Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 samples gallery updated

By dpreview staff on Oct 10, 2013 at 18:04 GMT
Buy on GearShop$958.676 deals

We've been taking plenty of photos while working on our upcoming review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7. Our samples gallery has been updated with an additional fifteen photos to tide you over until the review is posted. Click the link below to see glass sculptures, a beautiful sunset, and a defunct nuclear plant.

304
I own it
148
I want it
28
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 73
arfclarke1954
By arfclarke1954 (6 months ago)

Lack of quality in these sample shots would certainly taint my view on the validity of the m 4/3 system.... thankfully better examples exist elsewhere even if they come from a competing brand ... Yes I do mean the Oly OMD ..... If I were Panasonic ( Lumix ) I would be highly disappointed with this offering as a representative of the DMC GX7.... come on DPReview .... lift your game.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

I’ve been looking at some raws I shot as a test; the image quality of the camera is plenty good, but not with the kit-zoom. And the video with th kit-zoom is actually horrid.

My samples shot with the 25mm F1.4 PanaLeica look excellent even in bad lighting.

I look forward to trying the Olympus.

0 upvotes
QBNY
By QBNY (6 months ago)

Typical Olympus Fanboy Response...

GX7 got you nervous?

0 upvotes
tobias2003
By tobias2003 (6 months ago)

I have the camera and I love it! High ISO is on par with any other sensors smaller than full frame ... except Fuji X-Trans ... but pretty good anyway.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Seems to get some magenta blotching in shadows at about IS0 6400. While the Fujis don't have this problem.

Though the PanaLeica F1.4 25mm lens helps with higher ISOs.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

I’ve looked at my raws in greater depth:

I don’t think that this Panasonic GX7 can match a good APSC sensored camera for high ISO shooting–it doesn’t really come real close to the Nikon D7100, the Sony Nex 5R, or the Samsung NX300. It’s not a bad high ISO camera, but one does have to use the best lenses available to get good high ISO shots–that’s 6400 and above.

So no, one doesn't have to use a full frame camera to beat this Panasonic for high ISO shooting; including the Fujis as one camera, there are at least 4 APSC sensored bodies that beat this Panasonic for shooting at high ISOs.

0 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (6 months ago)

So for guys like you that only ever shoot in near darkness at over ISO3200 this cameras a bust eh, that sucks

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

cheddar:

So you missed the reason for using high ISOs in bright daylight. You don’t understand that zoom lenses are slower, so to stop action in say tennis, you’ll need to use a higher shutter speed, and can’t compensate for that higher shutter speed by opening up the lens. There be other reasons to use a smaller aperture and higher ISO, like increasing DOF.

It’s not so much that this body can’t be used at ISO3200–not the real choice for shooting in pitch black–it’s that at ISO 6400 it begins to show some blotching in the shadows. So you’ll need a better lens at that ISO and going beyond 6400 will be problematic.

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

IS cheddar cheesed off?

ISO 3200 near darkness, you really don't have a clue.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

A smaller sensor like the micro 4/3 will always be worse off compared to a bigger sensor like full frame or even APS-C as far a noise is concern at higher ISOs.

Micro 4/3 cameras are convenient to use especially for travel but it will never match a full frame DSLR. That's the reason why I have to use both. A full frame DSLR is still mandatory for professional quality shots especially if one require poster size 20" x 30" enlargements.

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (6 months ago)

I understand that what samples are intended to provide is something approximating a basic for objective comparisons; I also know that in this case RAW files would lend additional information - and better lenses also would. But let's give sore view guys some credit for what is provided in these samples.

Listen, "fanboy" is becoming a bit tired. I get the usage of the term, but still...

In reference to expense, my older G2 does very well with the Leica 25mm F1.4 - but I tend to use ISO 100 quite a bit and RAW files. Minor post processing after. My stuff is currently in a pretty high level international jurored exhibition. I have no complaints, given what I use m4/3 for. That said, the high price of this new Lumix while the m4/3 sensors still struggle greatly at high ISO is problematic. For general appeal to most consumers needs, m4/3 sensors in Lumix brand will have to improve. The OMD has stepped up expectations considerably.

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (6 months ago)

*dpreview guys*

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (6 months ago)

DPR is a free site that provides very helpful reviews and, on occasion, articles that challenge our perception about art photography. Maybe we should learn to say thank you.

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (6 months ago)

On several occasions I've referred students to this site. Feedback from them was largely positive after visiting, but more than a few came back and said something to the effect of comments being mean in tone. One guy - and I will always remember this - said, "some of these dudes seem like they need to get l**d. Ladies too." From the mouths of babes - well I guess 20 year olds are not children, most of them.

0 upvotes
bilcobarnes21
By bilcobarnes21 (6 months ago)

I dont understand what enjoyment people get, constantly bashing products, its rare people commment on these forums with something pleasant to say about a camera, its either pulling a camera to pieces or defending their prize possession by castigating the enemys camera/Brand of choice

I also think people shold realise what sort of a camera the GX7 is before comparing with their male jewerlally, D800's and Nano coated prime lenes or such like.

it really does take me a back, people need to get a life, i dont understand why they do it, especially when so many good dating sites are avaiable for these guys at the touch of a button.

You Know who you are..

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

This is a very nice camera, I wish it were a tiny bit better at high ISOs--like 6400 and above.

0 upvotes
Kurnia Lim
By Kurnia Lim (6 months ago)

I wonder why you need iso 6400?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Kumina--

I'm wondering why you'd ask?

Do you only shoot outside during the day.

In poorly illuminated interiors do you always use a flash?

In poorly illuminated interiors is it always possible to shoot at F0.95 at 1/4 sec exposure?

High ISO capacities is one of the big things about digital photography that put the nail in the coffin of most film still photography.

You need to imagine that there's a world of photography with which you're not familiar.

Oh, higher ISOs sure help when shooting an outdoor well lit sporting event with a zoom lenses, since then the slower zooms can be used with higher shutter speeds.

0 upvotes
jimread
By jimread (6 months ago)

Hello Bilcobarnes,

I have something pleasant to say regarding a Panny G2 and a Canon 5D both 12mp. I took two pics of the same subject with each camera, G2 with 20mm and 5D with 50mm. And then got some 18" x 12" prints done, much to my surprise expecting the 5D ones to be much better especially with a landscape image, they were indistinguishable.

It seems to me that many of the opinions expressed all over this site are for and by nit'pic'kers rather than photographers.

Cheers - Jim

0 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (6 months ago)

Well said Bilco.

As for ISO6400: I shoot weddings and I think I once shot around the ISO5000 mark. That was with a 6D. The reality is that having great ISO6400 is way down on the list of priorities for the majority

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

cheddar:

Try shooting a more challenging interior than a wedding. They’re really easy to find. Then you’ll discover why ISO 12800 makes work so much easier.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

jimread:

At base ISO there shouldn't be much difference, unless you're using one of the better Canon 50mm lenses. Bet the Canon would best the G2 at ISO 1600.

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

I hope the better lenses show this sensor is much more capable. These shots are exceeded by the rx100 which is smaller and longer zoom. Its a pity we cant see real representations with the top end glass.

These sorts of shots reiterate that mft with basic zooms are a poor choice and the platform really requires top notch lenses coupled with skilled processing to excel to even the level of basic modern aspc alternatives in the price range.

I understand that better glass yields much better results, i just hope beginners and minor hobbyists who wont use better lenses stick with either advanced compacts or larger sensors.

For example. The nex 6 powerzoom lens is bad, worse than the old larger 18-55 and shot like this blows away the new panasonic. For less money and around the same size...

I was hoping to move to a mft and pan 7-14 for interior shots but the sensor may not be able to capture the detail I'm after

Reserve judgment for better photographers using better lenses.

0 upvotes
Tanngrisnir3
By Tanngrisnir3 (6 months ago)

No, these shots don't reiterate that at all, esp. in comparison to 'basic modern ASPC alternatives'.

Please know what you're talking about before actually talking.

1 upvote
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

I don't understand what objection you're making. Please clarify.

If its that nex 6 kit lens outperforms these shots, we just have to disagree. The results here are nothing close to sharp but i did specify id reserve final judgment for better lenses and raw processing.

In fact the rx100 pocket camera will produce sharper results than this kit shown in jpg here

0 upvotes
nevada5
By nevada5 (6 months ago)

The detail on the prop blades at maximum magnification might help you gauge the IQ of the camera. This image: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2717767/p9200378?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-samples

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

And non-studio scene raws would help a lot more when judging image quality of this new Panasonic GX7.

ACR 8.2 extracts these raws, albeit DPReview did post a few studio raws a while back, but can we see regular out and about raws? And let’s skip the IQ claims based on jpegs, with any camera that shoots raw.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Given that the latest Adobe Camera Raw extracts GX7 raws, can we get some raws for download?

2 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (6 months ago)

I take these were jpegs ooc? at higher ISO detail is smudged. Look at the face and eyebrows here:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2657714/p1030193?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-samples

they look like watercolor.

1 upvote
nevada5
By nevada5 (6 months ago)

There should be a law against posting an image of someone's face that can be magnified to that extent. That ain't right.

I felt that ISO 3200 was a step too far with my NEX-6 - even with raw. On the GX7 I'm also comfortable with ISO 1600. In my experience any IQ difference between the NEX-6 and GX7 is too close to call.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

nevada5:

Do you own or have you shot with the GX7?

0 upvotes
nevada5
By nevada5 (6 months ago)

I've had mine for about 10 days. Lots to like if you prefer a rangefinder-style camera.

1 upvote
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

Interesting analysis. Im assuming you are shooting raw. I am borrowing a nex 6 right now and 3200 is fine, if properly exposed, which is about +1 ev usually in dim light. The kit lens is awful on the nex at wide but corrects ok. As a kit i don't feel the kit lens on nex 6 exceeds the rx100 in anything but iso performance by about one stop. But with the cheap 50 or my contax 45/2 the nex rivals my 5d2 with 85 1.8 in iso and sharpness.

Id like to run some raws to really see. Panny jpgs have always been, and remain, awful.

Fuji and oly, properly exposed, leave little reason to shoot raw
Nex needs raw unless you carry a grey card and custom wb every shoot. Nex 6 awb is AWFUL.

Still the fastest way to lose interest in a camera is view dpreview samples.

0 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (6 months ago)

biggest problem of this format is dof..even at 40mm f1.7 dof is so so, a little shallower than 1/1.7 compacts...apsc is way to go...

5 upvotes
sbszine
By sbszine (6 months ago)

If you shoot some m4/3, you'll quickly see DoF isn't an issue in practice. You can still take a portrait with just an eye in focus if that's what floats your boat. I actually wish it had a bit more DoF so I wouldn't have to stop down as much for portraits and macro.

14 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (6 months ago)

Just get a longer lens.

2 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (6 months ago)

That type of lens isn't going to give you that much DOF control. Try the 45mm 1.8, which is similar to a 50 1.8 on aps-c. For me it's plenty of DOF control.

1 upvote
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

Getting a longer lens isn't the answer for all dof problems. Compression totally changes shots.

Shoot a 35 1.4 on full frame then get a long lens on mft - yah ok. Same blur, no separation, totally different look, subject distortion differences. A portrait at 300mm is not what id shoot. The face would be narrowly distorted.

3 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (6 months ago)

40mm is 80mm on Ff format right? ... and still so so bacground blurring..shoot with a apsc nex 50mm (75mm FF) f1.8 lens and you'll understand what im trying to say..

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (6 months ago)

@h00ligan

If you need a wide angle lens with FF-like DOF then the Voigtlander 17mm f0.95 will do the trick. The price of an m4/3 camera plus that lens is around the same as a new FF camera plus 35mm f1.4 too.

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

@ijustloveshooting, i thought we agreed. 80 mm ff at 1.8 is a nose tip in focus depending on range far more shallow than aspc

If you are saying 40/1.7 mft =80/1.7 thats incorrect. It would be an 80 @3.4 roughly retaining the similar t stop for a mft lens. The nex would be 1.5 so around 2.7

80@1.8 and 3.4 are different..to achieve the same blur you would need a longer lens which would compress the scene more completely changing the look.

You don't just double the focal range but effective aperture as well, this can be a great benefit in some situations, fast wide is not one.

Theres a chart somewhere i will try to find that illustrates the effect on portraits. The benefit is, double the aperture with half the tstop, good for landscape. You may a,ready be familiar with fstop vs tstop. Some aren't. .

@andy, i agree but with no af/heavy I don't discount mft, i love it. Im just saying there are shortcomings. Im strongly considering the new omd and 7-14 for interior shots.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (6 months ago)

Good Lord Almighty, I declare! They be askin' a huge stack 'o greenbacks for these here Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses!

14 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

Shh, the m4/3 fanbois will hunt you down for that heresy.
I own a m4/3 camera, but only two lenses, they are just too dear.

Oops now I'm a target.

5 upvotes
String
By String (6 months ago)

Because good Nikon and Canon glass is really cheap...

6 upvotes
sbszine
By sbszine (6 months ago)

I love m4/3 stuff, but, yup, they certainly are!

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (6 months ago)

This is not true. A significant number of MFT lenses are as cheap as APS-C lenses will never get. Take, for example, the superb Sigma Art 60mm F2.8, selling for $180, or the super-thin and super AF-fast 14mm 2.5 selling for $190.

7 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (6 months ago)

The Leica 25mm F/1.4 - excellent value at $500.

1 upvote
Mario G
By Mario G (6 months ago)

The Leica 25mm F1.4 is an excellent quality lens but calling it "value" sounds a bit of a stretch at that price... I'd leave "value" for lenses like the $90 Canon/Nikon 50mm F1.8.

0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

Jeff, can you tell us what shutter was used , mechanical or electronic ?

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (6 months ago)

Pretty sure they were all mechanical shutter. That said, the electronic one is great for silent shooting!

0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

Thanks ! I was asking because right now I am contemplating returning my GX7 as I could determine a certain blurr when shooting mechanical , compared to same shot with the electronic shutter . Still unsure however..

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (6 months ago)

Might want to try getting out of the city sometime, fellas. Lots to see.

4 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (6 months ago)

good samples, shows the limitations of the lens, perhaps the format

Ridiculously expensive camera! same pricepoint as a Fuji kit!

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Gryfster
By Gryfster (6 months ago)

Yes but it can actually auto-focus, which makes it a camera that can take pictures vs a theoretically great sensor. Maybe the next eneration Fujis will be more reasonable.

11 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (6 months ago)

and Fujifilm has some very expensive lenses compared to m43, what's your point?

3 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (6 months ago)

Makes me laugh when people bring the Fuji's into the debate. Yep, lovely lenses. Yep, high ISO is better. Both of which are wiped out by its terrible autofocus and not so great manual focus. As for the lenses, the Olympus 75 1.8 is stunning, and compact and the other primes are superb.

2 upvotes
cocopro
By cocopro (6 months ago)

LOL@Olympus 75 1.8, it's a $900 prime, it better be stunning. Most MFT primes are plastic and still expensive, not to mention the fastest you can get from Pany or Oly is only f1.8 after all these years. All you MFTer are bragging about AF, making a impression that SONY and FUJI cameras are unusable, but the truth is, there are plenty of beautiful photos taken by both systems, their AF speed is nowhere near unusable. If you are spoiled by fast AF maybe it's time to think before you shot.

4 upvotes
aljudy
By aljudy (6 months ago)

Correction, Panny has a 25/f1.4 with AF, AND there are many wonderful f0.95 manual-focus lenses, all with very high qualities. Do SONY and FUJI make fast lenses like these?

6 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (6 months ago)

NEX has no lenses faster than f1.8. Fuji has 2. M4/3 has 4 (soon to be 5 with the release of the Panasonic 42.5 f1.2). Back to the drawing board...

3 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

They dont need to, there are so many adaptors and legacy lenses that the sensor can extract more detail from.

Im not anti mft, if you buy the expensive lenses the results are god at moderate print sizes through iso 1600. They are not good for fast wide shots, and pound for pound for beginners, the nex's with pdaf vs mft both with kit lenses, the nex's clobber them in iq at anything over base iso.

Sony has a lot of problems too that mft has solved, mft has better native primes for now and the highe nd bodies handke off camera flash better.

Both systems are imperfect. For someone shooting kids running around yah, mft is probably better at tracking, for a limited about of time. For alt glass users the nex is better.

For those looking to shoot natural light, nex fuji
Those wanting strobe mft

Full frame is getting affordable now sub $2k for a ff kit, you really have to want a small cam to go with either, which i like many do. Im frustrated by fuji raw, mft sensor, nex flash

0 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (6 months ago)

It's the kit, the price and the package that counts. A Fuji kit in the same pricepoint offers a better sensor (try to debate that) and a better kit lens. I think the GX7 seems like a nice camera (even though it weighs as much as a dslr..) but THE PRICE IS COCOLOCO

0 upvotes
cocopro
By cocopro (6 months ago)

aljudy you are right, I forgot to count Leica branded Pany lenses. Still, it's a $500 plastic lens, and you can get 3rd party f0.95 lenses for SONY and FUJI too.
MFT is a decent system, but fanboyism is killing it. All they do is repeating: sensor size means nothing; large lenses are ridiculous; other mirrorless can't AF; and of course IBIS is a mus have. Too bad they can't mention body size anymore, damn you EM1.

0 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (6 months ago)

@cocopro I've owned an X-E1 and an X100, it's not about focus speed it's about the fact that they simply cannot lock on to subjects in even reasonable light.
Still, you're obviously protecting your own little world so I guess dismissing M4/3 makes you content
Also, why does honest opinion instantly mean "fanboyism?" If I'm a fanboy, then I'm a bloody bad one: I currently only shoot Canon

1 upvote
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

I agree fuji has af issues, mostly in lower light. Nex6 has improved a lot with pdaf but limited lenses.

That said i haven't missed a shot with my rx1 and people bash it as slow. I think there are ways to mitigate most slow focus issues that don't involve tracking. I use spot with face detect on sony. Its a good combo without having to change regularly.

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

Great news about the upcoming GX7 review!

8 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (6 months ago)

I have to say, I quite liked those samples.

7 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (6 months ago)

Great IQ for less money, sounds good to me.

8 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (6 months ago)

Agreed on the great IQ, but less money compared to what? Excluding the Oly OMD E-M1 which is a bit of a niche, this GX7 has the top price in MicroFourThirds... most APS-C are cheaper, so you must be comparing to Full Frame?

4 upvotes
jimkh
By jimkh (6 months ago)

No, the GH3, the EM-1 and the EM-5 are more expensive. And yes, I look forward to the full review but whatever happened to a G5 and G6 review?

4 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (6 months ago)

What do you think? Too many cams, so little time.

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (6 months ago)

I don't see the great iq in these. Im not saying its impossible, but these shots with this kit lens in bad jpg rendering certainly don't show me anything a cheaper pocketable camera cant do, and better

Get the kit lens off and process raws, I'm sure the story changes. Hit the fredmiranda thread on rx100 shots and then tell me these are impressive.

I really hope this was set to auto and shot like a point and shoot with no real effort, which is probably the case.

0 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (6 months ago)

@jimkh: OK right, the GH3 is more expensive (but just by ~10%). The EM-5 is actually cheaper (still by ~10%). (body-only prices on amazon.co.uk: EM-5 £723, GX7 £799, GH3 £889)
But anyway, I wouldn't consider these price differences very significant in comparing them, I would just consider all these three together at the top of the price for MFT (excluding the EM-1 as said). The E-P5 should also be among them.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

h00ligan:

For what it’s worth, I shot some in-store test shots with both the kit zoom on the GX7, then I tried the PanaLeica 25mm f/1.4, albeit on a different display body--both bodies shot examples at ISO 6400 into deep shadow next to a light source.

The example of the kit zoom I used was really lacking. While the PanaLeica was excellent.

At lower ISOs, say 1250, the kit zoom improved a bit. Video with the kit zoom was awful, didn't try the PanaLeica for video.

(Here’s another reason DPReview should post raws they shot with the kit zoom on the GX7. Then I could confirm the problems are with the lens generally, not simply the example that I tried.)

0 upvotes
Total comments: 73