"Our only concern is the rather short 17.5mm eyepoint - which rarely works well, especially for wearers of glasses, in combination with high magnification viewfinders (it makes it hard to see the extreme edges of the frame without moving your eye)."

Being an eyeglass wearer, I have been posting about this issue since GX7 was announced, BUT, today I got to play with one at the local store, AND, I have to admit that it is less of a problem than I feared. This is due to the EVF being 3:2 ratio, so, when used to view in 4:3, the extreme sides and corners are not used. I thought it was quite usable.

I am now REALLY serious about migrating to this model, which is a serious system change for me (EOS/EF).

After reading through the comments again and again, I must constate that the subject matter - the GX7- has played only a marginal role in them, merely being a pivot to bring up discussions about other cameras and the new DPR process for comparing shots . I hope the full review of the camera will have a more balanced feedback .

Reviewers: Where do you see "the semi-auto Av and Tv modes" on this camera's control dial? Why would you use another brands nomenclature for a review of a Panasonic camera?

OP: wondering if the Focus Peaking feature works through the EVF or limited to the LCD?

Boo on the new studio scene! I really need to compare IQ of the GX7 with the Sony a99. Please fix!

Anyone know the specifics of silent mode (beyond what's already been written above) Specifically, I'd lke to know if the silent mode produces higher resolutioin images than the silent mode on my GH2. The GH2 can shoot 4MP in 4:3 ratio but only in the SH burst mode - 2-40 shots per burst. It is truely silent.

The test shots show it comparable to the Pen E-P5 and NEX-6.

But why did they make a $1000 camera body with no audio in? That alone makes it a loser unless you have no intention of shooting video with decent sound.

Where are the new "higher resolution" test sites that old studio scene had ? The old lady with the small vertical skiggly lines (needed 16mp or beyond to resolve) & details of face, the male head, the fine detail in feathers, etc ?

The skin tones tests are good addition, but need some/MORE resolution test sites!!!!!!

No specific Dynamic range areas as well !!

Needs Improving quite a bit IMO !!!

Man....the GX7 is completely on par with the NEX6 at all iso's and a TAD bit ahead of the EP-5 at 6400 and 12800.

Thats pretty dam impressive!

Do we have any idea on when the full review is likely to appear on DPReview? Thanks

To me it looks much more like a direct translation drom Lumix L1 to Micro Four/Third and I think is very good, I wish I could buy one right now :)

Where's the robot? How can I choose a new camera without it's little metal smile?

I do miss the drawing of the old lady drawing!!!!!! SO MUCH easier to see the definition and detail between different cameras or evaporating with increasing ISO!

Miss also the box with the coloured stuff inside!!!
Those should stay for sure!!!

One very welcome thing is the colourful circle target!!!! :D

What strikes me about these tests is how well the RX100 II holds up as it only has a 1" sensor and is truly pocket-able. It looks just about usable up to 1600 - will you be doing a full review of it soon? What do others think?

One slight problem I see is that all of these elements are made from synthetic dies and materials. While they are colorful, they are no what nature offers in terms of color. Yet the majority of subjects we photograph are nature and of course people (natural skin). A printed photo of a person is a very reduced representation of what real human skin is like in terms of colors, shades, how light gets broken, absorbed and reflected to create it's unique look.

Of course I'm aware it's impossible to have a real person be part of a test scene that has to be 100% constant over years. OTOH I know from owning about 20 different digital cameras over the years that some cameras produce wonderful looking photos from artificial colored scenes, they do poorly when it comes to resolving very fine differences in colors and shades which is key for natural looking scenes, especially when it comes to portraits (and landscapes).

Again, I don't really have a solution, but something to think about.

The Paul Smith watch told me everything I wanted to know (for my particular taste in snaps). How the letters were sharpened (or not), how the dial ticks were resolved (or not), how the particular glittery blue of the face was smeared (or not), how the second hand suffered aliasing (or not), how the glass reflections affected the render. Every time I saw a better rendering, I bought the camera and dumped the previous (smile) or lived with the difference 'cos it was smaller than the bank balance... Can you not tuck it into a blank space somewhere, please?

It is a bit more like a resolution chart... Will any deviation of resolution in the corners create distracting arguments.. if these differences might be due to different lenses...? I know the same lens in different mount is used but they are still physically different lenses and may have some different characteristics...

The different lighting levels is a good idea and I know there are dark swatches, but I might miss the little box of shaded puffy balls and/or thread. [well, the parsley in the corners does do just as well so the friendly looking puffs are gone..]

Resizing the images to match at ~8MP is a good addition. It should help some people understand if the 24MP APS-C sensors really are noisier than 16MP...

This change offers more than the last change. Still, I hate to see the robot and batteries go. I remember him from my first digital camera purchase... Maybe add a picture of the robot somewhere. Just for a little fun and to retain touch with the old :^)

I have compared the exposes of GX7, NEX6 and EP5. In lowlightmode there is not difference. bar two small exceptions out of 21 (7 shots per cam from ISO 100 to 25600 times 3) they all use the exact same shutterspeed.

In Daylight mode somehting is different. From ISO 200 to ISO 3200 the NEX uses 1/3 less shutterspeed, so 1/3 of astop. compared to the others.
ISO6400 Oly falls behind it seems. It is 1/2 a stop slower. Shutterspeed is 0,0004 s instead of 0,0003 on the other two.

The strange thing is that ISO12800 and ISO25600, the EP5 uses the exact same shutterspeed. Where GX7 goes down to half the shutterspeed, as can be expected when you move up 1 stop. To makeit clear, the Oly file at ISo 12800 has 2,5 times longer exposure than the GX7. The Sony stick to ISO 0,00025 s which is logical. It is 1/4000s its max shutterspeed. when we go up to ISO 25600 both Panny and Oly use the same shutterspeed. Strange but it means that Oly again uses 2,5 times more time GX7.

Explanation?

I must say this rx100 second is impressive. Not bigger than a s95, would fit in the belt bag and ever ready . Photography at its simplest.

I think you miss an area with shadows that can show the resolution and dynamic range like the box of colorful fluff and threads.

Also, I really wonder, do you shoot at the same aperture? What distance? How do you make sure everything is in the dof.

some feedback:

1. incandescent lighting needs to get a lot more even
2. little gear icons (showing camera settings) are only present for 2 leftmost magnified samples. Two samples on the right don't show their settings...
3. I wish there were a few bright, colorful objects in primary colors (RGB/CMY, but not flat) to show effects of channel clipping

finally, everything is shot with the maximum aperture?? makes no sense

Older test scene was good enough, and most of all - had all the old non CaNikon cameras which you guys will never reshoot on the new one. This new scene is a break.

Couldn't the new light simulations be added to the existing scene ? And where are my bottles !!! :D

Please please add back the blue watch, some cameras could resolve the black hour marks and some could not!