Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 hands-on preview and video. We've spent a few days with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1, the long-awaited successor to the popular GF1. The enthusiast-oriented GX1 features a 16MP sensor, touchscreen interface and an abundance of external buttons and dials. We take a closer look at Panasonic's newest Micro Four Thirds camera, including a hands-on video highlighting some of the main features.
it seems to me that the main advantage of micro 4/3 over the lager senson ilcs is lens size. even if sony etc release better lenses they will not have the same zoom range unless they are huge. this for me is a dealbreaker, and im guessing that is one of the main reasons for choosing a imirrorless over a dslr..
The pancakes for Samsung NX are not very big and the sensor are APS-c. The noise performance is not quite what it should be just yet but Samsung are going to be a force to be counted within a short future. No doubts about that. So far they've got the best combination of sensor-size and size of their Pancakes which not put themselves to shame performance-wise.
Are you listening to yourself or defending some camera (football, soccer … team) blindness. Some are talking decent and mentioning their favorites and needs and it is considerable and thoughtful but some are comparing inappropriate categories to each other like one compared 699$ nex-5n IQ with 7D 1600$; I am not sure why he didn’t mentioned canon flagship 1dX and didn’t compared them.
when you as a factory pick an style and size for your camera, it means you have a purpose and by that it means you making a new category or entering your versions of year in that one and by price tagging you considering specific customers or some competitors in that range price and that for 699$ is hardly between 600-800, it should be worthy or you fail. People like bulky lenses; people like compact lenses People like manual hardware controls; people like gadget electronic manual controls And so on …. It is beauty of taste and deference in people and it is respectable. Don’t defense blindness! I like nex7 too but its price tag is 1200$ and doesn’t compete this camera or these customers or if you can’t see 920,000-460,000=460,000 other pixels I can!!!
Still we see no effort to reject the idiotic megapixel war and produce CLEANER and better images, with lower-noise sensors.
Give us a clean 10 MP and start beating the marketing drums about NOISE. Manufacturers are squandering the promise of 4/3 otherwise. Hell, a lower pixel count would even result in better video, since noise adds "detail" that needlessly consumes the pitiful bitrate these cameras record at.
- No IBIS (like the E-P3 has) - No Tiltable LCD (like the NEX-5N & 7 have) - No Built-In EVF (like the NEX-7 has)
What I'm hoping for is an E-P4 with an improved sensor over the E-P3, Tiltable LCD, and built-in EVF. Or even better, a Sony NEX-6N with all the features of the NEX-7 and the sensor of the NEX-5N.
Nikon has offered a strong argument that it's better to have the IS/VR built into the lens instead of the body. Go figure. The G3 comes with a built-in EVF and an even more flexible LCD screen at a price that undercuts its GX-1 as well as both the Sony NEX cameras. If you want to wait for a NEX-6N, then you might be able to put in a pre-order for it sometime around Thanksgiving Day 2012 once Sony is able to recover from the floods in Thailand and get its factories up and running again!
You lost me at touch screen interface. Touch screens are fine on a cell phone but not on a real camera. Loved the GF-1 but why can't they go the old school route and give us manual and mechanical controls? Fuji X10 will be my new digital toy this fall.
The GX1 has nearly every single manual control that the GF1 did and Panasonic's menu systems have been navigable with both physical and touch screen controls without difficulty.
Have you ever used a camera with a decent touch screen interface? It's very nice being able to place the focus point / zoom on a point just by pressing the screen and having a custom menu you can quickly bring up and change some of the more obscure settings in.
I have a GF2, the only 2 touch screen commands I use are, setting a focus point and mode change. Setting a focus point with your finger is an advantage. All settings can still be accessed thru the 4 way directional buttons even mode changing. But, it is nice the GX1 has the mode dial back.
Am I right? Is this camera competing against Sony NEX-5N with about same size and megapixel senor BUT has: 1. APS-C size sensor (micro 4/3 for GX1) 2. ISO range of 100-25600 (160-12800 for GX1) with really low noise and very good detail on ISO 1600 and above 3. Tilt touch LCD (Fix On GX1) 4. 920,000 Pix True black or whatever (460,000 on GX1) 5. 1080 60p (1080 60i on GX1) 6. Build in EyeFi Compatibility (No on GX1) 7. 12 m build in flash range (7.6 m on GX1) 8. 10 fps full resolution continuous shooting (4.2 fps on GX1) 9. Optional OLED EVF with 2.4 megapixel (1.4 Megapixel LCD on GX1) and in defense: 1. Hot shoe external flash (some sort of accessory flash on NEX-5N) 2. 60 sec Maximum shutter speed (30 on NEX-5N) 3. And damn cool and useful pancake(compact) 14-42 mm X series (No on E mount Sony “it is so blamable”) with “SAME PRICE”? In my opinion: with huge disadvantages and few not so important advantages (except one) again at same price, “not acceptable!”
NEX-5 is smaller, this Panny is same size as NEX-7 which is a shame considering the Sony has a larger sensor, tilt high-res LCD, hot-shoe, flash and the best EVF to date. The only thing that keeps me from ditching my GH2 for a NEX is a pair of lenses, but giving the trends, this won't last. Panny can't keep bringing out new models with outdated tech and high prices. Sooner or later Sony will come with the right lenses.
Lenses from both Leica and Olympus can also be used on the GX-1.
Because of its smaller sensor size, the GX-1 has a larger crop factor than the Sony NEX and so a lens of a given focal length, f, has a longer reach on the GX-1. At its extreme, the Panasonic 100-300mm telephoto zoom is the 35mm equivalent of a f=600mm lens. In addition, if the GX-1 offers the Extra Tele Converter (ETC) mode that's available on the previously released G3 camera, the reach can be extended even farther to f=1200m, at the cost of a smaller image size. You can't do that with the NEX.
JPEG and RAW images are available for download on the web from earlier reviews of the Panasonic G3, which shares the same sensor as the GX-1, and also for the NEX-5N. Looking at a few RAW pictures for both cameras in LR3, I'd have to say there's very little to choose from in terms of noise of either camera at high ISO, 1600 and above. A priori, I was expecting the larger APS-C sensor of the NEXie to have a slight advantage in noise and "resolution" but the truth is I saw little if any difference in IQ between the two cameras. They are both good performers. Given the same lens, I'm assuming the GX-1 will perform about the same as the G3, of course.
The NEX also has far fewer lenses and those that are available are large and bulky. If lenses aren't important to you when you take pictures, then by all means use the 5N.
The only thing that would have me consider Sony right now is that I cannot afford every premium lens upon release. By the time I'd get the Zeiss, I'd probably have a greater choice...
To me, this single variable trumps everything else mentioned. two 45macro, 1.4/25, 1.7/20, 2.0/12, 1.8/45, 100-300, 7-14, 9-18, 14-140, so many more desirable lenses!!
Actually, there are only slight difference between the size or weight of the Sony vs Panasonic lenses, at least for their zooms. The physical dimensions and weight of the Sony 18-200mm lens are virtually identical to those of either the Panasonic 14-140mm or the 100-300mm. The main difference between the two cameras, for me at least, is that the 5N has fewer button (hardware) controls, which is why I would only buy the NEX-7 if I were to buy a NEX instead of a G3 or GX-1. Coming from a DSLR, I prefer to have hardware (or dual hardware + software) controls for the most common shooting settings like aperture, shutter speed, EC, ISO, metering mode, and focusing method.
I think you've neglected to compare one facet of these cameras. Looks. Of course we are interested in the end product, the picture, but other factors are important, such as handling and asthetics.
By all accounts the GX1 is a damn good looking camera, classic styling and wonderful proportions. Have you actual seen or held the NEX-x cameras? Designed by robots or something.
"ISO range of 100-25600 (160-12800 for GX1) with really low noise"
Really low noise? Not according to the tests on this site. Look at the raw tests. The 7D blows the NEX-5 away. The NEX-5 is as noisy as the Olympus E-PL3, and that's pretty sad considering the difference in sensor size.
Are you listening to yourself or defending some camera (football, soccer … team) blindness. Some are talking decent and mentioning their favorites and needs and it is considerable and thoughtful but some are comparing inappropriate categories to each other like one compared 699$ nex-5n IQ with 7D 1600$; I am not sure why he didn’t mentioned canon flagship 1dX and didn’t compared them.
when you as a factory pick an style and size for your camera, it means you have a purpose and by that it means you making a new category or entering your versions of year in that one and by price tagging you considering specific customers or some competitors in that range price and that for 699$ is hardly between 600-800, it should be worthy or you fail. People like bulky lenses; people like compact lenses People like manual hardware controls; people like gadget electronic manual controls And so on …. It is beauty of taste and deference in people and it is respectable. Don’t defense blindness! I like nex7 too but its price tag is 1200$ and doesn’t compete this camera or these customers or if you can’t see 920,000-460,000=460,000 other pixels I can!!!
There's too much focus on the bodies with these camera when the most development should be taking place with the lenses. THE LENSES ARE TOO LARGE. DESIGN SMALLER LENSES TO GO WITH THE SMALL BODIES!!!
the reason for it is maximizing the sensor's light capture. a m4/3 sensor is not that small. IMHO, the only reasonable lens to go with this are primes especially the 20mm. i should have bought the gf1 before, now that i can't get the 20mm with the body. the market seems to like zooms.
My thoughts too, john 3, also design them with wide aperture lens. What use is an f3.5 lens with a moderate zoom as a kit lens? It needs to be stopped down to around f5.6 to get a half decent picture. On the other hand, small, quality compact cameras boast small wide angle zooms with f2 apertures that produce stunning results. nokton.
If the optional EVF is used, won't that affect the capture of sound in video mode? It appears to me that the EVF covers up the stereo microphone, which is located directly in front of the hotshoe.
Maybe I am misreading something, but is there manual control in video mode? Seems with this video quality, control over the video exposure would be a nice feature... Does anyone know?
Thanks AD. Rather unfortunate. Seems from our side it would be simple enough to include manual control so that as things move, exposure doesn't shift around as well... Shucks.
Ugh. Premium price for outdated tech. No thank you. Too bad Panasonic set the bar so high with the GF1. They have done nothing but fail to reach it for the past two years.
And really, they didn't even set the bar very high! They just implemented a product very well and took advantage of an underserved market. Why the hell can't they do that again?
I can't understand why anyone buys a camera with only the screen to use for viewing. Absolutely hopeless in bright sunshine.
I use Canon D slrs for serious stuff but my go anywhere anytime camera is an 8 megapixel old Canon A 720. Great grip - great stabiliser - great punchy colours and an optical viewfinder that approximates the actual pic. It prints really well at the A4 size. (Unfortunately AA batteries do not last long).
Will probably get a G12 now its price has come down.
Ok- I only shoot iso 100-200 with the A 720 to avoid noise but the stabiliser is so good and the body so easy to hold that I get good shots at 1/8 second and even 1/4 at wide angle using the optical viewfinder. You cannot hold cameras like the the one reviewed above steady while looking at the screen and holding it out in front of your face! Using the optical viewfinder on the A 720 it is easy.
"You cannot hold cameras like the the one reviewed above steady while looking at the screen and holding it out in front of your face!" -- You cannot? Really? How about this shot taken at 1/5 sec exactly the way you said it cannot be done: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39792982
A camera without a viewfinder is like a car with no steering wheel. One day we will have cars with electronic fly-by-wire joysticks, and doubtless these will present all sorts of advantages we never knew we wanted. But still some of us will hanker after that oldfashioned analogue mechanical circle that used to take up so much room in front of the dashboard that the designers got rid of it. For my money, nothing beats seeing the photograph full in your eye, not on 3" mosaic on the back of the camera.
Edit Oh, yes, and of course three points of contact holds the camera steadier ;)
"A camera without a viewfinder is like a car with no steering wheel."
People go on and on about viewfinders in regard to Micro 4/3 cameras. Then you don't want the MICRO line; it's that simple. If you want a viewfinder, get an SLR.
Ain't that the truth! The G series has great features, ergonomics and usability, but I find the JPG output (of the G2) above ISO 400 to be far too noisy for my tastes. Even ISO 400 is borderline. Not to mention that the colors are often wonky.
Test images online seem to indicate good output. In Panasonic's defense, though, the G3 had good output. Not as good as Olympus, but still pretty good.
Nobody frankly cares about jpeg output (though in previous models it was quite decent) As to the noise, the remark is just laughable, because noise reduction in jpeg is very aggressive, I have plenty of pictures taken at ISO 800-1600 with no visible noise, I allow a lot more noise to go through when processing raw.
JPEG isn't nearly as stupid as the "filters" or "looks" that manufacturers are rushing to slap onto cameras. Now THAT is something that should be done on the computer.
Meanwhile, camera after camera comes out with no interval timer for time-lapse. That's just stupid, especially for Micro 4/3 cameras that have no mirror and would be perfect for time-lapse. Adding this feature is essentially free, but reviews never call vendors out on it. When you combine that omission with stupid proprietary remote jacks (or no remote jack), you have a crippled camera.
I'd buy it today if: - it had a multispect ratio sensor, like the LX3/LX5 - it had a built-in EVF and an optional external flash rather than the contrary - there was a 12-35 pancake zoom available - there was a wireless remote (it's 2011, folks!)
That would be a terrific mountaineering camera, but it isn't, so I'm sticking with my LX-3. I can pass on the remote, but the rest is necessary. This is not complaint, but a wish. Please Panasonic, please...
You do know that this will have much better image quality than the LX3/5 right? Why require lots of premium and would be very expensive features before you buy a camera that will take better pictures without?
surely you can do the multi-aspect thing yourself? It's just called cropping, no different if it is done in camera, or out. It is almost as daft as not buying a camera because it doesn't have a digital zoom.
The GX-1 will not give me a better image quality (it lacks the lens), only pixel quality. I shot mostly in good light, so the LX3 image quality is ok, to me at least.
The main reasons why I bought the LX3 are the 24-60 lens and the sensor that maintains the same diagonal angle of view with all ratios. It's not like cropping, read the reviews. The GH1 already has that kind of sensor. What I miss is a decent macro and the ability to sometimes mount a tele lens. Plus, often, the ability to properly frame in bright light. Give me the ability to change lens, take away the flash I never ever use, replace it with a built-in EVF and it's perfect. Being there, a bigger sensor is always welcome, of course, but not that needed.
It's nothing strange or expensive, just a different feature set, all possible today except for the lens.
As I said, I'm not complaining, it's just a wish for the next release. :-)
The NEX-7 is interesting, but still no 24-xx compact lens for that camera.
Too little too late. Panasonic remain an alternative to point and shoot, not more, not less. Sad, they started off so well. Everything since GF1 and GH2 have been minor dissapointments. I hope the GH3 doesn't go down this way.
Can someone please explain Panny's lineup of m4/3 cameras and what's presumably Panny's aim to create in customer's mind — I mean, what's the real difference between the GX1 and GF3, GF2 or GF1? Or, are they doing just the same thing Nikon and Canon are doing in DSLR market with their APS-C cameras — build all the differences around confusing names, like 5100, 3100, 5000 — all of which in reality mean absolutely nothing because they don't even hold up in the market long enough to get into customer's mind and represent a certain value.
I have to say the one thing that bugs me is the noise of the shutter (similar whinge for my Pen Mini).
Everything about this camera (and the Pens) says small, simple, elegant, discrete... except for the shutter, which is loud, clunky, and seems to creates in-camera vibration (in the Mini at least).
I already own a GF1 and GF2. Although the GF-1 has better battery life, not having to lug around 3 different chargers is a win. Because I will get one sooner or later :-)
They're right to do it. Note that samsung and sony has APS-C sensor. Why can't panasonic make the body smaller as their sensor is smaller than APS-c!? If it's possible then why not!? BODY wise, it is fair to compare.
Fast exposure compensation is a deal breaker for me. Panasonic advertised: "One Push AE adjusts exposure with a single press of the “Fn” (Function) button when it is over/under exposed, which is especially useful when shooting outdoors with open aperture or indoors with fast shutter speed" What means that ? Adjustement before or after taking a picture ? How to choose the steps ?
On the GF1/2 you can adjust exposure by pressing on the wheel and rotating +/- up to 3 (IIRC - maybe 2) stops. GX1 looks like it has similar interface.
Only problem with this is the adjustment is "Sticky" unless you are in iA mode, and I've forgotten to un-compensate a few times.
It's probably the same design as in the other models. One way to adjust the exposure is by pushing a rocker and setting compensation (it's sticky). Another is AE lock by pressing and holding Fn button (non sticky).
I hope you are right. My GF1 offers a decent Exposure Compensation, but the compensation on my workhorse, the GF3 (light, touchscreen) is really a nuisance. Hope that the GX1 give us really a programmable button (One push = -1/3 Compensation (Who needs +Compensation ?)
I cannot believe the GX1 performs even worse than GF1?! Is it the so called “impressive IQ” ?!
Look at the bushes or trees. There’s even no hint of leaves. Heavy NR seems smeared all the detail. I am not a pixel peeper but still, feel a bit tricked.
Strange - IMHO, this shot isn't that bad. There certainly is foliage and it's not P&S quality, not even the same ballpark as, say, the Nikon P300. Just check out e.g. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lx5-vs-canon-s95-vs-nikon-p300-15928 to see why I consider the P300 worse than the S95 at ISO 100/200: yes, the foliage is pretty much smeared in the lower left area. No such smearing in this GX1 shot.
Is the touch screen still of the "resistive" type as on the GH2? I'd love to have a screen with a solid glass surface and capacitive touch technology. much more sturdy and also more pleasant to look at.
you won't love capacitive screens when you are wearing gloves in winter. They don't work then. Resistive screens will. Unless you need 'gesture control', is there any advantage to capacitive screens?
The touch technology is just that - the touch sensor. Why should it make any difference in being more 'pleasant' to look at? That's a separate component, the LCD, that is responsible for how it looks.
And what capacitive screen is going to buy? Smooth dragging? This is a very small screen, resistive sensor has a lot better precision than capacitive one and therefore is much preferred.
"And what capacitive screen is going to buy? Smooth dragging? This is a very small screen, resistive sensor has a lot better precision than capacitive one and therefore is much preferred."
1. Will you always fish out a stylus when you want to change some setting or set the focus point? Of course not. Without using a stylus, a resistive screen is far harder to operate with bare hands (fingers) than a capativive one as it's way less sensitive. In addition, it's more or less impossible to implement multitouch support using resistive screens for, say, quick zoom-ins into a given area, iPhone-like. They also reduce visibility because of the additional touch sensitive layer(s). The only advantage they have is being able to operate them in gloves - absolutely nothing else.
2. the GF2 is resistive. Many reviews mention this as a cons (see e.g. http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/11/panasonic_gf2_previewed.php : "The GF2's touch screen, which is a resistive type instead of the more *sensitive* iPhone-style capacitive type") - and also a lot of users in the m43 forum. Capacitive screens are just better - no wonder all non-low-end phones / tablets have switched to them. Unless you need to use them in gloves - but, then, you can always resort to gloves specifically meant for cap. screen using; for example, the Agloves (and a lot more): http://www.gottabemobile.com/2010/12/03/capacitive-touch-screen-test-shoot-out/
New does not mean better. In many product arenas, in fact, it means worse, especially in terms of construction and ergonomics. Have you been totally out of touch with consumer products for the last couple of decades?
Sounds much louder than a NEX-5n and on the NEX they placed the VF more on the left side, so its easier to look in it: There's more room for your nose!
I just noticed that one has to press "select" button to confirm his selections, which is too "windows". In this case, I do appreciate the setting in Apple style, in which you just select and it is done. Additional confirmation is somehow waste of time, especially for camera. I do believe that in case of taking photos, simpler and easier menu will boost the user experience a lot.
Good observation. The interface on Lumix has always been really crappy, and it's my only real complaint about my G3 (others include the plastic body and low res display). And while the GX-1 does seem to be slightly more tasteful and ergonomic in terms of interface, they're clearly not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to a really usable, elegant touch UI.
I was about to say, based on the GF2, that you don't have to press select to confirm, but thinking about it while the touched item is selected straight away you need to either press the select button, menu button, or half press the shutter to dismiss the menu.
I can see why it's like this, you may want to change several touch menu items and having to exit and re-enter the menu could get very tedious. Half pressing the shutter to dismiss any current menus is so 2nd nature to me that it didn't even occur to me that I was doing it :)
Having to press a confirmation button also eliminates (or at least greatly minimizes) inadvertent selections. Imagine the number of times you'd end up shooting crap because you just happened to brush some menu item without noticing it.
All good points here. It's considered a good interface design to request confirmation for operations that are destructive (e.g. deletion), or operations that are performed as a group, or operations that would require long re-entry to redo. So Panasonic did interface design correctly.
This too is a new connector because it's sending more data across it (exactly the same case as Sony, really. The only difference is that Panasonic offered an EVF for the last generation of cameras - it seems unfair to criticise them for that).
Well, shame on them for not being more forward thinking when designing the previous EVF interface, would have been nice if the old EVF was also compatible for more choice on EVF size / price.
It seems crass stupidity not to have made the camera compatible with the old EVF, as well as offering a new, better EVF. It goes to the character of the brand.
I'm sure most people who want an EVF would buy the new improved EVF anyway, even if they already have the old one. But if they had bought through choice then they would not feel cheated.
Instead Panasonic squanders long term brand value to make (precious few) extra sales.
It also sends out the wrong signal to wavering potential customers like me looking for signs that it is worth investing in the ecosystem.
"Well, shame on them for not being more forward thinking when designing the previous EVF interface, would have been nice if the old EVF was also compatible for more choice on EVF size / price."
Sometimes it's technically impossible to "forward-think"... in the history of digital electronics or computers, very few "pluggable" technology was future-proof. Think of computer mainboards, for example: it was very rarely that you could install new-generation (I'm not speaking of simple speed bumps, but real generation changes like the 486 -> Pentium -> Pentium II etc. change) stuff (CPU, memory, MPU etc.) into them. (For example, the Pentium overdrive being one of the most known examples.)
pretty weak for you Menneisyys. If they had wanted to make the new accessory socket/mount backwards compatible they could have done so. They chose not to.
Comparing with CPU's is pointless. Take a much closer analogy, a lens mount, which requires physical and data connection. Nikon have managed it with their lens mount over countless decades and though technological innovations unimaginable when the F-mount was first started. From simple mechanical 'data' coupling to a computerised version unforseeable at the inception, so far as is possible you can still use most all lenses. Because they chose to.
We're probably speaking of data communication speeds previously (a year or more ago) not achievable. Don't forget the new EVF may require 2-3 times more bandwidth to render many more pixels. The necessary hardware with such enhanced data rates may simply have not been present / available then - or at least at a low price (not on that of the GH1/GH2).
Of course, it's not unbelievable Pana is also playing the "get the latest hardware if you want the new EVF" game. It just can't be *surely* stated that this (greediness) is the *one and only* reason for the incompatibility.
but plugging in the old EVF would not require the higher data speeds. All that would be required is for the new camera to recognise the old EVF and accommodate its lower data requirements. I am not suggesting that the new EVF should be backwards compatible for use in the old camera.
I do understand that this requires a smidgeon of extra electronics. But the alternative is to educate the market that the brand will not reward your investment in its ecosystem. That is a lose-lose scenario; the customer stands to write off his investment at each body upgrade, the manufacturer loses the element of tie-in.
Olympus manage their EVF connection to be future proof from the beginning of the E-P2 and the rest of the EPL series. Why couldn't panasonic? So it is technically possible to foresee the future.
"who shoots jpeg if they know what they're doing?" Pro's do. They shoot RAW+JPG if they are smart. Use the JPG normally and use RAW for that special enlargement etc or if the photog blew an important shot. It saves tons of time. At least me. Probably only hobbyists use solely RAW, because they have the time to mess around with the pics. There's life outside work/photography you know ;-)
I think most guys around this forum are amateurs and not professional photographers. For personal satisfaction, that's a lot better. Once you depend on the income from your hobby, this hobby usually starts dying.
Pros depend on prostituting themselves to the client's demands. And please, who wants to shoot weddings of complete strangers or has fun doing business portraits and what else is necessary to make a living out of it. Unfortunately, hardly anyone can solely shoot what he personally enjoys. As an amateur, you do what you want, whenever you want to do it. No time schedules, no financial pressure, no competition, etc. - and so also all the time in the world for RAWs instead of JPGs. ;)
Then what's the point if you have no intentions of tweaking the RAW? Who needs the headaches of much larger storage requirements of RAW and the extra time-consuming step if the customer won't notice any difference in the quality if work?
From experience I know that it isn't sufficient. IMO 3rd party software never does a perfect job in one run, so I tended to end up adjusting shot individually again. Olympus Studio on Windows is "slooooooow", and even slower in a VM. Besides I use Linux, no Mac or Windows anymore. Browsing through jpegs is much... much faster than through RAW, if you have to cull through a few hundred RAW pictures you get fed up with it very easy.
I have a co-worker who shoots Raw. He always messes up his initial camera settings. I shoot jpeg and get it right from the start. So I'd say Raw is for people who don't know how to shoot right the first time around!
"There isn't a camera that produces as good jpegs as raw."
Actually, Olympus makes those cameras. Their JPEGs are so good that it's practically impossible to improve upon them using RAW. That's why Olympus is preferred by those who don't want to tinker with RAW.
So anyone not being a professional photographer has to clean the toilets of their boss instead? The rate of unemployment must be high where you are coming from, sorry for that.
You don't seem to understand what I was about to say: The worst you can do to your hobby is forcing yourself into it all the time. In the end, the same is true for most jobs in the long run. But then again, most jobs don't start out as a sheer hobby without any financial interests...
@ Vlad S I wish every manufacturer would make a JPG engine as good as Oly's. But still, if you want the best results there simply is no way around a 16 bit RAW file. If you look at some of these excellent pictures, how many do you think are ooc JPGs? - http://1x.com/
@Managarm -- good points! Professional photographer means the one who works for hire and does what business requires. It's a nature of business to make as much money as possible with as little efforts as possible. There is nothing in it relating to artistry or one's best efforts, in fact the opposite, quick-and-dirty is often what is required. An amateur is the one who wants to achieve his personal enjoyment and values artistic work, because he doesn't need to earn a living from it. One has to be sufficiently well-to-do to have a luxury to be an amateur. Hired worker serves to satisfy the needs of those who hired him, not his own.
The reality is that in-camera jpeg engine is very restricted in terms of processing power and available processing time to compete with computer doing raw conversion. I did comparison between in-camera jpegs and default raw-to-jpeg conversion in software, and the latter always won. So even simply by processing a raw batch one can get better results. Of course, when one needs to do extra processing, conversion from raw becomes a no-brainer. Do most pictures need postprocessing? Let me put it this way, it's rare to see a picture from camera that wouldn't benefit from at least cropping, or contrast, or color adjustment. It's true about the most expensive and the least expensive cameras.
@Menneisyys: I think many here would be fine with 12MP, if usable ISO went up 1 or 2 steps. Besides, for an "outdated" sensor its pictures look still excellent.
Looks like a very nice camera, but it sounds like the shutter can still be heard 100 yards away like the other m4/3rds, a nice quiet leaf shutter would have made it the perfect streetcam.
"Looks like a very nice camera, but it sounds like the shutter can still be heard 100 yards away like the other m4/3rds, a nice quiet leaf shutter would have made it the perfect streetcam."
Yeah... hope Pana debuts the long-rumoured fully electronic shutter as early as in the GH3... or at least come up with an electronic first shutter like that of the new-gen NEX and A65/A77, it'd also be way more quiet.
"I think many here would be fine with 12MP, if usable ISO went up 1 or 2 steps. Besides, for an "outdated" sensor its pictures look still excellent."
I don't question the Oly JPEG engine is great. However, even it can't do miracles - the new-gen 16 Mp Sony sensors (or even the GH2/G3, to a far less degree) are far less noisy, even at sometimes considerably higher pixel density. And, of course, the DR, in which even the GH2 lacks - it's more than 1 stop worse than the new Sony sensors, even that of the A77/NEX7.
While current Oly cameras are able to produce excellent images, you can use cameras with more up-to-date sensors in a lot more situations requiring even higher ISO, even higher DR etc. It's just easier to produce properly shot images with a tool that is technically superior.
Nice upgrade but it's not going to get me to rush out and return my Sony Nex5n with its aps-c sensor that takes stunning high quality pictures even if its a new 16mp 4:3 sensor it's still a 4:3 I'll take sonys high quality aps-c 16 mp sensor any day.
Am I right? Is this camera competing against Sony NEX-5N with about same size and megapixel senor BUT has: 1. APS-C size sensor (micro 4/3 for GX1) 2. ISO range of 100-25600 (160-12800 for GX1) with really low noise and very good detail on ISO 1600 and above 3. Tilt touch LCD (Fix On GX1) 4. 920,000 Pix True black or whatever (460,000 on GX1) 5. 1080 60p (1080 60i on GX1) 6. Build in EyeFi Compatibility (No on GX1) 7. 12 m build in flash range (7.6 m on GX1) 8. 10 fps full resolution continuous shooting (4.2 fps on GX1) 9. Optional OLED EVF with 2.4 megapixel (1.4 Megapixel LCD on GX1) and in defense: 1. Hot shoe external flash (some sort of accessory flash on NEX-5N) 2. 60 sec Maximum shutter speed (30 on NEX-5N) 3. And damn cool and useful pancake(compact) 14-42 mm X series (No on E mount Sony “it is so blamable”) with “SAME PRICE”? In my opinion: with huge disadvantages and few not so important advantages (except one) again at same price, “not acceptable!”
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Keith Ladzinski is a wildlife and adventure photographer and filmmaker based in Colorado. In this interview he explains the background to his most recent project, and looks back at what's changed since he bought his first digital camera in 2004.
As a D750 owner and someone primarily concerned with still photography, DPR staffer Dan Bracaglia does not see a compelling enough reason to go Nikon mirrorless - yet. But that may not be the case for you.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 hands-on preview and video. We've spent a few days with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1, the long-awaited successor to the popular GF1. The enthusiast-oriented GX1 features a 16MP sensor, touchscreen interface and an abundance of external buttons and dials. We take a closer look at Panasonic's newest Micro Four Thirds camera, including a hands-on video highlighting some of the main features.
Comments