, smaller pixels tend to look worse when viewed at 100%, in many cases they actually contribute less noise to the final image.
[Read this for a more in-depth explanation](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/).
As I said in my last comment: If a 20MP sensor gives you 20MP resolution in good light and *the same or similar* noise when scaled down to 12MP (and they generally do), then why not move to higher pixel counts?
Increasing the pixel size on small sensors won't make up for the difference in sensor size. It would let you get the same image quality as a crop of the larger sensor, but if you view them at the same size, the larger sensor image will be less noisy and more detailed.
@Timmbits: but what's the benefit. If a 20MP sensor gives you 20MP resolution in good light and the same or similar noise when scaled down to 12MP (and they generally do), then why not move to higher pixel counts?
Tom Frerichs: Disclosure: I own a Panasonic GX7, and, on the other side of the weight range, I own a Nikon D4. The primary reason I purchased the GX7 was because I wanted a smaller, lighter body with good enough IQ as a convenience camera. The GX7 has performed admirably, but it doesn't replace my other cameras. They have their own advantages.
Understanding this allows me to ignore most of the comments below. Equivalence? That's for people who don't understand purpose driven form. It's like saying that a Porsche is equivalent to a semi...you just have to scale the load to be equivalent.
However, I have noticed that DPReview's stories are going in a bad direction. I know that many new cameras are iterations, but instead of reviewing the camera as it exists, it's always compared to either the older model or some other brand. This leads to some silly headlines (as above).
I saw the same sort of lazy writing in the D7200 review, for example.
We're asked to compare cameras, because we're constantly criticized for not helping people decide which camera to buy. I'm not sure how this attempt to make use of our experience of all the competing cameras counts as 'lazy' writing.
And we'll have to agree to disagree, re: equivalence. Equivalence shouldn't be interpreted as telling you what is best, it's merely a way of understanding the trade-offs of any decision. (IQ vs Cost/Weight, broadly).
It helps pin-down exactly what things the semi can do, relative to a Porsche (cruise perfectly happily at legal highway speeds, for example), it doesn't define which is better.
No one complains that being able to compare fuel economy (gas mileage), acceleration and top speed on a common basis suddenly blinds you to the fact that a semi isn't great for track days and a Porsche is rubbish at towing a semi-trailer, so what's the problem here?
nathanleebush: I recently bought this camera. I love it, just like I loved my recently deceased Mk II. The 4K video is superb and S-Log 2 is a godsend, and it's nice and quick. Some things are bringing me down though:
- Thickness bump over the Mk II. That extra couple millimeters makes a huge difference when pocketing this thing. I get that it's a lot more impressive in so many ways, from the lens to the EVF, but size is ultimately the reason I'm buying the RX100 over, say, the RX10: a true pocket cam as well as a capable B cam. I find I'm carrying it around my wrist rather than in my pocket because it's tricky to wrangle out, which defeats the purpose.- ND3 is not powerful enough for video work. Why not ND6 instead, if you're choosing one? When I'm often in a bind and need to use it (midday light), ND3 doesn't cut it. In midday light I can maybe shoot with the aperture completely stopped down.. not usable really.- wish there was another dial so you could control aperture/shutter/iso seamlessly.
nathanleebush: Which IS mode are you using on the Mark II?
The Movie Steady Shot function offers an 'Active' mode that combines lens IS and digital IS (essentially using different crops from the sensor to counter-act camera motion). The 4K on the Mark IV is already using nearly all of the sensor, so it can't offer digital stabilization - this might account for the difference.
cdembrey: **"enthusiast-targeted"** What does that mean??? The "casual camera" has been replaced by the SmartPhone.
Today, a camera has to be "enthusiast-targeted" or it won't sell.
There's a difference between an entry-level ILC buyer - who wants better images but may want an essentially point-and-shoot experience, and an enthusiast photographer, who wants direct control of features, might own a handful of lenses and wants to engage with the photographic process.
The ceding of the point-and-shoot compact camera market to the smartphone doesn't suddenly eliminate the considerable ground between those users and keen, knowledgeable photographers.
Larger pixels may have less noise but if you look at the image as a whole, [there's rarely a big difference](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise). Except, of course, that the higher pixel-count image will show more detail, in many circumstances (even when downsized).
Smaller file sizes is a fair point, though.
Most Nikon 1 cameras so far have used Aptina sensors. We don't know about the latest models, yet.
Samuel Dilworth: It would be interesting if DPReview would spend a few words explaining WHY the GX8 is so big compared to the GX7, despite the removal of the flash (itself not a problem for me), etc. Maybe Panasonic USA can help.
The GX7 is itself hardly tiny. Is the GX8 bigger chiefly because some people want bigger cameras, or is it bigger for technical reasons that can’t be easily circumvented? Clearly the viewfinder is bigger, but that doesn’t account for much.
It is what it is and I don’t write off the camera, but it sure is beefier than I expected.
The most I can offer is what I wrote in the final slide:
*Clearly Panasonic has concluded that there are users who value a substantial grip and reassuring sturdiness over having the smallest, lightest mirrorless model*
When we met them to discuss the camera, they gave no explanation of the additional size but were keen to draw attention to the 'hand-fitting grip.'
photogeek: Does it overheat while shooting video like all other Sony cameras?
Sony only claims 5 minutes of recording for 4K (almost certainly because of heat).
Slowfish: What is the true resolution at 960FPS (2 sec option) ?
Timmbits: can you not see that slide, including the text: 'In Quality Priority mode, 960/1000fps mode yields only 1136 x 384 pixel capture, with 480/500fps made from 1676 x 566 pixels and 240/250fps upscaled only slightly from 1824 x 1026 capture.'?
I'm also not sure what you mean by 'they don't really say.'
I've got all the figures (and calculated the crops) and they'll be included in the full review.
G1Houston: My key concerns: Shutter shock and auto-ISO implementation in both M mode and Motion Movie mode. Hope GX8 is better in these areas than the G7. Does dual IS work in video mode?
Digital stabilization tends to mean shifting the area of the sensor from which the video is derived. (So if you tilt the camera down, slightly, it captures the video from slightly further up the sensor, to ensure that the subject stays in the same vertical position).
The digital stabilization on the GX8 can correct for lateral translations, vertical translations and rotation around the lens axis. Combine these with the pitch and yaw rotational correction of the lens and you have 5-axis IS (albeit with 3 of those axes being corrected digitally).
By comparison, the camera's sensor movement (used for stills), can move to correct for lateral and vertical translations, plus pitch and yaw. These are augmented by the lens pitch and yaw corrections to give 4-axes but with a larger range of movement than lens or in-body IS could offer on their own.
As per [this slide](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8964627573/fully-stacked-hands-on-with-sony-s-rx100-iv-and-rx10-ii?slide=7), the 2 sec (Quality Priority mode) video is made up from 1136 x 384 captured pixels.
AbrasiveReducer: All this technology. But it seems that when they try to get the best quality from a compact camera it still ends up pretty big.
I'd agree with bluevellet on this: it feels like a camera that's been made larger specifically to appeal to people who want a solid-feeling camera with a substantial and comfortable grip.
Michael Ma: I never once thought, "I wish I just had 4 more megapixels on a MFT sensor". Quite the other way around actually. I love what the A7S is trying to do.
Michael Ma - what do you think the a7S is trying to do?
It felt to me like a camera with a sensor designed to offer (1920 x 2) x (1080 x 2) video, rather than better low light stills. (Whether you interpret that as UHD 4K or super-sampled 1080 is a matter of perspective).
It is less noisy at higher ISOs that its higher pixel count rivals, but [not by much](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4613822764/high-iso-compared-sony-a7s-vs-a7r-vs-canon-eos-5d-iii/2) in real-world applications.
It performs slightly better than [theory alone would suggest](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise), because it appears to have some kind of non-linear response as you increase the ISO. But at many ISOs, the higher res cameras offer more detail, even when downscaled.
The a7S is impressive in low light, but that seems more like a pleasant side-effect of its video-centric design.
MDGColorado: It's odd to consider recent Panasonic innovations like DFD and IBIS + lens IS to be a drawback. These features have improved performance using Panasonic lenses, but they have not hurt performance using other lenses.
We don't consider them a drawback: I said one of them sounds impressive and I expect the other to match a system we were impressed with. Neither of these is a bad thing.
However, moves that limit you to Panasonic's own-brand offerings undermine part of the appeal of a multi-party system. It means any existing Micro Four Thirds users with Olympus lenses won't get the camera's full benefit and it means your choices become restricted if you want the best performance.
That doesn't take away from the features, which are certainly nice to have, but it does mean the system is more restrictive than it one seemed.
As covered on [Slide 6](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9485436827/the-big-beast-hands-on-with-the-panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx8?slide=6):
"Digital image stabilization can be used when shooting 1080 footage, with this also combining with the in-lens stabilization to offer 5-axes of correction."
So there is *a* Dual IS mode, but it's not sensor shift + lens movement, it's digital IS + lens movement.
mpgxsvcd: You can just tell that Dpreview is loving this camera already.
'Butler' doesn't hate Sony (or any other brand). I believe they've made some models that are more impressive as engineering showcases than as enjoyable cameras, but it's individual models I review, not brands.
I gave both the RX1 and RX100 III Gold awards, off the top of my head.
HelgaS: Any info on whether the rx iv is compatible with the nauticam rx iii housing?
Jennyhappy2: the RX100 IV is churning on apace. Before the end of the month, certainly.