Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Real-world Samples

By dpreview staff on Aug 14, 2013 at 16:28 GMT
Buy on GearShop$958.676 deals

We've just published a gallery of real-world samples shot using the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7. The GX7 is Panasonic's latest Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera, and one of the company's most interesting models yet. It features a new 16MP sensor, tiltable EVF and LCD, and offers several enthusiast-friendly features including highlight and shadow tone adjustment, an electronic (entirely silent) shutter and in-body image stabilization - a first for Panasonic. Click the links below to view our gallery of real-world shots. 

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Samples Gallery

There are 33 images in the Panasonic GX7 samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Samples - Published August 14th 2013
301
I own it
148
I want it
28
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 148
backayonder
By backayonder (8 months ago)

It has a viewfinder what's not to like?

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (8 months ago)

I was eyeing this...
but I just discovered on camerasizecom that this this is a bit larger than the APS NX300 - isn't MFT supposed to be more compact?

also, does anyone know how this compares to the GX1 and the Oly sensor (in the omdem5, epl5/5, ep5) ?

1 upvote
flipmac
By flipmac (8 months ago)

GX7 has built in EVF that tilts and pop-up flash, with more physical buttons and dials. Also, the sensor is stabilized. These things, which the NX300 don't have, add to the size.

3 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

No one knows for sure, but I'd say that most reviewers say IQ is slightly above Sony m43 sensor. Are they comparing JPGs, are they using the final FW? I don't know. So I think it remains to be seen.

NX300 is a different cam with no EVF etc so it can be smaller. I don't see how a somewhat smaller sensor should always result in a smaller cam. the system, lenses + body is smaller for sure.

2 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (8 months ago)

the bar jpegs look a bit muddy, the RAW will be better.

0 upvotes
MJ Jones
By MJ Jones (8 months ago)

Well done Pana. Think it's the most exciting cam they produced since the GH2. Slim shape, viewfinder, a bit of stabilization when using primes, slightly better IQ. Very desirable as far as I'm concerned.

1 upvote
cinemascope
By cinemascope (8 months ago)

To those complaining about JPEG quality, I always thought that "high quality JPEG" is a complete non-sense and an oxymoron.
JPEG is meant as distribution format and not as a production format... It's pretty much like recording a feature film on VHS, and then trying to buy the best tapes or whatever to get better quality when you shouldn't be shooting with VHS in the first place.
It's about time we dump HQ JPEG for TIFFs and PNGs and leave JPEGs confined to low quality WEB output where they belong.
The first idiot that put JPEGs on digital cameras as the sole non-RAW output option made humanity a big disservice.

1 upvote
HDF2
By HDF2 (8 months ago)

My camera bag fell out of the trunk of my car last weekend and now my GX1 seems dead. I haven't given up hope yet that it will come to life, but after seeing this new toy I am not sure I want it to :-)

0 upvotes
Walsh_uk
By Walsh_uk (8 months ago)

Waiting for WEX to get stock. My GF1 has lasted me nearly 4 years and I'm now ready for a shiny new camera..

I know the step up is going to be amazing, finally worth the upgrade..

Makes sense to get the PZ lens kit even though I have the 20/1.7 & oly 45/1.8

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

I think Panasonic will be proud of their effort on this camera. Unlike its older brother the GX1.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

Why shouldn't Panasonic be proud of the GX1? It's an excellent m43s camera with similar IQ to the G3, not class leading but very good nonetheless, good video quality, fast AF in a well made metal body with an extremely comfortable grip (unlike the new PEN series cameras).

DPR liked it enough to give it a Silver Award, Panasonic sold quite a few GX1s, so why shouldn't Panasonic be proud of it? Is this a DxOMark sensor thing or are we talking camera quality? Because I loved my GX1 / 20 1.7 when I had it (much more than the EPL-5).

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (8 months ago)

@mpg: if you think 10% is a noticeable improvement, enough to trash it's predecessor, boy are you in for a disappointment!

1 upvote
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (8 months ago)

I am sold finally. I was holding out for long as I have a significant investment in Canon already for an amateur hobbyist. So it was never a real need to change to a different system. But the convenience of M43 and great design and IQ of GX7 has me convinced to have this as another alternative to lugging the heavy DSLR kit. I always liked the L1, LC1 era cameras from Lumix. Panny finally has gone back to the rugged, semi-retro design - I like it.

4 upvotes
MrTaikitso
By MrTaikitso (8 months ago)

The second bar shot of the two guys taken with the 20mm has just sold me the camera and lens. As someone who does a lot of indoor family shots, I hate noise or using the flash indoors, reserving the flash for fill in outdoors. The bar shot is clean and the dynamic range good enough that one can 'feel' the warmth of the sun. Now to find £1000.

2 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (8 months ago)

Pretty decent hi ISO results considering they are jpgs, but the real test will be RAW, but it's encouraging.

I like the look and size of the GX7 and it has an EVF built in. Not going to trade in my OM-D anytime soon but it appears we are at the point that no matter what size sensor you get now from m4/3 up, you really can't complain too much about IQ any more. Yes bigger sensors will always do better, but there has come a point that the m4/3 are very good and good enough for most people.

Doesn't mean I will be selling my DSLR's though as there are plenty of other reasons to keep them for many purposes but the list is shrinking.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SkiHound
By SkiHound (8 months ago)

At least there's consensus.

1 upvote
Peter Gregg
By Peter Gregg (8 months ago)

These images are surprisingly good. High ISO with the kit style lens delivers very usable pictures and can easily be made even better. I am really surprised the high ISO did this well. I have the OMD and the GH3, and these ISO 12800 and 25600 ISO pictures are much better. An this is only from JPG? if you can handle LightRoom like a master, the final images will be even better. If you have a few tricks up your sleeve than these images look like they can take on a larger sensor camera with ease. Well done.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

Looks like we will have to be shooting in RAW with the GX7. These JPGs are of poor/horrible quality in the normal ISO ranges. I don't look at the gimmicky ISO ranges that sell cameras, just ISO 100-1600. I will keep my fingers crossed they were processes via software for the web and not straight out of the camera.

Image samples are always hard to decipher, was the shot done to show the camera's dynamic range, color rendering, focus accuracy, etc...?

5 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (8 months ago)

I agree and wrote pretty much the same below, but a lot of people disagree with me. You wrote exactly the same thing I did.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

Few cameras except for the original Fujifilm X100, the X-Pro1/X-E1 and some of the Olympus m43 cameras have super high quality JPEGs. But even those aren't perfect.

But if you think the first few 20 f/1.7 portrait images or a base ISO image like P1000067 are "horrible quality", I'm guessing it's because either you didn't bother downloading the original files or you are pixel peeping the heck out of the images at 100%.

The first image at ISO 3200 has some obvious NR, but looks great at normal size, certainly as good or better than any EM5 JPEG at ISO 3200.

But with NR set to normal on any camera you'll get similar results, but even so images are sharp and detail smearing is kept to a minimum at most reasonable ISO. And fortunately colors are not overly warm like some Olympus JPEGs.

But I don't know a single enthusiast who actually shoots JPEGs with a kit lens, so why even bother making a big deal about OOC JPEG web samples?

3 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

@marike6, you are correct, I am picky but I have owned many cameras and didn't say my piece lightly. (I own the X100 and you are right on the JPG output -- plus you have to deal with the write speed buffer).

I did view the full image and -sorry- they look like a point and shoot quality. It would be nice to have a great JPG engine so that it provides camera owners one more option when shooting.

Everyone bashes "pixel peepers" but yet there are numerous reviews, tests, and webpages dedicated to it. Don't hate the peeping. One day you may need to crop and it sure is nice to do it when your image isn't crap at 100%. I occasionally see a better view in processing and have options to crop and still print large.

I also agree with you that JPGs are for either casual images, or for family sports where fps matter. Crappy jpg output isn't a deal breaker, but it does increase the workflow and nice to know ahead of time.

1 upvote
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (8 months ago)

The full potential of the m4/3 system finally looks to have been realized with the GX7.

The JPEG images from the sample gallery look encouraging. Very encouraging indeed.

.

9 upvotes
Ullrich72
By Ullrich72 (8 months ago)

This GX-7 raises expectations, it comes with nice ingredients. But as a "mostly daylight shooter" these first samples are disappointing to me. As a APSC User with 2.8 Zoom there is nothing in these (daylight) pictures that attract me in any way.
High Iso Performance seems to be good but what I see in bright light or orange saturated evening light is just not a reason to change system. A DSLR might be heavier, but takes just the better picture.

3 upvotes
miketala
By miketala (8 months ago)

"A DSLR might be heavier, but takes just the better picture."

A few shrunk jpegs from an otherwise untested camera and you've already cast judgment that all DSLR's are better, especially in bright or evening light? Surely you're joking.

11 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

I have tons of dslr's, just can't find one that will ever make a better picture than my NEX-7. Some might be better in high ISO range, but, on the end, a mirrorless is just a dslr in a small package. Both have advantages and disadvantages that the other one does'nt have. But, low weight and small size in in 80% of all cases where you take pictures a huge advantage.

0 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

You could own a bulky camera that has the worlds best image quality, colors, and metering -- but it does you no good if the camera isn't with you. Smaller equipment allows one to travel light or keep more equip with them than the bigger systems. And this will equal more photos.

Plus, I like the unobtrusiveness of smaller systems as well. Last event you were at, ever remember someone pointing pro gear at you? Was it annoying -or- did it make you act different? You remembered it for a reason...

1 upvote
whensly
By whensly (8 months ago)

Always so difficult to tell with these "sample photos"..

I am VERY interested in the GX7 but completely opposed to "pre-ordering" cameras. Besides all the other manu's have new cams being announced in late August and September. If a mirrorless Full Frame cam with interchangable lenses comes out I'll go for that.

As a matter of fact if Panasonic can fit a FF Fovenon into this body I might just pre-order :)

1 upvote
88SAL
By 88SAL (8 months ago)

It exists; Leica. It fills the specifications of a mirrorless camera, just people dont think of it like that. You can adapt almost anything to it apart from lenses that are really too small for FF image areas.

4 upvotes
whensly
By whensly (8 months ago)

Ok Sal can you lend me 10K to put a Leica system together?

Sony's RX 1 is a 3k system and that is a stretch for most but within the realm of reason. Leica's offerings are for the very rich.

I might pick up a GX7 when it's in stores but before then there may be some other exciting and ground breaking offerings from Sony, Oly, Canon, Pentax and others.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

Sony's RX1 is not a system, it's a single lens P&S camera. Now, if you consider the EVF you can buy at a horrible price as a modular item, then let's call it a system. Leica is a triple priced system, and here you have the choice between buy and not buy. All is how much money you are able to throw away. A digital M is 5 times overpriced anyway, it is on the end the same electronic crap as all other digital cameras. The lenses are between 3 and 4 times too expensive as well. If they where 3 to 4 times better, one could talk about . They are better, there is no doubt, but not that much better. Now, there is the red dot .....

0 upvotes
Mikhail Tal
By Mikhail Tal (8 months ago)

These pictures are as good as anything I've ever seen from any APS-C censor camera.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

Really? They look OK, but don't exaggerate.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

mmmmhh, than any 4/3, possible, but in base iso, it can not reach the water to the NEX and Samsung APS-C sensors. So, let's stay with our feet on the ground please.

0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (8 months ago)

these honestly look very poor. Looks like noise reduction is eating the details like there is no tomorrow on these, I assume all Jpegs. I will reserve my judgement til I see Raw files, but Panasonic once again proves that its jpeg engine truly sucks. Just check out Olympus OMD or Fuji XE1 jpegs for a change

1 upvote
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

Care to point out any specifics, because the globe shot completely disregards your comment, at ISO12800 might I add...

14 upvotes
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (8 months ago)

I have to agree with M Hamilton, Absolutic. I'm guessing you didn't read the exif data before making that comment? I wont take my OMD above ISO3200, but the ISO 6400 and even ISO12800 samples here are very impressive. I'd be happy using them.

11 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (8 months ago)

I agree with Hamilton as well. That 12,800 shot is very impressive.

For me the test of a good system is what happens when you go indoors and this unit gets it done really well.

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

Absolutic could be referring to the other 12,800 photo of the carpets which is not good at all where there is a lot of noise reduction loss even before you check out the full resolution image.

0 upvotes
Sk8trguy
By Sk8trguy (8 months ago)

add another who disagrees. Even if you are talking about the underexposed area in the ISO12800 image, overall it is still impressive. My Canon APS camera would look worse.

6 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (8 months ago)

Well I will review them again on my iMac when I get home, but on my work computer (which is a PC, yes, but with a 24inch monitor). I did not look at ISO12800 photos because nobody shoots at ISO12800. However, shooting around ISO1600-3200 is relevant and I was looking at ISO2000 and ISO3200 portraits. Specifically the first two photos. I see loss of detail due to noise processing. It is hard for me to compare to OMD at ISO3200 because i don't shoot OMD at JPEG either, I don't like how it renders photographs at higher ISOs in JPEG. However I do shoot OMD in RAW up to ISO3200 and get consistently good photos with lots of detail at ISO3200 which clean up easily in Lightroom. Example http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Events/Birthdays/Lika-2012-at-Romanoff/i-LzcDhng/0/X3/_DBR0124-X3.jpg

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

some makers cook raw files heavily, too. for JPEG, I think Pana has less failures/artificials than Oly or Pentax.

anyways we cannot just judge by these samples because we don't know the environment or the subjects, what they really look like.

I suggest shooting a same subject with random fine details from a tripod at base and high ISO settings, so that we will be able to see how noise reduction can perform (better all high ISO shots come with a base ISO one as much as possible).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (8 months ago)

The text on the globe (around central/SE China in particular) is almost unbelievably sharp at 100% crop.

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (8 months ago)

@Absolutic: I opened the first two male portraits at full size, and they are plenty detailed. Especially the older man's - the pores on his forehead are very clear, and the hair in his moustache and beard is very crisp. Looking at your image though, I don't understand what your beef is - the skin is smoothed and looks completely waxy, and the eyelashes are all smudged. I can't see how your image is more detailed than the GX7 samples.

0 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

@ Absolutic, I completely agree with you. Ignore the buffoons that are saying "12800 looks great what are you complaining about" nobody shoots that so why not look at the ISO 200 shot with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 (the little girl, birdhouses, etc...) and then post a comment. They look like crap for IQ, but good for colors and dynamic range handling.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (8 months ago)

Chris96326, I am glad someone saw exactly the same thing I did.
Vlad, what can I say, lets agree to disagree.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

I find the noise reduction not that bad, not blotchy, like we know it from Sony. But, I see a lot of good detail when it are portrait or close-up shots, in landscape and wide angle shots, there is not that much detail. Look the greenhouses, there is no real sharpness in that shot. If you check the picture with the fountain, you will see amazing good detail in the house, the bricks are sharp, and if you look grass, trees, nature, there is no real good detail in there, while being on same distance. It seems to me that the sensor struggles with green color and circular objects. The shot with the child is terrible.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (8 months ago)

Any chance of taking a long night-exposure of the stars, aurora or a night cityscape? Something in the 10 second or more range lowest ISO and ISO400 or more would be awesome, as that is something all of my micro 4/3 cameras over the years would struggle with. Lightning shots were never really "pow" shots like with my old Sony DSC-R1 had.

I've owned G1 and the GH2, and after a few tries with long night exposures, have sort of put it aside until technology catches up on these smaller cameras.

0 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (8 months ago)

hi, I didn't even have any problems with my G3 and could produce better results than some apsc cameras. there are no stars in my tumblr, http://www.tumblr.com/blog/thomasdraschan but some long exposures, mostly 60 sec exposure. I did stars too, it works.... the epl5 has a much better sensor than the g3 and the results are amazing.

1 upvote
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Lightning shots are no problem at all. May be it were the lenses? I have shot lightning with the GH2 and it was okey. The GH2 sensor is really much better than your Sony sensor in that cam as nice as the R1 was. But I recently took some lightning shots under subpar conditions (did use a tripod because I forgto it, so they are just fixed on my dashboard...).

EPL5 is clearly better than Gh2 though that is true.

1 upvote
draschan
By draschan (8 months ago)

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=765294 the winning picture got shot with an omd

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

The OMD is great at it from what I have seen, no argument.

The older Panasonic sensors (G1, GH2) would produce a mottled-looking dark background instead of a film-like grain gradient. Also they are very bad at hot pixel noise, which is worse the longer the exposure no matter the ISO or using dark-frame. You can get fake stars in post if two hot pixels are adjacent. Re-mapping doesn't help BTW as they are not saturated pixels, only more sensitive by a little.

Once I noticed these problems, I couldn't let it go as it looks very unnatural and almost impossible to remove in post. I do have some great lightning shots, but the dark sky backgrounds are still mottled, and it does show up in print. I also have to manually remove the hot pixel noise for those few fake stars. I also had problems with horizontal streak noise from interference on both cameras on anything but the lowest ISO if I pulled the exposure at all of the darks.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (8 months ago)

That pancake lens performs quite well.

.

7 upvotes
Markol
By Markol (8 months ago)

It's good but I see nothing the E-M5 could not do, do you?
Not that I did expect that.

2 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (8 months ago)

But then you'd have to shoot an Oly lol ...

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

I'd be perfectly fine with image quality = E-M5.

The GX7 is a better ergonomic fit for me.

6 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

I can't sse whether something is exposed at 1/8000s. But as my EPL5 has the very same IQ is an OMD, my impression based on these JPGs is that the higher ISO's if the GX7 indeed look better than the ones my EPL5 can shoot.

When I heard it was a Panny sensors, I was not very happy with it. I feared another rehash of the GH2 sensor, which is not as good as the EPL5 and for me would not suffice. But if these JPGs are an indication of what we can expect in DR, in RAW, tonailyt etc than it seems very close to the Sony 4/3 sensors and that is good enough for me.

2 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

@ Markol, The E-M5 can do all this (got one... loving it), but the GX7 form factor is the major difference. It is like the nex-7 series and when I had that camera, l loved using it and it made me shoot more. As for the E-M5, it is a bit cramped for me with my average sized hands. I mean cramped both in size and buttons, but the performance is what keeps it my prime camera. With the GX7, if I can mount my current m4/3 lenses, half are Lumix anyhow, to a GX7 form factor camera, I see that as win win. Ever shoot an Nex-7? It may just be the form factor that dominates the mirrorless market on day.

Also, these images don't look that good. I am keeping my fingers crossed that they were compressed for the web and not out of camera.

1 upvote
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (8 months ago)

Yowza! ISO 25600 in good light looks very usable.

I suspect that Panasonic is doing some very heavy NR in the shadows for their JPEGS in order to accomplish this, but they are doing an excellent job overall. I doubt the RAW files will look as good, but most camera buyer only use JPEGs (unlike us here).

4 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Well, actually that is where this sensor seems to have gained a lot in RAW too. Sure the high ISO shots are smudged etc, no doubt. But the RAWs I saw were MUCH better than the G6 RAWS at high ISO. So it is simply a better sensor at high ISO (unless Panny changed the ISO ratings drastically).

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Is this a preproduction body? And is that the reason there are no raws for download?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

It's a production-quality sample. And we'll share Raw files soon (the camera isn't shipping yet and currently they're not readable by most raw converters).

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

B--

Okay, but I always like to have raws on hand for testing as soon as significant raw extraction software is available for that file type.

Obviously for raw capable cameras, it's a really bad idea to draw conclusions about IQ from jpegs. (Jpeg engines are a different story.)

Then since this camera may not be on display at my local retailer the week it starts to ship, I won't be able to get raws there, so I look for raws here, or at other digital camera websites.

So how about sharing a 4 or 5 raws? I'll see if UFRaw can do the extraction, and then wait for C1 or ACR.

0 upvotes
Cipher
By Cipher (8 months ago)

I'm impressed wit the high ISO shots. Panasonic wasn't kidding about the improvements to their sensor. If Olympus wasn't coming out with something next month, I'd jump on the GX7. But I'll be patient and wait. If the cost really is 1500 Euro for the new OM-D, the GX7 will be my choice.

5 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

As much as I hope that the new OMD is even better, the first signs are that it will not be mch better in the IQ deprtment. But that is okey, I am perfectly happy with that. What is more importantis that it has a good cahcne of being suoperior in the AF-C department. And that is not something many people will use a GX7 for I think.

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

Really need to see something that test out the DR range though as these high iso shots don't at all.

0 upvotes
Aswitcher
By Aswitcher (8 months ago)

I hope they do a few more with moving subjects and other lenses. So far not bad.

0 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (8 months ago)

NEX-7 successor is about to be released. Decisions, decisions!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Why? There’ll be better Nex cameras, APSC sensors usually do high ISOs better than m4/3s sensors (no, I don’t want to read claims about the Olympus OMD which struggles at ISO 1600), and APSC sensors always do shallow DOF better. Then last Sony has started to work out some of the lens problems with the Nex system, and good m4/3s lenses remain expensive. So except for lenses the Nex 7 is an excellent camera.

0 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (8 months ago)

Having owned the E-M5 and several NEX cameras, I can say the latest m43 cameras equal NEX at most higher ISOs. The E-M5 does have better IS and a better lens selection with faster apertures though. Let's see how well the GX7 IBIS is and if Sony ever put IS on a NEX body to use with every lens and save money.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

JHF--

What raw extraction software are you using and do you own the Nex 5, 5n or 6? Frankly even my 2010 Samsung NX (with the latest firmware and shooting raw) beats current Olympus m4/3s above ISO 1600.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (8 months ago)

M4/3 is a winning format for most people's need I guess.
This baby seems to be superb.
Pana made a great job...
Who believed it some 10 years ago that Pana is going to be amongst the leading players in photography?

13 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (8 months ago)

>Who believed it some 10 years ago that Pana is going to be amongst the leading players in photography?

A: Leica?

8 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Well I own three m43 camera's and two are a Panny. I like them a lot but how is Panny a worldleader? It is still trying to be but truth is that saleswise they are outclassed by quite a few competitors. Not that I mind, I just buy cams that suite me. And this baby seems a good candidate.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
cocopro
By cocopro (8 months ago)

M4/3, when on sale, is a winning format. Nothing beats a $199 GX1, but there are many options @ $1000. At least Panny is doing better than Oly, EP5@ $1000, new OMD rumored @$1500. Well, I guess die-hard fan boys will find a way to justify their purchase over full frame.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Olymore
By Olymore (8 months ago)

Personally I wouldn't want a FF regardless of cost. Give me one tomorrow and it will be on ebay the next day.
Maybe you can't afford a FF outfit but many of us who can, buy M43 for other reasons like size and weight and maybe also because nobody is going to care or notice that your pictures were taken on a FF or on M43.
So I would buy a $1500 M43 no matter how cheap a FF camera was.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (8 months ago)

Hmmm... It's more expensive than a NEX6... I'm anticipating the full review.

1 upvote
aris14
By aris14 (8 months ago)

Also better as it seems...

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

It's not at all for sure that it's better. The NEX6 using the terrific 16 mp Sony Exmor, which was the benchmark APS-C sensor for several years and is still being used in quite a few newer cameras like the Pentax K50, K-5 II, and Coolpix A.

Differences in format, and DOF aside, until the GX7 sensor is tested nobody knows if it's going to match the Sony Exmor performance wise.

1 upvote
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

It doesn't matter if the Nex sensor is a hair better or not. What good is it without lenses? I can count all the lenses for Nex on my two hands... :)

3 upvotes
DoctorJerry
By DoctorJerry (8 months ago)

And how many lenses do you really use? Studies show that way less than half the people with a interchangeable lens camera ever change their lenses. A larger sensor, such as on the NEX 6, which I have, provides far greater detail at higher ISO settings. I have had a number of 4/3 cameras each time hoping that it will produce good images in low light. I am continually disappointed. If all you every do is shoot in bright light, then even a throw away camera will work, if if low light is where you are, then the larger sensors are really a must.

0 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (8 months ago)

@DoctorJerry, it isn't about sensors, it is about lenses. Sony needs to get some fast glass past 50mm and they just don't have it.

I don't understand how studies justify a lack of lenses, but enjoy that Sony koolaid you're drinking. I bet most of those folks shoot in the green auto mode anyhow, maybe Sony should get rid of the PASM part of the camera too.

If there were more bright lenses to choose from, one would not have to use high ISO settings and lose detail. I found the link below and compared RAW at ISO 1600 (change the first camera - the rest match up) and see how the Nex-6 doesn't do so well. I sold off my Nex equip and migrated to m4/3 based on my real world shots and frustration with the slow reacting nex camera in general. Having an online comparison back up my choice is comforting.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8599640731/panasonic-gx7-first-impressions-review/2

1 upvote
historianx
By historianx (8 months ago)

So this is why the GX1's body prices have plummeted to near $200. Impressive.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

The GX1 prices plummeted long before the GX7 was announced.

0 upvotes
Sean65
By Sean65 (8 months ago)

Making it one of the best bang for buck cameras available today.

6 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (8 months ago)

Because that is the nature of older m4/3 bodies. It was past due for a replacement. And as another poster mentioned, it is probably the best bang for the buck out there. Remember that you can hack the video and audio too ...

1 upvote
vadimraskin
By vadimraskin (8 months ago)

Nice images, high ISO shots are impressive but I will wait to see what Oly has to offer in September.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

Another really important point is that ALL recent Panasonic cameras will use 1/(2 times the focal length) or 1/60 of a second, whichever is faster, for Auto ISO shots in Program priority mode unless the ISO is already maxed out. Almost all of the dpreview shots in low light are at 1/60 of a second and almost none of them have any motion.

If dpreview had taken a shot with any motion at all under those conditions it would have been readily apparent that the shutter speed was too slow. Nikon cameras have a min shutter speed function that would prevent this from happening. In fact the really inexpensive Panasonic LX7 has the same function.

Maybe if dpreview pointed this out Panasonic would do something about it? They seem to listen to what dpreview says.

1 upvote
ManuH
By ManuH (8 months ago)

On the GH2 I used there was a really neat feature called intelligent ISO, it was detecting motion and adjusted shutter speed accordingly. Brilliant. I hope the GX-7 is having that feature.

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

Panasonic cameras have iAuto mode too, which either boosts the shutter speed if there is a lot of movement in the scene or slows it down if it feels like it can take it without causing blur.

3 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

The GX7 looks great. However, dpreview needs to stop treating m4/3s like it is Full frame when selecting the aperture. Several shots are at F10 and one is at F11. Absolutely NONE of the m4/3s lenses are sharp at those apertures.

In addition dust specs show up when stopped down that much which is evident in at least one of the images they posted.

I don’t know whether it is just pure laziness or whether they really think that m4/3s has too shallow depth of field to use anything but F10. If that is the case then why is everyone still talking about “equivalence”?

The only way that you could get a properly exposed image with these apertures is to explicitly select that aperture or use shutter priority with too slow of a shutter speed. Both of those show a lack of understanding of the m4/3s system.

If you really want to give m4/3s a fair demonstration learn how to use it properly instead of just shooting with it like it is Full Frame.

15 upvotes
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

Good point, I would have liked to have seen the 1/8000 shutter speed put to the test as well.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

Remember these are test shots, so for a lot of them, I purposefully put the camera in 'P' mode to see what apertures it would select in different lighting conditions. Turns out that like a lot of M43 cameras, the GX7 will happily select somewhat small apertures in bright conditions when left to its own devices.

See? We learned something.

23 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

Not a single picture at 1/8000 of a second which no other Panasonic m4/3s camera can do, and yet they used F11.0. Why?

5 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

Barney,

Was that with Auto ISO or full manual ISO? Is it any different if you selected Auto ISO?

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

Various, tbh. The shots in P mode were mostly in Auto ISO though (same rationale).

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

I agree that does show us something since that was in Program mode. I don't believe my GH3 does the same thing though. I have never seen it select that high of an aperture value in Program mode. I use auto ISO though. I wonder if it changes the cameras logic?

0 upvotes
xlynx9
By xlynx9 (8 months ago)

I had a look at the EXIF data, and it looks like those shots were taken in iAuto mode, so it was the firmware selecting those apertures.

I think these images were just supposed to show what to expect out of the box.

0 upvotes
xlynx9
By xlynx9 (8 months ago)

@mpgxsvcd probably because the firmware decided the scene had "depth" so stopped down to get it in focus.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

Apparently the camera was prioritized to shoot at lower ISO whenever possible since it judged that the noise may be more detrimental to the images than deflection used by that particular lens at that specific aperture. In these test photos using kit lens (and preproduction firmware), I think we should pay more attention to ISO and DR, as sharpness can be substantially impacted by the lens (and/or aperture used).

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (8 months ago)

Were those program priority or full IAuto? Intelligent Auto is about the dumbest mode on Panasonic cameras. It does everything it can to mess the shot up.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

I didn't use iAuto.

2 upvotes
igorek7
By igorek7 (8 months ago)

If even the pre-release firmware had some bugs for the P-mode, how could a photographer have not try others? Here is, for example, a 1/8000 sec shot with the Panasonic GX7 http://www.flickr.com/photos/wasabi_bob/9453609411/

2 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (8 months ago)

As we all know, DPReview is not an enthusiast targeted site. Mom and Pop are the targets (or maybe their kids these days) and that means all auto most of the time. Fuji takes it on the chin and it appears that Panny does too in this case. Of course, if you want to shoot in an auto mode, iA+ makes a whole lot more sense than P. But I have learned to enjoy the high ISO and studio comparison tool and essentially ignore the text and many of the samples.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

"DPReview is not an enthusiast targeted site. Mom and Pop are the targets (or maybe their kids these days)"

Oh yeah? Someone forgot to tell me.

4 upvotes
chriswall
By chriswall (8 months ago)

The harbour panorama is remarkable; presumably done in camera as a jpg.

1 upvote
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

I thought the same, at full resolution I couldn't see a single stitch line.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (8 months ago)

I see lots of stitching artifacts in the clouds. Still, it's pretty impressive for a casual pano.

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

Just to clear up the confusion, is this firmware 0.3 or 1.0?

1 upvote
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

EXIF data says 0.3, that's even more impressive because image quality is only going to get BETTER.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

I am assured that our camera represents final shipping-sample quality, so things are unlikely to change (I asked about the FW version too, but that's what I've been told).

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

Barney, Have you guys shot any sample images with the G6? How do they compare? Does GX7 really have a new, and better, sensor?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

Working on it ;)

1 upvote
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Wow...look at the high ISO's. Sometimes they shoot at 1/4000 s....so it is high ISO but not low light. These can look pretty good. Hwoever: the bike shot for instance is 1/20 s and I do see detail, I do not see smudging nd I do not see too much noise. Or theyir JPEG engine is fantastic, or their ISO 6400 is ISO 1600 in reality or it is a bot of all and a very good sensor. I still keep reservations, but this looks really better than my EPL5 at high ISO.

0 upvotes
Kund
By Kund (8 months ago)

Impressive!

+ i never thought that 14-42mm II kit lens, would be that sharp...

1 upvote
xlynx9
By xlynx9 (8 months ago)

I had high hopes, but I wasn't expecting them to look this good.

6 upvotes
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

September can't come soon enough!

0 upvotes
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (8 months ago)

Images are very encouraging. GX7 looks a winner.

3 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

Nice images, it seems to handle high contrast scene well, suggestive of improvement in DR, and high ISO images are also quite clean. I have a GH1 and am impressed by how this camera handles skin tone indoors. The new 20/1.7 is still as sharp as the old and seems to render background a little smoother, although there is no side by side comparison. Wonder how do these images compare to those of the G6?

3 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

I do not think so. That is my only true reservation but I may be looking in the wrong place. When I look at the clouds I still see the detail is lost in the highlights. Mightbe the JPEG engine.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

I simply viewed these full screen as I would normally do. However I did not see blown highlights in the clouds. I did see some blown highlight on the top of bald head :) I too assume these were JPEGs and in JPEGs, you could still see blown highlights using the OMD sensors. However this problem has been reduced to the degrees that most people would not find it too objectionable in casual daily use of these cameras. It is certainly about time for me to replace the GH1.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (8 months ago)

Good photos but when i compare it to my D7100/Tokina 11-16/Tamron 24-70vc 2.8 i can tell instantly that is a pocket quality.

Quality is subjective, and hard subject to argue but i can assure you that mirrorless is not there yet.

I am not a fan or a boy but Nikon DSLR leave this in the dust as far as pure IQ.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

laughable...Let's compare a $1000 camera w/lens to a $2500+ set-up, HOW FUN!

3 upvotes
Sean65
By Sean65 (8 months ago)

The quality of these samples is very good. The available light bar shot at ISO 1000 is really quite impressive.
Because Nikon make great SLR's should become grounds for dismissing other camera brands and types is a bit immature.

I'm quite impressed with this camera. So will my shoulder be.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

Not sure what specifically did you mean by "not there," which is why people here questioned your judgement and fairness. Many of us also own Nikon, you know? Keep in mind that most of these images were shot with the kit lens. Look at those shot by the $400 20/1.7 lens for sharpness and bokeh. Both lenses you mentioned for your 7100 have pro-level glass so they should be very sharp.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (8 months ago)

its can not match even my previous nikon D3200 which is 500$ cam

http://g2.img-dpreview.com/EB0D51594169488FAE790D77554894D2.jpg

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/33C63F1230C34C4EBE1D8044D561C410.jpg

Good but not a DSLR IQ

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

Can you actually point to a "pocket camera" that these compare to? I mean, a pocket camera like the Sony RX1 will easily beat your D7100 in high iso ;)

15 upvotes
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

D3200? Yea ok there SamboTroll.

4 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Mirrorless has got nothing to do with it. As if you cannot use this sensor in a Samsung or Sony APS-c mirrorless...
You compare apples and oranges with those lenses.

Mirrorless is here for a multitiude of people, because the IQ is similar to your D7100 (APS-c and m43 mirrorless) but the size is not. Fortunately for us.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Sambo....what am I supposed to see in your pics that a m43s, Samsung NX300 or Sony NEX with the right lens cannot do? First pic is not very sharp btw. Not a problem with a portrait, but as we look at max IQ it does not seem ot be such a good example.

2 upvotes
xlynx9
By xlynx9 (8 months ago)

The test shots are here for technical analysis, attempting to push the camera beyond its limits. It is not a promotional showcase. Your examples are under good lighting with what looks like a premium portrait lens. I found other shots in your album which are quite noisy in comparison.

0 upvotes
mattmtl
By mattmtl (8 months ago)

As long as my camera produces good, usable pictures I do not care if another $1000 and/or pound of weight will get me an incremental improvement in test-chart shooting ability. I want a camera that I am comfortable carrying *anywhere* I go.

For me and a lot of other people, the DSLR just isn't "there" yet. I'm not convinced it ever will be. Some of the bodies are impressively small, but they still have to contend with bigger lenses.

To those of us for whom size and/or weight and/or discretion matter (hikers, street shooters, etc.), a camera like this is a great option.

It's not such a good option if sports or action are your thing, but for all kinds of other use cases it makes a DSLR largely obsolete.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

Probably shouldn't get into this argument, but actually, several of the GX7 portrait samples where taken with the 20 1.7 (a combo that is more expensive than the D7100 / 35 f/1.8). So price has nothing to do with it. And the 20 f/1.7 is one of the very best m43 lenses, so I completely disagree with Jorginho that it's an "apples to oranges" comparison. And it's not only the lens that makes sambomax's samples look so fantastic, it's the shallow DOF and the rendering.

Honestly I was expecting a bit more from these GX7 samples, particularly the ones made with the 20 f/1.7. I understand that these are JPEGs, but based on these samples, no I wouldn't say "IQ is similar to the D7100". It's really not all that similar. But that doesn't mean the GX7 is not an excellent camera.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

These images were not taken to optimize for resolution and sharpness of the sensor. All outdoor pictures were taken with the kit lens which is known to be mediocre. The excellent 20/1.7 was used indoors, but it was shot almost exclusively wide open with shutter speed at 1/50 or 1/60. Thus sharpness could have been reduced by shallow DOF and motion blur. However it seems to me that the new 20 has better rendering in bokeh so it is also possible that in the new version they trade sharpness for softer bokeh.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (8 months ago)

Mr Hamilton
what do u mean? want to see the exif?

Jorginho
APSC mirrors can match DSLR but lack of good lenses is a major problem. M4/3 is a temporary product line to be soon disappear. APSC mirrors-less has a great potential as the lenses selection evolves.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (8 months ago)

@sambo
Your D7100 surely is an excellent camera, but I think your view is very limited. Yes, the selection of lenses for m4/3 is smaller than that of APS-C, but the quality is on par. I do not think that you could tell from this shot, that is was made with a "pocket cam":
http://www.cscrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Olympus-Zuiko-M-Digital-75mm-F1.8-lens-for-Micro-Four-Thirds-2.jpeg

Personally, I hope that m43 will last, because I will never want to buy a large, heavy and noisy DSLR. It's good to have a choice.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

I do not think the Samsung NX300 has bad lenses. I do not think that Fuji has bad lenses. They have some very good lenses and sensors, especially Fuji it seems. I can agree that m43 output looks like pocket cam output, but it depends what model you mean.

Aal things in this universe are here for some time and dissapear so I am sure DSLR, m43s and all cams we see around today will dissapear sooner or later.

In the meanwhile I enjoy the m43 format and I hope you enjoy whatever you shoot with.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

@Marike: Sambo was reffering to thw D71000 11-16 and 24-70 lenses. These are not comparable to the 20 mm lens as a price combination nor the way the pics will look. The 20 mm is pretty bad portrait lens for example. It is a sharp lens, true, but it deforms pretty badly. And the combo is cheaper than the kit he mentiions (D7100: 24-70 and 11-16 mm).

Besides: we are looking at JPG output, so we cannot be sure how well (or how poor) it performs in RAW relative to these JPGs.

We both know she means the outut is as goo as an average pocket ca, ot the RX1 or thatFuji x100s. With such a attitude or such eyes, your peception of IQ is quite distorted I think.

0 upvotes
halfwaythere
By halfwaythere (8 months ago)

The globe picture is pretty impressive.

5 upvotes
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

I agree, ISO12800 and you can still read all the countries on the full rez image. Leaves my E-P3 in the dust.

2 upvotes
mattmtl
By mattmtl (8 months ago)

I don't know or care whether Panasonic has made huge strides in sensor tech or has simply started using Sony chips... this and the barroom shots @ ISO 2000 and 3200 have me seriously tempted to get in a preorder queue. Yes, the shadows in the globe picture are nasty, but look at the detail in the well-lit areas. Wow.

I know base ISO of 200 isn't so great for those who want low ISOs for large-aperture daylight photography, but I think those of us who like shooting at night are in for a treat with this camera.

1 upvote
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (8 months ago)

If the GH3 is any indicator, the ISO125 on the GX7 will also be VERY useable.

0 upvotes
tipple
By tipple (8 months ago)

sambomax: are we looking at the same samples? They look very good to me.

3 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (8 months ago)

DSLR Price, high end pocket quality

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (8 months ago)

In what way did you find the quality to be like a compact camera?

9 upvotes
g7star
By g7star (8 months ago)

DSLR quality, high end pocket size

12 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (8 months ago)

Please point me to a compact camera that can do ISO 6400 as well as image P1030161 as I'd buy it straight away!

Or were you talking about high-end compacts like the Fuji X100? :)

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (8 months ago)

quit feeding the troll

3 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (8 months ago)

Translation: "I need some attention!" Satisfied?

2 upvotes
Total comments: 148