Just posted: Our Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 in-depth review

Also consider max aperture at the telephoto end, compared with the fast 45/1.8.

Get a GH-2 and add the firmware hacks for some great video.

Lighten up, Francis.

Where's the viewfinder? It's on the G3!

Are you having trouble figuring out the model names? It's really not hard

Gx - viewfinder SLR style cam
GHx - video optimised SLR style
GXx - Rangefinder style with optional viewfinder
GFx - Compact camera style with no viewfinder

If you ever bothered to read the reviews of the products you attempt to disparage you might save yourself looking silly and people might actually try and take you seriously.

You seem obsessed with saying that all of the Panasonics are cheap and plastic, when it is clear you have never held one nor read the review.

From the review you have not read "What's not evident in the images above is just how much more heft the GX1 has in comparison to the NX200. With a solid metal body construction that weighs in at nearly 320g without a lens, the GX1 feels in hand rather substantial... "

Francis, have you bothered to read the review?

I thought not.

That quote in my last message was from the DPReview you have not even bothered to read.

I have also seen and used the GX1, and yes, it is a metal based body, not plastic. I repeat, read the review, handle the camera and then come back and post sensible commentary instead of uninformed and spurious dribble.

@Francis: "Wow.... This camera looks cheap-cheap-cheap. It even TALKS plastic"

You seem to be in some kind of the trollish fit. Did you read DPR review, the part where they talk about build quality, what it's made from? Did you handle the camera in person yourself to justify such blanket and utterly stupid statements? I did hold it at B&H (and I also have GF1). It's an extremely well built mostly metal camera which TALKS metal and quality construction. Shish.

@Francis: "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?"

How many Pana cameras you handled yourself as opposed you "know of"? I have GF1 and it's shell is fully made of metal. Not plastic, nice hefty solid metal that gets cold to the touch! 320 g is pretty hefty for such small cameras as GF1 and GX1. Now if you don't believe me open DPR review (GF1 or GX1), open the section where they talk about construction and read. Then come back. Thank you!

The G and GH Pannys are more like mirrorless DSLR-like cameras. This cam is supposed to resemble something more compact, like a Leica. It resembles it, but misses the function. I agree--there should be more offerings built like the Nex 7, X Pro1, and X100, where you can hold it up to your face, unlike the bleeding annoying arms length idiot squint you see with the LCD only deals.

"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."

Also note that, according to Pekka Potka's review, the 12-50, IQ-wise, is nothing to write home about. Even Pana's 14-45 kit lens is WAY better.

http://www.43rumors.com/impressive-in-japan-mirrorless-suprasses-dslr-amrket-share-olympus-to-catch-up-with-nikoncanon/

Thank you for your opinion. But M/43 is not an unpopular system. Also m/43 isn't hogging up the review space. You should check your facts before posting. Here is the last 14 reviews:
• Panasonic GX1
• Nikon V1/J1
• Canon S100
• Sony NEX-7
• Olympus E-PM1
• Sony A65
• Sony A77
• Sony HX100V
• Sony NEX-5n
• Sony A35
• Olympus E-PL3
• Panasonic FH7
• Sony NEX-C3
• Olympus E-P3

Sony products are 7 of the last 14 reviews and combining both Olympus and panasonic - M4/3 only has 4 reviews out of the last 14.

Yes, the NX200 is over due for a review, but rather than spouting some negativity here, why not write to Samsung and tell them to get a camera to DPR to be tested. Or go do your own research instead.

Here's your NX200 reviews.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/13/samsung-nx200-interchangeable-lens-camera-review/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399824,00.asp

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/samsung-nx200-1048835/review

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_nx200_review/

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-nx200-review_Digital-Camera_review

Chris, m4/3 has by far the most complete lens lineup including several very good primes that can be had for reasonable money. To those actually taking photos with their cameras this may be of some importance ...

First of all, it doesn't appear that the m4/3 system is as "unpopular" as you think it is. Secondly, what the heck is an NX200? Maybe it's a camera from an unpopular system, that's why I am unfamiliar with it. LOL.

Seems a slightly naive comment, given that DSLRs and mirrorless have been used professionally to shoot video.

You want a GH-2 or a future GH-3

Didn't we see how many 5D2, a digital camera, were used in video production?

@cleverinstigator - No, a serious video shooter would get a DSLR. Every wedding videographer I've worked with in the last year or two has been using a DSLR to shoot their video. Many of these videographers ditched their video cameras in favor of video DSLRs. So the adage "serious video shooters would use a video camera" is a bit out-dated and not reflective of what's going on among serious video shooters.

electronic aperture controls and focus motor need to fit around the lens elements in pancake lenses, and zoom lenses need space for the zoom linkages etc.

My guess is that some cameras are given priority based on estimated interest levels and others are pushed back due to lesser interest.....I'm sure there are other factors at play, but some reviews are taking very long to materialize.

DPR gives much more weight to IQ than other factors, as is explained here:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dpreview_scores_and_ratings_01.htm
They also write that if one disagrees with their weighting, one should disregard the final score, and instead draw one's own conclusions from the actual review. Likewise, they explain that the gold/silver awards are highly personal and subjective, and not necessarily connected to the score.

Overweighting IQ in the score is okay if the comparison is made between identical sensor sizes, but it makes no sense to score camera A lower because it has a smaller sensor than camera B. If we are going down this path, we might as well score compact cameras in the 30s and FF cameras in the 70s.

If that's the case, NEX should be marked down for lack of lenses.

Good point "topstuff" on the camera review highlighting certain points and not considering some real world usage data. Noone is perfect however.

I am of the feeling that reviews are just a guide and the evaluation should be left up to the potential buyer. Of course this requires a bit of independent thinking which I realize not everybody shows. I rarely buy according to the top pick in the review but go according to what I prefer in a camera. I admittedly also favour certain brands, usually as a result of familiarity and reputation and not always because of the specs. (The competition is so hot and heavy that there are always a few worthy products in every category)

I have found the DPR reviews very helpful but I do talk with friends, visit the manufacturer's website and go pick up the camera at a camera store before buying. That way I can't just blame DPR when I make a bad pick, I get to blame everyone else......... Except me! LOL

Easily compensated by:
1) IBIS
2) Integrated viewfinder
3) Better JPEG engine
4) Better design
5) Optional battery grip
6) Flash bundled with the camera
7) Better kit lenses
8) Being an Olympus

Seems highly unlikely since they have the same sensor. They will have virtually the same image quality.

Olympus claim the sensor is brand new (which I find unlikely, as Oly is contractually bound to use Panasonic's previous gen sensors). It is also said that the E-M5 has a smoother anti-aliasing filter which, if true, might mean better resolution.

@M1963 Yes but as I've proven it's not better "in every respect". For some people the features of the E-M5 make it a better choice for them, for others the GX1 or E-P3 better suites their needs.

Andy, I don't mean to start an argument, but what exactly have you proved? Buy an external EVF for the Panasonic, and the size and price advantage will vanish. The integrated flash is, as far as I know, GN10. Weak. You'll need an external one on either camera for serious use. I don't mean to be dismissive about the GX1; it's just that I find the E-M5 to be quite an achievement - once it lives up to its promise. Would I buy it to replace my E-P1? Not so sure...

@M1963 well do be a bit more careful with netiquette to avoid being mistaken for a troll, as your post could be read as "lol gx1 sux" :)

As for being a gearhead I do like a good technical discussion on these forums so all my gallery uploads are currently tests I've done to illustrate things I'm posting about, it doesn't really extend into my actual photography beyond pushing the camera to get results I like.

Actually that reminds me I've been meaning to start uploading real photos to the DPR galleries, so much to do so little time :)

Entry level? The GF3 is entry level, this is very much equal to or even above the G3. The display is good enough, but definitely could be better.

Gx1 is better build than the G3. The GX1 is metal, the G3 plastic, GX1 has more controls than the G3.

It is because of the similar body size and price. The NEX 5n is even cheaper. Buying just the body of the 5n and a pancake would put it in similar size. Besides, if you like the the GX1 you'd get it regardless of the award or score given to it since it is the best m4/3 out there.

What do you suggest? Comparing mirrorless cameras strictly within sensor size? In this way there would be only compasiron between Oly and Pana CSC´s, because only this producers have M 4/3 sensor cameras. And what would you compare the Nikon 1 to? ;-) There is only one camera with CX sensor, so how to compare it? Is the comparison of J1/V1 with M4/3 cameras unjust, because M4/3 cameras have big advantage of bigger sensor?

It's frustrating when a particular product line, with an appealing line-up of features, seems to be doomed to come in second forever, due, apparently, to one particular, immutable characteristic. Bigger negatives/image sensors will always be better, but the weight given to noise performance may overstate its importance, considering the current state of the art. Anyone remember what Tri-X looked like when push-processed to 1600? "Slightly better image quality at the same size and price" is pretty simplistic considering all the possible criteria. Change the weightings, give weight to the previously unmeasured, and the balance may well tilt differently.

There's a natural tendency to give greater weight to objective measurements. How much weight do you give to EVF vs. no EVF, external microphone connector vs. none? A deal-breaker for me may be meaningless to another. Everyone benefits from better image quality, so you can't go wrong giving it lots of weight, right? Not always.

There is a lot of weight placed here on the final score or whether a camera gets a Silver or Gold rating. I think it's more valuable to read the whole x pages of the review and each can make up his own mind based on personal priorities.

Personally I go for M4/3 over NEX.

That's why choices often come down to lenses. Put a lens like the PL 25 1.4 or the smaller 20 1.7 on the GX1 and it's nearly perfect.

Sony's makes great bodies and sensors but they simply don't yet offer the small, sharp and fast lenses that Panasonic and Olympus do. Of course, talking just stills Fuji's newest offering may THE camera, unless you need telephoto lenses. The point is there are always trade-offs and compromises even at this level of camera.

to Bob
it is more flexible.
people I know with mirrorless have only the kit lens.
The only one I know has a tele, never carries with her.
People want a mirrorless to be portable.
Hence the Canon, though far from perfect is more flexible than the Pana with a kit lens.

it is flexible... for a integrated compact zoom, and that's what folks want on a compact, but the problem with folks opting for the ILC, is the notion is compact (definitely less 'pocketable' than the PowerShot G1X), and refer to integrated compact zooms as 'fixed' lens (as though it is stuck with 'one' focal length, it isn't; the rhetoric would throw off a newbie, but not the rest of us)

i'd rather have multiple cameras, than one body stuck with multiple lens OUT IN THE FIELD...

what if Canon came out with 'variants' on the G1X?

this is what i had hoped they would do, i surely don't want loose open lenses, but sealed integrated systems much more compact.

if Canon offered:

G1X (28-112 zoom)
G1Xw (24 - 96 optical zoom) woah!!!
G1Xt (96 - 288 optical zoom) woah!!!

i'd get Both the 'w' and the 't' (yes, Two!)

and actually forgo with the G1X 'current'!!!!

frankly, offer me a Canon Pro1X w/ 12.9mm-51.8 @ f2.4-5.7
(24-96mm FOV) and PowerShot G1X sensor, I'd be absolutely giddy...

:D

If Canon did this, if Canon did that. But they didn't. They released a mildly interesting G series type P&S with a larger sensor and a slow zoom. zzzz.

This review is about a Panasonic GX1. Canon got plenty of ink here on DPR when the G1X was released, so for the love of god, give it a rest.

One look in the viewfinder of the Canon brick and that camera is a DEAD issue for any serious photography...and I have to agree with Bob..the Canon is WAY less flexible. If you are a casual vacation snappy snapper (and have to buy a safe name..can you say Toyota..zzzzzz), the Canon is great..if you are very serious about your photography at all it is not. Now..if Canon comes out with an ILC with that sensor and an array of fast glass...I will shut my mouth! LOL!

OMG OMG The Powershot has a CANON label - MIFFS (Most important feature for Sydue)!

20mm f1.7
25mm f1.4
45mm f1.8

nuff said.

"20mm f1.7
25mm f1.4
45mm f1.8

nuff said.
"

Not pocketable now.

Shills? Get a life! They're all tools, and only tools! You're only hurting yourself!

You read my mind, onlooker. I personally don't care what anyone on these forums has to say about anything. I'll have a discussion, learn what I can, and make my own decisions. Too many people around here are just constantly angry. I dig the review, but still don't care anything about the camera.

I think he is talking about bulk of lenses, and he is just talking about focus speed of GF3, not sensor, not jpeg, and not your neighbour's dog.

@ ijack
Have you also not read page 1 of the review? The 18-55 is actually smaller than 14-42 (NEX-7 mount is thicker but overal thickness is the same so lens is shorter)

If he thinks GF3 has better AF speed than E-P3, E-PL3 and you are defending him, that tells me how much you really care about camera performance.

PEN > GF
OM-D > GX
Nothing touches GH however

I actually own a GX1 and it's fine in low light. It's actually a bit better than the Canon G1X. Don't believe me have a look at DXOMark:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-PowerShot-G1X-Review/Canon-G1X-vs-hybrid-cameras

Obviously, you'll reply that DXOMark's tests aren't valid. That is until they support your argument and have one of your beloved Canon's on top, which is not often these days (And I say this as a 5D Mk II owner).

unlike the forums... here, links cannot be shortened
:\

as for DXOMark... numbers don't predict much... bottom line is always the images produced by a sensor, which defy the numbers (typically)

Panasonic GX1 @ 6400
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/GX1/FULLRES/GX1hSLI06400NR3D.HTM

Canon PowerShot G1 X @ 6400
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G1X/FULLRES/G1XhSLI06400NR2D.HTM

as i've reiterated elsewhere

at ISOs up to 1600... fabric details is better on PowerShot G1X, but worse on Panasonic GX1 even though it does better (must be lens?) on resolving the fine black lines on the white PS 69 circular proportion chart (=a strength; the lens, not the sensor)

no doubt, all reviews tend to use default settings and fixed studio lighting conditions, so only multi-lower intensity dim light will truly test the limits of the sensor

@sdyue

I like the way you think. For example, whenever a Canon camera excels at something, details, high ISO, You're all "way to go".

When the Panasonic GX1 bests the Canon G1X, "it must be the lens" you say.

Last time I checked the lens is part of the camera.

No offense, but all your shilling and boring DOF charts are won't convince m43's shooters. I can almost guarantee that no photographer here is interested in some slow zoom camera. Check back when we can mount a 25 1.4 or 45 1.8 on the Canon G1X of yours.

You want to add a comment that is relavent to the Panasonic GX1 other than a troll comment that's fine. But do you really think this bottom of a Panasonic m43's review is an appropriate place to drool over a Canon G1X?

Hardly a "no-brainer". The G3 costs less, gives the same image quality and has essentially the same handling - yet it also gives you an EVF and articulating LCD.

As a GF1 owner who shoots RAW and uses the LVF most of the time, it is very difficult to justify the upgrade. For me, the biggest problem with the GF1 is low-ISO dynamic range: burnt highlights vs shadow noise. The GX1 sensor performs identically to the GF1 in this area and is significantly worse than competing cameras (esp. Sony).

I think that a lot of people are going to wait and see what the new Olympus models offer.

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

@Lost in Time
The GX1 does not perform identically to the GF1 at all, low ISO or high ISO. It's IQ is better in every way. I used a GF2 for since it's release, and now have a GX1 and IQ differences a dramatic. The fact that you think they perform identically shows that you haven't shot with both cameras, and simply don't know what your talking about.

By the way, the new Olympus will have essentially the SAME IQ as the GX1 since it has the same Live MOS sensor. Oly JPEGs meaningless to a RAW shooter and it remains to be seen if the JPEGs are better anyway.