It's not any cheaper than the GM1, tho that may be on it's way out eventually... Flip screen and slightly more to grip some will be a plus to some, worse controls or battery life compared to past GFs tho.

> It's not any cheaper than the GM1

German prices:
GM1's MSRP is 700€
GF7's MSRP is 500€

GM1 is 500 euro in Germany and on ebay even less. GM5 is the expensive one, may be you are mixing them up?

fatdeeman:

Not true at all.

You seem to think all of a the capacity to lift the exposure of shadowed area is magically transfered from a raw to a jpeg at the time of extraction.

This absolutely wrong.

The time to do the shadow "lifting" is at the time of extraction not after to a jpeg.

In short, you have much to learn about the differences between raws and jpegs that started out as raw files.

Meaning: My entire point is valid.

Now, if you want comment on jpegs, feel free, but that has nothing to do with the capacity sought.

fateeman:

The file is a jpeg, it doesn't matter that it started out as a raw.

You have no idea how much DPR lifted shadows.

Without the raw, and ACR 9, your comments aren't legitimate points.

fatdeeman,

No, I'm not moving the goal posts.

You need the raw file, or huge amounts of processing data and charts, to make the claim you made and have a legitimate point.

You don't know what +55 in shadows means for the curves of this particular raw. You know how one slider was moved.

You don't know much about raw extraction I see.

I assume you're talking about image 3159435, there are 4 ISO 200 ACR files; the problem you're likely seeing, and this would be evident in a jpeg, is the fact that the mid range data under the curves doesn't have much to go with at extraction time. And the lack of mid range data influences, massively, what can be done with highlights and shadows.

In other words it wouldn't be the best image for lifting shadows from.

JimW:

How are you finding this information? Is it from downloading all of the samples and checking meta data?

I admit I didn't do that.

Anyhow the best PanaLeicas aren't on that list. And those are how to see what this camera can do at its best. I realizer there are very good Olympuses too.

The information about the lens used, as well as FL, aperture, shutter speed and ISO is right there below every image.

Revenant,

Okay, but the lens information, aperture, FL, information isn't included with the thumbnails.

Since jpegs aren't the way to judge IQ, I'd not looked at more than one or two of the full pages.

But thanks for the point. Indeed I generalized, where I shouldn't have.

Anyhow one has to open the page for each thumbnail to ascertain that data.

In the end, I'm sure that this camera coupled with good raw extraction software and an excellent PanaLeica lens will do amazing image quality through ISO 3200. And indeed embarrass many Sony mirrorless cameras, FF bodies included.

12-32 is much better than E16-50

Sony have yet to compete with a lens range, lens and body size, this little Panasonic is a treat of a camera, it's not butt ugly like a sony either. Well done again Panasonic

@thematic- what size do you often print that this camera could not live up to? I suppose it depends on your standards, but I have printed tons of 13x19 that turn out great. If you need to print larger sizes from images taken in less than ideal conditions, maybe you need 35mm or the like. For many, the IQ difference between the two isn't a dealbreaker. I'd go as far as to say that for most beyond pixel peepers, the difference between m4/3 and aps-c is unnoticeable.

HowabouyRAW:
"Anyhow the best PanaLeicas aren't on that list. "

You are right about that.
However, I can certainly understand it. If I were showing samples that illustrated the capabilities of a camera, I would pick lenses from those most likely to represent the space in which the user would be operating: for a camera body costing somewhere in the $450 range and possessing the physical and feature characteristics of the GF7, I would probably not include lenses that cost 2 or 3 times the body cost. For a buyer to be willing to accept the premise that the ultimate cost of the camera could reach into the thousands in order to get acceptable pictures stretches credulity too far. That would just drive the consumer away. That said, once purchased and used, if the user ultimately feels the need for more (IQ, speed, sharpness, fill in the blanks), that opens the door to that never-ending search that we all know.

JimW:

The extraordinary, optically, PanaLeica f/1.4 25mm m4/3s lens retails for about $550usd.

Does this camera body sell for $165?

HowaboutRAW:

You are right, even though the body/lens cost is close to 1:1, the cost/quality ratio is appealing. In absolute terms an experienced user who is familiar with what they would be getting would probably find it exciting. I do think, however a relative novice user might find the 20 1.7 more appealing if they were buying early in their experience with the camera. Generally, I think there may be two distinct groups of potential buyers:
1) the experienced and discriminating user who is looking for a casual, take-everywhere second body with a broad range of lenses that could yield excellent results.
2) the novice user who is looking for a camera that will fit easily into a busy lifestyle - all while allowing them to memorialize their activities under a broad range of conditions and expectations.
In both cases the m43 mount allows access to a very broad range of lenses that can stimulate and support growth in photography - they need never fear they will be an orphan anytime soon.

Gx7 gm-1 gm-5 gh4 gh3 all have comparable IQ to the olympus models.

The GF-6 used a older panasonic sensor which was not good enough to compete

P:

JPEG, especially from Panasonic, doesn't have close to 80% of the image quality of a raw. Just white balance alone makes that untrue.

1/15 of a sec. + IBIS may allow for some lower ISO shots, but not if the objects in the shots are moving.

I use the term "haze" as a general, not specific one. Many of the comments regarding the flatness, softness, lack of vibrancy, etc. I attribute to the atmospheric haze seen in many untouched jpegs straight out of the camera. It is the generally blue haze one sees with pictures taken in areas like Seattle and other areas of relative high humidity. Consequently, I believe one cannot appropriately evaluate a camera/lens combination unless one deals appropriately with this phenomenon. I merely generalize the phenomenon to reflect this belief regardless of the absolute source of the "hazing" effect

To remove haze in Photoshop it's Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask and start by setting the Amount at 10 percent and the Radius at 200 pixels. Increase or decrease the two values in 5 percent increments till you like the results.

If it can remove haze while leaving the overall colour balance the same, that is pretty impressive.