Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 First Impressions Review

By dpreview staff on Aug 1, 2013 at 06:00 GMT
Buy on GearShop$958.676 deals

Prior to its announcement today, we had the opportunity to use Panasonic's new high-end Lumix DMC-GX7 mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. As well as a redesigned 16MP Live MOS sensor, the GX7 features a tilting camcorder-style EVF, a tiltable rear LCD screen and a silent mode designed to capture full-resolution still images without the mechanical shutter. Click the links below to read our hands-on first impressions review. 

306
I own it
148
I want it
28
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1202
12345
concert photographer
By concert photographer (4 months ago)

Panasonic has forgotten to stabilize the viewfinder of the GX7 and that makes the camera useless when using adapted long tele-lenses like a 300 or 400. Is there any magnifying device to help focussing manually? In this case a stabilized viewfinder is even more important.
Olympus has the viewfinder stabilization working with every kens of course.
Marc

0 upvotes
Danielsh1015
By Danielsh1015 (5 months ago)

I was ready to upgrade my trusty GH1, unfortunately, this GX7 lacks an option for connecting an external microphone.

0 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (6 months ago)

"Our only concern is the rather short 17.5mm eyepoint - which rarely works well, especially for wearers of glasses, in combination with high magnification viewfinders (it makes it hard to see the extreme edges of the frame without moving your eye)."

Being an eyeglass wearer, I have been posting about this issue since GX7 was announced, BUT, today I got to play with one at the local store, AND, I have to admit that it is less of a problem than I feared. This is due to the EVF being 3:2 ratio, so, when used to view in 4:3, the extreme sides and corners are not used. I thought it was quite usable.

I am now REALLY serious about migrating to this model, which is a serious system change for me (EOS/EF).

2 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (6 months ago)

Correction: EVF is 16:9 not 3:2 in my post above, but the effect is the same.

1 upvote
ArcaSwiss
By ArcaSwiss (6 months ago)

16 Megapixels seems so passé

0 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (6 months ago)

Yes, 13 would be much more original.

2 upvotes
BurkPhoto
By BurkPhoto (6 months ago)

Why do you need more, unless you make huge prints?

90+% of all imaging is going onto the Internet or is used as video output these days.

I get that newbie gear snobs like to make fun of sub-20MP cameras, but the game is seldom won with megapixels...

There are many reasons why some of today's top pros are using mirror-less cameras, including m43 units. Chief among them is the ability to switch instantly between still and video capture, or to record stills while capturing video.

1 upvote
NickNock
By NickNock (5 months ago)

Yes let's just use our smartphone cameras. Who needs a camera any more. ;)

0 upvotes
AsphericalDream
By AsphericalDream (5 months ago)

to BurkPhoto,
some of us, who aren't "newbie gear snobs" like to crop our photos in post. a large amount of pixels helps in that regard.

0 upvotes
Wickblau
By Wickblau (6 months ago)

short question:

does gx7 offer auto-iso in M-Mode? thx in advance!

0 upvotes
Wickblau
By Wickblau (6 months ago)

I see. Pana simply doesn't seem to be willing ...

0 upvotes
JJ Rodin
By JJ Rodin (6 months ago)

Still want to know where the 'high resolution' test areas are?
GX7 looks good but this is NOT an ultimate test of IQ, for any camera!

The sample pictures show a good IQ for this cam but not this new and 'degraded' test collage.

Sad, 'improvements' that are NOT!

0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

After reading through the comments again and again, I must constate that the subject matter - the GX7- has played only a marginal role in them, merely being a pivot to bring up discussions about other cameras and the new DPR process for comparing shots . I hope the full review of the camera will have a more balanced feedback .

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
vratnik
By vratnik (6 months ago)

how did you calculate 1024 x 768 pixels as 2.3M dots ?

0 upvotes
Ugo78
By Ugo78 (6 months ago)

(1024 x 768) x 3 (the number of RGB channels) = 2.3M pixels approximatively

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (5 months ago)

I cringe every time I read 'dots' used this way. What they really mean is sub-pixels, the individual red, green, and blue components that together make up a single pixel. Who the hell measures resolution that way?

And not all display systems use 3 sub-pixels per pixel. Samsung's PenTile displays use 4 or 5 subpixels (usually more green spots). So if they made a PenTile-based EVF you could have 3.9 million 'dots', even though it's still just a 1024x768 display!

Just call it 1024x768 or 0.79MP!

1 upvote
Raskolnikow90
By Raskolnikow90 (6 months ago)

Question: Does the new gx7 has a built-in intervalometer? Thank you!

0 upvotes
jeffharris
By jeffharris (6 months ago)

Yes.

0 upvotes
becassine
By becassine (6 months ago)

Interesting review. However, two major problems:
1) Omission of the sensor sensitivity curve. I personally find this just as important as resolution.
2) The new test pattern should be taken with all cameras scrupulously capturing exactly the same area, otherwise resolution comparisons are misleading. If you want a glaring example, include the Nikon 800 in the comparison set. The image displayed is significantly closer in than the other giving the false impression of superior resolution.

0 upvotes
BolleDuc
By BolleDuc (7 months ago)

Reviewers: Where do you see "the semi-auto Av and Tv modes" on this camera's control dial? Why would you use another brands nomenclature for a review of a Panasonic camera?

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

For those who need to know more about the GX7 can also take a look at:

luminous-landscape.com

They have been using the camera for a while and have some interesting experience with it.

0 upvotes
BolleDuc
By BolleDuc (7 months ago)

I'd hesitate to call that a review. Sounds like a grumpy old guy who'd rather we stuck with simpler technologies & defines anyone who might be interested in anything else as having "morbid curiosity"! Pretentious codger, I say!

5 upvotes
fastprime
By fastprime (7 months ago)

OP: wondering if the Focus Peaking feature works through the EVF or limited to the LCD?

1 upvote
jeffharris
By jeffharris (6 months ago)

Both.

2 upvotes
Scottish Kev
By Scottish Kev (7 months ago)

Looks like the x100/x100s?

0 upvotes
Thomas Karlmann
By Thomas Karlmann (7 months ago)

Boo on the new studio scene! I really need to compare IQ of the GX7 with the Sony a99. Please fix!

4 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (7 months ago)

TOTALLY Agree!!!

0 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (7 months ago)

We are working to add older benchmark cameras, including the a99.

0 upvotes
achim k
By achim k (7 months ago)

I would prefer the old studio scene! Better relationship to real photography! I really don't like the new scene.

9 upvotes
kutya1977
By kutya1977 (6 months ago)

A G R E E !
Very disappointed with the new one. By my opinion it doesn't add anything, at the same time makes comparison impossible with the existing huge database. The old one has a lots of details of every kind of structure, light conditions, and as achim k writes: it has a better relationship with real photography. The new one is a huge downgrade – as I experience it.

0 upvotes
cognisant
By cognisant (7 months ago)

Looks great. Does M-mode support autoISO?

0 upvotes
jeffharris
By jeffharris (6 months ago)

No.

But it does support Constant Preview… REAL full-time LiveView! Fantastic feature that was previously limited to the GH-series.

0 upvotes
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (7 months ago)

Very much looking forward to replacing my GX1 with this. Mostly looking forward to beefier grip and low-profile EVF. The LVF2 on my GX1 makes it not fit all that well in my small bag. Really don't give a hoot about IQ comparisons, as GX1 is already plenty good enough for my 16"x24" landscape prints.

Would like to see faster frame rate (6-8fps) and 3-stop IBIS (for primes). Oh, and CAF that doesn't suck. Then I could begin to consider ditching my FF system.

0 upvotes
kutya1977
By kutya1977 (6 months ago)

I have them both. Like the GX7 very much, but prepare yourself the GX7 is a bigger camera. I actually experience the difference as much bigger as it is in reality, got a little surprised when compared the measurements.
BTW the new kit lens (14-42) feels like a toy lens, and the image quality is not as good as the good old 14-45 the GF1 came with. I might have a very good sample of the old one though, I guess the tolerances with manufacturing of these kit lenses are much bigger than for the pro-like lenses.

0 upvotes
DMillier
By DMillier (7 months ago)

[Edited:]

The 5D image is larger than the others of course. People will still want to compare resolution at 100% with the usual misleading problems because the image sizes are not identical. It will be very interesting to see if the print simulation options make a difference most will understand. Good idea though.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

none of these shots were designed for comparison of image qualities, original or "print" mode, because DPReview don't have a definition of image quality when they designed these tests.

use of camera advertised ISO makes the comparison impossible (because it means different things on different cameras) and use of picture height makes it impossible to compare directly across different aspect ratios.

these are fundamental flaws though I agree that accurate exposure control means bloody effort and may be turned down for cost. the correction of PH can be done easily.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (8 months ago)

I'm so excited to see the new studio tool despite using gprs in a small island as intrnet connection. Anyway, I love the new Print size option and the flat DOF. It was a revelation. Like, in terms of noise and high ISO, the modern cameras came close to each other. Yet, in detail and noise, FF is still significantly better even at print size resolution. Can't wait to see the Nikon's, Ricoh GR, and RX1R .

One more thing, DPR please include a Sigma Merrill camera and other print size options such as 15MP and 20MP.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Red G8R
By Red G8R (8 months ago)

For me the most impressive thing here is the Sony RX100 II. It stands up well against the others despite the smallest sensor.

0 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (8 months ago)

Anyone know the specifics of silent mode (beyond what's already been written above) Specifically, I'd lke to know if the silent mode produces higher resolutioin images than the silent mode on my GH2. The GH2 can shoot 4MP in 4:3 ratio but only in the SH burst mode - 2-40 shots per burst. It is truely silent.

1 upvote
rsongusa
By rsongusa (7 months ago)

I, too, would like to know the specifics of the silent mode. Can I shoot RAW in silent mode?

0 upvotes
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (7 months ago)

The electronic shutter shoots full resolution RAW images. The only limitation when compared to the mechanical shutter is that it can't be used above ISO3200 and for exposures of longer than 1 second.

0 upvotes
Julio Tegner
By Julio Tegner (8 months ago)

The test shots show it comparable to the Pen E-P5 and NEX-6.

But why did they make a $1000 camera body with no audio in? That alone makes it a loser unless you have no intention of shooting video with decent sound.

1 upvote
John Driggers
By John Driggers (6 months ago)

Because they make a different camera optimised for video-buy that one if video is your primary or most important concern. If stills is your most important concern, this is your camera. That's why they made a $1000 camera body without audio in and and that's why I bought it, 'cause I give f-all about video. If I did, I'd buy the GH3.

0 upvotes
JJ Rodin
By JJ Rodin (8 months ago)

Where are the new "higher resolution" test sites that old studio scene had ? The old lady with the small vertical skiggly lines (needed 16mp or beyond to resolve) & details of face, the male head, the fine detail in feathers, etc ?

The skin tones tests are good addition, but need some/MORE resolution test sites!!!!!!

No specific Dynamic range areas as well !!

Needs Improving quite a bit IMO !!!

3 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (8 months ago)

Man....the GX7 is completely on par with the NEX6 at all iso's and a TAD bit ahead of the EP-5 at 6400 and 12800.

Thats pretty dam impressive!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

basically the analog ISO of 4/3" won't go beyond 800 or 1600. higher ISOs are numerically amplified and noise reduction may be applied differently.

0 upvotes
Andy Turner
By Andy Turner (8 months ago)

Do we have any idea on when the full review is likely to appear on DPReview? Thanks

4 upvotes
Misa
By Misa (8 months ago)

To me it looks much more like a direct translation drom Lumix L1 to Micro Four/Third and I think is very good, I wish I could buy one right now :)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

looks the designer of L1 is not fired.

1 upvote
lxcellent
By lxcellent (8 months ago)

This is an ugly camera. I know that you should not judge a book by its cover, but why not make it look more like the classic rangefinder like they did in the LX1. Shoot. Follow Fuji's lead on this.

...and yes, the way a tool looks DOES make a difference!

0 upvotes
JeffreyG
By JeffreyG (8 months ago)

Have you seen the camera yet? Personally, I think it looks very similar to the Fujifilm X series cameras.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

> Fujifilm X series cameras.

which are ugly.

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (8 months ago)

well that's totally subjective, personally I think this is the best looking camera out there

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

there are (subconscious) objective reasons behind subjective judgements, like what we call sexy has much to do with reproductive capability even you always take contraceptives.

those who think retro camera designs are good have their reasonings rooted in misknowledge/misunderstanding.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chj
By chj (8 months ago)

um, so liking which camera will boost my reproductive capability the most?

8 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (8 months ago)

yabokkie, it's time put down those evolutionary psychology books...

0 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (8 months ago)

What happened to DPreview's "Block user" functionality?

There's little point in coming here if trolls (lxcellent, in this case) can't be blocked.

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (8 months ago)

I agree there should be a function to block messages. If not there's always the tedious way of starving them for attention.

0 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (8 months ago)

Looks great to me, except the eyecup bulge....but if it feels anything like the GX1, which is by far the most comfortable mirrorless I ever held, it will be a great shooting camera and perfect for those us with large hands who can't safely grip many of OLY's offerings while climbing up a small cliff to grab a shot of some birds nest or baby mammals!

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

while alot of people probably love the EVF, I don't like the eyecup bulge either, I'm hoping it can be detached.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (7 months ago)

I like an "Ugly" camera, doesn't draw attention. Besides, I look though it, not at it. Others will have to suffer.

1 upvote
pgphoto_ca
By pgphoto_ca (8 months ago)

For me, the E-P5 has a slight better ISO over the GX7 at 800 ISO. approx 1/2 stop diff.

Image quality is prime for me. I just hope Panasonic will improve a bit the ISO before they release the GX7...

go go go Pana !

0 upvotes
OngNikon
By OngNikon (8 months ago)

And you had detected the difference. And it is going to be game changer for you!!

1 upvote
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (8 months ago)

From the test images on Imaging Resource, The P5 seems to have a little better resolution and sharpness, at low iso, or perhaps less anti-aliasing or NR than the GX7, side by side (but that could be lens based or some setting. I was looking at eyelashes on the mannequin, so not sure if that is relevant, since the leaves on the trees on outdoor house shots look identical, perhaps a lighting response?

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (8 months ago)

Where's the robot? How can I choose a new camera without it's little metal smile?

5 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (8 months ago)

I do miss the drawing of the old lady drawing!!!!!! SO MUCH easier to see the definition and detail between different cameras or evaporating with increasing ISO!

Miss also the box with the coloured stuff inside!!!
Those should stay for sure!!!

One very welcome thing is the colourful circle target!!!! :D

3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (8 months ago)

People seem to really care about 'their' test chart. :)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

when DPReview don't?

0 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (8 months ago)

For me it is more about having more cameras [aka reviews] that I'm to use for comparative purposes. . . How does one compare the GX7 with the Oly OM-D EM 5? This change virtually means starting from square one and has little meaning until the 'bank' of tests has enough history for comparative purposes. It also renders the previous bank of test useless to use for comparison with the new cameras with the new studio comparison.

Some things are best left along, especially if it is 'not broken'

4 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (8 months ago)

@kzmike:
the EP5 is the same sensor - it is right there in the choices

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
ThePartaker
By ThePartaker (8 months ago)

What strikes me about these tests is how well the RX100 II holds up as it only has a 1" sensor and is truly pocket-able. It looks just about usable up to 1600 - will you be doing a full review of it soon? What do others think?

3 upvotes
chj
By chj (8 months ago)

The RX100 II's high ISO shots do hold up very well. Hopefully the low light autofocus speed and accuracy are also good.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

unfortunately, accd'g to what I've read, low light AF is still not great on the RX100 II

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (8 months ago)

Pocket lint has a review with raw and jpeg samples. Their conclusion is E-P-5 wins on IQ but G7 wins on package because the Pen5 does not have the built in EVF so adding a finder adds a lot to the package cost.Auto focus speed both cameras are blazing fast. Personally I will wait till the next versions of XE-1 and Nex6 come out as I like 16MP APS-C sensors.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Pocket lint has nothing to substantiate their claims. IT is only to their eyes it is so, if I am correct. So it doesn't mean too much to me. Others, with their eyes have said the opposite. Those who did noise test etc in general say that they performequally with a slight advantage to the GX7 at higher ISO (really high ISO that is).

Also we need to see how well Dynamic range etc performs which we cannot assess here. Maay be EP5 etc indeed have clearly better Dynamic range and is the better sensor.

The best Panasonic sensor ever when it comes to DR, the GH1 scores 11,6 eV. G6 scored 11,5 btw. So I think a score of 12 to 12,5 is what we can expect. With the changes they made they should be able to get close to that.

GH1 scored 772 Low Light ISO. 895 ISO was the score of EP5. If this is the best Pana sensor ever, it should be possible to come close to that.

But okey...I'll await DxO.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

Pentax use Sony sensors to "out perform" Sony cameras by a good deal. obviously Oly failed to do the same.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

AF speed comment is very interesting!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

though 70D is only the first budget DSLR with an old DIGIC processor, the dual-pixel AF is at least better than A99 (impression).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chj
By chj (8 months ago)

From the DPR photos, the high iso is very close, the ep5 may have the edge. Good to hear that the autofocus is fast. Hopefully it works as well in low light and with 4.3 fps tracking as claimed.

0 upvotes
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (7 months ago)

Yes, I think their reviews are worth about what the name suggest "Pocket Lint" and not one furball more.

0 upvotes
Roger Nordin
By Roger Nordin (6 months ago)

From what I have been reading the GX7 sensor gives lower high ISO noise at the expense of earlier highlight clipping vs the E-M5. Seems to me the sensors are very close, just that Panasonic vs Olympus used different approaches to how to tune the sensor. Doesn't surprise me either, my GF3 and GX1 has very abrupt highlight clipping and limited highlight recovery compared to my OM-D E-M5, which has just amazing highlight recovery and resistance to clipping. I am so amazed I sold my Canon APS-C stuff, I just didn't see a point sticking with it at all.

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (8 months ago)

One slight problem I see is that all of these elements are made from synthetic dies and materials. While they are colorful, they are no what nature offers in terms of color. Yet the majority of subjects we photograph are nature and of course people (natural skin). A printed photo of a person is a very reduced representation of what real human skin is like in terms of colors, shades, how light gets broken, absorbed and reflected to create it's unique look.

Of course I'm aware it's impossible to have a real person be part of a test scene that has to be 100% constant over years. OTOH I know from owning about 20 different digital cameras over the years that some cameras produce wonderful looking photos from artificial colored scenes, they do poorly when it comes to resolving very fine differences in colors and shades which is key for natural looking scenes, especially when it comes to portraits (and landscapes).

Again, I don't really have a solution, but something to think about.

7 upvotes
lester11
By lester11 (8 months ago)

The Paul Smith watch told me everything I wanted to know (for my particular taste in snaps). How the letters were sharpened (or not), how the dial ticks were resolved (or not), how the particular glittery blue of the face was smeared (or not), how the second hand suffered aliasing (or not), how the glass reflections affected the render. Every time I saw a better rendering, I bought the camera and dumped the previous (smile) or lived with the difference 'cos it was smaller than the bank balance... Can you not tuck it into a blank space somewhere, please?

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (8 months ago)

No, because this scene is so much larger than the old one, the watch would be tiny. It won't look anything like the last scene. Just look at the Queen of hearts in previous scene and compare how much smaller the cards look in this scene.

1 upvote
Tan68
By Tan68 (8 months ago)

It is a bit more like a resolution chart... Will any deviation of resolution in the corners create distracting arguments.. if these differences might be due to different lenses...? I know the same lens in different mount is used but they are still physically different lenses and may have some different characteristics...

The different lighting levels is a good idea and I know there are dark swatches, but I might miss the little box of shaded puffy balls and/or thread. [well, the parsley in the corners does do just as well so the friendly looking puffs are gone..]

Resizing the images to match at ~8MP is a good addition. It should help some people understand if the 24MP APS-C sensors really are noisier than 16MP...

This change offers more than the last change. Still, I hate to see the robot and batteries go. I remember him from my first digital camera purchase... Maybe add a picture of the robot somewhere. Just for a little fun and to retain touch with the old :^)

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

it's more than a simple sharp black-white resolution target, for which software can make good guess and generate artificial image that may match the target well.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

I have compared the exposes of GX7, NEX6 and EP5. In lowlightmode there is not difference. bar two small exceptions out of 21 (7 shots per cam from ISO 100 to 25600 times 3) they all use the exact same shutterspeed.

In Daylight mode somehting is different. From ISO 200 to ISO 3200 the NEX uses 1/3 less shutterspeed, so 1/3 of astop. compared to the others.
ISO6400 Oly falls behind it seems. It is 1/2 a stop slower. Shutterspeed is 0,0004 s instead of 0,0003 on the other two.

The strange thing is that ISO12800 and ISO25600, the EP5 uses the exact same shutterspeed. Where GX7 goes down to half the shutterspeed, as can be expected when you move up 1 stop. To makeit clear, the Oly file at ISo 12800 has 2,5 times longer exposure than the GX7. The Sony stick to ISO 0,00025 s which is logical. It is 1/4000s its max shutterspeed. when we go up to ISO 25600 both Panny and Oly use the same shutterspeed. Strange but it means that Oly again uses 2,5 times more time GX7.

Explanation?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

you may have assumed that all were shot at exactly the same lighting which may not be true.

actually in a well controlled test, lighting should be adjusted carefully to compensate slight differences among shutter speeds and aperture sizes (less than 1/3 stops of normal control).

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

I surely do assume that all things are kept equal. If you want to compare, you have to. If you want to show how good an individual cam can perform, you should not.

I am convinced dpreview ekpt everything the same.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

I only want the exposure on the sensor be the same.

for GX7 vs NEX-6,
many say their image qualities look the same.
let's assume everything the same except shutter speed, then
NEX-6 got 0.32 stops underexposed and 0.17 stops smaller area (11.1%) because a flaw in the test.

so NEX-6 is 0.49 stops better than GX7, while the area ratio suggests that NEX-6 gets 0.70 stops more light.
then per unit area (mm2) performance of GX7 is better.
(assume both of them cook raw data the same, too)

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

so if Pana had made an APS-C sensor for Sony,
it would have beaten NEX-6 by 0.2 stops.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

? I think we'll need to await throrough testing to say anythign about total IQ.

1 upvote
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (8 months ago)

@Jorginho - Did you also check the f-stop? DPR usually uses f/6.3 on mFT and f/8 on APS-C. If that's the case here too, then Nex-6 gets 2/3 stop less exposure if the shutter speed and lighting is the same.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Yes of course. Look here to see the result in a table I made. All were at f5.6.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51998946

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

@Yabokkie....What you seem to forget is that the NEX6 files also are smaller than the GX7 EP5 files. Everything is smaller in them by a clearly visible amount. This means that noise will appears smaller and finer too. When you make them th same size, the noise of the NEX6 will becoem a bit more visible..

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

there may be other reasons.

one is although they are both 16MP sensors, DPReview uses a smaller portion of a 3:2 sensor for the main part of the scene within a 4:3 frame. what left over (left and right of the 3:2 sensor) are mostly empty with some simple figures.

this is a fatal flaw that DPReview are determined to have.

btw, I'm not saying the two are the same. I only wanted to say how we could interpret and what we might get from these tests, and one of the considerations is exposure variation as you pointed out.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

also from the sensor point of view, we better test at the same shutter speeds, though a 1/3 stop difference won't make visible difference.

0 upvotes
Joemuma
By Joemuma (8 months ago)

We are always looking at the shadowy box with thread spools. It shows the low light performance of the sensors and makes it easily comparable as the noise reduction of the cameras are removing the details. You yourself used this for the "Image quality test" in the A99 review. - Would miss this box! (you too?)

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (8 months ago)

The problem is that to evenly-light a large, flat target like this, the light has to be fairly straight-on, so the box we built didn't end up with much shadow.

0 upvotes
scotbot
By scotbot (8 months ago)

Excellent, especially for lens reviews.

0 upvotes
dscottsatx
By dscottsatx (8 months ago)

This new studio test would be a lot better if it wasn't so shallow.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (8 months ago)

The fact it is so shallow is what makes it so good. Testing is meant to be done on shallow test charts in the first place.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

> is what makes it so good

the depth of field is not so bad an issue.
actually it may well be welcome if seen from another angle.

my understanding is that we need a flat target because of
f-number and focusing problems.

in ideal, if f/5.6 is used for 4/3", f/7.1 should be used for APS-C and f/11 for 35mm format but that's not what we get. then we give up and look for a flat target.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fcna72
By fcna72 (8 months ago)

How can I download full size JPG of the scene other than ISO 125? Whatever the ISO setting selected (and visiable), the downloaded file is the ISO125 P1030034. Is this intended (and what am I doing wrong) or a bug?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (8 months ago)

That would be a bug - we'll look into it.

0 upvotes
fcna72
By fcna72 (8 months ago)

Thanks Richard

0 upvotes
fcna72
By fcna72 (8 months ago)

PS: issue seems to be related to firefox browser. Working fine with IE

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

a fundamental bug the tool has, or the test procedure has, is that it fits the scene to image height which make it impossible to compare sensors of different aspect ratios.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
108
By 108 (8 months ago)

I must say this rx100 second is impressive. Not bigger than a s95, would fit in the belt bag and ever ready . Photography at its simplest.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
108
By 108 (8 months ago)

In the low light comparison with gx7, ep5, nex6 and rx100II, all in auto wb except not specified for the rx, , ep5 jpegs come constantly much too warm/yellowish and too saturated. Main reason I don't go over to Pana is the Oly jpeg engine/colors etc....so much for it. I have this kind of problem with E620, but to that extent..and I don't shoot raw, and don't like Lightroom

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (8 months ago)

Probably "keep warm color" is ON.

0 upvotes
108
By 108 (8 months ago)

thanks

0 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (8 months ago)

I think you miss an area with shadows that can show the resolution and dynamic range like the box of colorful fluff and threads.

Also, I really wonder, do you shoot at the same aperture? What distance? How do you make sure everything is in the dof.

2 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (8 months ago)

Where's the 1000 drachma bill? Grexit has happened and you put it back in circulation?

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (8 months ago)

some feedback:

1. incandescent lighting needs to get a lot more even
2. little gear icons (showing camera settings) are only present for 2 leftmost magnified samples. Two samples on the right don't show their settings...
3. I wish there were a few bright, colorful objects in primary colors (RGB/CMY, but not flat) to show effects of channel clipping

finally, everything is shot with the maximum aperture?? makes no sense

1 upvote
HelloToe
By HelloToe (8 months ago)

1. The whole point of the low-light shot is that it's NOT even. Some of us take pictures outside of perfectly lit studios, you know. That's why objects are repeated, so you can compare how they look in direct light vs. shadow. If anything, I'd say it needs to be darker, and more from the side so that objects cast shadows on each other.

2. For me, the gear icon is only missing for the RX100. They said they're planning to add more settings info in the future, though.

3. Check the paint tubes? There's definitely a real shortage of 'color with details/texture', though. You've got those nice patches of greenery, but for any other colors, all you've got to go on for texture & details is the thread.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
goblin
By goblin (8 months ago)

Older test scene was good enough, and most of all - had all the old non CaNikon cameras which you guys will never reshoot on the new one. This new scene is a break.

Couldn't the new light simulations be added to the existing scene ? And where are my bottles !!! :D

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (8 months ago)

The old scene was too small - we had to shoot too close up, which ended up mis-representing cameras such as the RX100. Its 3D nature also meant we had to stop the lenses down beyond their sharpest point - the new chart fixes both of these problems.

There are plenty of non-Canon or Nikon products in the re-shoot list.

3 upvotes
goblin
By goblin (8 months ago)

Thanks

0 upvotes
kutya1977
By kutya1977 (6 months ago)

Thanks! Couldn't you keep the existing stuff though and rearrange the scene to be bigger, possibly with additions?
Using a scene that is (hopefully …) still under construction makes future comparisons harder.

0 upvotes
David25
By David25 (8 months ago)

Please please add back the blue watch, some cameras could resolve the black hour marks and some could not!

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

they got some spirals in different colors,
may be not enough?

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (8 months ago)

If you put the blue watch in this scene, in all likelihood *none* of them would be able to resolve the details of the watch. Remember that this new scene is much larger (like 6 feet across), and shot from farther away.

2 upvotes
petr marek
By petr marek (8 months ago)

Comparsion with older cameras is crucial. Older test scene was good enough, I think better (especially shaded things in box) and not so flat.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (8 months ago)

"Older test scene was good enough"

No, it wasn't. That's why it was replaced.

The older scene was too small, requiring the cameras to be too close to the scene. That introduced focusing and DOF issues.

Another problem was that some lenses (like RX100 lens) didn't perform optimally as not all lenses are optimized for close focusing performance. That meant the older scene was not representative of real world performance.

RX100 easily out resolves cameras like XZ2 in real life performance, but the older scene wouldn't tell you that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (8 months ago)

@ET2 - exactly.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (8 months ago)

Also "shaded things in box" has now been replaced by a fully darkened scene if you press that lightbulb. Showing all kinds of different shadow levels and detail. :)

0 upvotes
Eric Glam
By Eric Glam (8 months ago)

Comparing the RAW files very closely (ISO 3200, ISO 6400), it looks to me like the NEX-6 and GX7 have exactly the same IQ.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

(1) we don't know if advertised ISO value means the same thing on different cameras (this is one of reasons why E-M5 looks so good at the same ISO, the real ISO is lower and exposure more).

(2) we cannot compare cameras of different aspect ratios using this tool, even at the same exposure.

the tool favorites 4:3 sensors, that you get lower image quality for 3:2, and even lower for 16:9 of the same sensor area.

Comment edited 8 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 1202
12345