Previous page Next page

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Review

November 2013 | By Jeff Keller
Buy on GearShop$797.99


Review based on a production Panasonic GX7 with firmware 1.1

Panasonic's Lumix DMC-GX7 is arguably the company's most enthusiast-focused mirrorless camera yet to hit the market. Back in 2011, Panasonic released the DMC-GX1 in a move to appease those who grew more and more disappointed as the promising GF-series got smaller and simpler, with fewer controls as the series progressed. The GX1, however, seemed like an interim move, adding minor enhancements to the original GF1 design and changing the badge, while fans watched as Sony's NEX-7 and the Olympus E-M5 offered more controls and sophisticated features, including built-in EVFs.

While few of the GX7's specifications stand out as innovative (aside, perhaps, from its built-in articulated electronic viewfinder), it's still comfortably the most enthusiast-orientated 'G' model, as well as the first to include in-body stabilization - key to shooting with non-native lenses. And beyond the headline specs it contains plenty of small tweaks and features sure to entice more advanced photographers.

Key specifications

  • 16MP Live MOS sensor
  • In-body image stabilization
  • Flip-up, 1024 x 768 pixel (2.3M dot equivalent) electronic viewfinder
  • 3-inch tilting LCD
  • Front and rear control dials
  • Magnesium-alloy frame
  • Built-in pop-up flash
  • 3-level focus peaking
  • 1/8000 second max shutter speed, 1/320th flash sync speed
  • Highlight and shadow curve adjustments
  • 1080 video at 60p/60i/24p in MP4 or AVCHD format
  • Built-in Wi-Fi with NFC

It's hard to know whether to think of the GX7 as being a post-NEX-7 or a post-E-M5 camera - but to an extent that's the point: unlike the GX1, which appeared to be a rather-too-late, warmed-over GF1, the GX7 is a camera that has learned from the increasingly impressive cameras it will have to compete with.

Despite Panasonic producing an extensive range of image-stabilized lenses, the GX7 incorporates in-body stabilization. This will be a welcome move for anyone hoping to use either Olympus's Micro Four Thirds lenses, or legacy lenses via adapters. Combined the GX7's 'focus peaking' manual focus aid, it promises to make the GX7 one of the more capable options when it comes to shooting with adapted lenses.

The GX7 has a lot to offer keen photographers, including a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec and a flash sync speed of 1/320 sec. The camera is also in unexpectedly exclusive company when it comes to offering a DSLR-like twin-dial control system. There are several mirrorless cameras with two control dials, but remarkably few that make it easy to simply set one to control aperture or shutter speed, and the other to control exposure compensation, which makes the semi-auto aperture and shutter priority modes enjoyable to shoot in.

Additional enthusiast-friendly features include tone curve adjustment, 3-level focus peaking, and a whopping seven customizable buttons. So is the GX7 the mirrorless camera that enthusiasts have been waiting for? Keep reading to find out.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
382
I own it
151
I want it
36
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 561
1234
magneto shot
By magneto shot (10 months ago)

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
By N13L5 (10 months ago)

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
By stevens37y (10 months ago)

>> Instead of SD cards...
nerd idea

0 upvotes
blade100
By blade100 (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (10 months ago)

What is the Auto ISO range on the GX7?

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (10 months ago)

Also, can you use auto iso in manual mode?

0 upvotes
kpaddler
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

200-25600
no auto in manual mode...

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (10 months ago)

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
By N13L5 (10 months ago)

opps wrong reply button

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kpaddler
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By chj (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Waynger
By Waynger (10 months ago)

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
By OneGuy (10 months ago)

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
By ThePhilips (10 months ago)

"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
By Jeppe (10 months ago)

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
14 upvotes
BBnose
By BBnose (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By Bob Meyer (10 months ago)

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.

4 upvotes
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
thorkilry
By thorkilry (10 months ago)

explorer 11 is out...

1 upvote
Feebz
By Feebz (10 months ago)

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
By b craw (10 months ago)

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
By ChicagoRob (10 months ago)

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
By TN Args (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By biomed (10 months ago)

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
By ChicagoRob (10 months ago)

Thanks for the input, guys.

0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@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
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

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
By PaulChapman (10 months ago)

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
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By TN Args (10 months ago)

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
By Revenant (10 months ago)

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
By Demon Cleaner (10 months ago)

"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
By thinkfat (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@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
By sean lancaster (10 months ago)

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
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

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
By summicronf2 (10 months ago)

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
By John Miles (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
dansw99
By dansw99 (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

That's probably true.

0 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (10 months ago)

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
By okfuture (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By TN Args (10 months ago)

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
By Demon Cleaner (10 months ago)

"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
By tbcass (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

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
By Michael D Sullivan (10 months ago)

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
By JasonHale (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
tbcass
By tbcass (10 months ago)

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
By Scott Birch (10 months ago)

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
By marike6 (10 months ago)

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
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

"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
By TN Args (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By tbcass (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Cristian Mihai
By Cristian Mihai (8 months ago)

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
By Michael J Davis (10 months ago)

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
By HDF2 (10 months ago)

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
By Michael J Davis (10 months ago)

Oh thanks! That's v. interesting!

0 upvotes
Alphoid
By Alphoid (10 months ago)

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
By CameraLabTester (10 months ago)

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

.

5 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

Looks like a sofa to me.

2 upvotes
pedroboe100
By pedroboe100 (10 months ago)

"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
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

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
By tsammyc (10 months ago)

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
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By snack (10 months ago)

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

The page never loads for me>

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (10 months ago)

Not working for me either, will alert our developers.

Update: fixed!

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
snack
By snack (10 months ago)

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.

14 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

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
By Jorginho (10 months ago)

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
By snack (10 months ago)

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
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

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
By snack (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Waynger
By Waynger (10 months ago)

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
By Jorginho (10 months ago)

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
By kpaddler (10 months ago)

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
By steven_k (10 months ago)

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
By Te Mat (10 months ago)

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) (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
kreislauf
By kreislauf (10 months ago)

> 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
By steven_k (10 months ago)

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
By Phoebe Lee (10 months ago)

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
By Jeff Keller (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
tsammyc
By tsammyc (10 months ago)

You can also control it using a Smartphone app

2 upvotes
Fotonaut
By Fotonaut (10 months ago)

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
By PeterF (10 months ago)

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
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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
By nevada5 (10 months ago)

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
By Jorginho (10 months ago)

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
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

@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
By Scott Birch (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
MDGColorado
By MDGColorado (9 months ago)

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
By Optimal Prime (10 months ago)

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
By babalu (10 months ago)

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
By Mike99999 (10 months ago)

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
By OneGuy (10 months ago)

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
By Dimit (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@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.

0 upvotes
NickNock
By NickNock (10 months ago)

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
By jl_smith (10 months ago)

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
By Beat Traveller (10 months ago)

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
By NickNock (10 months ago)

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
By nevada5 (10 months ago)

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
By SDPharm (10 months ago)

> 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
By David Fell (10 months ago)

*obliged* grrrr...

1 upvote
SDPharm
By SDPharm (10 months ago)

> *obliged* grrrr…

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

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (10 months ago)

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
Vinc T
By Vinc T (10 months ago)

Comparing to the 1.5 year old E-M5, this GX7 has nothing really extraordinary. The only special thing about it is its tilting EVF, which is meaningful to only the minority. Why should DPR award a GOLD to something just caught up with its competitor?

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (10 months ago)

Focus peaking, silent/electronic shutter mode, Wifi/NFC, etc = nothing? Many of those features are just as valuable to some as IBIS or anything else that the GX7 merely matches.

11 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (10 months ago)

Not to mention it focuses under up to like -4 EV, AFAIK Oly's AF only works up to 0.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Nonsense. What about the high-end video quality and frame rates, features that aren't even found in the EM-5 or the EM1?

What about the fact that it's the first rangefinder style m43 camera with a built in eye level VF?

8 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (10 months ago)

And never mind that the GX7 costs $250 less than an E-M5...

5 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (10 months ago)

Also, EM5 does not have a built-in flash, and has that fake penta-prism hump that always gets in the way. It is also widely accepted that Panasonic cameras have a better menu system based on what I read here.

3 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (10 months ago)

Silent mode, 1/8000s shutterspeed, way better ergonomics, built in tiltable flash, tilatable EVF (nice for left eyed people), far superior video, will work flawlesly with Oly and Panny lenses (Oly does only a partial correction for Panny lenses leaving JPGs to be somewhat desired), RF style which can be important, no zooming of the IBIS all the time, good intervalometer, sweep panorama mode, focuspeaking, electronic shutter does not wear...

It has all m43 users were asking for for about three years or so.

1 upvote
aeromonte
By aeromonte (10 months ago)

And don't forget if you use the GX7 with a tripod, it will not crack the bottom like the E-M5 has been known to do. That kills the weatherproofing feature.

0 upvotes
carlgt1
By carlgt1 (10 months ago)

what I can't figure out is - at these higher enthusiast price points - that cross over well into APS-C territory, what is the advantage versus say a Sony NEX-7?

1 upvote
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (10 months ago)

Better lens selection and on average lighter/smaller size lenses

7 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

Stabilised lenses --- all lenses.
in the case of OMD series stabilised for Videos.
Great lenses and choices too.

2 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (10 months ago)

Smaller & lighter (especially on the lens side), better lenses (both quality and selection), in-body stabilization, touchscreens, better interface/menus than NEX.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
tsammyc
By tsammyc (10 months ago)

Wireless flash control from pop-up flash. 600mm stabilised EFL lenses that can be used without tripod. Excellent 120mm EFL macro lens. Faster focus, doesn't hunt in low light.Wifi and control from a smartphone. Better high ISO image quality.

1 upvote
duartix
By duartix (10 months ago)

I'd say that by the count of dpreview staff that came out justifying the review and the score, they're both mortally wounded.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

That's a false metric, so far as I can see.

For instance - there's no point us responding to people who disagree with how much weight we've given one factor or another. We've explained our thinking over 14 pages - reiterating our points isn't going to change anyone's mind.

Also, we're pretty busy in the office today and, since there doesn't appear to be any suggestion of any fundamental failing - other than a failure to draw the conclusion some people would like - it's better that we press on with preparing more content, rather than disagree with people one at a time.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
15 upvotes
FrankS009
By FrankS009 (10 months ago)

"since there doesn't appear to be any suggestion of any fundamental failing - other than a failure to draw the conclusion some people would like - it's better that we press on with preparing more content."

I don't know what you would consider a fundamental failing, but an unfair score is certainly one.

F.

4 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

79% is a good score.. I am not sure why everyone is so hung up on it.

Compared to the OMD-EM5 which scored 80% its practically just as good and thats great for a M43 camera.. Rememebr EM5 was scored against current cameras at the time. Its a much harder field for the GX7 post GH3 and EM1

It cannot be compared to EM1 at 84 becuase it is a PRO build camera.

2 upvotes
FrankS009
By FrankS009 (10 months ago)

You justify your score below based on your comparative fine grained numerical scores. I think it would be useful to have them available in this case, and the rationale for each. That would give us a better idea of where you are coming from.

F.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (10 months ago)

@ Richard: I am not sdure but I have very rarely seen such a unanimous take on a review as this one. Almost all seem to agree that you have been to harsh on the cam. And you can say we explaine din 14 pages....That is nice, but the main point is not the review itself so much, but the double standars.
How can you explain an EVF adds bulk to this cam and is mentioned as a negative, why you do not do the same thing on any other cam with an EVF? We all know the video IQ of this cam is very good. We all know that videographers time and time again wonder when o when Oly comes with good video IQ. You score them on par? That just does not make sense to many of us.

But again: I know quite a few over here and they are not m43 users and hardly fans and still they share the thought that you underrated this cam. To me I guess it is the first time I think this about a dpreview review.

8 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (10 months ago)

The point system is inherently unfair no matter how you look at it, because different people value different things. If I don't care about video, then it is unfair (to me) for a camera to score higher because of better video when all other factors being equal.

If you are too lazy to look at the bars or read the article, then you will likely draw the wrong conclusion based on the points alone.

0 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (10 months ago)

Things that are important to me (or the reviewer) will be irrelevant to someone else and vice versa. That's why you have to interpret these reviews.
And why it's a waste of time arguing about unfairness and a handful of percentage points when the marking system is meaningless if your needs or likes are different to the reviewer.
Wi Fi, video, HDR modes, bracketing, number of AF points and about a hundred other things are totally irrelevant on a camera to me. A big bright viewfinder and weather sealing are important, Ability to take four thirds lenses a nice bonus. Which is why I rate the E-M1 massively higher than this. For other people it will be the reverse.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

@Jorginho - To be honest it's pretty common to get this sort of response to Silver awards (or Recommended ratings, before the current system was introduced).

The very nature of a Silver award is that it means the camera is really good and thus you get lots of people who have bought it or feel some affiliation with the brand who decide that we're under-valuing the product (after all, it's really good).

However, we spend a lot of time reviewing each camera, we also have lots of experience using its immediate peers, so feel able to distinguish between the very good and the very best. However, we do include all of the reasoning and evidence we've used to come to our conclusions, to allow people with different needs or expectations to draw their own conclusions.

0 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (10 months ago)

@Richard > The very nature of a Silver award is that it means the camera is really good…

Richard, I'm sure you have learned by now that Silver is not a good word to use here. It could be insulting even. I like this scale better: Good, Really Good, Really Really Good.

In wine, the difference between 89 points vs 90 point translates into a ton of money.

1 upvote
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

Yet another good camera on the market...why do you all still fight?
Do not like lit go to Oly. Want to carry tank-like gun FF machine for that 10% better picture, your choice. Do you like Fuji menu over that one? Your preference.
It is reasonable to discuss camera's features, differences but naming such cameras "crap" in pure nonsense! The best and very the best hardware from each known company on the market is just at least adequate to take great pictures.

5 upvotes
carlgt1
By carlgt1 (10 months ago)

Do you think a full-frame Nikon is just 10% better picture than a m4/3? Do you have any actual evidence of this (I'm being serious)?

1 upvote
HelloToe
By HelloToe (10 months ago)

Honestly, a Nikon D7100 (APS-C) is probably more than a 10% improvement over any mirrorless camera short of Sony's new full frame cameras. It's a damn shame that Nikon put such a sub-par sensor in their mirrorless cameras (the 1 family). If they'd put their current-gen APS-C sensor in a NEX-6 or GX7-style body, they'd have my money!

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (10 months ago)

> Do you think a full-frame Nikon is just 10% better picture than a m4/3? Do you have any actual evidence of this (I'm being serious)?

Haha, you took the flame bait. Without specifying the scale, how can you argue what 10% means?

On the other hand, if you don't print more than 13x19, and don't shoot in the dark, 10% probably is a generous estimate.

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

Yes I think, it is small percentage for majority of pictures tajen by majority of people. Those sepacialized needs are withing this 10% (or maybe 5%) difference. Willl bring you a few examples that you are wrong.
First one:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7/12
bring the D7100 do the noize curves comparometer and see that it is actually worse than a few moders m/43.
See some test done Steve Huff and judge yourself.
Look at abailable test pictures DC Review (full screen, how you normally show them to you family, friends and yourself (are you showing your vacations shots magnified to 100% on the TV set or a precious 32 in monitor?)
More to come (more specific).

1 upvote
carlgt1
By carlgt1 (10 months ago)

ok thanks for the replies!

0 upvotes
oldfogey
By oldfogey (10 months ago)

An undocumented but very useful feature of my old EPL-1 was the on body flash that can be tilted into a vertical (bounce) orientation with a little pressure from a forefinger. Unfortunately that capability disappeared from later editions of Oly cameras - so the "deer in the headlights" direct flash option is the only choice with Oly's newer m4/3 bundled flash units. It looks a little as though the Panasonic GX7 unit might be able to do the EPL-1 bounce flash trick. Could DPR or any of you GX7 owners out there comment on this?

1 upvote
M Hamilton
By M Hamilton (10 months ago)

Yes the flash can certainly be tilted up JUST like my old E-PL1 and it does a nice job of it too. :D

0 upvotes
oldfogey
By oldfogey (10 months ago)

Thanks for the response - They should make a selling point of it!

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (10 months ago)

I used to own EPL1 but I bought a Oly 36 Flash to do bounce effect. The small flash in the EPL1 was useless for that effect. The point is, if you shots are heavyly dependant on flash effects, you're going to use a proper flash.

0 upvotes
oldfogey
By oldfogey (10 months ago)

No it isn't useless - in a small room with a white ceiling the EPL-1 flash in bounce mode is a very effective assist. You're forgetting that the sensitivity of modern digital cameras allow good signal to noise at high ISO and that some of the fast lenses available for m4/3 can give a usable image in typical ambient artificial light without any flash assist. And don't go telling me that I should be using a full frame. I do own a powerful add-on flash - but these days I almost never use it.

1 upvote
TN Args
By TN Args (10 months ago)

You can also use it by pulling the model near to a (neutral-coloured) side wall, hold the camera in portrait (vertical), and bounce the flash off the side wall. Gives a classy "sitting by the window looking at the world" look.

0 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (10 months ago)

Everywhere else - this camera is a slam dunk. Strange that DPR thinks differently. The GH3 almost suffered the same fate. It was only for it's "video capabilities" that GH3 reluctantly gained the Gold award.
Looks like anything in this bracket is and will be compared to the OMD-EM5 from now on and for evermore. Fair enough, but the viewfinder eye cup will not fall off the GX7, the flash doesn't require two pieces of plastic to be removed and a separate flash installed, the menu layout on the GX7 doesn't require a diploma in frustration and the button layout and grip allows for one handed "eye-to-viewfinder" use- unlike the OMD-EM5.
I say this as a GH2 user and someone thinking of getting an OMD-EM5 if only for the fact that I've now got a fantastic collection of Olympus prime lenses. That said - the GX7 looks so much better on paper. It even shoots 25p video! I know the GX7 viewfinder is suspect but it's still so much better than the GH3 and OMD-EM5. IMHO.

11 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

79% and a silver award is not a slam dunk? Its pretty damn good.

It was never going to go against the EM1 or GH3, they are PRO cameras.

its up against the EP5 and probably EM5 - it beats one and just 1% short of the other.. why all the angst?

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (10 months ago)

I think people are upset that Dpreview didn't give a GOLD award. I think it's not all about the points that determine the gold awards... similar confusion with Canon 6D 83% (Silver award)

0 upvotes
kreislauf
By kreislauf (10 months ago)

i think, awards or that score are nothing compared to owning that camera and USING IT FOR PHOTOGRAPHY or videography or a paperweight, WHATEVER SUITS YOU...
my nikon V1 got 69% and i loved shooting with it. i see the reasons for a scoring system but don't give too much on it.

1 upvote
Brian.T
By Brian.T (10 months ago)

Resolution of 4592 x 4584 ? Don't think that is correct

Other resolutions:
4592 x 3064, 4592 x 3064, 4592 x 4584, 3424 x 3424, 3232 x 2424, 3232 x 2160, 3232 x 1824, 2416 x 2416, 2272 x 1704, 2272 x 1520, 1920 x 1080, 1712 x 1712

0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (10 months ago)

Thanks, fixed.

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (10 months ago)

EVFs are like grips. Pretty individual in whether you like it or not. I can say that after using a Panasonic G3's EVF which made me literally *sick* to my stomach at times, I revolted against the idea of taking any EVF camera seriously. Eventually I got a cheap VF-3 for my E-PM2...this thing is almost B&W its color reproduction and resolution is garbage. Yet it does the job without ever making me feel sick. Have I bothered to figure out why there is a difference...not really, but I do know it doesn't effect different people the same way. I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to Panasonic EVFs now, but at the same time until I've tried it myself I can't say. The litmus test for me is to use an EVF while as a passenger in a moving vehicle.

2 upvotes
Ednaz
By Ednaz (10 months ago)

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
By King Penguin (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (10 months ago)

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
By vapentaxuser (10 months ago)

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
By mister_roboto (10 months ago)

"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
By vapentaxuser (10 months ago)

@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
By mister_roboto (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (10 months ago)

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
By vapentaxuser (10 months ago)

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
By King Penguin (10 months ago)

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
By Shamael (10 months ago)

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
By Shamael (10 months ago)

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
By vapentaxuser (10 months ago)

@Shamael I was being sarcastic.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

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
By vapentaxuser (10 months ago)

@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
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

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
By LMNCT (10 months ago)

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
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (10 months ago)

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

9 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (10 months ago)

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
By LMNCT (10 months ago)

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
By Valentinian (10 months ago)

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
By Infared (10 months ago)

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
By khunstuart (10 months ago)

Build quality on mine is spot on....

2 upvotes
toto435
By toto435 (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Jeanadriane
By Jeanadriane (10 months ago)

JPG comparison...

Yes, it's the same sensor.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

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
By sbszine (10 months ago)

Or a weaker AA filter?

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
108
By 108 (10 months ago)

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
By Len_Gee (10 months ago)

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
By The Jacal (10 months ago)

You should try one out, it is ergonomically superb.

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

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
By Abaregi (10 months ago)

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
By TN Args (8 months ago)

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
Total comments: 561
1234