Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Real-world Samples

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?

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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

The GX7 is a better ergonomic fit for me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... :)

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

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.

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?

Barney,

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

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

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

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.

I didn't use iAuto.

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/

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).

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.

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.

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 ;)

D3200? Yea ok there SamboTroll.

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.

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.

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.

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.