Previous page Next page

Features

Keeping with the 'let's give it everything' theme, Panasonic has put virtually every feature imaginable on the GX7. Some of these features are old friends, such as Intelligent Auto mode, Intelligent Dynamic, and Intelligent Resolution. There are several new features of interest, such as tone curve adjustment, a 'silent mode', and a 'clear retouch' option which lets you delete unwanted subjects from a photo. Below we'll look at the most interesting features on the DMC-GX7.

Sensor-shift IS

The Lumix GX7 is Panasonic's first mirrorless camera to feature sensor-shift image stabilization. Previously, Panasonic built optical stabilization into most of their lenses (save for its prime and 7-14mm models), so this wasn't necessary. But by building image stabilization into the body, the GX7 also brings shake reduction to Olympus' Micro Four Thirds lenses (which don't have it, since Olympus' cameras have in-body IS as well).

We tried a pair of Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses that don't have image stabilization (the 12mm and 17mm primes) and the in-body IS system worked as advertised (again, it only operates as the photo is taken). Many other lens mounts can be used with the GX7 and yes, that means that they'll have image stabilization for still shooting as well. Attaching an old Konica lens via an adapter worked fine, with the only change being that you must tell the camera what the focal length is.

The GX7 is the first Panasonic G-series camera to feature sensor-shift image stabilization.

The 16 megapixel Live MOS sensor is also a new design.

The downside? There's no shake reduction while you're composing a photo, so things can get wobbly when you're using a telephoto lens. In addition, the in-body IS system does not work in movie mode.

Tone curve adjustment

Another new feature on the GX7 is tone curve adjustment, which you'll also find on several Olympus mirrorless cameras, including the E-P5 and E-M1. There are four presets (standard, higher contrast, lower contrast, brighten shadows) plus three custom slots, all of which can be customized.

The tone curve adjustment lets you use the front and top dials to tweak contrast to your liking.

Any changes will be saved to one of the three custom slots.

The shadows and highlights can be adjusted from -5 to +5 in one-stop increments in either direction. The results are previewed in real-time on the LCD and EVF.

Shadows -5 Neutral tone curve Highlights +5

Silent Mode

A feature that makes the DMC-GX7 a great 'stealth camera' is its silent mode. When activated, the camera switches from the mechanical shutter to the electronic one, disables all the blips and bleeps, and shuts off the AF-assist lamp.

The results are impressive. The camera is truly silent, to the point where a person standing right next to you cannot tell when a photo was taken. An additional benefit is that can you shoot considerably faster in burst mode: 10 fps at full resolution and 40 fps at 4 megapixel.

Banding can be an issue when using the GX7's electronic shutter in artificial lighting conditions. This particular photo was taken under fluorescent light.

ISO 2500, 1/200 sec, f/5.4

So what's the catch? The flash is unavailable, and the ISO range narrows to 200 - 3200. In addition, the slowest shutter speed you can use is 1 second. And, because the camera is using its electronic shutter, there's a risk of the rolling shutter effect (as the sensor effectively scans the scene, top to bottom), distorting moving subjects. There's also a risk of artificial light leaving banding across images as the scanning of the sensor captures the flickering of the lights.

Focus peaking

While the old DMC-GX1 (and video-focused GH3) lacked focus peaking, it's out in full force on the GX7. Focus peaking is for use in manual focus mode. When your subject is in-focus, it will be outlined by a color that 'glimmers'. You can use this tool to make very precise adjustments to the focus distance.

While difficult to see here, there are yellow lines showing what areas of the subject are in-focus.

There are two levels of sensitivity to choose from, aptly named low and high. You can also select the color of the outline: blue, yellow, or green. In low light, focus peaking can be difficult to see, as noise is often highlighted, rather than high-contrast regions. In good light, it works very well.

HDR

Another feature that the GX1 was missing is HDR, or high dynamic range. HDR combines a series of photos (usually three), each shot at a different exposure, into a single image with a wider range of tonal information. The idea is that it allows the capture and inclusion of more highlight information and shadow detail than a single exposure.

The first thing to know about HDR on the GX7 is that it's for JPEGs only. You must turn off Raw or Raw+JPEG to even access the HDR menu item. Once you're there, you can fire away.

There are four 'levels' of HDR to choose from: Auto, 1EV, 2EV, or 3EV. The larger the interval, the more pronounced the effect. You can also choose whether or not the camera tries to align the three images.

HDR off
ISO 200, 1/320 sec, f/6.3
HDR auto
ISO 200, 1/250 sec, f/5.6

The comparison above was taken with HDR set to 'Auto'. As you can see, the shadows get brightened quite a bit, while the correct highlight tone returns to areas that were clipped in the original. You will notice that the HDR version is a bit 'cropped' compared to the original (to give the camera flexibility to match slightly misaligned images) but that's a small price to pay for the improvement in contrast.

The last time we looked at the HDR feature on a Panasonic mirrorless camera was when we reviewed the DMC-GH3, and we found it did poorly if the was any movement within the scene. The GX7 does a lot better, with only a minor error occurring around the head of the security guard, towards the lower left of the shot. The HDR photo does seem to be softer than the original, as well.

The GX7 shoots fast enough that you won't need a tripod - at least in good light.

Another feature you can use to improve image contrast is i.Dynamic, which we'll cover on the Dynamic Range page.

Panorama

The Lumix DMC-GX7 has a 'Panorama Shot' feature, which has slowly been appearing on mirrorless cameras over the last year. The exception is on the Sony NEX cameras, which have had this 'sweep panorama' feature since the beginning, which isn't surprising, considering Sony was looking for ways to promote the speed advantages of the CMOS sensors it makes.

Taking panoramas is simple. Select the Panorama option from the Scene mode (which has a whopping twenty-four options, by the way) and pan the camera from left to right (or the direction of your choosing).

As you can see above, the results can be impressive. There are just a few stitching problems, as well as some muddy details on the 'tower' at the center of the photo.

One of very few stitching problems Another stitching problem, plus some muddy detail on the bricks, which may have nothing to do with this being a panorama.

If you're shooting a panorama with a large amount of contrast, the camera will not dynamically adjust the metering across the scene.

If you want to add some 'style' to your panoramic images, the GX7 offers 18 'Creative Controls' (also available for stills) which lets you quickly adjust the color or apply special effects.

Stop Motion / Time Lapse

If you're a fan of Wallace & Gromit or The Nightmare Before Christmas, then you'll know what stop motion animation is. By taking a photo, slightly moving your subject, and taking another picture (repeatedly), you can obtain a choppy but effective animated movie.

On the GX7 you can take as many pictures as you'd like, and the camera will put them together into a video for you. The original stills are saved, as well. The camera can 'auto shoot' at set intervals (you'd better be quick) or you can take them at your own pace. The GX7 displays an overlay of the previous shot, so you can see exactly what's moved.

When you've finished taking pictures, you can save the results as an MP4 video. You can choose resolutions of up to 1080/60p, with frame rates ranging from 3 - 30 fps. Obviously, the quality of the animation depends on your skill, but here's a quick example from us:

Stop Motion, 18 shots, 1920 x 1080, 6 fps, MP4 format

Another, more common feature on the GX7 is time-lapse. Simply choose the start time, interval, and number of photos to be taken, and the camera does the rest. Just remember your tripod (and AC adapter if you're being ambitious).

Clear Retouch

Samsung has been toting the 'Photo Eraser' feature on their smartphones, and you can do the same thing on your GX7 using its 'Clear Retouch' option. The idea is that it lets you 'remove' unwanted subjects from a photo. The camera doesn't give very clear instructions on how to use this feature - the word 'trace' implies outlining, at least to us - but carefully running your finger over the item you want to remove will turn it red. Once that's done, the camera will grind away for a few seconds and then display the result.

If you're feeling a bit skeptical about this feature actually working, you should be. In our tests, results were pretty awkward. See for yourself:

Let's say that you want to remove that unsightly yellow pole from the photo.
ISO 200, 1/125 sec, f/5.6
Downsized crop, original photo Downsized crop, Clear Retouch photo

After toying around this feature, we think you're better off using the clone tool in Photoshop or pretty much any basic image editing software, instead.

Wi-Fi

The Lumix DMC-GX7 offers a fairly elaborate Wi-Fi feature, which includes remote camera control from your smartphone. In order to take advantage of smartphone connectivity, you'll first need to download the Panasonic Image App for iOS or Android.

The most difficult part of the process is pairing your mobile device with the GX7, which can be accomplished in several ways. If your smartphone supports NFC (near-field communication), you can 'tap' the two devices together at a designated spot. Previous experience with Panasonic's NFC implementation has been frustrating, and while it's better on the GX7, we still saw quite a few connection failures. If you don't want to deal with NFC - or don't have a device that supports it - you can type the network details into your smart device.

Once connected, you can remotely control the GX7, with a good selection of shooting options. You can touch the screen to focus or meter, or turn on touch shutter which will take a photo instantly. Settings such as white balance, ISO, focus mode, and even the aperture and/or shutter speed can be adjusted (which is an unusually high level of control, for such cameras). If you're using a power zoom lens, that too can be controlled from the app. One thing you cannot do is switch shooting modes, which requires a trip to the 'real' mode dial.

Above you can see the various settings you can adjust when controlling the camera with your smartphone. The quick menu offers less commonly used settings.

You can also transmit photos directly from the camera to another device as they are taken. In addition to a smartphone, photos can be sent to a PC, 'web service' (such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr), Panasonic's cloud service, or compatible televisions. In order to share photos to social networking sites or cloud storage, you must sign up for Panasonic's LUMIX Club (since all images are uploaded there first), which is an exercise in frustration.

Browsing photos on the GX7's memory card using the Panasonic Image App.

If you don't want instant photo transfer, there are a couple of ways to get them from the camera to your smartphone after the fact. One way is to connect the two devices as if you're shooting, and then browse what's on the camera's memory card (shown above). Alternatively, you can browse through individual photos on the camera and the connect to your device to transfer the images. If you're using NFC, you can also 'tap' to transfer images.

Overall, the GX7's Wi-Fi feature sounds good on the surface, but the user experience and reliability could be a lot better.

Previous page Next page
476
I own it
163
I want it
49
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 585
1234
Ednaz

Now three weeks into upgrading my G3 and GH2 combo to G6 and GX7. For some reason with both on the shelf I'm grabbing the GX7 90% of the time. When I had a GF1 I took it when I really needed small, but otherwise preferred my DSLR or the GH1 once I had it.

For personal shooting - frost-kissed flowers when I first wake up, something impulse and not a planned shoot, I'm finding the GX7 often wins out over my DSLR kit. Only when I know that pixel count will matter - studio work for fine art prints I know will be printed large - is the DSLR an instant winner.

Raw image quality is a real upgrade from my last m4/3 kit. Handling is really nice, I put a hand strap on and have a long strap waiting to go on but think that might never happen, the camera really handles - literally - superbly.

The only downers: that wifi button has intruded way too often. For some reason my Nikon shoe flash don't fire reliably where the one Panasonic shoe flash I have does.

3 upvotes
King Penguin

Nice camera but sadly crippled by the small sensor.....I'll wait for the FF version from someone else.....

3 upvotes
photobeans

Crippled? It's made small intentionally so those of us who want small cameras and small lenses can pack it with 2 or 3 lenses in the back of the small pouch in our backpacks while mountaineering.

29 upvotes
vapentaxuser

What's the matter? Is a Micro 4/3rds camera not big enough of a crutch to make up for your mediocre photography skills?

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
mister_roboto

"What's the matter? Is a Micro 4/3rds camera not big enough of a crutch to make up for your mediocre photography skills?"

Really? Was that necessary?

3 upvotes
vapentaxuser

@mister_roboto You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Micro 4/3rds sensors are garbage. There's absolutely no way or how that you can get a nice picture in any circumstances out of any camera that has one. The OP is right, you can only take great photos if you have a FF camera in your hand. Who is behind the camera taking the shot matters little.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
mister_roboto

So... basically you're just being a jerk?

4 upvotes
King Penguin

Ouch......I'm just saying nice cam shame it's not FF. I've had M43, then APSC now FF. It's a nice cam but I'd miss my FF sensor and compact primes (AF-D lenses are pretty compact actually) too much.

By the way, I drive a BMW and use a iPhone, so there's a few other reasons to be abusive towards me.....

.....am I boverred?

1 upvote
vapentaxuser

I disagree with your original comment but I take back what I said about "mediocre photography skills". I get irritated at how people just dismiss excellent cameras flat out because the sensor is something less than a full-frame. But at the same time I did nothing to elevate the discourse regarding this topic by taking a cheap shot at you regarding your skills as a photographer. So, my sincere apologies. I will try to keep it more civil the next time.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
King Penguin

You don't need to apologise, I'm English and therefore incredibily thick skinned.........you have to be, with a history like ours :)

As I said nice cam, shame it's not FF, maybe in a few years......

0 upvotes
Shamael

Mr vapentaxuser, I see that you are one more of those that believ that only the FF system is the real deal. Now, look at a shot taken by a 645 medium format and the same shot with a FF system, and then, FF is the garbage you talk about. All sensor sizes have a positive and a negative side, and that 2 sides again depend only on your own point of view.

If your intention is a shot with a limited focal plane where shallow DOF is important, and this is something you can achieve wit super fast lenses as well on smaller sensors, FF has this ability given by the sensor size. The ability of full in dpth sharmpness is on the other side not given to it for the simple reason that we do not move the lens to the right level to do this.

We stick with the same lens/sensor distance ratio, as well in a small sensor APSC, a FF dslr, or any other system. Even in mirrorless we keep a certain ratio to match the same specs as with a dslr.

1 upvote
Shamael

The result is an unmatched in depth sharpness when the sensor gets smaller, while shallower DOF occurs once you make it's surface bigger. A sensor in any size with the same pixel pitch will capture same detail and same resolution, and here it doesn't matter how big he is. A 12 mpix APSC is the same pitch and density as a 24 mpix FF, and once I look at my shots of D200 and see those of a 20 mpix Canon FF, I see the same resolution and smoothness with different DOF only.

The 4/3 sensor in 16 mpix has the same pitch and pixeldensity as the 24 mpix from Sony in APSC, and the shot he does is thus in the same quality, not in DOF, where you need a 0.95 Nokton lens to match what the APSC does with a 1.8 lens, or a FF with a 2.8.

Now, saying that all those sensors are garbage, is spreading garbage. There are enough samples and pictures all over the net to look at that prove the capacities of the 4/3 sensor in any way. FF is not the top of the iceberg, all depends of the goals you have.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vapentaxuser

@Shamael I was being sarcastic.

0 upvotes
Shamael

So, saying that a smaller sensor is garbage, is stupid. A 1" sensor draws heavenly good, even a 1 1/7 sensor does, all depends of the circumstances in which you use it and for what goal. At decent size of 5 x 8 inches prints, you wont see that much difference, and here again, only DOF can give you an idea of what sensor could have been used. Some are sharper in capture at base, some are less sharp. As an example, the 24 mpix Sony APSC sensor of the NEX-7. This sensor is used in many cameras, 16 mpix 4/3 from OLY is a crop of it, in all Nikon Cameras it is used, in Pentax latest K3 it is used, but in none of all that cameras, except NEX and Oly mirrorless, this sensor draws real sharp. On the other side, mirrorless often struggle with aberrations, while dslr's do here a better job.

One can't have it all, but after all, none of all hat sytems are garbage. 4/3 has proven to make excellent shots, with or without vapenatxuser claiming it to be garbage.

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

@Shamael I don't think M4/3rd sensors are garbage. I was using sarcasm to get the same point across as you are.

0 upvotes
bluevellet

Shamael got his math seriously wrong, hopefully not a purpose.

Basically, in terms of depth of field (DOF), APS-C has a little less than 1 stop advantage over m43 and FF has roughly a 2 stops advantage.

So essentially, if you have a m43 at f0.95, you need around f1.2-f1.3 to match it with APS-C and f1.9 on FF.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
LMNCT

One more point about the GX7. It has a setting for a "pinpoint" focusing target and it makes gaining focus on small subjects (eye of bird, etc.) a great deal easier than the large 'box' targets. Just a small point, but a very important one and one of the reasons that I purchase this camera.

8 upvotes
Andy Crowe

Panasonic m4/3 cameras have had that feature since the G1 haven't they?

4 upvotes
Gesture

Panasonic way ahead on focusing for YEARS. Spot and pinpoint focus, superb manual focus system. Never really ackowledged in reviews.

9 upvotes
LaFonte

I think it is well acknowledged. Panasonic was for years without question a top gun in contrast based focusing. Now it is starting to level up, but still take cameras like fuji x (I have one) and you would appreciate the panasonic speed.

3 upvotes
LMNCT

The EVF seems to be a point of confusion for those who do not enjoy eye-level operation. I own this camera and can tell you that the EVF is perfectly fine and a lot better than having only the LCD to deal with in bright conditions. If I had it to do over again, I would purchase the GX7 again. It is leaps and bounds ahead of the other bodies (both Panasonic and Olympus) which I own.

13 upvotes
Valentinian

I respect this review. which proves once again to me not to make a judgement on a new camera based on its specs alone when it is released, but rather to wait for a professional review like this one.
btw, I was interested in this camera, not to buy it because am happy with my Em-5, yet interested to see the innovation trend taking a good direction.
Hopefully this trend will continue with refinements and improvements, and in a few years I will upgrade to a better camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Infared

Some say the build quality on the GX7 is great ...some say it is cheap. I have never read so many conflicting remarks about the build of any other camera. I guess that it has to do with people's previous cameras, so it is all relative.

5 upvotes
khunstuart

Build quality on mine is spot on....

2 upvotes
toto435

GM1 seems to have better sharpness ?! isn't it the same sensor on both ?

0 upvotes
Jeanadriane

JPG comparison...

Yes, it's the same sensor.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

Seems like the GM1 has a little more moiré too, maybe it uses a simpler demosaicing algorithm that leads to more moiré but makes it look sharper.

0 upvotes
sbszine

Or a weaker AA filter?

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

Possibly, but the level of detail they're capturing looks around the same.

0 upvotes
108

I have no doubt that the IQ of this camera is on par with the EM5 and even EM1, plus you get built in flash, IBIS ( one of my major reservations with pana bodies ), better ergonomics compared to EM5, the excellent pana manual focus options, electronic shutter, iDynamic, etc...yet I have held it in store along the Olympuses and can't help to think it does not have the same built quality as the Olys ,it feels lighter, the EVF is way not as good as the EM1's, and very subjectively I think it is maybe not ugly but completely without inspiration , ordinary looking, flat. As for me I would put down the extra 2 or 300 euros and get the EM1 instead.

4 upvotes
Len_Gee

the em1 looks ugly. A Frankenstien like cobbled together body. Tje appendage that is the grip, is out of place on the em1.

Not like the original classic EM-5 good looks.

6 upvotes
The Jacal

You should try one out, it is ergonomically superb.

0 upvotes
pdelux

I think with EM5 they prioritised the looks, thats why ergonomics were not so great. With EM1 they went for function, hence great ergonomics but some people dont like the look. Whatever still looks much better than those D-SLR BLOBS

0 upvotes
Abaregi

I don't understand why people whine about scores.
All you need to know is in the review, try reading it.

If you think the Camera is a "gold" then good for you! You found a camera you love - go and buy it!

If you think the score should be lower - just don't buy it if it doesn't suit your needs - stop whining like an immature teenager.

I liked the review and the camera seems to be top of the class in m43 standards with the omd em1 depending on preference.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
24 upvotes
TN Args

Your 24 'likes' must have all been by DPR staff. If your post was sensible, then we should not ever read the scores or the awards given to cameras. Nor should DPR publish them!

Fact is they COMPLETELY scre*ed up the review and scoring for this camera, in a way almost never seen before in DPR reviews.

Also FACT is that readers look to these reviews and scores and awards to help them to make decisions about camera purchases. Suggesting we shouldn't.... good grief, maybe DPR staff should approach their management and suggest they publish a big headline that their reviews are no use to anybody and should be ignored and preferably not read. The bosses (and advertisers) would be most impressed.....

0 upvotes
Gesture

Would create a new award level for this astounding camera: Platinum or Titanium.

7 upvotes
Cane

you obviously don't shoot anything that moves, with AF?

2 upvotes
caver3d

And you obviously don't own the GX7. I do. Neither you nor DPReview know what you are talking about.

17 upvotes
Simon Joinson

phew! good job someone does!

16 upvotes
Raist3d
0 upvotes
Gesture

How many cameras allow you to move the enlarged manual focus box or histogram wherever you want?

5 upvotes
babalu

It seems to me that -unlike in other disputed reviews- the camera per se is not bashed in the comments, but the review itself is. Good so !

1 upvote
Demon Cleaner

Comparing the Pro's and Con's of the GX7 and its direct competitor the E-P5 are enlightening.

E-P5 Pro:
"Superb, high-res optional electronic viewfinder"

Yes, it costs $300 extra. You can get one for free with the GX7, but we're going to lob that in as a Con because we feel you need a $15 eyecup to use it effectively.

Leaves you dumbfounded after reading reviews that downplay poor ergonomics because you can purchase a $50 aftermarket add-on by Richard Franiec.

20 upvotes
Percival Merriwether

I love my Lumix G5, and the GX7 looks like a real winner. Now, if Nikon would only make a full-frame version of a GX7, I'd be able to make use of all of my Nikkor lenses on a mirrorless body!

1 upvote
jeffharris

I use all my Nikon AI-S lenses on my GX7 and GH2 with no problems at all. The Nikon macro lenses I have are excellent!

Adapting manual lenses is about the only way we m4/3 users will get telephoto primes to use NOW, while Panasonic and Olympus seem content to churn out zooms.

4 upvotes
Owen

Nikon should have made it instead of their new Df.......

4 upvotes
jim stirling

"I use all my Nikon AI-S lenses on my GX7 and GH2 with no problems at all. "

There are a few problems Jeff such as the focal length doubling fine for longer lenses not so good for wider.There is no AF , and the lenses are often significantly larger and heavier than the native options.

0 upvotes
HelloToe

The closest thing to a full-frame GX7 is probably what Sony will be launching this spring...

0 upvotes
jeffharris

@ jim stirling

Of course the focal length is doubled. That comes with the territory. And yes, wide angles are sort of pointless, which is again, another given. But given the great selection of native M4/3 wide angles from various manufacturers (Panasonic, Olympus, SLR Magic and Voigtländer) and ultra-wides, like the 7-14mm, that's not an issue either.

As far as size and weight go, since my cameras weighs 10-12oz.±, vs. 2lbs.+, The size/weight of the body balance things out. The larger ones I only use with a tripod or monopod. For me, it's another non-issue. For others, of course it is.

The other point is that there are lenses, like long macros and fast prime telephotos that may never appear as native M4/3 lenses. For instance, even the Panasonic 150mm f2.8 is in limbo now, so, what's the solution? Switch systems? Wail about a lack of lenses? Or adapt… literally and figuratively. I prefer to adapt.

1 upvote
whensly

I checked out this camera the other day, I own a GH3, and an LX7, have owned the GH1 and 2 and G3, so I'm pretty good to go with Panny. I found it bigger than I hoped, found the EVF small and uncomfortable. If and when the cam drops to $500, maybe. With my Fuji Xpro and Sony Rx1 I would probably choose to carry around a GX7 if it was just a bit smaller and cheaper. How about EVF capabilities on the GM1?

I have been pining for breakthroughs in the M4/3rd sensors which looks like a couple of years off. I figured Panny or Oly may pull the AA filter off the sensor and offer us that config to tide us over until a completely new sensor. Now I remember that Panny always had problems with digital noise so with these sensors so I'm guessing that will not happen.

With the great small camera big sensor offerings out there from Fuji , Ricoh, Nikon and I'm sure others, if I was not a legacy Panny owner I would probably have little attraction to the GX7.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jogger

Even though DPR keeps saying that the rating is separate from the assessment. I have to say that it really taints the whole review, to the point where i dont bother with reading the review anymore. The "best in class" RX100v2 and now this one are perfect examples of the disconnect.

Back in the day, I used to read them front to back, even on cameras i had no intention of buying. But, now there are other sources. I wont bother reading this one.

I bet DPR gets more page hits (i.e. more ad revenue) from the comments section than the actual review.

24 upvotes
Iskender

Well, I guess you save time this way.

You *could* ignore the ratings instead, and read the content. But if you're that happy to just skip the content, you probably never liked it much in the first place. I don't think the rating has a lot to do with if the review is read or not.

1 upvote
lookrndyou

Blathering on some more...

Sometime -- when -- IF? -- I get around to it, I can see dozens of menu items that may or may not come in handy. For now, the very basic and "photographic" parts of it just really work, and really work well.

The pictures, examined on the larger screen, simply impress and from long experience are what I bet are going to produce very beautiful prints, or any other end display.

I see it's traditional to include at least one whine, so here's a possible one. I'm a Photoshop user on a version a bit behind CC. Camera Raw can't "see" the RAW file version Panasonic has graced the GX7 with. This may actually be a blessing, since DNG Converter makes a good job and file sizes trimmed by 3-5MB each, of the native RAW files. So one extra step, for this workflow. YMMV. As they say.

0 upvotes
lookrndyou

(Blathering on...=)

The EVF feels and looks like a good SLR vewfinder and -- I know the nigglers who obsess on these things can tell me off -- the perception is of no delay in any of the process of taking a picture or looking at what you've done. At the moment of shutter release the EVF "blinks" dark, and so briefly it's only just preceptible. If I'm following a person walking across the street, the viewfinder image reappears so fast (really it's about like the dark interval using an SLR while the mirror is up, but, I'd wager, much shorter than that), and the lag is so minimal, that it is clear from what I see in the finder that the exposure happened when I hoped it would, and not...later. This last is confirmed if I shift my attention to my sly other eye squinting around the end of the camera.It's one very deep instrument.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lookrndyou

Well, this will be 2 cents or a mere drop in a very large bucket. I am a GF1 fan and user, but the GX7 newly arrived is just so far beyond any (ANY) digital model I have ever used that I am simply overjoyed.

It sits in one's hand like a Leica -- or maybe like the OM-1 of yore. Controls are where they "should " be; almost from the first outing things seem to fall under my fingers without thinking about it.

The whole flow of taking pictures, being at the ready, and of the camera's overall quickness, make it a joy to use.

Then there is silent mode. There. I took a picture. Did you hear it? In fact, several.

4 upvotes
cgarrard

Even I'm a bit surprised on the final score and rating with this one, and I usually agree with DPR's conclusions.

And I do mean a bit, not a lot- as in a sarcastic reply. To me I thought the GX7 would get a gold award by dpr staffers, seems to tick off a lot of what they like in a camera. No worries though, there might be some intangibles mixed in there too with that score.

Personally I think the GX7 is the best camera for m4/3 Panasonic has ever built.

Carl

20 upvotes
Richard Butler

From my use and discussing it with Jeff, I'd put it this way: the GX7 is really good, but not great. The tiling EVF is an interesting idea but if, like me, you're a bit sensitive to the field sequential LCD, then it's pretty much unusable (I'm going to check it against the G6, but it would be enough to stop me buying a GX7, personally). We didn't criticise it too hard for that, since not everyone notices/minds it.

The criticism of lack of stabilization for preview comes down to its intent - its inclusions, plus focus peaking should make this perfect for using old lenses on, but that's undermined by the lack of stabilization when you're trying to align your shots (there are also times that focus peaking only seems to highlight noise, so you end up using magnifies LV, where stabilization would really help).

The touchscreen interface is pretty good but it doesn't feel well integrated with the physical controls - there's massive and overwhelming redundancy...

9 upvotes
Richard Butler

...None of the above are devastating flaws. Overall it's a very good camera, with the best JPEG results we've yet seen from a Panasonic.

However, in use it never quite lives up to the promise it offers 'on paper' - the whole isn't quite the sum of the spec highlights. At which point, against some cameras that are really well worked-out, that's a Silver (which still means this camera is really good), not a Gold.

To an extent, if it had achieved this much a year and a half ago, it might have been a Gold. However, arriving 17 months after the E-M5, it doesn't push the bar any higher (and arguably isn't as coherent a camera), so just misses out.

As always, though, if your needs differ and the things that we were disappointed by don't matter to you, then you're welcome to reach a different conclusion - we just hope our work helped in drawing that conclusion.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
FrankS009

To each his own. You do your job. And if you are particularly sensitive to field sequential EVFs, you have a personal point of view.
But I don't see your score as fair - the GX7 seems "really well worked out" to me relative to the nits you have picked.

A 79 is always basically a cop-out score. Give it a 78 or an 80.

F.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
babalu

I agree . Too much personal likings/dislikings were used as pivotal arguments in the review. Sadly, it was not as balanced as I would have expected.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

The numerical score is based on our testing - the concerns we had about the consistency of interface, lack of stabilized preview, etc, aren't factored into the score. They're only included in the award chosen by the reviewer.

It's not a perfect system or one that it's possible to make 100% objective but, having been party to its development, an awful lot of effort went into making it as fair and consistent as possible.

Looking at the finer grained scoring, the score is around 0.6% lower than the E-M5, which sounds about right to me.

6 upvotes
cgarrard

Thanks for the reply Richard, I'm not surprised and it helps make more sense. For anyone who are negative about DPR's conclusion- they are absolutely entitled to it- why that is questioned on replies so often is beyond me.

To be surprised and mention it is one thing, to try and devalue their opinion or berate them, is intolerable to me. It's their opinion. We are all entitled to our own.

4 upvotes
babalu

Richard, I have always respected DPR reviews, they were the one point of reference for me in the decision to buy a certain product or not. I know many camera dealers who link to DPreview when discussing camera specifics with customers. That is the more reason why I am not convinced this time. I feel your narrative in the review is balanced against the camera, can't help it.

While we are at that, would you consider to change the review in this point:

"The GX7's pop-up flash, which is released manually, has a guide number of 7 meters at ISO 200, which is typical for a camera in this class.

This flash cannot be used as a wireless 'master', though you can buy and attach an external flash that can serve that purpose."

This is objectively a false statement, the camera can indeed trigger wireless flash with the built-in pop up .

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Raist3d

Thank you Richard or taking the time to explain more about the context of the award. As one of the first ones that posted about it, I want to make clear i wasn't particularly upset just confused - more so because of the reasons given at the end (the three reasons).

This makes more sense even if ultimately I may not quite totally agree but makes me think and reflect a bit. Thanks for taking the time. Appreciated.

2 upvotes
HelloToe

"If it had achieved this much a year and a half ago, it might have been a Gold."

That's what's been bugging me. As great as it is, it kinda feels like it should have been launched a year ago, around the same time as the NEX-6 (probably its closest competitor). Tempting as the GX7 is, I can't help but wonder if by spring we'll see a 'NEX-6N' that blows it away. (It'll come sooner or later, of course, just a matter of when.)

0 upvotes
PicOne

Is the launch date a factor, or rather should it be.. how does it compare to other current cameras available in stores now? There is no Nex-6n yet.

1 upvote
FrankS009

May we have the fine grained scoring on all reviews please.

F.

0 upvotes
okfuture

Responding to HelloToe and R Butlers reply just above. He begins: "...None of the above are devastating flaws," and adds "it doesn't push the bar any higher."

That's the thing -- other cameras that have pushed the bar do have devastating flaws. The gx7 seems like an effort to bring polish, iQ, and usability into the complete package.

He references the e-m5 for achieving similar specs more than a year earlier. I'd rather have the same specs now, without the flaws: "Focus tracking distinctly unreliable ... Small controls sometimes awkward ... Several useful features hidden in obscure and confusingly-named menu options."

0 upvotes
moha

good article .. And Awesome blog i love this .. thanks

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
pedroboe100

Very little praise for the camera's amazing jpegs and color rendition in the conclusion. First camera I own that needs little or no retouching, esp. With WB.

10 upvotes
greenarcher02

Indeed. Although I almost always shoot RAW and like to play with different colors using split toning, the JPEGs from the GX7 and its WB is a vast improvement from the GX1.

1 upvote
Vinc T

Olympus has been offering that amazing color/jpg for a long, long time. So why the praise?

0 upvotes
Iskender

Vinc T: Olympus are praised for good JPEG's, so why not others? The world won't run out of nice words.

0 upvotes
Cane

I guess if it doesn't have pdaf for tracking like em1, you can't mention it. It got one sentence that it may hunt during tracking. How is this a huge deal on some cameras and barely mentioned on others?

2 upvotes
D200_4me

Once again, people have been personally offended and insulted by a review. ;-) The reviews contain a lot of useful information, regardless of the score given at the end. I know there are many other sites that have reviews, so rather than get upset about the score, I guess you could go look at another site that has a score you agree with? :-) I mean...if that makes you feel better. I've owned several cameras that didn't get a gold award here. So what? I liked them anyway.

6 upvotes
justmeMN

"Strong 'rainbow' tearing effect in EVF", "EVF is hard to see outdoors".

A $1,100 mirrorless camera that's not as good as a bottom-of-the-line DSLR.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe

On the other hand a bottom-of-the-line DSLR viewfinder is smaller, darkens on DOF preview, can't be used for WB preview or image review and doesn't support focus peaking.

7 upvotes
greenarcher02

I haven't experienced the rainbow effect yet.

As for DSLR, I can't even use the viewfinder in dark places.

3 upvotes
Fullframer

Cant use the viewfinder on a DSLR in dark places?? I have no problem using my D3S viewfinder in any condition. It is far better than any EVF ive used.

0 upvotes
rpm40

I would hope your $6,000+ professional 35mm body has a good viewfinder. :P

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe

I wouldn't call a D3S a "bottom-of-the-line DSLR" !

1 upvote
Olymore

I have an Olympus OM-1n at home which makes the D3s viewfinder look like a dark tunnel and even that isn't as good as the latest EVFs in dark conditions.

1 upvote
Fullframer

D3S wasn't $6,000 it was $5,200 MSRP, I paid less than that before the D4 came out. That said, my D80 viewfinder was perfectly usable in dark places, which was a sub $1k DSLR back in 2006.

0 upvotes
Fullframer

Sorry, but your Om-1N is a toy compared to a D3S or any other Nikon DX series camera.

0 upvotes
Summi Luchs

Silver award...so what. For me the GX-7 is the small and capable camera I was waiting for (years). It is right in the sweet spot between bulk, image quality and usability as a photographic tool. I have this camrea since it was available in Germany and have to say, that I'm not disappointed. Only few reasons left to take out my FF DSLR equipment anymore. I must admit that I do stills only, so the missing microphone jack doesn't hurt.

9 upvotes
babalu

Why isn't the very useful feature of "Moving the enlarged area" when manually focusing an image mentioned as a positive point?
The review by DPR of the GX7 leaves me with a shallow taste , as if DPR was looking for reasons to downsize the merits of the camera .

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
DRNottage

Love the fact that manufacturers are wising-up and putting EVFs in, but these cameras end up so big, I might as well carry my Rebel- and my trusty Sony WX10 for awesome video, for plinking. Now IF it had a mic/ headphone jack...

0 upvotes
Demon Cleaner

So compared to the E-P5 the following is worth 1 point I take it? Congratulations DPR, you've outdone yourself once again.

* E-P5 is more expensive;
* E-P5 has no EVF, requiring a $300 add-on;
* E-P5 has a major fault: shuttershock;
* E-P5 applies focus peaking as an art filter, which reduces the display frame rate, stops the use of other art filters, and is unusable in video (where it's essential);
* E-P5's video quality is a mess with no 24/25/50/60p (no PAL frame rates);
* E-P5 has no electronic shutter;
* E-P5 wifi is only usable in iAuto mode (and unlike the GX7, no control of: WB, ISO, aperture/ss, exposure comp, focus mode, burst mode, bracketing, photo style, image quality, metering, flash mode, video quality and record options, stop animation, etc etc);
* E-P5's time lapse is limited to 999 exposures and doesn't put the camera to sleep between shots;
* E-P5 has no sweep panorama

42 upvotes
Jorginho

Yes, like I said here a couple of times but a nice summary. Also: all lenses will work perfectly fine on a GX7 while Oly does not correct panasonic lenses to the same extend as Panny does. So this cam is more universal as both stablise lenzes.
5-axis is all the EP5 seems to have left, unless I am forgetting something truely usefull.

8 upvotes
greenarcher02

Aesthetics, as some people like the Olympus designs better, but that's subjective.

0 upvotes
FrankS009

I was a bit disappointed with the score given, and the reasons provided for the score. They seemed like severe nit picking to me. If a professor gave me this mark on a paper, I think I would be justified in asking him to take a second look.

F.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
okfuture

I agree. They should stop doing the ratings if they aren't going to be consistent about them.

Just as one example -- they had lots of negative things to say about the X-M1 handling and use and positive things to say about the GX7 in this regard. Yet the scores show the reverse. Subjective reviews + scientific tests are great. But these scores are empty.

"We found this material to be a bit slippery, which doesn't give you a lot of confidence when you're holding the camera. ... Two other design-related things we weren't huge fans of include the very plasticky power switch / shutter release and the top control dial, which turns too easily and can result in accidental setting adjustment."

I take comfort in the fact that they didn't find any major problems with the GX7. After a few months of consideration, I can get this thing with confidence, sure it will be my camera for the next half-dozen years.

2 upvotes
mseawell

I'm at Ramstein Air for base in Germany. We have a mall and the guy that got me started was in (Chris has been shooting since the 60's) and he had the GX7. He let me handle this...gem. Fast AF, sharp, terric feel, ergonomically superb. Of course this is all personal but I can sum it up for you in one word...winner! I love the reviews on DP review but don't forget we all draw our own conclusions. You are upset it didn't get gold? Buy it and go out and take some award winning pics! The possibilites with this class of cameras (including the GH3 I received yesterday, the EM-1, EM-5, Sony A7/A7R are only limited by the photographer! People didn't like the GH2 (bad stills, just good for video) I have 9 IPA's HM's and 3 Spider Awards that beg to differ! Camera's are great but it comes down to the photographer. Love the GX7 and will (when money and Mama allow) get it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
10 upvotes
pdelux

Wise words.

1 upvote
eastvillager

I've owned dozens of cameras in my life from a Leica M6 to a current Nikon D4 and D800 and in my opinion this is one of the best cameras I've ever owned. Great picture, super fast focusing, great build, great layout and just feels wonderful in your hands. The silent mode is amazing. Love the WiFi and use it everyday to post to Instagram. I haven't enjoyed a camera this much since the old SX-70 days. This camera doesn't deserve a gold rating, it deserves a platinum rating. At a grand with a sharp lens it's a steal in todays market.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
19 upvotes
Jeanadriane

Surprising review in a number of ways.

Page 1 of the review mentions "the semi-auto Av and Tv modes" of the GX7. Somehow I can't seem to find them on my cam... ;)

Like many previous posters I'm amazed that some relatively minor niggles are given so much weight in the final verdict. Attributing so much importance to features that will have little meaning for the crowd of enthousiasts that make up the target market for this camera, like iA mode or in-camera RAW processing, seems a bit unbalanced.

Although I liked the glorious big & clear EVF of my GX1 better, I find the EVF of the GX7 very useful and usable, even with my darn problem eyes. And for a left-eyer its tilting function is extremely useful.

4 upvotes
Olymore

Aperture priority and Shutter speed priority are sometimes called Av & Tv. And they're semi-automatic as you set one value and the camera the other value. I think that's what they mean.
I suspect that they have to concentrate on minor niggles as we're approaching the point where all these cameras are very good and the minor niggles are all that separate them. And are of course relatively subjective.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jeanadriane

"Aperture priority and Shutter speed priority are sometimes called Av & Tv" - yes, I know, in Canon land. But otherwise the usual indications are A and S for aperture priority and shutter speed priority.

And concentrating on minor niggles might be balanced by also concentrating on minor advantages, like the many points that are being mentioned in the comments on this page.

Nowadays even a high degree of customizability seems to be counted as a con - when we now can choose whether we want deal with our menus by buttons or by touch screen, that's called "massive and overwhelming redundancy"... My, am I glad I have this redundancy and I can choose to have my touch AF point and touch pad AF on screen and do ALL other settings by buttons! As glad as others probably will be to do everything on touch screen. Hurray for massive and overwhelming redundancy!

1 upvote
ivey3721

Canon, Nikon chose to have in-lenses stabilization system, while Sony has its IBIS. And like Canikon, Panasonic chose to have in-lenses stabilization system,too. Since when the lack of IBIS (or not efficient enough) prevent a camera from owning Gold Award?
And lack of in-camera raw process? Seriously?

4 upvotes
martin0reg

No in-body stabilisation means no stabilisation of video without OIS lenses.
For me this is a real downer because there are some very good lenses without OIS, especially wide angles, which are NOT stabilized in video mode...I have to agree with DP here...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ivey3721

Martin0reg, the two approaches (stabilization in-lenses and in-body) have their pros and cons, and that is another story (and a long story). The point I want to makes is that the lack of IBIS (or not efficient IBIS) has never prevented a canon camera (or nikon, leica) from owning gold award. I just don't understand the reasons provided by DPR in their conclusion part. Don't get me wrong, I own both canon and M43 gears.

3 upvotes
martin0reg

You are right. DP did not critizise the lack of in-body stabilisation on other panasonic 4/3 cameras either...but this has become a big point for the olympus om-d..

1 upvote
ivey3721

Think about this:
"the fantastic Canon 85 F1.2 or Nikon 85 F1.4 does not have in-lenses stabilization. Therefore, lack of IBIS, as well as lack of in-camera raw processing, prevented Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon 800 (E) owning the gold award. "

Fair enough?

How about Leica?

The point here is not the score, nor the award, but the reasons provided by DPR in its conclusion part are hard to be justified.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus

Pretty much same performance as OMD5 in RAW, both daylight or lowlight. Good camera, differences are down to personal taste.

2 upvotes
jim stirling

The same can be said for the E-M1 , e-pl5,e-pm2, GH3 RAW results are all but identical and there has been zero advance in high ISO. I am happy with my mFT cameras GH3/GX7 and will not consider updating them until there is an honest full stop advance in RAW high ISO+ DR

0 upvotes
Henrik Herranen

I think that sensor size should always be in the first page "Key specifications" list, and at the top of it, too. In my opinion if is more important than whether the sensor is Live CMOS, CCD, Backlit CMOS, or toast. Well, ok, maybe perhaps not more important that toast.

Please...?

2 upvotes
yabokkie

basically sensor size affects base ISO performance, and lens aperture defines low light peroformance. that ISO25 on 4/3" should be able to compete with ISO100 on 35mm full-frame.

so it's really well depth that matters.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

Sensor size isn't nearly as important as the "image quality compared" page because, you know, that's the actual image quality.

5 upvotes
Henrik Herranen

Andy: Of course sensor size doesn't tell image quality directly, but that was not my claim to begin with.
Sensor size is a major feature of every digital camera.
Not having sensor size in the "Key specification" list is especially frustrating with P&S cameras where sensor size can be 1/2.3", 1/1.8", 1/1.5", 1", or anything else. It gives a range of reasonable expectation for image quality, which then can be verified from the actual review.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Piciul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"The Live MOS sensor is a brand name of Image sensor used by Leica, Panasonic and Olympus in their Four Thirds System DSLR manufactured since 2006"
So, can you tell the size from that definition?

0 upvotes
yabokkie

we do need sensor area for traditional calculations but the traditional measurements doesn't reflect the nature of photograph.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@Henrik I don't really see what the issue is here, it's a Micro Four Thirds camera so the sensor size is implied, the sensor size is clearly listed near the top of the specs on the 2nd page and also very prominent on the overall camera listing pages. What benefit is there to repeating the sensor size again on the first page?

0 upvotes
tjbates

Lack of in-camera RAW processing. What is that exactly and when would I ever use it? Strange score. Something' up.

16 upvotes
Andy Crowe

I suspect the "tendency to close down the aperture in Program mode" is the main reasons for the silver vs gold score.

0 upvotes
jim stirling

Honestly Andy just how many people amongst your readership here are liable to be dependent on shooting program mode

1 upvote
Andy Crowe

@jim stirling How about people in a hurry to get a picture? If I'm in manual mode but suddenly see something that requires completely different settings to capture and need to get a shot quickly I'll stick it in auto or program or auto mode to get it. Sensible aperture/shutter speed choice in automatic modes should be a solved problem in camera design by now!

1 upvote
petr marek

A very unfair review, especially conclusion...
I give you silver award for it!
Olympuss...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
babalu

Bronze award would likely be more accurate for this review.

4 upvotes
pdelux

Wow some people are really hurt! Its just a camera and a make believe rating! doesnt change the camera in anyway, if you love your camera, why do you care someone else doesnt?

0 upvotes
babalu

In your review of the flash you stated :
"This flash cannot be used as a wireless 'master', though you can buy and attach an external flash that can serve that purpose."
That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE ! The camera DOES control external flash units, there is a whole chapter in the manual titled "Setting the wireless flash".
Obviously you did not read the manual.

16 upvotes
babalu

This has now been corrected in the review, after insisting about it.

0 upvotes
Jacques Cornell

One thing I learned here that I hadn't read elsewhere already was that frame rate goes up to 10fps with electronic shutter. That's definitely nice to know. Nice, also, to have the old noise test to compare the GX7 with older cameras that aren't included in the new studio scene database. Would be nice to see an exhaustive test of IBIS with various lenses across a wide range of shutter speeds. There are a lot of conflicting anecdotes out there about this.

0 upvotes
babalu

The frame rate can go up to even 40 fps, although at a lower resolution of 4MP .

0 upvotes
Zayne

Dear DPReview, please just tell me why the video score is the same with E-P5 & E-M1? Don't tell me it is because it doesn't have the mic input. Spec to spec this camera even blow out of the water the video spec of E-M1. Make comparison the video quality out of the box and tell us are they really equal, hence you giving the same score?

17 upvotes
Jorginho

I did not see it, thx. This is absurd if true. Liek I said below: 1 point more than EP5 inspite of silent shutter, built in EVF, indeed much better video, same IQ, I think a better menu, I think much better ergonomics and last but not least: a much lower price. It is beyond me. If I want an EP5 with EVF of similar IQ, I need to add another 250 euro or so....And I am no panny fan: I have the EPl5 and like it a whole lot.

8 upvotes
ntsan

Yeah the video is in a different league than Olympus and their crap codec, a simple video of dog running will result in macro blocking on Olympus machine

0 upvotes
jackf00

In addition, what is surprising is that in the EM1 review they conclude by “Disappointing video quality” while in the GX7 review they say in some of the comments “The video quality is impressive” but finally not even mention this as a Conclusion – Pros, and give same video performance level in their camera comparison tool.
Not very consistent review as usual !

In fact, DPR just start deciding which award to give and then find which arguments they will use to qchieve their choice ! Not fair review definitely !

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Hen3ry

This focus on the EVF's "tearing" effect is ludicrous. Is if going to affect your photography 99% of the time? No!

So what’s the big deal? This is a reviewers' nitpick, something they are trying to hang their hat on because the camera is so darned good.

Where is the silent mode of the much lauded E-M5? How does it compare for size? What about its pop-up flash (reported here as flimsy -- ALL pop-up flashes of that type are flimsy, but it is way, way better than none at all!).

Then there is the nonsensical expectation that you should be able to see through the EVF with glasses. Come on!!! I've been photographing for 50 years with glasses, and I have NEVER had an eye level viewfinder that works with glasses! The glasses used to go into my pocket; nowadays, they!).

As for the necessity to have the optional eye cup for sans glasses viewfinding -- OF COURSE!! I have been using them on every camera I have had for 50 years. Literally.

Give the GX7 the gold it deserves.

Cheers, geoff

33 upvotes
Andy Crowe

Yeah, when I wear glasses I don't actually look through the viewfinder with them, that's what the dioptre adjustment is for!

5 upvotes
hayely

Tears, Jeff!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Bram de Mooij

I wear glasses. The em5 viewfinder does not give me problems. I keep my glasses on. If the gx7 viewfinder requires me to put my glasses off, that would be a major disappointment.

3 upvotes
babalu

No it does not require you to put off your glasses, unless you wear them very far down your nose, like some reading glases are worn.
The tiltable EVF has some real advantage, as you can use it with just a little bit of tilt, which may provide a better and less conspicious appeareance while shooting and better ergonomics of neck position at that, and , because it's tiltable, it offers a GREAT advantage to left-eyed viewers. Finally, it is a fine aid when it comes to viewing in bright light conditions while shooting macro subjects.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
vesa1tahti

Problems in opening samples and starting slide shows. Explorer 9: samples sites don't get opened at all. Firefox and Chrome: individual images can be opened but slide shows not. What to do? Thanks a'lot. BTW: Windows 7.

1 upvote
inorogNL

same problem here, I just updated to latest adobe flash and still slideshow not working

0 upvotes
babalu

Show me a better, more flexible viewfinder camera with exchangeable lenses at this price point. There simply aren't any, and that is something the reviewer did not consider.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
Daniel Alenstein

Sony Nex-7? "Better" is of course a relative term. The Nex-7 has the raw image qualtity in it's favour and is quite a bit cheaper today. GX7 still looks very nice. Envy the silent mode.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
greenarcher02

Although NEX-7 and GX7 RAW are very close. Close enough that it's the system that matters most, not the sensor size and RAW quality.

And besides, NEX-7 and NEX-6 aren't that flexible in terms of buttons and menus, and the NEX menus are the worst for a camera.

0 upvotes
Artistico

If this camera had existed a year ago, i probably would have got it instead of the Olympus OM-D EM5. I see Panasonic even fixed the awful dynamic range that used to bother me with the GH2 I had before. As it doesn't improve on the E-M5 in more than really tiny ways, and possibly the IBIS isn't as good (which remains to be seen), I'll stick to Olympus for now.

3 upvotes
Andrew Butterfield

The EVF is hard to see outdoors? This is a bit of a shocker, since the point of the EVF is that it should be for when you can't see the LCD outdoors. It's hard to believe this is the case.

5 upvotes
babalu

I agree, you can VERY WELL see the the image in the EVF outdoors, and it's invaluable at bright light conditions.

2 upvotes
MikeInRomsey

This is totally ludicrous. I have used it outside with no problems whatsoever. I was worried about the tearing issue but again have not experienced any issue when using the EVF. I do not wear glasses however and this may help.

6 upvotes
AlpCns2

I agree. I think maybe they meant the LCD is hard to see outdoors?

0 upvotes
AlpCns2

I agree. I think maybe they meant the LCD is hard to see outdoors?

0 upvotes
babalu

I think the scoring is a slap in the face of those who appreciate things like a tiltable EVF (which can be used in bright light conditions better than the rear LCD) and can also improve life for those who due to physical limitations cannot really crouch, squat, bend like young children anymore; and an electronic silent shutter that is not available in most of the compared brands. A gold award was due, I believe I am not alone in that assumption.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
rpm40

A slap in the face? Over an arbitrary award for a camera? Come on now, you're taking it too seriously. Take a breath.

2 upvotes
babalu

Right. Arbitrary award is the right definition for this.

0 upvotes
MGJA

This is silver, but Canon 70D is gold. Heh.

Really, I am ever more convinced that dpr just hands those out in order to maximize page reloads as irate fangurls battle it out in the comments. Fine, whatever puts food on their tables is a-ok with me.

10 upvotes
HelloToe

No kidding, these days Canon's APS-C cameras can't even keep up with the image quality of little MFT sensors. But I guess we have to keep the legions of Canon fanboys visiting the site!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Dave Oddie

It's got IBIS and it's got an EVF which makes the camera far more useful than similar cameras that lack one or the other or both yet these have aspects of them listed in the cons?

IBIS is great and the fact you don't see a stabilised image from it is just how it works and how it has worked to the best of my knowledge on all IBIS based cameras including the Oly Pen cameras and it isn't listed as a con in the el p5 review so why here?

The EVF adds bulk? Well I have seen one of these cameras in the shops and its a very small camera regardless and it gives you the option of shooting in (to my mind) a far more natural way. External EVF's cost a lot and add even more bulk.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
pdelux

Non stabilised VF is a con probably because it is up against the EM-5 and not the PENs, however the P5 does have stabilised view

1 upvote
Ray Sachs

I liked the GX7 a LOT, despite mostly being an Oly user since I got into m43 a few years ago (I really liked the GF1, didn't much like the GH2 or G3, and haven't spent much time with a Pany since until the GX7). But the stabilized viewfinder is a pretty big deal with longer lenses. When I first used the EM5 with the 100-300, this was a revelation. The whole view calms down and lets you much more easily pick out a focus point and lock focus on it. Before this, working at extremely long focal lengths was often more bother than it was worth unless you were using a tripod and a relatively stationary subject. I never got how great BIF shooters did what they did. The EM5, EP5, and EM1 all have this feature and it's an awesome feature. And when I had a GX7 for a month, the lack of EVF stabilization was the one negative I immediately noticed and was bothered by. This is a pretty big deal with long lenses...

4 upvotes
zigi_S

"No kidding, these days Canon's APS-C cameras can't even keep up with the image quality of little MFT sensors."

No matter what a score says. My canon apsc camera takes better photos than a 43 and m43 ever did. IQ is not only about sensor noise. Bigger format captures also more detail and colour information.

1 upvote
MarkyM

But the 100-300 has OIS so the view is stabilized even on my GX1. I have no trouble picking out a focus point.

0 upvotes
Alpha Whiskey Photography

I was curious about this camera when I heard it announced, but the IBIS and LIVE TIME functions on the Olympus EM5 are so useful to me that I don't regret my purchase. Having captured a variety of subjects with m4/3, I think this format is just great. My FX Nikon is a paperweight.

http://alphawhiskey.slickpic.com/photoblog/

1 upvote
fatdeeman

They damn it for the ibis, a bonus feature nobody would have even expected of a Panasonic m43 body 6 months ago, cheap move.

17 upvotes
Total comments: 585
1234