I bought the GX1 with the X 14-42 Power Zoom the day before DPR´s review. Many copies of this lens has shown pronunced sharpness problems using shutter speeds between about 1/30 to 1/300 sec. as also stated in the review. Sadly my lens has exactly this problem. I hope Panasonic´s service will show responsibility.

It would have been helpfull for many buyers, if D.P.Review had revield the problem, when the lens started beeing available. They previewed the lens in august 2011 !

Okay, today's lowest new 20mm F1.7 lens price is $399 from Texas Media and the lowest *used* lens is $414 from seller 'briano__'

Yeah, the highest new 20mm F1.7 lens price is $799.95 from Wall Street Photo.

Hmmmm...... I just got the Leica 25mm 1.4 and paid $509 for it. I don't think I can really go bact to my 20mm 1.7 pancake, as wonderful as it is. Maybe now's the time to sell!

Seriously, I don't know why anyone would pay $400 for the 20mm 1.7 when they can get the Leica 25mm 1.4 for around $500. I mean, pancake schmancake!

Geez, today's lowest new 20mm F1.7 lens price on Amazon is $495.

Looks like a volatile thing trending up.

In the dp review this lens has such a good flare rejection it does not need a hood. Don't know about Leica's 25mm perf.

I sometimes use a large sensor compact from Sigma: the DP1x

Get the XXX model, starwolfy, and chances are you won't be sorry.

Just wait for the canon xxx

NX20

You forget the Canon 1DX, their latest pro DSLR.

But the G1X is too bulky for me. By the way, they're similarly priced here in Manila (GX1 w/ X lens and Canon G1X).

gh2 = no 60p

It only has 30p in a 60i container.

I wonder which camera has better resolution/detail though... hacked GH2 at 720p 60, or 5N at 1080p 60...

GH2 has all kinds of hacks, some are at 1080p. The problem is that file sizes dramatically increase. As usual, there is tradeoffs.

If you say so, Andy. But how do you know? Reason I ask, I was just on Panasonic's Lumix camera micro site. There is nothing like what you say being mentioned there to help us make some sense of their weirdly labeled stuff. Maybe they themselves do not know of this crafty tabulation?

These Lumix-cams of theirs all look pretty much the same to me, anyhow. Too much plastic, that is readily obvious. The only one even worth the trouble looking at would be the G3. They did not rip the viewfinder out of that one, fortunately.

DMC-GH2 was okay at one time, but now it is getting to be close two 2 years old. I want something fresh, not yesteryear's hit parade star.

gx1 ≠ rangefinder by any definition.

rangefinder = no mirror + framing optic with focusing aid that you look through

If anything, the G1x is closer to a rangefinder. This is an electronic viewfinder only, and the eye level finder is optional.

The NEX 7 and V1 get the viewfinder right, but none of these is really a rangefinder. 'cept maybe the X-Pro 1 and X100.

Where are you getting your information from, HDF2? No Panasonic Lumix cameras I know of have a "solid metal construction," let alone one that you can FEEL while holding the body in your hands. And just how much "metal" can you put into a 320 gram anything, huh?

@ miacahmedia: Canon G1 X indeed has a mirror-less rangefinder style optical VF. Many of the Canikon mirrorless cameras have that, too. It's not a bad way to compose the shot, but of course it's not good for much else. Most of the old 8mm, Super 8, and even 16mm film cameras had that, not to mention the photo cams of all film formats.

Yeah but the GH3 will cost a lot more, perhaps the G5 will bring the improvements in the GX line back to the G line.

Exactly right. The overall best camera is always the one that does not even exist. Like these one that you folks are talking about.

Canon G1 X comes with a Canon lens. The Panny models do not, unless you get the kit lens package.

Also, the sensor on the Canon model being mentioned is significantly larger than what you will find in any of these Lumixes.

Finally, the Canon G1 X comes with an optical viewfinder as part of its price. The Panny Lumix-cams do not.

How bad DSLR cameras have gotta be, when just about every other camera reviewed here are slated to be a "second camera to a DSLR" or a "back-up camera."

Zoom lenses for Micro 4/3 form factor cameras are pretty dreadful still. Maybe one day?

@ Francis Carver
"How bad DSLR cameras have gotta be, when just about every other camera reviewed here are slated to be a "second camera to a DSLR" or a "back-up camera.""

think it the other way round, maybe these mirrorless camera is not capable of being the "prime camera" for some (not all) photographers, which I think is very reasonable

just because you are a fanboy of something doesn't mean others have to follow

@T3
"Also, with regards to the Oly 12-50 lens, keep in mind that the whole point of using an interchangeable lens camera is that you can put any lens you want on it. It doesn't have to only be the Oly 12-50."

thanks for pointing out the obvious

@ Mtsuoka: If you always have to run around with your "primary camera" and with your "secondary camera," to me that means that (A) your primary camera is not too hot, or (B) your secondary camera is questionable, or (C) by getting at least one of these two cameras you realized you had made a mistake.

If you have one good camera -- why would you really need a second best?

"m4/3 has by far the most complete lens lineup."

Yes, indeed. More complete than say the Nikon 1-series lens line-up or the Pentax Q camera's lens line-up. Some great looking M4/3 primes can be had now -- especially once you leave the restrictive confines of the Panasonic and Olympus brands. No good zooms as of yet.

You know, I thought that about my G2 when I bought it, except that it has an external mike input! (haven't tried it yet, but it's there, labeled mike)

Seriously, I thought that serious video shooters used audio systems that were not even part of the camera. it is easy to record much better sound than any of these cameras with my $99 Olympus voice recorder, and line up the video and audio tracks in post-processing. I even use free software. I fail to see the advantage of these horrendous, bulbous-looking things that people stick on the top of their cameras to record video.

what you want is too much for a cheap entry-level camera, may be.

Obviously, just about nobody commenting here knows much about external microphones, external audio recorders, and the need for at least an unbalanced external audio input jack on a camera.

Not as big as the lack of any manual controls! Maybe tester13 etc. can get a firmware hack out for it

In other words, dear kkardster -- we just don't know.

I’ve found my GF1 to be the first digital camera I’ve really enjoyed using. I still use my Canon 5 mk II for very limited outings; and yes, there is a quality difference—but it is not as noticeable as you would think, unless the lighting is tricky. And overall, I would rate the Panasonic lenses better than the Canon L glass. (But then, one of the things I love most about the GF1 (and I will most likely get the GX1) is the way it mates with Leitz glass.) This line of cameras is very solid, and very responsive, with great RAW quality.

you could also just wait and see what Canon's mirrorless offering will be. from what i have been told it should be around july/august and cost $800-$900. i'd also expect a APS-C sensor but i could see them sticking with the sensor from the G1X.

Nobody I know is waiting around for anything from Canon. Their product announcements are basically worthless as of late. Anyhow, they already have their premium mirrorles camera. It's called the G1 X.

+Francis Carver, its best to take these kind of things worth a grain of salt but that is what canon told me. the G1X is still their P&S offering. they will have a MILC this summer.

Andy true but look at when the Q and NX200 were "previewed" and yet neither has a full review up?

As a consumer, nobody's forcing you to buy the 79% camera over the 78% camera. It's just one reviewer's weighting of test results. DPR make no bones about it, and they explain their weighting choices.

I find the DPR reviews very useful, but to be honest the rating out of 100 at the end is the least useful part. In the end you make a personal decision based on what features are important to you.

If I were a manufacturer rep, on the other hand, I expect I'd want to lobby long and hard for weighting that plays to my system's strengths.

then G3 is entry-entry level. Oly and Pana have the tradition to sell low cost cameras and lenses at an unreasonable premium and Sony is following the suit. but expect the prices of cameras halved though.

@iudex:
It is good to compare cameras of different sensor size and similar physical size, but what I am suggesting is that the final score should be not be penalized just because a camera has a smaller sensor for a given body size. For example, some compact cameras like the Canon G10 may be about the same size as a Canon G1X, so should DPReview penalize the G10 severely for having much worse IQ at ISO 3200?

So, what I would suggest to DPR is to definitely compare differently sized sensors, but don't score one camera higher or lower than the other because of the camera body/sensor size ratio. More useful would be a measure of the ISO at which noise or image degradation is noticeable at a given print size or enlargement factor. This "Noisy ISO" rating could sit next to the score so we can all tell at a glance what the maximum useable ISO is.

@Andy

+10. Best post in here!

GX-1 has been in stores for months even before OM-D was announced. It also does not compete wit OM-D, but with E-Px, so the target market is different. When GH3 is announced then you can compare it with OM-D.

Funny thing is the GF2 got slated & prices tumbled - so I bought one at a bargain price & now it's my favourite camera.
At the end of the day reviews are just reviews - the only way to find out if a camera is for you is to own one & use it...

Haha I did read the review- but the difference in the performance bar was still surprising.

DAMN...its rough in here today! :-)

@marike6 - You may be confused by the ISO labels on the two cameras. ISO 160 on the GX1 is roughly the same real sensitivity as ISO 100 on the GF1. The dynamic range and shadow noise at base ISO are essentially the same for GF1 and GX1, and if you want better performance, the GH2 seems presently to be the only option (it is curious that Panasonic did not use the GH2 sensor in the new camera).

Where the G3/GX1 improves over the GF1 is higher ISO settings, but I find that less of a problem than the low ISO DR, which is very painful if you do much PP work with higher contrast scenes.

I don't think you can compare the new Olympus yet: no one has properly tested the IQ, which depends on both the sensor and surrounding circuitry.

Howver, what is very clear, is that the G3 (body) currently costs ~£375 UK (amazon), whereas the GX1+LVF2 costs £690. Clearly the GX1 is not a "no-brainer", even if not looking at other brands.

Andy said: If you want a bigger change then how about the Olympus E-M5?

I totally agree. That's a change from having a camera in your hand to no camera at all. :)

@Lost in Time Actually I am not confused about anything. The GF1 and GF2 cameras are older cameras that are not good above ISO 800. If you enjoy working with high ISO files from the GF1, go for it. I prefer to live in 2012, and I don't want to work with GF1 images that look like the color was sucked out of them except for the chroma noise at ISO settings above 800.

My GX1 cost me $539 USD because I bought it with the Panasonic/Leica 25 1.4. That, to me, is as much of a non-brainer as you'll find, especially if you have other m43 lenses. Plus I prefer metal cameras. If you like the more plastic G3, go for it.
My GH2 fills that role. Besides, the G3 only cheaper as it has been out for much longer.

As far as my characterization of the GX1 as a no-brainer, I apologize. I was under the impression that DPR just said it had THE BEST IQ of any m43 camera. What's not to like?

By the way, the low ISO is as clean as I need it to be, and the files hold up really well in LR.

The GF1, GF2 and even now the GF3 are only good up to ISO 800 in less than ideal light without post processing. Sometimes even ISO800 can be messy. With the PL 25 F1.4 lens it enables for low ISO shooting even indoors no flash. Without the F1.4 or F1.7 pancake or other similary fast lens, you need to use the flash or use very high ISO.