Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC GX1 hands-on preview and video

By dpreview staff on Nov 7, 2011 at 05:03 GMT

Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 hands-on preview and video. We've spent a few days with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1, the long-awaited successor to the popular GF1. The enthusiast-oriented GX1 features a 16MP sensor, touchscreen interface and an abundance of external buttons and dials. We take a closer look at Panasonic's newest Micro Four Thirds camera, including a hands-on video highlighting some of the main features.

Click here to read our Panasonic DMC-GX1 hands-on preview

224
I own it
99
I want it
62
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 158
danju
By danju (Nov 16, 2011)

it seems to me that the main advantage of micro 4/3 over the lager senson ilcs is lens size. even if sony etc release better lenses they will not have the same zoom range unless they are huge. this for me is a dealbreaker, and im guessing that is one of the main reasons for choosing a imirrorless over a dslr..

0 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (Dec 17, 2011)

The pancakes for Samsung NX are not very big and the sensor are APS-c. The noise performance is not quite what it should be just yet but Samsung are going to be a force to be counted within a short future. No doubts about that. So far they've got the best combination of sensor-size and size of their Pancakes which not put themselves to shame performance-wise.

0 upvotes
jimnicol
By jimnicol (Nov 14, 2011)

does anyone know if the shutter sound can be turned off ?

1 upvote
M Aryan
By M Aryan (Nov 12, 2011)

Are you listening to yourself or defending some camera (football, soccer … team) blindness. Some are talking decent and mentioning their favorites and needs and it is considerable and thoughtful but some are comparing inappropriate categories to each other like one compared 699$ nex-5n IQ with 7D 1600$; I am not sure why he didn’t mentioned canon flagship 1dX and didn’t compared them.

2 upvotes
M Aryan
By M Aryan (Nov 12, 2011)

when you as a factory pick an style and size for your camera, it means you have a purpose and by that it means you making a new category or entering your versions of year in that one and by price tagging you considering specific customers or some competitors in that range price and that for 699$ is hardly between 600-800, it should be worthy or you fail.
People like bulky lenses; people like compact lenses
People like manual hardware controls; people like gadget electronic manual controls
And so on ….
It is beauty of taste and deference in people and it is respectable.
Don’t defense blindness! I like nex7 too but its price tag is 1200$ and doesn’t compete this camera or these customers or if you can’t see 920,000-460,000=460,000 other pixels I can!!!

1 upvote
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

Still we see no effort to reject the idiotic megapixel war and produce CLEANER and better images, with lower-noise sensors.

Give us a clean 10 MP and start beating the marketing drums about NOISE. Manufacturers are squandering the promise of 4/3 otherwise. Hell, a lower pixel count would even result in better video, since noise adds "detail" that needlessly consumes the pitiful bitrate these cameras record at.

1 upvote
Snapshot7
By Snapshot7 (Nov 10, 2011)

It looks okay except...

- No IBIS (like the E-P3 has)
- No Tiltable LCD (like the NEX-5N & 7 have)
- No Built-In EVF (like the NEX-7 has)

What I'm hoping for is an E-P4 with an improved sensor over the E-P3, Tiltable LCD, and built-in EVF. Or even better, a Sony NEX-6N with all the features of the NEX-7 and the sensor of the NEX-5N.

0 upvotes
Baba Ganoush
By Baba Ganoush (Nov 10, 2011)

Nikon has offered a strong argument that it's better to have the IS/VR built into the lens instead of the body. Go figure. The G3 comes with a built-in EVF and an even more flexible LCD screen at a price that undercuts its GX-1 as well as both the Sony NEX cameras. If you want to wait for a NEX-6N, then you might be able to put in a pre-order for it sometime around Thanksgiving Day 2012 once Sony is able to recover from the floods in Thailand and get its factories up and running again!

1 upvote
DPRhendrik
By DPRhendrik (Nov 11, 2011)

I don't think we will see a new Olympus camera for some time. If ever. But you can always dream...

Did you read the comments on IBIS and movie shooting on this site?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl3/page10.asp

IIRC the Sony cams do not have IBIS either.

0 upvotes
Clickie McPete
By Clickie McPete (Nov 9, 2011)

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.

1 upvote
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Nov 9, 2011)

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.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 9, 2011)

Have you ever used a camera with a decent touch screen interface? It's very nice being able to place the focus point / zoom on a point just by pressing the screen and having a custom menu you can quickly bring up and change some of the more obscure settings in.

1 upvote
theDA
By theDA (Nov 9, 2011)

I have a GF2, the only 2 touch screen commands I use are, setting a focus point and mode change. Setting a focus point with your finger is an advantage. All settings can still be accessed thru the 4 way directional buttons even mode changing. But, it is nice the GX1 has the mode dial back.

2 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (Nov 9, 2011)

Latest Phase One digital back has touch interface. Swallow the pill, its there to stay.

Its not about touch interface or lack of, but how it is implemented in the big picture.

1 upvote
fivetonsflax
By fivetonsflax (Nov 17, 2011)

I don't use the touch screen interface much, the camera's perfectly operable without it, at least the way I use it. Your mileage may vary.

0 upvotes
newcameraguy2821
By newcameraguy2821 (Nov 9, 2011)

Two demonstration videos:

Panasonic Lumix GX1 hands on - first look review
http://shrt.fm/ryw3WB

LUMIX GX1 Actual Shooting Video - Istanbul, Turkey
http://shrt.fm/skno9k

0 upvotes
M Aryan
By M Aryan (Nov 8, 2011)

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 above
3. 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!”

4 upvotes
theDA
By theDA (Nov 8, 2011)

panny has a better lens lineup then sony

3 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Nov 8, 2011)

NEX-5 is smaller, this Panny is same size as NEX-7 which is a shame considering the Sony has a larger sensor, tilt high-res LCD, hot-shoe, flash and the best EVF to date. The only thing that keeps me from ditching my GH2 for a NEX is a pair of lenses, but giving the trends, this won't last. Panny can't keep bringing out new models with outdated tech and high prices. Sooner or later Sony will come with the right lenses.

3 upvotes
Baba Ganoush
By Baba Ganoush (Nov 8, 2011)

Lenses from both Leica and Olympus can also be used on the GX-1.

Because of its smaller sensor size, the GX-1 has a larger crop factor than the Sony NEX and so a lens of a given focal length, f, has a longer reach on the GX-1. At its extreme, the Panasonic 100-300mm telephoto zoom is the 35mm equivalent of a f=600mm lens. In addition, if the GX-1 offers the Extra Tele Converter (ETC) mode that's available on the previously released G3 camera, the reach can be extended even farther to f=1200m, at the cost of a smaller image size. You can't do that with the NEX.

0 upvotes
Baba Ganoush
By Baba Ganoush (Nov 8, 2011)

JPEG and RAW images are available for download on the web from earlier reviews of the Panasonic G3, which shares the same sensor as the GX-1, and also for the NEX-5N. Looking at a few RAW pictures for both cameras in LR3, I'd have to say there's very little to choose from in terms of noise of either camera at high ISO, 1600 and above. A priori, I was expecting the larger APS-C sensor of the NEXie to have a slight advantage in noise and "resolution" but the truth is I saw little if any difference in IQ between the two cameras. They are both good performers. Given the same lens, I'm assuming the GX-1 will perform about the same as the G3, of course.

0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Nov 9, 2011)

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.

0 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (Nov 9, 2011)

The only thing that would have me consider Sony right now is that I cannot afford every premium lens upon release. By the time I'd get the Zeiss, I'd probably have a greater choice...

To me, this single variable trumps everything else mentioned. two 45macro, 1.4/25, 1.7/20, 2.0/12, 1.8/45, 100-300, 7-14, 9-18, 14-140, so many more desirable lenses!!

0 upvotes
Baba Ganoush
By Baba Ganoush (Nov 9, 2011)

Actually, there are only slight difference between the size or weight of the Sony vs Panasonic lenses, at least for their zooms. The physical dimensions and weight of the Sony 18-200mm lens are virtually identical to those of either the Panasonic 14-140mm or the 100-300mm. The main difference between the two cameras, for me at least, is that the 5N has fewer button (hardware) controls, which is why I would only buy the NEX-7 if I were to buy a NEX instead of a G3 or GX-1. Coming from a DSLR, I prefer to have hardware (or dual hardware + software) controls for the most common shooting settings like aperture, shutter speed, EC, ISO, metering mode, and focusing method.

0 upvotes
lowpine
By lowpine (Nov 9, 2011)

I think you've neglected to compare one facet of these cameras. Looks. Of course we are interested in the end product, the picture, but other factors are important, such as handling and asthetics.

By all accounts the GX1 is a damn good looking camera, classic styling and wonderful proportions. Have you actual seen or held the NEX-x cameras? Designed by robots or something.

Advantage Panny

0 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Nov 9, 2011)

Does anyone think there is difference between 920000 and 460000 pixels on the back LCD?

This parameter has no relevance for final printing. If the LCD is 230k or less, the difference is noticable... but above 460k it does not matter IMHO.

I have GF1 and x100 with 460000 pixels, and Nikon d700 with 922000, and there is no real difference.

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

"ISO range of 100-25600 (160-12800 for GX1) with really low noise"

Really low noise? Not according to the tests on this site. Look at the raw tests. The 7D blows the NEX-5 away. The NEX-5 is as noisy as the Olympus E-PL3, and that's pretty sad considering the difference in sensor size.

0 upvotes
M Aryan
By M Aryan (Nov 12, 2011)

Are you listening to yourself or defending some camera (football, soccer … team) blindness. Some are talking decent and mentioning their favorites and needs and it is considerable and thoughtful but some are comparing inappropriate categories to each other like one compared 699$ nex-5n IQ with 7D 1600$; I am not sure why he didn’t mentioned canon flagship 1dX and didn’t compared them.

1 upvote
M Aryan
By M Aryan (Nov 12, 2011)

when you as a factory pick an style and size for your camera, it means you have a purpose and by that it means you making a new category or entering your versions of year in that one and by price tagging you considering specific customers or some competitors in that range price and that for 699$ is hardly between 600-800, it should be worthy or you fail.
People like bulky lenses; people like compact lenses
People like manual hardware controls; people like gadget electronic manual controls
And so on ….
It is beauty of taste and deference in people and it is respectable.
Don’t defense blindness! I like nex7 too but its price tag is 1200$ and doesn’t compete this camera or these customers or if you can’t see 920,000-460,000=460,000 other pixels I can!!!

1 upvote
Photo Grapher
By Photo Grapher (Nov 8, 2011)

I want one, was expecting for this camera

1 upvote
John 3
By John 3 (Nov 8, 2011)

There's too much focus on the bodies with these camera when the most development should be taking place with the lenses. THE LENSES ARE TOO LARGE. DESIGN SMALLER LENSES TO GO WITH THE SMALL BODIES!!!

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 8, 2011)

the reason for it is maximizing the sensor's light capture. a m4/3 sensor is not that small. IMHO, the only reasonable lens to go with this are primes especially the 20mm. i should have bought the gf1 before, now that i can't get the 20mm with the body.
the market seems to like zooms.

0 upvotes
Peter Sanders
By Peter Sanders (Nov 8, 2011)

My thoughts too, john 3, also design them with wide aperture
lens. What use is an f3.5 lens with a moderate zoom as a kit lens? It needs to be stopped down to around f5.6 to get a
half decent picture. On the other hand, small, quality compact
cameras boast small wide angle zooms with f2 apertures
that produce stunning results.
nokton.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 9, 2011)

You mean like the 3 pancake primes, 3 medium sized primes and now the pancake X zoom?

1 upvote
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

The smaller sensor should make it a lot more practical to build fast lenses. So where are they?

And what on earth is taking up all the space around the lens element on the 4/3 lenses? The barrels are giant compared to the glass.

0 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Nov 8, 2011)

Congratulations Panny for your new GF2!

And to think this camera and the NEX-7 have the same size... The moment Sony get it right with a pair of new lenses I can't see what's left for you.

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Nov 8, 2011)

What's left - Just those buyers that dont want to spend twice the money on the Sony!

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 8, 2011)

What's left then ? Well by the time that ever happens, i'd guess about a dozen new cameras to choose from.

0 upvotes
Baba Ganoush
By Baba Ganoush (Nov 8, 2011)

If the optional EVF is used, won't that affect the capture of sound in video mode? It appears to me that the EVF covers up the stereo microphone, which is located directly in front of the hotshoe.

0 upvotes
theDA
By theDA (Nov 9, 2011)

I would assume in video mode, one would use the LCD, and not shoot video looking thru a peephole. Just an assumption.

0 upvotes
jimmysprinkles
By jimmysprinkles (Nov 8, 2011)

Maybe I am misreading something, but is there manual control in video mode? Seems with this video quality, control over the video exposure would be a nice feature... Does anyone know?

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Nov 8, 2011)

From the preview:
"The GX1 will honor exposure compensation and the WB setting when recording video as well the currently selected Photo Style. "

0 upvotes
jimmysprinkles
By jimmysprinkles (Nov 9, 2011)

Thanks AD. Rather unfortunate. Seems from our side it would be simple enough to include manual control so that as things move, exposure doesn't shift around as well... Shucks.

0 upvotes
Aaron MC
By Aaron MC (Nov 8, 2011)

Ugh. Premium price for outdated tech. No thank you. Too bad Panasonic set the bar so high with the GF1. They have done nothing but fail to reach it for the past two years.

And really, they didn't even set the bar very high! They just implemented a product very well and took advantage of an underserved market. Why the hell can't they do that again?

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 8, 2011)

How is this not better than the GF1? Half decent sensor in a small body? Yes please.

0 upvotes
Go Cats
By Go Cats (Nov 8, 2011)

I can't understand why anyone buys a camera with only the screen to use for viewing. Absolutely hopeless in bright sunshine.

I use Canon D slrs for serious stuff but my go anywhere anytime camera is an 8 megapixel old Canon A 720. Great grip - great stabiliser - great punchy colours and an optical viewfinder that approximates the actual pic. It prints really well at the A4 size. (Unfortunately AA batteries do not last long).

Will probably get a G12 now its price has come down.

Ok- I only shoot iso 100-200 with the A 720 to avoid noise but the stabiliser is so good and the body so easy to hold that I get good shots at 1/8 second and even 1/4 at wide angle using the optical viewfinder. You cannot hold cameras like the the one reviewed above steady while looking at the screen and holding it out in front of your face! Using the optical viewfinder on the A 720 it is easy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
TANK_JONES
By TANK_JONES (Nov 8, 2011)

you do realize these cameras have an optional viewfinder... #winning.

5 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 8, 2011)

"You cannot hold cameras like the the one reviewed above steady while looking at the screen and holding it out in front of your face!" -- You cannot? Really? How about this shot taken at 1/5 sec exactly the way you said it cannot be done: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39792982

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 8, 2011)

A camera without a viewfinder is like a car with no steering wheel. One day we will have cars with electronic fly-by-wire joysticks, and doubtless these will present all sorts of advantages we never knew we wanted. But still some of us will hanker after that oldfashioned analogue mechanical circle that used to take up so much room in front of the dashboard that the designers got rid of it.
For my money, nothing beats seeing the photograph full in your eye, not on 3" mosaic on the back of the camera.

Edit
Oh, yes, and of course three points of contact holds the camera steadier ;)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

"A camera without a viewfinder is like a car with no steering wheel."

People go on and on about viewfinders in regard to Micro 4/3 cameras. Then you don't want the MICRO line; it's that simple. If you want a viewfinder, get an SLR.

0 upvotes
Woodlink
By Woodlink (Nov 8, 2011)

Lets hope the JPEG output isnt total trash like in previous models.

0 upvotes
Matt Random
By Matt Random (Nov 8, 2011)

Ain't that the truth! The G series has great features, ergonomics and usability, but I find the JPG output (of the G2) above ISO 400 to be far too noisy for my tastes. Even ISO 400 is borderline. Not to mention that the colors are often wonky.

0 upvotes
Aaron MC
By Aaron MC (Nov 8, 2011)

Test images online seem to indicate good output. In Panasonic's defense, though, the G3 had good output. Not as good as Olympus, but still pretty good.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 8, 2011)

Nobody frankly cares about jpeg output (though in previous models it was quite decent) As to the noise, the remark is just laughable, because noise reduction in jpeg is very aggressive, I have plenty of pictures taken at ISO 800-1600 with no visible noise, I allow a lot more noise to go through when processing raw.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Woodlink
By Woodlink (Nov 9, 2011)

Frankly a LOT of people care about JPEG output.

If not, why would it be an industry standard?

0 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Nov 9, 2011)

JPEG is an industry standard, but it you should use it on your computer, not camera.

Using JPEG on the camera is to loose most of your data at the moment of shooting.

Why buy an expensive camera, that get 12 or 14 bits per color, and get the files with 8 bit per color? It seems not quite reasonable for me.

But of course, please do as you like.

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

JPEG isn't nearly as stupid as the "filters" or "looks" that manufacturers are rushing to slap onto cameras. Now THAT is something that should be done on the computer.

Meanwhile, camera after camera comes out with no interval timer for time-lapse. That's just stupid, especially for Micro 4/3 cameras that have no mirror and would be perfect for time-lapse. Adding this feature is essentially free, but reviews never call vendors out on it. When you combine that omission with stupid proprietary remote jacks (or no remote jack), you have a crippled camera.

0 upvotes
tartamillo
By tartamillo (Nov 7, 2011)

I'd buy it today if:
- it had a multispect ratio sensor, like the LX3/LX5
- it had a built-in EVF and an optional external flash rather than the contrary
- there was a 12-35 pancake zoom available
- there was a wireless remote (it's 2011, folks!)

That would be a terrific mountaineering camera, but it isn't, so I'm sticking with my LX-3. I can pass on the remote, but the rest is necessary.
This is not complaint, but a wish. Please Panasonic, please...

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 8, 2011)

You do know that this will have much better image quality than the LX3/5 right? Why require lots of premium and would be very expensive features before you buy a camera that will take better pictures without?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 8, 2011)

Maybe NEX-7 will be for you..

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 8, 2011)

surely you can do the multi-aspect thing yourself? It's just called cropping, no different if it is done in camera, or out. It is almost as daft as not buying a camera because it doesn't have a digital zoom.

1 upvote
tartamillo
By tartamillo (Nov 8, 2011)

The GX-1 will not give me a better image quality (it lacks the lens), only pixel quality. I shot mostly in good light, so the LX3 image quality is ok, to me at least.

The main reasons why I bought the LX3 are the 24-60 lens and the sensor that maintains the same diagonal angle of view with all ratios. It's not like cropping, read the reviews. The GH1 already has that kind of sensor. What I miss is a decent macro and the ability to sometimes mount a tele lens. Plus, often, the ability to properly frame in bright light. Give me the ability to change lens, take away the flash I never ever use, replace it with a built-in EVF and it's perfect. Being there, a bigger sensor is always welcome, of course, but not that needed.

It's nothing strange or expensive, just a different feature set, all possible today except for the lens.

As I said, I'm not complaining, it's just a wish for the next release. :-)

The NEX-7 is interesting, but still no 24-xx compact lens for that camera.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
BelePhotography
By BelePhotography (Nov 7, 2011)

Too little too late. Panasonic remain an alternative to point and shoot, not more, not less. Sad, they started off so well. Everything since GF1 and GH2 have been minor dissapointments. I hope the GH3 doesn't go down this way.

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 7, 2011)

Can someone please explain Panny's lineup of m4/3 cameras and what's presumably Panny's aim to create in customer's mind — I mean, what's the real difference between the GX1 and GF3, GF2 or GF1? Or, are they doing just the same thing Nikon and Canon are doing in DSLR market with their APS-C cameras — build all the differences around confusing names, like 5100, 3100, 5000 — all of which in reality mean absolutely nothing because they don't even hold up in the market long enough to get into customer's mind and represent a certain value.

6 upvotes
theDA
By theDA (Nov 7, 2011)

After the GF2 Panny decided to split the GF line into consumer and prosumer. GF3 is a consumer cam. GX1 prosumer.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 8, 2011)

Or at least they wish for it.. I expect much more from prosumer.

2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 8, 2011)

Usually people complain about lack of selection, that's probably the first time we hear complaints about too many choices, duh!

3 upvotes
arhmatic
By arhmatic (Nov 8, 2011)

forpetessake, who complains about too many choices? People complain about having the choices between VERY SIMILAR products.

1 upvote
Nic Walmsley
By Nic Walmsley (Nov 7, 2011)

I have to say the one thing that bugs me is the noise of the shutter (similar whinge for my Pen Mini).

Everything about this camera (and the Pens) says small, simple, elegant, discrete... except for the shutter, which is loud, clunky, and seems to creates in-camera vibration (in the Mini at least).

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

I don't mind the shutter loud click, I only wish it was as quick as Sony's.

1 upvote
W Sanders
By W Sanders (Nov 7, 2011)

DMW-BLD10 Battery, same as GF-2, FTW!

I already own a GF1 and GF2. Although the GF-1 has better battery life, not having to lug around 3 different chargers is a win. Because I will get one sooner or later :-)

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 7, 2011)

@dpreview

If you compare them sizewise please add an external viewfinder to the Panny, otherwise you compare apples to oranges.

1 upvote
originalhype
By originalhype (Nov 7, 2011)

They're right to do it. Note that samsung and sony has APS-C sensor. Why can't panasonic make the body smaller as their sensor is smaller than APS-c!? If it's possible then why not!? BODY wise, it is fair to compare.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 8, 2011)

Cause 4/3 sensor is 17x13mm which really isnt that much less than 24x16mm APS-C. 3mm less height, 7mm less width.

Nowhere to shrink it.

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 7, 2011)

found this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjFacR4hRF4

1 upvote
Austrian
By Austrian (Nov 7, 2011)

Fast exposure compensation is a deal breaker for me. Panasonic advertised: "One Push AE adjusts exposure with a single press of the “Fn” (Function) button when it is over/under exposed, which is especially useful when shooting outdoors with open aperture or indoors with fast shutter speed"
What means that ? Adjustement before or after taking a picture ? How to choose the steps ?

0 upvotes
W Sanders
By W Sanders (Nov 7, 2011)

On the GF1/2 you can adjust exposure by pressing on the wheel and rotating +/- up to 3 (IIRC - maybe 2) stops. GX1 looks like it has similar interface.

Only problem with this is the adjustment is "Sticky" unless you are in iA mode, and I've forgotten to un-compensate a few times.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

It's probably the same design as in the other models. One way to adjust the exposure is by pushing a rocker and setting compensation (it's sticky). Another is AE lock by pressing and holding Fn button (non sticky).

0 upvotes
Austrian
By Austrian (Nov 7, 2011)

I hope you are right. My GF1 offers a decent Exposure Compensation, but the compensation on my workhorse, the GF3 (light, touchscreen) is really a nuisance. Hope that the GX1 give us really a programmable button (One push = -1/3 Compensation (Who needs +Compensation ?)

0 upvotes
miketala
By miketala (Nov 7, 2011)

It looks like a nice camera.

I notice that a lot of people complain about the G3's plastic body. It's actually aluminum.

3 upvotes
Phil Flash
By Phil Flash (Nov 7, 2011)

It'd be cool to see that camera with the new X zoom lens.

0 upvotes
W Sanders
By W Sanders (Nov 7, 2011)

As I understand the standard kit lens will be the 14-42 X zoom.

0 upvotes
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Nov 7, 2011)

Is it my LCD? from the low ISO sample here http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_gx1/photos/panasonic_gx1_01.jpg

and here

http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_gx1/photos/panasonic_gx1_01.jpg

I cannot believe the GX1 performs even worse than GF1?! Is it the so called “impressive IQ” ?!

Look at the bushes or trees. There’s even no hint of leaves. Heavy NR seems smeared all the detail. I am not a pixel peeper but still, feel a bit tricked.

Someone holds the same opinion as I do?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

Strange - IMHO, this shot isn't that bad. There certainly is foliage and it's not P&S quality, not even the same ballpark as, say, the Nikon P300. Just check out e.g. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lx5-vs-canon-s95-vs-nikon-p300-15928 to see why I consider the P300 worse than the S95 at ISO 100/200: yes, the foliage is pretty much smeared in the lower left area. No such smearing in this GX1 shot.

0 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (Nov 7, 2011)

Is the touch screen still of the "resistive" type as on the GH2? I'd love to have a screen with a solid glass surface and capacitive touch technology. much more sturdy and also more pleasant to look at.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 7, 2011)

you won't love capacitive screens when you are wearing gloves in winter. They don't work then. Resistive screens will.
Unless you need 'gesture control', is there any advantage to capacitive screens?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Jared Huntr
By Jared Huntr (Nov 7, 2011)

The touch technology is just that - the touch sensor. Why should it make any difference in being more 'pleasant' to look at? That's a separate component, the LCD, that is responsible for how it looks.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Nov 7, 2011)

capacitive screen means there isnt an extra layer of plastic on the LCD to make the image worse.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

"capacitive screen means there isnt an extra layer of plastic on the LCD to make the image worse."

You may have meant resistive ;-)

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

And what capacitive screen is going to buy? Smooth dragging? This is a very small screen, resistive sensor has a lot better precision than capacitive one and therefore is much preferred.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 8, 2011)

"And what capacitive screen is going to buy? Smooth dragging? This is a very small screen, resistive sensor has a lot better precision than capacitive one and therefore is much preferred."

1. Will you always fish out a stylus when you want to change some setting or set the focus point? Of course not. Without using a stylus, a resistive screen is far harder to operate with bare hands (fingers) than a capativive one as it's way less sensitive. In addition, it's more or less impossible to implement multitouch support using resistive screens for, say, quick zoom-ins into a given area, iPhone-like. They also reduce visibility because of the additional touch sensitive layer(s). The only advantage they have is being able to operate them in gloves - absolutely nothing else.

(continued below - entries' length is limited)

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 8, 2011)

2. the GF2 is resistive. Many reviews mention this as a cons (see e.g. http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/11/panasonic_gf2_previewed.php : "The GF2's touch screen, which is a resistive type instead of the more *sensitive* iPhone-style capacitive type") - and also a lot of users in the m43 forum. Capacitive screens are just better - no wonder all non-low-end phones / tablets have switched to them. Unless you need to use them in gloves - but, then, you can always resort to gloves specifically meant for cap. screen using; for example, the Agloves (and a lot more): http://www.gottabemobile.com/2010/12/03/capacitive-touch-screen-test-shoot-out/

0 upvotes
tulo
By tulo (Nov 7, 2011)

push button interfaces really push my buttons!
no sale for you panasonic - and dont come back until you added some proper controls!

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 7, 2011)

So is your choice of camera limited to the Fuji X100, Leica X1 and Canon G12?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tulo
By tulo (Nov 7, 2011)

no. what makes you think that?

0 upvotes
Ed Gaillard
By Ed Gaillard (Nov 7, 2011)

And the Olympus EP-3. And the Fuji X10. And the Sony NEX-7. And every DSLR on the market. And what was your point, exactly?

0 upvotes
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Nov 7, 2011)

Difficulties to learn something new, Tulo?

3 upvotes
tulo
By tulo (Nov 7, 2011)

yes - i'll never manage to happely buy crap, but that's how things are made nowadays it seems...

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 8, 2011)

@tulo well those are the only cameras I can think of that don't rely on "push button interfaces"

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 8, 2011)

Old KM-7D would make you happy.. well, it would even me, if they gived that FF sensor. :D (tho A900 isnt that far away)

I think he meant that having most of important things on external rollers can make life bit easier..

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

"Difficulties to learn something new"

New does not mean better. In many product arenas, in fact, it means worse, especially in terms of construction and ergonomics. Have you been totally out of touch with consumer products for the last couple of decades?

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Nov 7, 2011)

That shutter sounds extremely loud, does it have a silent mode?

0 upvotes
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Nov 7, 2011)

Sounds much louder than a NEX-5n and on the NEX they placed the VF more on the left side, so its easier to look in it: There's more room for your nose!

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

"Sounds much louder than a NEX-5n"

Yup, the new-gen Sony cameras all have electronic first shutters, no wonder they're way quieter.

1 upvote
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Nov 7, 2011)

Yes, I know. That's one of the reasons I bought the machine. Except for my XZ-1 I don't like small sensors.

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Nov 7, 2011)

Hey....did Richard just 'flip me the bird' while pointing to the hot shoe? LOL Maybe use the index finger next time. :-)

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 7, 2011)

I was trying to point to the twin mics - which required two fingers. Now you mention it, perhaps I should have pointed them out one at a time.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 7, 2011)

I think it is just after that, when you point with the third finger to the 'modified accessory port' at about 0:54. But really, who cares?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 7, 2011)

Richard may I suggest this technique? :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vwh4-K_ZQ#t=2m40s

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 7, 2011)

Fast AF speed and that's contrast detect! Can it take RAWs at various resolutions like the GF1? No 20mm 1.7 lens with the camera?

0 upvotes
doto41
By doto41 (Nov 7, 2011)

I don't understand, can it only be used with those two lenses or can previous 4/3 lenses be used such as the 1.7 pancake and others.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 7, 2011)

All m4/3 lenses made by Panasonic and Olympus will work, the lenses listed are just the lenses that are available as a package with the body.

0 upvotes
Raineed
By Raineed (Nov 7, 2011)

I just noticed that one has to press "select" button to confirm his selections, which is too "windows".
In this case, I do appreciate the setting in Apple style, in which you just select and it is done. Additional confirmation is somehow waste of time, especially for camera.
I do believe that in case of taking photos, simpler and easier menu will boost the user experience a lot.

0 upvotes
drinkonlyscotch
By drinkonlyscotch (Nov 7, 2011)

Good observation. The interface on Lumix has always been really crappy, and it's my only real complaint about my G3 (others include the plastic body and low res display). And while the GX-1 does seem to be slightly more tasteful and ergonomic in terms of interface, they're clearly not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to a really usable, elegant touch UI.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 7, 2011)

I was about to say, based on the GF2, that you don't have to press select to confirm, but thinking about it while the touched item is selected straight away you need to either press the select button, menu button, or half press the shutter to dismiss the menu.

I can see why it's like this, you may want to change several touch menu items and having to exit and re-enter the menu could get very tedious. Half pressing the shutter to dismiss any current menus is so 2nd nature to me that it didn't even occur to me that I was doing it :)

2 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (Nov 7, 2011)

Having to press a confirmation button also eliminates (or at least greatly minimizes) inadvertent selections. Imagine the number of times you'd end up shooting crap because you just happened to brush some menu item without noticing it.

For me, this is a plus, not a minus.

2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

All good points here. It's considered a good interface design to request confirmation for operations that are destructive (e.g. deletion), or operations that are performed as a group, or operations that would require long re-entry to redo. So Panasonic did interface design correctly.

0 upvotes
xpanded
By xpanded (Nov 7, 2011)

So Panasonic takes the same route as Sony. Launching an EVF that is not backwards compatible. Shame on you.

1 upvote
originalhype
By originalhype (Nov 7, 2011)

Nope. NEx 3 and 5 never had the EVF connection in the first time, but the GF1 and lx5 had it. Sony Sony gets a pass

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 7, 2011)

This too is a new connector because it's sending more data across it (exactly the same case as Sony, really. The only difference is that Panasonic offered an EVF for the last generation of cameras - it seems unfair to criticise them for that).

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 7, 2011)

Well, shame on them for not being more forward thinking when designing the previous EVF interface, would have been nice if the old EVF was also compatible for more choice on EVF size / price.

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 7, 2011)

It seems crass stupidity not to have made the camera compatible with the old EVF, as well as offering a new, better EVF. It goes to the character of the brand.

I'm sure most people who want an EVF would buy the new improved EVF anyway, even if they already have the old one. But if they had bought through choice then they would not feel cheated.

Instead Panasonic squanders long term brand value to make (precious few) extra sales.

It also sends out the wrong signal to wavering potential customers like me looking for signs that it is worth investing in the ecosystem.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

"Well, shame on them for not being more forward thinking when designing the previous EVF interface, would have been nice if the old EVF was also compatible for more choice on EVF size / price."

Sometimes it's technically impossible to "forward-think"... in the history of digital electronics or computers, very few "pluggable" technology was future-proof. Think of computer mainboards, for example: it was very rarely that you could install new-generation (I'm not speaking of simple speed bumps, but real generation changes like the 486 -> Pentium -> Pentium II etc. change) stuff (CPU, memory, MPU etc.) into them. (For example, the Pentium overdrive being one of the most known examples.)

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 7, 2011)

pretty weak for you Menneisyys. If they had wanted to make the new accessory socket/mount backwards compatible they could have done so. They chose not to.

Comparing with CPU's is pointless. Take a much closer analogy, a lens mount, which requires physical and data connection. Nikon have managed it with their lens mount over countless decades and though technological innovations unimaginable when the F-mount was first started. From simple mechanical 'data' coupling to a computerised version unforseeable at the inception, so far as is possible you can still use most all lenses. Because they chose to.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

We're probably speaking of data communication speeds previously (a year or more ago) not achievable. Don't forget the new EVF may require 2-3 times more bandwidth to render many more pixels. The necessary hardware with such enhanced data rates may simply have not been present / available then - or at least at a low price (not on that of the GH1/GH2).

Of course, it's not unbelievable Pana is also playing the "get the latest hardware if you want the new EVF" game. It just can't be *surely* stated that this (greediness) is the *one and only* reason for the incompatibility.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 7, 2011)

but plugging in the old EVF would not require the higher data speeds. All that would be required is for the new camera to recognise the old EVF and accommodate its lower data requirements. I am not suggesting that the new EVF should be backwards compatible for use in the old camera.

I do understand that this requires a smidgeon of extra electronics. But the alternative is to educate the market that the brand will not reward your investment in its ecosystem. That is a lose-lose scenario; the customer stands to write off his investment at each body upgrade, the manufacturer loses the element of tie-in.

1 upvote
originalhype
By originalhype (Nov 7, 2011)

Olympus manage their EVF connection to be future proof from the beginning of the E-P2 and the rest of the EPL series. Why couldn't panasonic? So it is technically possible to foresee the future.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 8, 2011)

"I am not suggesting that the new EVF should be backwards compatible for use in the old camera."

Sorry, my bad. I thought it was the other way around. Apogolizes.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Nov 7, 2011)

Oly has the greatest JPEG engine! They are the King, who cares about other brands :-)

1 upvote
bigdaddave
By bigdaddave (Nov 7, 2011)

who shoots jpeg if they know what they're doing?

2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

There isn't a camera that produces as good jpegs as raw. So if you care about best possible picture, you shoot raw anyway.

1 upvote
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Nov 7, 2011)

You can set up colors as you wish.

0 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (Nov 7, 2011)

"who shoots jpeg if they know what they're doing?"
Pro's do.
They shoot RAW+JPG if they are smart.
Use the JPG normally and use RAW for that special enlargement etc or if the photog blew an important shot.
It saves tons of time.
At least me.
Probably only hobbyists use solely RAW, because they have the time to mess around with the pics.
There's life outside work/photography you know ;-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 7, 2011)

I think most guys around this forum are amateurs and not professional photographers.
For personal satisfaction, that's a lot better. Once you depend on the income from your hobby, this hobby usually starts dying.

Pros depend on prostituting themselves to the client's demands. And please, who wants to shoot weddings of complete strangers or has fun doing business portraits and what else is necessary to make a living out of it. Unfortunately, hardly anyone can solely shoot what he personally enjoys.
As an amateur, you do what you want, whenever you want to do it. No time schedules, no financial pressure, no competition, etc. - and so also all the time in the world for RAWs instead of JPGs. ;)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 7, 2011)

Surely it's quick enough to batch off all the raws as jpegs without doing any additional processing?

1 upvote
Jared Huntr
By Jared Huntr (Nov 7, 2011)

Then what's the point if you have no intentions of tweaking the RAW? Who needs the headaches of much larger storage requirements of RAW and the extra time-consuming step if the customer won't notice any difference in the quality if work?

1 upvote
digifan
By digifan (Nov 7, 2011)

From experience I know that it isn't sufficient.
IMO 3rd party software never does a perfect job in one run, so I tended to end up adjusting shot individually again.
Olympus Studio on Windows is "slooooooow", and even slower in a VM.
Besides I use Linux, no Mac or Windows anymore.
Browsing through jpegs is much... much faster than through RAW, if you have to cull through a few hundred RAW pictures you get fed up with it very easy.

0 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Nov 7, 2011)

I have a co-worker who shoots Raw. He always messes up his initial camera settings. I shoot jpeg and get it right from the start. So I'd say Raw is for people who don't know how to shoot right the first time around!

1 upvote
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Nov 7, 2011)

And now as an amateur you clean the toilets for your boss? Great, good thinking Managarm.
A fully independent pro.

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Nov 7, 2011)

"There isn't a camera that produces as good jpegs as raw."

Actually, Olympus makes those cameras. Their JPEGs are so good that it's practically impossible to improve upon them using RAW. That's why Olympus is preferred by those who don't want to tinker with RAW.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 7, 2011)

@ Double Dust

So anyone not being a professional photographer has to clean the toilets of their boss instead? The rate of unemployment must be high where you are coming from, sorry for that.

You don't seem to understand what I was about to say: The worst you can do to your hobby is forcing yourself into it all the time. In the end, the same is true for most jobs in the long run. But then again, most jobs don't start out as a sheer hobby without any financial interests...

@ Vlad S
I wish every manufacturer would make a JPG engine as good as Oly's. But still, if you want the best results there simply is no way around a 16 bit RAW file.
If you look at some of these excellent pictures, how many do you think are ooc JPGs? - http://1x.com/

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

@Managarm -- good points! Professional photographer means the one who works for hire and does what business requires. It's a nature of business to make as much money as possible with as little efforts as possible. There is nothing in it relating to artistry or one's best efforts, in fact the opposite, quick-and-dirty is often what is required. An amateur is the one who wants to achieve his personal enjoyment and values artistic work, because he doesn't need to earn a living from it. One has to be sufficiently well-to-do to have a luxury to be an amateur. Hired worker serves to satisfy the needs of those who hired him, not his own.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Nov 7, 2011)

The reality is that in-camera jpeg engine is very restricted in terms of processing power and available processing time to compete with computer doing raw conversion. I did comparison between in-camera jpegs and default raw-to-jpeg conversion in software, and the latter always won. So even simply by processing a raw batch one can get better results. Of course, when one needs to do extra processing, conversion from raw becomes a no-brainer.
Do most pictures need postprocessing? Let me put it this way, it's rare to see a picture from camera that wouldn't benefit from at least cropping, or contrast, or color adjustment. It's true about the most expensive and the least expensive cameras.

1 upvote
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 8, 2011)

@ forpetessake
Nice to hear someone got my points. ;)

1 upvote
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Nov 7, 2011)

Is it just me or are panasonic carrying the m43 platform themselves these days?

0 upvotes
Yohan Pamudji
By Yohan Pamudji (Nov 7, 2011)

It's just you.

17 upvotes
Sam Rohn
By Sam Rohn (Nov 7, 2011)

isn't olympus working on some kind of new yakuza-cam system ? ;)

11 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Nov 7, 2011)

@Sam: You have a typo in your post: It is spelled Yakuza-Scam system -))

An unhappy Oly owner....

8 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

Oly must be working on another camera iteration using the years-old and long-outdated 12 Mpixel sensor...

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Nov 7, 2011)

@Menneisyys:
I think many here would be fine with 12MP, if usable ISO went up 1 or 2 steps.
Besides, for an "outdated" sensor its pictures look still excellent.

1 upvote
JohnCarolan
By JohnCarolan (Nov 7, 2011)

Looks like a very nice camera, but it sounds like the shutter can still be heard 100 yards away like the other m4/3rds, a nice quiet leaf shutter would have made it the perfect streetcam.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

"Looks like a very nice camera, but it sounds like the shutter can still be heard 100 yards away like the other m4/3rds, a nice quiet leaf shutter would have made it the perfect streetcam."

Yeah... hope Pana debuts the long-rumoured fully electronic shutter as early as in the GH3... or at least come up with an electronic first shutter like that of the new-gen NEX and A65/A77, it'd also be way more quiet.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Nov 7, 2011)

"I think many here would be fine with 12MP, if usable ISO went up 1 or 2 steps.
Besides, for an "outdated" sensor its pictures look still excellent."

I don't question the Oly JPEG engine is great. However, even it can't do miracles - the new-gen 16 Mp Sony sensors (or even the GH2/G3, to a far less degree) are far less noisy, even at sometimes considerably higher pixel density. And, of course, the DR, in which even the GH2 lacks - it's more than 1 stop worse than the new Sony sensors, even that of the A77/NEX7.

While current Oly cameras are able to produce excellent images, you can use cameras with more up-to-date sensors in a lot more situations requiring even higher ISO, even higher DR etc. It's just easier to produce properly shot images with a tool that is technically superior.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
eddr
By eddr (Nov 7, 2011)

yea. the high ISO performance is killing Oly.

1 upvote
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Nov 7, 2011)

We 'll have to see what the NEX-7 will do. From the 3200 ISO RAW of my NEX-5n I can make a very fine image. 6400 is the limit for "normal" use.

0 upvotes
bob-one
By bob-one (Nov 8, 2011)

Nice upgrade but it's not going to get me to rush out and return my Sony Nex5n with its aps-c sensor that takes stunning high quality pictures even if its a new 16mp 4:3 sensor it's still a 4:3 I'll take sonys high quality aps-c 16 mp sensor any day.

0 upvotes
M Aryan
By M Aryan (Nov 8, 2011)

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 above
3. 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!”

2 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Nov 11, 2011)

The best thing for this market would be a new 10 MP sensor that wasn't a noisy pile of dogshit.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 158