Previous page Next page

ISO Accuracy

The actual sensitivity of each indicated ISO is measured using the same shots as are used to measure ISO noise levels, we simply compare the exposure for each shot to the metered light level (using a calibrated Sekonic L-358), middle gray matched. We estimate the accuracy of these results to be +/- 1/6 EV (the margin of error given in the ISO specifications). Note that these tests are based on the sRGB JPEG output of the cameras, in accordance with ISO 12232:2006, the standard used by camera manufacturers. In our tests we found that measured ISOs from the GX7 match the marked ISOs within 1/6 stop accuracy, meaning ISO 200 indicated = ISO 200 measured.

Noise and Noise Reduction (JPEG)

Note: this page features our interactive noise comparison widget. By default, we show you the default noise reduction settings of the camera tested, and three other models of the same class. You can select from all available NR options, and from other cameras. The 'tricolor' patches beneath the familiar gray/black/portrait images are taken from the same test chart, and show how noise impacts upon blue, green and red areas of a scene.

ISO range noise comparison

The DMC-GX7 keeps noise levels low through ISO 3200, at which point it takes off rapidly. Above that sensitivity, the GX7 is the second noisiest camera in the group, though this may be due to Panasonic's light application of noise reduction. You can see this in the samples: the images from the other cameras appear blotchy, while the GX7's are grainy.

Noise Reduction Options

The GX7 offers 11 levels of control over noise reduction and their effects are fairly progressive. All settings appear to suppress chroma noise quite aggressively, varying mainly in terms of how heavily luminance noise (and detail) are smothered. As such they're all pretty similar until ISO 800, at which point the lower NR settings begin to show luminance noise more prominently. The higher settings keep luminance noise under control all the way through the ISO range - with the upshot that the higher sensitivities are just mush.

ACR Raw noise (ACR 8.2 noise reduction set to zero)

Adobe tries to calibrate the noise reduction on Camera Raw to normalize the baseline between cameras - so the graphs show essentially the same noise levels but the amount of detail retained in the images differs. As you can see, there's not a major difference between the GX7 and cameras such as the Sony NEX-6, up until the very highest ISO settings.

Previous page Next page
584
I own it
165
I want it
82
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 602
1234
ArnfinnP

I've had my GX7 for a week tomorrow, and have stumbled on a rather interesting problem. In semi dark conditions I sometime get a strong stripy pattern in my pictures, especially when shot with a high ISO. An example is here: www.flickr.com/photos/arnfinnp/11131880726/in/pool-228956.... It was shot with an ISO 800 and f2 at 1/200.

These stipes where not there, though there were patterns of light and dark than might have been accentuated. I had the same problem yesterday, when taking pictures indoors during a lecture: Strong stripes that clearly was not there from the beginning. It looks like a moiré problem to me, probably due to the lack of a anti aliasing filter.

0 upvotes
Cal22

Look for 'Silent Mode' in the chapter 'Features' and what the electronic shutter may do in artificial light!

0 upvotes
TN Args

Yes, that is not moiré, it is the electronic shutter in a flickering (fluorescent) light source.

If you wish to use electronic shutter in fluoro lighting, try setting shutter speed to the same as the mains electricity frequency of the country you are in, e.g. 1/50 sec for 50 Hz.

Also note that for video, if your camera's sensor is not correct for the video system in your country, e.g. a NTSC Area sensor outputting 60 Hz in a country with 50 Hz mains electricity, then your video projects shot in fluorescent lighting will flicker terribly.

2 upvotes
nikonian86

Also GX7 Does have an anti aliasing filter.

0 upvotes
syakirzainol

Hi,

Please advise if this model support wireless flash.

Thank you.

0 upvotes
kpaddler

Yes. Page 224 of the user manual. You can download it.

0 upvotes
SDPharm

Yep. Works with Panasonic DMW-FL360L real well. You can control the level of flash exposure from your camera menu.

0 upvotes
Gekopaca

It seems I'm alone, but I think Panasonic made a big design mistake with the GX7. I recently put my hands on it in a shop (I'm waiting for a Leica-type silent M43 since years!) and was really disapointed where they put the release button - not a classic slightly cambered one in the corner, but a flat profile AFTER the speed dial !!!!
Result : impossible to shoot precisely, and, most of all, impossible to shoot with the second phalanx of the finger which is - all leicaists will confirm that - the best "oneself image stabilization" invented in the history of photography.
Japanese ingineers aren't human or what?!?! What's sure, that they aren't photographers… Too bad! IMHO without this default - unacceptable for my use - the GX7 should be the best camera of the year.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips

It was awkward during the first shooting session - but already on the second one I have used to it and forgotten about it. Really not a big deal.

Also, do not forget that there is a dial around the release button. To be useful, it had to be at the tip of the finger.

0 upvotes
kpaddler

The location of the shutter is exactly were it should be, it is 1.5 knockels from the side of the camera. The way your finger naturally bends. It is exactly the same distance as leica M*-M9/M, Nikon F*-3, all Fs, pre F4, canons pre EOS, Pentaxs, etc. Should I go on?

3 upvotes
T3

You made the very common mistake of making a handling assessment based on very short experience, while comparing it to your own pre-conceived notions and biases. The result was inevitable: you were dissatisfied.

I've used so many different cameras over my life time, it's ridiculous. And every single one seems a bit awkward at first, especially when you approach it with a pre-conceived notion, or are comparing it with something you are more familiar with. Big mistake! Long story short, I got used to every camera I used, and ended up enjoying each one of them!

As for what "all leicaists will confirm", that's a bunch of baloney. Leica rangefinders are very non-ergonomic (their design basically pre-dates the science of ergonomics, which is why Leicas have practically no ergonomic body design considerations), and yet "leicaists" will yap endlessly about how wonderfully ergonomic those cameras are. LOL.

Get over your pre-conceived biases. That's the only problem here. Not the camera.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
kpaddler

I have used leica Ms all my life along with other cameras and never felt the need to define myself as "leicaist". So, no, a "thinking" brain is not fixed on any one design, leica or otherwise.

And, yes, Leica RULES, even if only in my head:-)

3 upvotes
concert photographer

Why is it not possible to use most Olympus lenses on Panasonic cameras? (and vice-versa). I thought they did work together since 7 years to achieve this goal?
I shot some pictures with the 9-18mm on the GX7: horrible! It simply doesn't WORK. Strange that nobody ever tried to do that before! before replying, please TRY yourself.
One issue will be soon the non waterproof tilted viewfinder: five minutes of rain on it in its upwards position and the whole camera is ruined.
Marc

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar

I am using 9-18mm on even GH1 for many years ..
check http://www.flickr.com/photos/hakeem-na/sets/72157628658823079/
or better www.lightnodes.com

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar

it isn't weatherproof!

1 upvote
kpaddler

I tilt the the LVF 90 degree, and lay on my back to avoid water getting in. Works perfectly...

3 upvotes
TN Args

Baseless nonsense claims mate. Go away.

0 upvotes
T3

Not too smart, are you? Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "non waterproof"!!! LOL. That's like complaining that you ruined your non waterproof watch because you wore it while swimming in your pool or taking a shower!!! Duh! It wasn't waterproof, fool!

0 upvotes
Timmbits

@naveed: he is talking about the gx7, not about your gh1.

@kpaddler: rotfl! :D

0 upvotes
nikonian86

I have been using the oly 9-18mm on GX7 and it is my favorite lens. you might have a bad copy.

0 upvotes
steve_hoge

Love the results from the Oly 9-18 on my GX7. The only thing that bugs me is the persistent "nag screen" to extend the lens.

0 upvotes
Ikay

I disagree. I use the Oly 45mm f1.8 on my E-M5 AND my GX7 and get equally great results from both.

0 upvotes
davids8560

I would like to see more weatherproofed MILC's. I mean, "high quality, take everywhere cameras" they say - that is, unless it's cold or it's rainy!

I'm pretty sure only Olympus has weatherproofed MILC's, but I think none of the lenses are. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Isn't environmental sealing a fairly easy feature to add to a camera? All those little rugged compact cameras on the market right now might be tough, but every last one of them lacks the photographic power of a camera like this or, say, the tiny, new GM1.

I think environmental sealing would appeal to a lot of people. A tough little camera that's a real photographic tool, not a point-and-shoot.

Comment edited 12 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Mario G

I totally agree that I would like to see more weatherproofing.

Olympus has weatherproofed also a few lenses (like the kit 12-50mm) - otherwise that's quite pointless to have only the camera as weatherproof - but still, the vast majority of lenses aren't so. Also Panasonic came up recently with waterproofing the GH3 and the 12-35 / 35-100mm F2.8 lenses.

However this is still just the one or two top-end cameras/lenses of each manufacturer that are waterproof, it should really be anything from midrange upwards, maybe just leaving out the cheapest cameras and kit lenses.

2 upvotes
TN Args

Wrong. Panasonic do it. You have your choices.

I think people are completely unrealistic in how they think a camera smothered in buttons and dials, with pop up flashes and tilting viewfinders, and lenses that telescope to zoom or focus, is supposed to be pretty well fully sealed.

Also unrealistic in how they think a decent well built camera will spit sparks and die at the slightest hint of exposure to a shower or a few minutes of rain. It's amazing how over cautious so many are.

1 upvote
Timmbits

bah!
I have a bag from a loaf of bread, in which I have an opening for the lens at the front. works fine on my nx20! lol ;-p

4 upvotes
Henderson May

looks good but generally I think mirrorless cameras lack the ability to do high speed sync with a small flash... seems to me that only Canon is catering this.. (270Ex II)

to me high speed sync in a small package is one of the critical factors for fill flash when travelling...

0 upvotes
TN Args

I have never felt the need. What is the 'critical' application?

2 upvotes
pinholecamera

Does anyone know definitively if there is a way to record only AUDIO with the mic? My current Cannon has this great feature and I hate to lose it. Thanks!

2 upvotes
kpaddler

I haven't come across this feature and I don't see it in the user manual. Are you using it for annotation?

1 upvote
pinholecamera

No annotation, often I just want to get sound clips from my environment. This leaves me with two options. 1. Take a video and strip off the audio or 2. Carry around an audio recording device.

This camera seems to have pretty much everything else, too bad it is missing this feature.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe

@pinholecamera while it would be nice to have, TBH you'll probably get better quality audio from a cheap audio recorder than from any stills camera's built in mic.

1 upvote
TN Args

Use your phone.

P.S. I am not aware of any EOS or G series Canon having mic-only recording. What model do you have?

2 upvotes
DoubleSwitch

just keep the lens cap on and start recording. Voilà - audio only movie.

4 upvotes
pinholecamera

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/

Cannon S2 IS is my current camera, besides my cell phone. Surprisingly, it actually takes great stereo recordings. It has been hard to find a replacement after all these years given its portability, manual controls and advanced features, EVF, rotating LCD, and close macro focusing (object can touch the lens).

True, I do sometimes use my cell phone for audio recording as well, but my app only uses one MIC so it creates mono, not stereo, recordings.

It is looking like I may have to go with an external audio recorder...bummer.

0 upvotes
pinholecamera

Looking at the specs again, that little camera (S2 IS) even has image stabilization in movie mode. As an engineer, I suppose I don't understand the marketing decisions for feature inclusion/exclusion in new cameras.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@pinholecamera funnily enough I still use my S3 IS' case to carry my GX1 :)

As for image stabilization there are many stabilised lenses available for M4/3 that will stabilise movies on the GX7, it's only non-stabilised lenses that use the IBIS.

I suspect the reason for not using IBIS during movie shooting is probably technical, such as the continuous usage causing it to overheat etc.

1 upvote
amig00

What do you think? Its a good price? Or maybe i can find something better in this price ? If yes please recommend something! THX !

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ThePhilips

The E-M5.

If you do not need tiltable EVF or e-shutter, then get the Oly E-M5.

I got myself the GX7 because I wanted to try a Panny camera. But E-M5 is cheaper now and is a mighty good deal.

0 upvotes
babalu

GX7 getting 2nd place in number of clicks, 1.1 % above E-M1 , seen on Sunday November 7th .

2 upvotes
perrycas

I have had two mirror less cameras. The G3 and the xpro1. Wish someone would design a sliding panel to 'shield' all the buttons on the LH side. This one, like the G3 i had has too many opportunities to bump things. Xpro is similar. I built a thumbs rest the covered the buttons from accidentals and still allowed access. It works, but is a stop gap.

0 upvotes
babalu

To all fans and foes of the GX7 (including DPR staffers), take a look at this thread in the forums, it brings out some very nice features this camera offers,
most of which were regrettably never mentioned in the review :
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52505038

9 upvotes
igorek7

Wonderful camera but deceiving opinionated review.
I would suggest to read/view other reviews, such as:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gx7/panasonic-gx7A.HTM
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-expert-review-22581
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gx7_review.shtml
http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/122758-panasonic-lumix-gx7-review
and many others http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3576244/52524444

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
Lensahand

This camera is very tempting, especially with it's silent mode compared to my GF-1 which makes such a loud noise that it's very offputting.

What's more offputting, though, is the depreciation on these m4/3 bodies. My GF-1 cost about £600 three years ago and now goes for £80, which in itself represents a bargain but for an early adopter that's dreadful.

Would I notice a huge leap in image quality from a first generation m4/3 to the latest models? Silence aside, that's the other thing that would make me consider this. Given how quickly these cameras fall in value, perhaps I need to stop myself and do the intelligent thing by waiting a year or so!

1 upvote
kpaddler

"Would I notice a huge leap in image quality from a first generation m4/3 to the latest models?"

That can be a tough thing to measure. If you are taking pictures on sunny days only, the difference is not as big between old and new. But if you take a lot of low-available light then there is significant improvements.

Of course, the camera has features that work very well. The LVF is well executed. The manual focusing is a head and neck above any other system, etc.

2 upvotes
WhiteBeard

In view of the infamous "rainbow effect" so decried in this review, I have had a G3 for 2½ years (same type of sequential EVF but lower res) and never had a complaint about "rainbow effect". The only way I could ever see it is by panning rapidly but even then, not an issue. This reviewer seems to be overly sensitive to it but should have taken this into consideration. I'd welcome comments about this so-called issue from long term users of the GX7 !

0 upvotes
BarnET

i use the G3 for 1,5 year now. And while the rainbow effect is no issue for me the lower real world refresh rate is. sometimes completely losing whatever i was tracking.

I do not have that issue with optical viewfinder like the 1 in my K30. Evf's are getting better every year and i don't have experience with this particular model. But it's something te be aware off.

0 upvotes
Powerout

to adrianf2

It's easy.
If camera is a full-frame or at least an APC sensor sized, it's the right camera defacto and has rights to be reviewed.
Nobody wants to open their minds and eyes to see the tendencies in the modern photography.
Pity.

2 upvotes
adrianf2

What a mean spirited review, or at least the conclusions. I couldn't care less about the score or the gold stars, but in comparison with other reviews of cameras in the same class, the negatives are nit-picking at best, and the positives downplayed.

Of course those who run this site have to maintain the line that there is nothing wrong with this review, but I think any reasonably objective reader could pick the holes that others have mentioned a mile away.

Similar thing happened to the GH3, and the G5 wasn't even reviewed, but I guess readers can come to their own conclusions as to why this is happening.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories myself, but it's very difficult to explain.

24 upvotes
mrdancer

One of my first "enthusiast" cameras was a Panasonic FZ20 (superzoom bridge). Using the GX7 comes very naturally to me, as it is set up very similar to the FZ20, especially with regards to wheels, buttons, even the battery and SD card slots. Obviously, the GX7 is much more capable. I am still being surprised that, while taking shots with the 25/1.4 prime in low-light, the flash is usually not needed, even when flash is set to auto.

The fact that DPR rated this camera at 79% speaks volumes about how far cameras have come. Yes, a decade-old FF DSLR can probably take a better photo, but the convenience, speed and other features packed into these modern m43 cameras make them fantastic alternatives.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Aucupium

The tilting EVF seemed such a benefit (I fondly remember my old one from a Minolta Dynax) - so a shame to see it is such a weak feature. Being someone who likes an EVF, as I dont like to use glasses and so don't use the LCD for taking photos which M4/3 EVF actually works properly?

0 upvotes
kpaddler

And why is exactly a "such as weak feature??

LVF works perfectly with or without glasses. My friend with oly with dm5 is dumb founded how well it works with legacy lenses too.

0 upvotes
babalu

If you use glasses (or even if you don't), it's always nice to use an eyecup to keep stray light away . I remember the big pro dslr's like NikonF4 had it by default. Otherwise, this tilt EVF works perfectly well, and the vast majority of users never had any issue with it.
It's second only to the EVF of the E-M1 -and that one isn't tiltable.

2 upvotes
Jorginho

Yes....and it could have solved their problem. Incoming sunlight? How about looking downward??
Another thing: I lookedit up. The eyecup costs you an earthshattering 14.95 dollar. Would have been nice they mentioned it, as it is really peanuts when you spend 1000 dollars on a cam...

0 upvotes
magneto shot

panasonic, or (X) manufacturer.

Lets just release a really retro camera with 2 simple mode :

A)
1. auto (and just set to auto scene dont even ask)
or
2. full physical solid dials for : shutter, iso and Aperture.

B)
Instead of SD cards. Provide a side hollow compartment (where films are usually stored) and allow plugin of USB thumb/pen drive.

C)
2 connectors :-
1 ) connect to android
2) connect to iphone

Forget the filters. forget the wifi. Forget whatever that is not needed.

Then just stop producing cameras for 2 years.

1 upvote
N13L5

don't presume everybody only hooks up their camera to their phones, just because you do.

I *never* do that... But I do use wifi to connect to my laptop though, to have a big display of what I'm shooting, and to move pictures without having to plug around with the SD card.

1 upvote
stevens37y

>> Instead of SD cards...
nerd idea

0 upvotes
blade100

I'm going to buy or GX7 (price $ 1000) or E-M1 (price about $ 1,300). What would you counsel me?

0 upvotes
chj

What is the Auto ISO range on the GX7?

0 upvotes
chj

Also, can you use auto iso in manual mode?

0 upvotes
kpaddler

200-25600
no auto in manual mode...

0 upvotes
chj

Not just the iso range, the AUTO iso range. You may be right, but I got another response that said AUTO iso only goes to 3200.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
N13L5

opps wrong reply button

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kpaddler

CHJ,

No, I checked again. auto ISO is 200-25600 for still image. Of course, in my book 12800-25600 is not really usable beyond on screen viewing. Even canon 5D MIII looks like *&^% at 6400+ when you print it.

In Movie mode it is 200-3200

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chj

thanks for the reply, I think the GX7 may be my next camer

0 upvotes
Waynger

I have been having fun with the GX7 for a month now and I will keep it until something better (in 4/3) comes along.

For me, its the best thing out coming from a GH2 that I returned, would have gotten a Oly but clipping on a flash was a deal killer, for me.

I was a SEMA in Vegas this week and must say outdoors the EVF (at times) was worthless, as bad as a LCD on the back. I have not noticed this problem prior to Vegas. I am ordering the eye-cup and hopefully it will satisfy this problem.

As far as the tearing or whatever I have not seen that issue, FWIW I do not wear glasses. On another note the sliding ocular adjustment is a PITA, compared to a rotary unit. I would gladly trade away the tilting EVF for one that didn't need to be flipped up to adjust it.

It may be me, but EVF focus on this camera is VERY elusive and never seems correct.

0 upvotes
OneGuy

On the Image Quality/Studio (p 10), I noticed DPR continues to use non-native lens (with adapter, no less), presumably because it is "the best." But I'm not so sure and wish DPR could test a native lens such as the 20 mm F1.7 to see if the new sensor does better with in-house optics. (If I were Panasonic, that's what I would focus on.)

9 upvotes
ThePhilips

"But I'm not so sure [...]"

E-M5 IIRC was the last m43 cam to be tested with the 2.0/50mm. Newer reviews (like GX7, E-M1, E-P5) use the native 1.8/45mm lens.

"[..] and wish DPR could test a native lens such as the 20 mm [..]"

1.8/45mm is also native m43.

DPR commented before that for studio tests they use closesest lens to provide the coverage similar to 85mm FL on 35mm film.

The 1.7/20mm shots you can see only in the samples gallery.

0 upvotes
Jeppe

I have a hard time believing in-camera RAW-processing is something people in this segment use. The only reason I can see is to transfer the photo via WiFi.
About the LVF, yes it has some rainbow effect, but that is the trade off for Adobe RGB! Does any other EVF in this segment do around 100% Adobe RGB?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
15 upvotes
BBnose

It is probably the most arguable camera review by dpreview. So many comment against it. I think dpreview should review their review on GX-7 and redo the review. Huh!

11 upvotes
Richard Butler

We've had much more contentious reviews on dpreview, I can assure you.

Several people in the office have shot the camera, none of us disagree with Jeff's findings or his conclusions.

The nature of a camera receiving our second-highest award is always that some people wanted it to be rated higher (that's a much greater motivation to complain than 'I don't think this camera deserved so high an award').

Also, we have monitored the comments - there's nothing to suggest an error in our testing and the scoring doesn't include the factors that most people are saying they disagree with.

At which point it's the award that's contentious. Personally, the viewfinder alone would be enough to stop it getting a Gold - it's not as good as its peers. Yes, it tilts, but the field-sequential design is really off-putting for me and, as a wearer of glasses, the short eye-point makes it much less pleasant to work with than the recent Olympus, Fuji or Sonys.

4 upvotes
kpaddler

DP have gone from being a good informative resource to a opinion blogs for gizmo fondlers that you call reviews these days. It started some time ago and this review is just one of the worst I have seen so far. You can defend it but that doesn't change it from what it is- an opinion of someone whom we don't know the qualification of.

5 upvotes
Bob Meyer

No, it's not the award that's contentious. It's downgrading it for things you don't criticize other cameras for, like the ridiculous comment about in-camera raw processing. DPR has devolved from a serious review site with rigorous evals by knowledgeable people to an opinion-based blog written by amateurs. Sad to see a great resource become meaningless.

5 upvotes
vesa1tahti

Nice samples. But can't open those with Explorer 9 (and Windows 7). Firefox and Chrome work fine.

0 upvotes
thorkilry

explorer 11 is out...

1 upvote
Feebz

Nice camera - I owned it for about a week before returning it. Overall, some very nice features, but the EFV was just tiny - and yes, I wear glasses, unless I'm at a dedicated shoot, then I wear a closeup contact in one eye. The EVF was actually pretty useless, especially for checking focus (too small), and I couldn't justify owning it - since I bought it especially for the EVF.

2 upvotes
b craw

Review appreciated - appropriately thorough and fair. I see no need to argue over a number myself; it is ultimately a calculation never claimed to be completely divorced from subjectivity. But questions relating to the math are part of the game here. Fair enough to ask.

My take away is that, as expected, this is a very capable camera. Admittedly I did not read the entire comment thread but I noticed some of the same tired rhetoric about the limited image quality of the m4/3 sensors. It is not tired because it is untrue. It is true. But the reality is that, following an expected arc of technology, the quality gap (according to all major determiners) between sensor sizes is decreasing. And very impressive results, if you consider the industry as a whole, can be had lower and lower down the camera hierarchy, shifting the location of what is considered professional equipment. Of course, camera format will always be driven by what's best in a variety of circumstances. I'm sort of surprised that many professional photographers seem to ignore this, while knowing it is true, to argue value as exclusively linked to best image quality calculated, seemingly, in microns. [This condition should not be confused with frustrations with popular perception that a mobile phone camera is next to as good as any - that is an entirely different color of horse] I suppose what we have is what we have always in this regard: a soup of psychological motivations, some more respectable than others, to protect the territory of the professional. What seems misguided is that investment in, and mastery of, the technical is just one part of the creative equation. So, while this camera is perhaps no threat in certain contexts to APS-C or full frame DSLR's, they are becoming very viable alternatives for the professional in many applications. And this is our reality - $6k doesn't buy us quite the advantage it once did. And that is fine with me.

3 upvotes
ChicagoRob

I'd like some feedback from eyeglass wearers. Does the GX7 VF require you to move your eye around to see the entire frame? How much of a problem is the small eyecup, which, according to DPR, causes the VF image to wash out?

Rob

0 upvotes
TN Args

Hi Rob, I have been posing this question since the day it was announced. The other day I tried one for myself at the local camera store. I got a pleasant surprise in terms of seeing the whole frame with eyeglasses on. The reason is that the EVF is 16:9 but the still image is 4:3 so the extreme sides of the EVF area are not used (unless you are videoing or shooting stills at 16:9 I guess).

What I did notice was, as soon as I turned into the afternoon sun, huge light leakage from the outside world into my eye view of the EVF image. I now consider the rubber eyecup sold as an option to be mandatory for eyeglass wearers.

Have I answered your question sufficiently?

3 upvotes
kpaddler

I can see the entire image and a bit of exrtra edge. As for side lights, I have that problem even with my M9 and D700. The tilting viewfinder in gx7 comes is quite handy for that.

0 upvotes
biomed

I am able to see the entire EVF frame while wearing my glasses. The GX7 is the only u4/3 camera I am able to do this on. I have not experienced any problem with light leakage around the eyecup.

1 upvote
ChicagoRob

Thanks for the input, guys.

0 upvotes
babalu

Hey, can this be true ??
The one point which probably has led to this camera not getting the highest award, is : No In Camera RAW conversion.
Well, that feature IS available with the GX7. See user manual page 140 .
Quality modes available include RAW+JPEG, whereby JPG can even be set to high or low quality .
Am I blind or completely off the topic, or what ?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler

@babalu - no, you're not blind, but you have misunderstood what we mean by 'in-camera Raw conversion.'

We mean the ability to take a Raw file and create a JPEG, with your choice of settings, after you've taken the shot. This is something Olympus, Fujifilm, Canon, Pentax and Nikon all now offer.

0 upvotes
babalu

Thanks for the explanation.
However, is not RAW + JPEG actually something very similar? You can shoot the RAW image that will later be processed with the PP of your choice, and at the same time you can tweak the JPEG in the shooting mode you want, to adjust color, WB, style, etc ?
I have just done it with my FZ200 . (Don't have the GX7 anymore).

1 upvote
Richard Butler

The point is that an in-camera Raw processing feature allows you to make decisions after you've taken the shot. For instance it lets you shoot just Raw but convert a shot you like into a JPEG if you're away from your computer (being away for the weekend, for instance).

Or, if you like the camera's JPEG engine, you can tweak the colour or tone to improve the image, based on how it looks. This is really handy in changeable light, where you might not have a chance to get the JPEG settings perfectly set before your moment passes.

The point is that it's a handy feature that most of the GX7's rivals offer and the Panasonic doesn't. It's not a massive deal in and of itself, but it's a nice feature that's missing.

0 upvotes
PaulChapman

I have been away for 10 days with the GF7 (Guatemala) and found it perfectly satisfactory to WiFi, or SD card JPEG input to my Nexus7 Android and use that software to do any JPEG fixes before winging the stuff onto the Internet. The RAW (always take RAW+JPEG as with the M9) is going to be done in the comfort of my home and with a proper computer/software. Don't see the need, or use, of in-camera RAW conversion at my level of photography.

3 upvotes
babalu

Thanks again, Richard.
>Hopefully from now on, on the same token, cameras will get points off for not providing a feature to place the enlarged area or the histogram or both in manual focus shooting wherever you want in the display, or not providing a touch-continuous-autofocus feature to mark the autofocus point, or dragging and fixing guide-lines , or pinching in-out size in playback mode, or de-focus blurr control (for beginners), or checking effects of BOTH aperture AND shuuter speed changes in the display before taking the picture, or pin-point focus position for extreme focus precision, or making in-camera multiple exposures, or .... you surely get the point :-))

10 upvotes
TN Args

Thank you babalu, you raise an important point that R Butler clearly did not grasp at first, but now I hope he gets it. Maybe the review and the score can be modified. Either that, or he now has to go back and modify the scores and comments on every camera that does not have every feature the GX7 has. Then he has to go back and get all the DSLR reviews marked down for not weighing under 500g, etc etc.

The point being by now hopefully painfully clear, that cameras should be reviewed and scored for how well they do what buyers in that segment truly want and have proven they want, not every imaginable silly feature! In-camera RAW conversion is something I added to my 7D via firmware upgrade, played with it once or twice and thought "for goodness sake I can do this so much better and more efficiently too on the PC". Don't use it any more.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Revenant

Once again, people fail to grasp the difference between the awards and the scoring system.

"That said, the limitations on the in-body IS system, the tendency to close down the aperture in Program mode, and lack of in-camera Raw processing keep the GX7 from earning our highest recommendation."

It is clear that no points have been subtracted because of the lack of in-camera raw conversion. It only means that it kept the camera from getting the gold award, earning silver instead. Since the awards are meant to be completely subjective, and expressing the reviewer's personal preferences, there is nothing to object to.
The percentage score is completely unconnected to the award, and is a weighted sum of many sub-scores. They don't calculate a score and then subtract points because of missing features.

1 upvote
Demon Cleaner

"The point is that it's a handy feature that most of the GX7's rivals offer and the Panasonic doesn't."

Similar to how the electronic shutter is a handy feature that none of the GX7's rivals offer. Or the incredible flexibility of the wifi control that leaves its competitors floundering.

Compare the glowing verbosity of the E-P5's Pro's against the colourless description of the GX7's Pros, particularly those aspects where the GX7 is clearly superior. Similarly, compare the gievious failings of the E-P5 (shuttershock) against the innocuous shortcomings of the GX7 (in-camera RAW conversion), and it quickly becomes apparent we're reviewing by brand name here.

7 upvotes
thinkfat

Not many enthusiast cameras by major brands have this feature, which IMHO is not really useful. If you need to make adjustments "after the fact", having RAW is enough. It's weird to depreciate a camera for not having a built-in RAW editor. Tiny screen, limited control, etc. An enthusiast is likely also carrying a tablet for viewing and editing, and especially the GX7 lends itself for this purpose with its WiFi interface.

If anything, you should depreciate the camera for faulty execution of features, like the panorama stitching, which is worse than what you get from any smartphone.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler

@Demon Cleaner - the point is that a majority of the GX7's rivals have that feature, at which point its absence is worth mentioning as a Con. As always, it's up to the reader to decide which Pros and Cons are relevant to them.

Secondly, our testing suggested the 'Shutter Shock' problem isn't as simple as some people suggest, but it did mean an otherwise Gold-worthy camera didn't get the top award.

Equally, we have included silent mode as a Pro for the GX7 (though the rolling shutter and propensity for banding in artificial light do mean it's not without its drawbacks, even for people who would use it).

@thinkfat - the GX7 hasn't been marked-down for not having in-camera Raw conversion but, since the majority of its rivals offer it (Fujifilm. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax), it's something worth mentioning to potential buyers. That's what the Pros and Cons list is - factors that would-be buyers might want to be aware of.

0 upvotes
sean lancaster

I shoot a Sony NEX 5N and a Canon 6D and have no intention of ever getting a Micro 4/3 camera or even another APS-C camera for that matter. But to see a nitpick item like being unable to take a RAW image and then convert it to a certain style of JPG seems frivolous to me. Shoot RAW+JPG or, better yet, shoot RAW and then use Google's NIK package in Lightroom to far exceed what any in camera effects can do. Or just join Instagram and apply th effects they offer. But I envision shooting RAW and then wanting to apply a JPG effect after the fact to a shot and doing it in camera is going to affect less than 1% of the people who shoot this camera. In other words, meh.

1 upvote
babalu

Since this is an open forum, I hope DPR will agree to having more than one opinion. Here is a link (from Panasonic) to the awards this camera has received elsewhere.
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/LUMIX+Digital+Cameras/LUMIX+G+Compact+System+Cameras/DMC-GX7/Awards+%26+Test+Results/12916342/index.html?trackInfo=true

3 upvotes
Richard Butler

Having not read all those reviews, I'm not going to comment on their individual findings. However, it's interesting to note that two of them also gave the GX& their second-highest rating.

The Trusted Reviews one is a little harder to tell, since I can't find explicit 'Recommended' tags on their reviews to find if there's a higher accolade but, given the review was written by the same author as the What Digital Camera review, it's reasonable to assume he drew the same conclusion.

If you're feeling like it, and you exclude those duplicates, then 2 of the six remaining reviews failed to give it their highest award. Add us in there and you've got 42% of those 7 reviews not giving it the highest award. So, while I don't know all those titles well enough to form an opinion about their reviews, I don't see our assessment as being an unusual data point.

2 upvotes
summicronf2

Phil Askey must be enjoying his current endeavors, as he is responsible for the most fantastic Digital Photographic Body of Knowledge in our Galaxy! He founded, "online", Digital Photography. PERIOD! Please don't drag down his admirable aspirations. I hope his successors will, KEEP UP THE SAME STIFF UPPER LIP! a Yank.

0 upvotes
John Miles

Panasonic DMC-GX7 - FZ50 rating (-5) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52339583

0 upvotes
dansw99

Neglecting video and continuous stabilization, how well does the IBIS work at the moment of shutter release? I didn't see any mention of that in the GX7 review, or any other review. I don't shoot video much and am living now with IS set on just shutter release.

I have a hand tremor which makes IS a major consideration , but I never see any mention of it as a comparison item. Or are all cameras equal for IS?
Thanks,
Dan

1 upvote
kpaddler

If you use legacy lenses you MUST tell the camera what the focal length is(which, it'll remember), the camera will do fine job of it. But using legacy zooms is kind of harder as camera really needs to know what the focal length is to work properly and that is counter to nature of a zoom lens that doesn't tell the body automatically.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
babalu

Being impartial, I think most will admit that the IBIS of the OMD E-M1 is currently the best there is out there.

0 upvotes
kpaddler

That's probably true.

0 upvotes
TN Args

There are mixed reviews. This guy tested it pretty thoroughly against the EM5 and liked what he saw.
http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/the-gx7-vs-the-om-d-e-m5-battle-for-my-affection-round-1-ibis-evfs-lcds/

But cameralabs got the opposite result.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GX7/

So it is a bit confusing. I'm tempted to say "it works fine, now let's get on with it".

0 upvotes
okfuture

I'm a little confused about the review in terms of performance.

"The Lumix DMC-GX7 certainly does not disappoint in the performance department. ... Focusing is nearly instantaneous ... met or exceeded Panasonic's speed estimates."

There wasn't a single negative in the narrative description. Not even a lukewarm statment. Either the score is poorly aligned or the narrative is incomplete.

I'm truly curious -- what am I missing?

The x-m1 received a higher score with this narrative on performance: "It's not quite as snappy as, say, the Panasonic Lumix GF6 .. makes subject tracking difficult ... the battery seemed to die quicker than one would expect ..."

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
kpaddler

The reviewer or DP really have gone out of their way to mark this down.

Yes, the camera does not include X,Y,Z. But there are people who exactly don't want to carry a camera with XYZ. This is a really high end small camera on the move.

Kind of ashamed to say, but Leica M9 and Nikon D700 are staying home a lot these days. I'm not claiming images are better than leica but the short coming is small and once you get familiar with it it is a fast efficient camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
TN Args

It makes on wonder whether this reviewer picks the camera up for the first time, hefts it, looks at it, and says "hmmmmmm.......................nup!" Then proceeds to piece together what even he thinks is an unbiased review.

3 upvotes
Demon Cleaner

"I'm truly curious -- what am I missing?"

You're not missing anything.

Unfortunately you're applying logic, reasoned thinking and common sense to the situation. Which means you're not DPR's target audience.

4 upvotes
tbcass

Here's something that makes no sense.

"As you can see, the only difference in the tone curve is that ISO 125 clips highlights a lot sooner than at the default sensitivity (since it's almost certainly the sensor's base sensitivity being exposed to more light). Thus, the only real benefit to using this sensitivity is to use slower shutter speeds for studio work or trying to freeze motion"

Obviously you don't try to freeze motion by using a slower speed. You would be trying to add a blur effect to something like running water.

1 upvote
Richard Butler

I thought I'd caught that one in editing - it should be about trying to express motion, not freeze it.

I'll fix that immediately.

0 upvotes
Michael D Sullivan

If anything, I'd like to see m43 and other serious digital cameras provide much lower ISO speeds as an option, or a digital ND filter simulator, specifically for running water and similar shots. There are reasons other than fine grain why photographers used Panatomic-X. I'd love to have a Panatomic-X sensitivity option on my m43 camera.

0 upvotes
JasonHale

Panasonic is not a famous brand as Nikon / Canon in camera industry, but Lumix is really a good series!

1 upvote
tbcass

I'm confused. What is "in camera RAW processing?" I thought the whole purpose of RAW was to give you a totally unprocessed image for post processing on a computer.

0 upvotes
Scott Birch

More image-editing than simple jpeg output, less image-editing potential than a computer. It's another option. Choose to use it or choose not to use it. Simple.

1 upvote
marike6

In camera RAW processing is less than ideal since on most implementations you have no idea if highlights are clipped or shadows blocked the way you do in LR. And with most RAW editors like LR being significantly more powerful, in camera RAW processing is mostly a slower, more fiddly, less useful, kind of redundant feature.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler

Arguably Raw doesn't have a single 'purpose' - it has potential to be used for all sort of things.

Cameras with in-camera Raw conversion allow you to shoot Raw and quickly make a JPEG when you're away from your computer, if you want to give the image to someone, or share it (especially useful on a camera with Wi-Fi).

Alternatively, if you have a camera whose colours you like and want to be able to just slightly tweak the white balance in a shot, or make a slight adjustment to the tone curves, then it can be handy.

It's a feature that a lot of cameras now offer and one that I find myself using, if it's available - so it's a con on a camera at this level if it's not offered.

However: as with all of our Pros and Cons, the idea is that we explicitly highlight the things a potential customer might want to be aware of, so that they can decide for themselves whether it's important for them.

0 upvotes
kpaddler

"in camera RAW processing?" = A useless feature for "in-camera"

The camera already is producing the best jpg in can process. Don't tell me you can determine better images on that dinky display. Don't you have a computer at home?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
TN Args

It is the least important thing EVER!! Some bright spark thought "Let's take what you can do efficiently and flexibly and powerfully on a PC, and put an awful, limited, and inconvenient version of that in the camera. Wow, it's a new feature!"

9 upvotes
kpaddler

Yes, raw file has a single purpose! It makes possible to re-process the image to one's liking instead of the final jpg format. That's the purpose.

0 upvotes
tbcass

Thanks for all your replies. For my purposes it sounds totally useless but to each their own.

0 upvotes
Cristian Mihai

BE AWARE
This camera DOES NOT HAVE LIVE HDMI. Just playback! After spending 5000 euros on the body and set of high end glass i tried to put it on a Ready To Fly Hellicopter and when connected the wireless HDMI transmitter to camera no signal. Went back to store today and guess what! It does not have LIVE HDMI even if on their website says mini HDMI port but they dont tell you that you can not go live with these, maybe for aerial, or for online broadcast or online camera etc... I will go to court with my official distributor to get back my money!

0 upvotes
Michael J Davis

Great review. Would have liked some more comment on use of evf with glasses (I think another reviewer suggested that the whole screen wasn't visible).

Since you derive income from Amazon - can I object to an offer of £656.72 from them (body only), which is nearly £100 more (£751.01) when I click on their web site? That's frankly misleading!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HDF2

The Amazon UK site does have it offered at £656, it just isn't through Amazon's own distribution. Amazon can sell it to you for £751 from their own distribution and warehouse. But there are other suppliers on their site who can sell it to you for less - the lowest one being £656.72.

0 upvotes
Michael J Davis

Oh thanks! That's v. interesting!

0 upvotes
Alphoid

Except for price, that seems like a nearly perfect camera in that class. As far as I can tell, the only issue is lack of microphone input. If I were dpreview, I would have given it gold. The issues listed seemed inane -- the GX7 somehow got penalized for having IBIS, just because it didn't do video and preview. That's still radically better than no IBIS, as with Canon, Nikon, and all previous Panasonics, and there are plenty of stabilized u4/3 lenses.

That said, I loved my u4/3 bodies a year ago, but at this point, it's a class of camera I simply wouldn't buy. I prefer either the larger bodies with APS or FF sensors, or something pocket-able like the RX100. The barely-doesn't-fit-in-your-pocket category doesn't do it for me now that there are (for the first time) very capable cameras which do fit in your pocket.

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester

Man, that carpet brings me back to the good 'ole Austin Power days...

.

5 upvotes
bluevellet

Looks like a sofa to me.

2 upvotes
pedroboe100

"While the Lumix DMC-GX7 draws some inspiration from its predecessor (the GX1), it has a more contoured grip and less boxy design. The design of the GX7 can be seen elsewhere in the mirrorless world, namely on the Fujifilm X-E2 and Olympus E-P5. If the two-tone silver and black doesn't do it for you, Panasonic also sells an all-black model in select regions."

I beg to differ. The real design inspiration, if you go by subtle and not so subtle details, is the venerable L1, the camera that some of us still own and were hoping it would come back. The L1 was here before any fuji or Olympus "retro" gear. Let's pay credit where credit is due.

9 upvotes
yabokkie

what's between the retro design and cameras in histry?

those real ones were designed as best cameras while
the retro design is meant for good looking (of special taste)
at the cost of usability.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

The L1's design was, in many ways, out of necessity as it was based on the Olympus E330's optical system. Of course the E330, with its sideways swinging mirror, was inspired by the original Pen.

Plus given Panasonic's long partnership with Leica the L1 would seem to be a combination of Olympus' Porro mirror viewfinder and the M series' styling.

0 upvotes
tsammyc

Richard Butler, Can you comment on whether there was any of the shutter shock issues that you saw on the E-P5 on the GX7?

Also, is the lack of stabilization during composing shots a problem when you attach a Panasonic lens with OIS or only with lenses that don't have OIS, such as Olympus lenses?

4 upvotes
babalu

Though pending reply by the Reviewer, I can say from experience with the camera that it only lacks composiiton stabilization display when using non-OIS lenses.

0 upvotes
snack

Is anyone having problems viewing the sample images using the "slide show" option?

The page never loads for me>

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller

Not working for me either, will alert our developers.

Update: fixed!

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
snack

My take is that the camera is so good they really had to dig deep to find something negative to say. This thing feels and operates superbly.

I have zero problems looking through the EVF in bright light. It looks nice and clear to me. I've also made myself dizzy turning my head back & forth rapidly to duplicate this "rainbow" effect...nothing.

Every control falls naturally and logically under your fingertips.

Most of the negative remarks have to do with operating the camera at its extremes.

I think the EM1 deserves a higher grade just for it's build. But other than that, I can't see what the EM1 does better.

15 upvotes
bluevellet

Better EVF. :)

Better IBIS and it works for video too.

Mic Jack.

E-M1 is weather-sealed.

It has better continuous focusing and can shoot faster and more accurately with C-AF.

Can take 43 lenses and AF won't be pathetic.

4 upvotes
Jorginho

Although personally for my shooting the E-M1 is clearly the way to go, here is why the difference in the end should not be as big:
- GX7 has the better IQ combo at a much lower price. Still IQ is on par, video IQ is better
- GX7 has a tilting EVF in smaller body. Tilting EVF is nice for for left eyed shooters. Its non tilted position is nice for right eye shooters.
- Extremely silent operation with e0-shutter
- better intervalometer, one that does not wear off the shutter.
- Sweep panorama is nice to have
- Works equally as good Oly and panny m43 lens. Oly do not correct everything in cam for Panny lenses.
- I have found my EPl5 menu's rather diddly as compared to my Gh2 ones and I do not think EM1 is better as compared to GX7
- -4 eV...GX7 seems the better low light shooter.
- 1495 euro body only vs 850 body only (amazon.de)....a huge difference!

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
snack

I'll give you that the EM1 EVF is "bigger"...but not really any sharper or cleaner based on my side by side comparison. However, yes, bigger is nicer.

Ibis in video...only partially annoying since you can use lenses that have it built in...and should be a firmware fix.

Mic jack...true...but most serious video shooters will use a separate audio recording system. And the poor EM1 video codec sort of cancels out the mic option.

Weather sealed...true again, but most lenses are not. Still, a feather in the EM1 cap.

Better continuous focusing...that's more dependent on lens choice and lighting conditions.

Shoot faster...not as fast as the electronic shutter of the GX7.

4/3 lenses...ok, but nothing major here. Why would you want to use them?

2 upvotes
bluevellet

Why use 43 lenses? Because you might already own a few and the SHG ones rival, if not right out exceed, any m43 lens in IQ. And it's not like using legacy glass since all the electronics work (AF, aperture control).

There are still some gaps in the m43 lineup, like the lack of good, fast telephoto options, and 43 lenses fill that gap.

1 upvote
snack

True, bluevellet...I didn't think of that.

1 upvote
Waynger

Had the GH2 wasn't impressed, sold it and have been waiting, and waiting, would have bought the E-M5 but I didn't want to deal with a clip on flash.

I was afraid the reviewers would rate it below the E-M5, guess I was right, they probably were also.

GX7 is pretty much what I have been waiting for. However, yesterday at the SEMA show in Vegas the EVF was as worthless as not having one. Did get some nice shots using my left hand to block the sun lite, One handed shooting is no problem, fortunately.

Am ordering the eye cup for the EVF, I bet that solves THAT issue, just hope it doesn't dwarf the camera.

I have not noticed any issue with the field sequential LCD other than the fact the sliding diopter is a PITA to adjust. I would gladly trade the flip up EVF for an easily accessed rotary adjustment.

That said, no way I would ever go back to a DSLR.

0 upvotes
Jorginho

I wonder: if you tilt the EVF up and you now look down into it, does the sun still bother you? I thought that would be an easy way to get rid of incoming sunlight, but not sure.

1 upvote
kpaddler

Yes, it deals with that problem perfectly. You are not looking in the sun's direction.

BTW. the evf works quite nicely in any position for me and I wear glasses.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
steven_k

I love m43 even though I don't own one anymore.
I just could never get over the noise even at base ISO.
Yeah, I guess I can shoot in JPEG and have the camera apply noise reduction yet that limits the detail. Just look at any of the new m43 cameras here on DPR, check ISO 200, RAW and look at the blue square on the color checker chart, noise. For me I would have preferred m43 stayed at 12MP, I think this is / was the sweet spot for the 4/3 sensor.

0 upvotes
Te Mat

Look at the very same blue square, set ISO 200 and RAW and pick a Canon 70d, even 5dmIII or a Nikon D610 or even D800. You will see noise too.
Or even better, look at the bottom of the scene and zoom to the space between the first bottle on the right and the color chart. Wow, a noise on all cameras, least visible on the Fujis. Surprise, surprise.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Nov 8, 2013)

You obviously haven't used M43s in a year or two.

5 upvotes
kreislauf

> I just could never get over the noise even at base ISO

wait, you are making your living with photography, right?
OMG... WHAT? *facepalm*
go full frame, dude. less noise there for you mate. and you can pixelpeep happily on your 30" imac

some guys obviously buy cameras to look at them on screen with 100% ratio...
did you ever PRINT some of these NOISY images? as it happens, they come out pretty well in my opinion.
but i don't use a magnification glas on my printed photos as you might do...

1 upvote
steven_k

Ok maybe I went a little overboard. I was looking for a small landscape kit to compliment my FF setup.
Yes I do print my images on my own HP Z3200PS and yes I noticed noise in the sky. I don't se this on my FF DSLR.
Right now I am shooting a Fuji X--E1 and looking forward to the x-E2. Of course there is a workaround for noise with m43, it's called ETTR, many articles about it especially in regards to the Olympus EM5. Is the Fuji an excellent camera? Of course not, but for me, where AF sped is a non issue and all I am interested is optimal IQ in a small package, my Fuji delivers now with much better raw support.

0 upvotes
Phoebe Lee

The specification says GX7 compatible with a remote control, but didn't tell us the model. I log to panasonic, the web only says this camera has a 2.5mm input for Remote, who can tell me this camera compatible with which remote control. Many thanks.

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller

The model number for the wired remote is DMW-RSL1.

3 upvotes
tsammyc

You can also control it using a Smartphone app

2 upvotes
Fotonaut

Quck question for the reviewers: I have the GF1 and GX1 and both of these cameras underexpose horribly at higher ISOs in low light. (I need anywhere from 1 to 3 +EV to get properly exposed photos)

Does the GX7 do this as well?

1 upvote
PeterF

I was actually interested in this camera until I found out it had no optical image stabilization in video mode and also not ability to take stills during video mode.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

missing of a stereo mic input jack does more harm at little cost saving so I'd think it's done purposely to differentiate GX7 from higher end models.

0 upvotes
nevada5

Page 233 of the manual - "Recording still pictures while recording motion pictures", "During motion picture recording, press the shutter button fully to record a still picture."

4 upvotes
Jorginho

There is optical image stabilisation in video. Only IBIS does notwork. So Oly lenses and other non-ois lenses have no stabilisation.

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@yabokkie I always use a separate sound recorder (Zoom H1) attached to the flash hotshoe whenever I shoot video, the analogue amplifiers in digital cameras often aren't great.

1 upvote
Scott Birch

Pro video used to require external sound recorders. Nagra, anyone?

1 upvote
MDGColorado

It's possible the external mic input is deliberate product differentiation, but we can't know how much it have cost to add it. There is way too much second guessing about engineering in these forums!

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime

The orange background of the main page photo for the GX7 review is truly unflattering and an awful choice. Usually the new cameras are presented in a much nicer way. What happened?

10 upvotes
babalu

Also the picture could have been taken with a better overall sharpness , instead of focusing on the name and the left strap support.
Would only get a mediocre placing in a DPR photo challenge :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike99999

DP Review is paid to discredit the micro four thirds system.

Make no mistake about it: the GX7, E-M1 and E-P5 are the worlds best cameras at the moment. You have to try it in your own hands to understand what the fuss is about.

0 upvotes
OneGuy

Orange is a male color. Changing an established background makes it stand out. You don't sell things by being super-rational [ok, you could if you are German]. I'd even put a dollop of whip cream next to it -- perhaps in a second picture.

0 upvotes
Dimit

''Orange backround''....now this is a serious issue!!!

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

@Mike99999 - No, DPReview is not paid to discredit Micro Four Thirds. We're not paid to promote or discredit anything so kindly don't make claims of impropriety that you can't support.

We gave the E-M1 and E-M5 our highest awards and the GX7 only just missed out. That would be a perverse way of discrediting something.

1 upvote
NickNock

I used to own an X-E1, the build was horrible. Fuji repaired the camera. So when I manual focused, focus peaking was showing that I was in focus. However, the result was slightly blurry. AF it not make any difference.

In the image quality the low Dynamic Range of the X-E1 is better but it is a matter of luck to focus the camera. So after all it does not matter. The image in the X-E1 is a little flat. While GX7 IQ comes closer to the Leica M.

X-E1 lacks workable ergonomics effectively they are disastrous. You needed toothpicks to handle the camera. I exchanged it for the GX7. It has much better dials, buttons, options and room to handle the camera. At least you can hold the camera using both or one hand. Also the usability is by far better than the X-E1. GX7 is a mature product while X-E1 is several years back in this area. Undeniable the X-E1 is immature. You have given it an unfair value in respect to build quality. I wished that had a little bit better low Dynamic Range.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
jl_smith

I'd have to completely disagree with pretty much everything you say about the XE-1. Obviously either the user or camera at fault, because nobody else really seems to gripe about XE1 accuracy (speed, yes). Ergonomics were awesome IMO.

All opinion, though.

1 upvote
Beat Traveller

I love the ergonomics of the X-E1, minus the placement of the AF button (although a firmware update has fixed that problem).

0 upvotes
NickNock

jl_smith

First of all it can not be user error because the camera(via focus peaking) indicates that there is focus. However the image is slightly blurred. After all Fuji repaired the camera and realigned the optics, they indicated that there was an issue. After comparing past images. It made a small difference but definitely is an immature product. There are a lot of notes on internet about how good the focus is.

May be you have not looked close enough.

0 upvotes
nevada5

Gold or silver, tin or cow patty - why would this matter? I've never walked around with my camera, feeling better that a reviewer called it gold.

I've had my GX7 for about 5 weeks and it continues to please me more each time I use it. The level of customization available is fantastic, ergonomics and build quality are top-drawer, EVF and IQ are on a par with my NEX-6. The icing on the cake is that the menus make sense to me.

The review seems to be a fair one. (But I must have the only GX7 ever made that consistently UNDER-exposes. Hmmmm)

I suspect anyone who prefers a rangefinder-style camera will find little to fault with the GX7.

6 upvotes
SDPharm

> Gold or silver, tin or cow patty - why would this matter?

Oh, but it matters a lot. First, we have insecurity issues. It's not enough for us to like the cameras we own, we need others to say they love our cameras also. Second, we are brand nationalists. If someone does not like the camera that we like, we feel deeply offended and we feel obligated to defend its honor.

2 upvotes
David Fell

*obliged* grrrr...

1 upvote
SDPharm

> *obliged* grrrr…

Thanks. That's what I meant to say, but I can't go back and edit anymore.

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller

So as usual, DPR go into fairly fastidious detail about the camera's performance, features, capabilities, etc; and people get hung up about the completely arbitrary score/rating assigned to it at the end.

Way to miss the forest for the trees...

13 upvotes
Total comments: 602
1234