Is the Panasonic GX7 a Sony NEX7 killer?

It is very hard to like one of these cameras and not like the other one.

Because they really are THAT similar.

I honestly think people who aren't tied to either system, who are looking for a high end rangefinder style MILC camera will be seriously considering both of them, as well as the Fuji X cameras.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-PL2
Olympus OM-D
Sony SLT-A55
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

If you can step back and look at the various mirrorless systems objectively, there are clear advantages to each. And the resulting competition between them leads to improvements across the industry.

The challenge is staying with your chosen system through tempting meaningful advances from the others.

I prefer the image quality, handling and certain specific features (sweep panorama and anti-motion blur by example) of my NEX-7 when using the latest Touit primes and earlier 24mm Sony-Zeiss. But I have a GH3 and OM-D which I use for travel with the some excellent Panasonic zooms (two of which are weather resistant).

The GX-7 has many of the physical attributes I like of the NEX-7 and will allow me to extract the creative capabilities of my MFT lenses. I have pre-ordered one and I am sure it will provide considerable enjoyment and flexibility.

Yet I don’t doubt for a moment that when the NEXT shoe falls (New NEX-7), it will further justify my recent lens investment in the Sony e-system. I will use both the higher resolution NEX-7 and the more flexible MFT system due to it’s lenses offering.

And, I expect the relationship between Olympus and Sony will bring tremendous synergy that will make both their systems better.

For my professional work, I use a Nikon D800 full frame system since the smaller mirrorless systems are not perceived by my clients as being of sufficient image quality. Yet the very best images I have ever captured came from a Sony RX-1 earlier this year. So in time, perhaps even this perception will change.

So my conclusion is that the GX-7 is not an NEX-7 “killer” as it still falls short of the performance of the 24 Mpixel APS-C sensor but for many demanding photographers it will be sufficient. No doubt Sony needs a few G series zooms to complete the basic pro kit but that too will come in time.

Those who focus (PUN intended) only on the weaknesses of the various systems are missing the wonderful creative capabilities these cameras can provide.

tjuster1 said:

tjuster1 wrote:

There SHOULD be a size benefit in the bodies too, and I think this is the greatest flaw in m43 at the moment. My only objection to the GX7--which seems like it's a great camera--is that it's too big.

Click to expand...

Many users have complained that E-M5 was too small, I think Panasonic is not making the cameras any smaller not because they can't, but because the ergonomics suffer. This is an advanced enthusiast model, and it is covered with buttons. Make it any smaller, and they will be too close. If it's an enthusiast camera it should work well with the larger lenses, not just the pancakes. The f2.8 zooms are fairly hefty, the 75 is not feather light either. I don't mind heavy lenses on light or sim bodies, but a lot of people do.

Sonys make an impression of a slim body, but they still have thick grips and a thick lens mount, so it's actual handling size is not really smaller. GF and E-PM lines are smaller at the expense of the controls, and Panny has got a lot of flack in the past for removing controls in GF-2 compared to GF-1. They also have increased the size of G5 and G6 probably because everybody and their dog were complaining how G3 was uncomfortable to hold. I don't think they will go there again any time soon.

Vlad

I think we are at a point where no new mirrorless camera is going to be a killer. The systems have matured, and all of them have enough lenses to satisfy the mass consumer. The gains will be at the expense of the most advanced users, of which there is always minority. I think for now micro 4/3 has the IBIS, which is more attractive for those using legacy lenses; and some iconic lenses that in themselves became an object of desire.

NEX has the advantage in the sensor output, the camera control follows a different paradigm, they will always have a little more DOF control.

Some of the camera can die because they fail to satisfy any market, but I don't think that there will be a camera that will suddenly draw a large number of new users from another camp. It's like there will never be a Nikon camera that will become a Canon killer, and vice versa - too many users are invested in either system.

Vlad

Very well said Pat. I think if Sony had a solid lineup of NEX lenses I would head their direction but Panasonic's build quality and amazing lens selection is very compelling.

Former GH2 owner and current NEX 5R owner here, who buys whatever best at the time:

The GX7 is the most perfect camera I have ever (ever!) read about, the lack of microphone/head phone inputs/outputs the only flaws (am keen on video), but I'm nit picking. However, the rumours are strong that Sony are on the verge of launching:

A FF NEX (assuming it is NEX branded) that will be the world's smallest FF camera. Been in development in total secrecy for two years.

A replacement for the 5R, known as the 5T I think.

A revolutionary lens only 'thing' that attaches to your smart phone, using the phone's OS as the interface. (Great idea really!)

So whilst the GX7 tempts, I'm waiting until October to see what happens as the dust settles.

For me, the greatest draw of the GX7 is the viewfinder. I considered buying the (well reviewed) snap on Sony viewfinder for the 5R but it's a very fragile arrangement.

GX7 does indeed look like an NEX and it's obvious Panasonic are trying to lure us NEX users back.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Panasonic say the GX7 has an all new sensor?

tjuster1 said:

tjuster1 wrote:

tjuster1 said:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

The size benefit is in the lenses. Sony's are much larger than the equivalent FOV m4/3 lenses.

As I said before, the Sony cameras would be compelling if they had anything at all like the lens lineup that Micro 4/3 cameras have.

The fact is, the lenses are more important than the bodies, and that's clearly what's holding Sony's system back.

Click to expand...

There SHOULD be a size benefit in the bodies too, and I think this is the greatest flaw in m43 at the moment. My only objection to the GX7--which seems like it's a great camera--is that it's too big. If they made it smaller than the NEX-7 (or NEX-6) then it would really have my attention. Don't understand why Sony can do it but Oly/Panny can't.

Click to expand...

Peer into the lens mount and you see the only component that can be smaller in M43 than in an APS-C mirrorless - the sensor. Everything else is the same size. There are smaller bodies in M43 - the GF and E-PM series - and they are about as small as is practical to handle. Look at the EOS M and Nikon 1 bodies, they are about the same size too.

dougjgreen1's point above about the lenses is spot on. Lenses are what make a system. Bodies come and go.

Marty4650 said:

Marty4650 wrote:



Compare these two cameras. Both are high quality MILC cameras with magnesium alloy bodies. Both are around the same size and weight. Both have similar styling and control layouts. Both will cost around the same. These two cameras are so similar that it would be hard to like one and not like the other.

The Sony NEX7 has one advantage over the Panasonic GX7. It has a larger sensor. But this advantage can also be a disadvantage because it means you will need larger lenses for it. So it cuts both ways.

We haven't seen any tests yet, but the Panasonic GX7 sensor is two years newer than the Sony sensor in the NEX7, so it might be very capable indeed. Interestingly, both sensors have the pixel density, since they have same size pixels. The NEX7 just has more of them due to a larger sensor.

Assuming the GX7 has a very good sensor (at least as good as the Sony sensor in the OM-D, GH3, and EP5), then it could be a much more compelling camera for an enthusiast.

I say this because the GX7 has some advantages of it's own over the Sony NEX7:

• Sensor shift IBIS
• Tilt up EVF
• Better EVF - more screen resolution
• Better LCD - more screen resolution
• Touch screen
• Can shoot in 4 aspect ratios rather than 2
• Higher maximum sensitivity (ISO 25,600 vs 16,000)
• Slightly more powerful built in flash (GN 7 vs GN 6)
• Faster max shutter speed - 1/8000th
• Much smaller lenses
• Much wider variety of lenses
• 40 lenses available vs. 21 lenses available
• Longer exposures possible (60 sec vs 30 sec)
• Has 2X and 4X digital zoom (not that anyone would actually use it)

What do you think?

Will Sony take this as a shot across the bow?

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-PL2
Olympus OM-D
Sony SLT-A55
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

Click to expand...

What I think is:

- The Sony APS-c sensor in the NEX7, even though 2 years old, is one of the best around. The D5200 scores 2/3 of a stop better throughout the ISO range when it comes to DR but that is about it. NEX6 is slightly worse and it is newer..

So I am convinced the GX7 will not be ceven close to the NEX7. Panasonic should have been wise, purely based on the scores, to ask Toshiba to fabricate the sensor for them. This would most likely put them ahead of the Sony m43 sensors.

- NEX7 to my mind was "killed" by NEX6. And now trhe comparison is NEX6 vs GX7 I think.

- We all know NEX7n or what it is called is around the corner and I think it won't be as revolutionairy as NEX7, but it will be most likely better than it everstill.

- For those who are fine with the lenses, the GX7 is no competitor to the NEX7. For those who think lens size and line-up are really important the GX7 is probably more appealing.

- In the end, of course these cams fight for the same customer but I think there is more ecompetition with Oly's m43 offerings than any APS-c ones. I think that quite a few users who want such a cam are perhaps better acquainted with the difference between the sensors and make a more informed choice. So for quite a few, m43 is just too small and they will chose APS-c and for others it is not and APS-c is just not what they want because of the larger lenses.

I think Panasonic have possibly produced my ideal camera, but I'm waiting to see the images from it of course. The biggest advantage is the silent shutter.. nexes are I think quieter than they used to be, but still not silent enough for me. And I'm not convinced by Sony's build quality..

If Sony want me to be interested in the nex 7 replacement, they will have to do something about the shutter noise and I'd be interested to compare high iso images from both..

The Sony NEX-7 was released in August 2011 which is ages ago in a fast moving digital camera market. The GX7 has some new features that compare very favorably with the NEX7, but it will not beat the NEX-7 for IQ. The 24 mp APS-C sensor in the NEX-7 is almost certainly going to outperform the GX7 sensor whether it's the GH3 sensor, the G6 sensor or something completely new. I'm not a fan of Sony cameras in general, but they make terrific sensors and the NEX-7, with the right lens, is a heck of a performer.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/NEX-7

MrTaikitso said:

GX7 does indeed look like an NEX and it's obvious Panasonic are trying to lure us NEX users back.

Click to expand...

How are you going to lure people back with something that looks very similar but means you have to shell out quite some money to get there...there where you already feel you are? I think Panasonic is going for the same kind of user who values this kind of body.
I also think the GX7 is some sort of hybrid of the NEX6, the XE1 and the L1.

MrTaikitso said:

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Panasonic say the GX7 has an all new sensor?

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

What do you think?
Will Sony take this as a shot across the bow?

Click to expand...

I think since the release of the Nex 7, sony has had the time to move on and avoid the shot. If they don't, it will be sony's fault, not because of panasonic's greatness. The gx7 only looks like a (good) copy of the NEX design.

Body-wise, sony has been really impressive and quite ahead of the competition in terms of miniaturization, sensors and processing features. And now, Nex 6 and 7 are cheaper than gx7, so you really pay for the ability to use m43 lenses.

The only real advantave of m43 bodies is IBIS, but sony has moved in that direction as well if we trust the rumors of olympus's collaboration on that front.

Now Sony is still behind in lenses, and we will see if they manage to overcome that. Their RX100 and Rx1 have really started to shake the ground as well.

Oh, and just to calm down m43's fanboys, I shoot only m4/3 which I find perfect for me.

But you have got to admit that GX7 comes way late and expensive compared to sony's nex7 and will not be better in most ways.

EEmu said:

EEmu wrote:

EEmu said:

limbonaut wrote:

EEmu said:

kcamacho11 wrote:

EEmu said:

ijm5012 wrote:

The effective diameter within each of the lenses will change based on the sensor it is being used for.

A 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera if simply mounted to a m43 camera would suddenly become a 100mm f/3.6 based on the effective diameter needed due to the FF sensor.

My point is, that a f/1.8 lens specifically designed for a m43 sensor mounted to a m43 sensor camera will let in the same amount of light as a f/1.8 lens specifically designed for a APS-C sensor mounted to a APS-C sensor camera.

If you are disagreeing with this, please go ahead and enlighten me by showing me why I am wrong. Don't simply say "go do research" because to me I see that as "well that's not what I read on the internet, so you go figure it out on your own".

Click to expand...

Look, I own BOTH an NEX-7 and an OM-D.

I have taken thousands of pictures with both cameras and I will say this:

I have shot similar scenes with both cameras at same apertures, iso's and speeds to compare how they function.

When I did that in my living room under decent light with both cameras........
My NEX-7 with kit lens at ISO 200, F5.6, gave me a shutter speed of about 1/40, when my OM-D with the kit 12-50 at F5.6, ISO 200, was giving me a shutter speed in the 1/20 range. Both cameras were next to each other and focused on the same exact subject.

I do not care what you say or what numbers you throw out me....the larger the sensor, the more depth of field and the more light it brings in.

An F1.8 M43 lens gives you the equivalence of about F2.2-F2.4 in APS-C, due to the smaller sensor.

Click to expand...

I don't know why we keep having these same arguments about relative aperture size.

Yes, APS-C does have smaller depth of field at same aperture value BUT

the light gathering ability is the same.

A 2.8 lens on both formats gathers the same light (just as fast) - does not have the same depth of field.

Click to expand...

I'd wager that we keep having these discussions because people keep saying wrong things (or misusing terms?).

An APS-C lens at f/2.8 illuminates a larger area with the same intensity compared a m43 lens at f/2.8. Therefore the APS-C lens gathers more light because it is shining more light. Speed boosters leverage this fact by concentrating a larger dimmer image into a smaller brighter one. If all lenses regardless of format "gather the same light" as you say then it would be impossible for speed boosters to work (where are they collecting the extra light from?).

"Fastness" isn't the same as light gathering. In simple terms of "speed", yes, aperture doesn't change across format, but that's only because smaller formats can't handle as much light as larger ones. Therefore they properly expose with less gathered/total light (and thus more noise) giving the illusion that gathered light doesn't change between formats.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. But I was addressing the posters comment regarding exposure. For a good explawhy ion of why relative aperture doesn't really matter to here. http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

To quote.

While crop factor has a use simply to compare focal lengths between formats and such, the constant comparison of a smaller format lens to its full frame ‘equivalent’ aperture is largely unevenly applied and misunderstood. It’s often used to show that a smaller format is inferior or not capable of the same things as a larger format. In some cases, this usage is correct, but it is also nearly never used the other way.

I’ve heard many times “Yeah, your 75mm f/1.8 is crap – it’s like a 150mm f/3.6.” No, it’s not, it’s a 75mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture and a field of view that is the same as a 150mm lens on full frame.

What IS true is that the 75mm f/1.8 is not capable of the same ultra shallow depth of field as, say, something like the Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 on full frame. However, this is essentially the ONLY way that it is inferior. It passes the same amount of light, and it exposes as an f/1.8 lens because it IS an f/1.8 lens. If I’ve chosen a smaller format system, I’m already OK with the fact that it doesn’t equal a full frame camera in the noise department, so there is no ‘aperture advantage’ after the fact. Those who harp on aperture equivalence as it relates to shallow depth of field also IGNORE all the BENEFITS to having more depth of field for the same aperture:

• Times you WANT a little more depth of field than your lens can provide wide open. (portraits where you want more than one eyelash in focus; indoor travel photos like shooting inside a cathedral, etc). Often these situations are situations where a tripod is not allowed or not practical.
• Studio work, where apertures are typically f/8 to f/11 for full frame users to get a person’s face completely in focus. With the smaller format, you can use strobes at 1/4 the power as the full frame user can, allowing for flashguns instead of studio strobes, or faster recycle for the same strobes.
• Landscape photography when it’s windy, or you’re trying to stop motion – being able to shoot at f/8 rather than f/16 can be quite helpful.
• Macro photography, where inherently deeper depth of field is most desirable, especially when lighting is problematic.

These situations make up a LOT of shooting. Now, when light is limited in any way, these advantages come up. Now, sure, you can up the ISO two stops on the full frame camera to compensate (or 1-1/3 stops when comparing to APS-C), but now, the full frame camera has just lost ALL of its image quality advantages, and you’re still stuck carrying the larger and more expensive gear.

When do you need to stop down indoors? Group shots, any time you want to get two people at different depths in the image in focus, indoor architecture shooting when traveling (most European cathedrals won’t let you use a tripod), etc.

tjuster1 said:

tjuster1 wrote:

There SHOULD be a size benefit in the bodies too, and I think this is the greatest flaw in m43 at the moment. My only objection to the GX7--which seems like it's a great camera--is that it's too big. If they made it smaller than the NEX-7 (or NEX-6) then it would really have my attention. Don't understand why Sony can do it but Oly/Panny can't.

Click to expand...

Smaller isn't necessarily better. I don't feel that the GX1 I currently own handles as well as the Nikon D7000 I used to own (a much, much bigger camera). It has several advantages - smaller size (so it's with me more), compact/wide-angle primes designed for the sensor size, but having a smaller body just for the sake of making it smaller makes little sense to me. I look forward to playing with a GX7 (and the next OM-D model) to see if some of the things I dislike about the GX1 have been improved upon to work better for me. The size of the body is only one of many things that matters to me in my hobby, and it's pretty far down the list.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Vlad S said:

Vlad S wrote:

I think we are at a point where no new mirrorless camera is going to be a killer. The systems have matured, and all of them have enough lenses to satisfy the mass consumer. The gains will be at the expense of the most advanced users, of which there is always minority. I think for now micro 4/3 has the IBIS, which is more attractive for those using legacy lenses; and some iconic lenses that in themselves became an object of desire.

NEX has the advantage in the sensor output, the camera control follows a different paradigm, they will always have a little more DOF control.

Some of the camera can die because they fail to satisfy any market, but I don't think that there will be a camera that will suddenly draw a large number of new users from another camp. It's like there will never be a Nikon camera that will become a Canon killer, and vice versa - too many users are invested in either system.

Vlad

Click to expand...

I understand and share your point of view,

But...there could be different approach for "who is a killer" definition. Besides of buyers, manufacturer can be a killer too. I do think that not a competitor, but SONY itself can kill the NEX the way it known today: -APS sensor, E mount, minimalistic body style.

FOA, the NEX-7 is pretty much due to be replaced. so if comparing, we really should look at either the cheaper NEX-6 or the up coming replacement. But also, these are just camera bodies, they do not and cannot be compared direct just as this better than that, or vice versa. Its the total setup that ultimately count as the tool for producing the image. That goes with setting up before even starting the shoots to the end image via whatever software utilized.

And most of all, is it really too early to try to summarize a conclusion when none of us actually know how the GX7 perform nor how will it image at all

And does it really matter, I work with both NEX and M4/3 and I do not see them as one or the other situation, since they differs quite a lot and also in their lineup which then affect how one can setup, and customize.

Very well put, as of today, all mirrorless system had body that's up to date and can deliver decent photos, and enough of a lineup for mass market. The Dilemma for the Mfr is to either expand the system and accept that they can't just price it off on expanding market and selling lesser product at higher price or they need really disruptive technology to made a splash.

So for real the Mfrs need to branch out from their safety zone ( as far as product goes ) both horizontally and vertically.

The real disruptive and potential killer I see coming would be the FF mirrorless. Sony is posed to have one but do not count on just so. Who is to say Canon or Nikon or even others would not be doing similar. Sony's case is ever more interesting as the news is that Sony planned for mirrorless in both A and E mount. We have no idea about the strategy Sony will take, but its an intrigue situation there.

1- The image you posted already had similar lenses on the cameras and the Sony combo was smaller despite the larger sensor.

2- In your new image the difference is so minimal that I don't see the point (it's not like you are comparing the Panny lens to a 7 pounds or 3 kilo f/2.8 300mm full-frame lens).

3- We can compare other lenses. For example these will take exactly the same space in any bag:



4- The M43 lenses cheat with their smaller equivalent apertures (laws of physics = more sensor area more light-gathering). Sony or others could for example release truly equivalent tiny f/5.6-8 zooms... but what would be the point when the current ones are small enough and faster by at least a stop?

5- I don't understand why there should not be size benefit in the bodies either. They are making the same mistakes than with Four Thirds.

The only way the GX7 is going to kill the NEX-7 is because this camera will soon be replaced. The poor Olympus E-P5 on the other hand...

Marty4650 said:

Marty4650 wrote:

Marty4650 said:

Antonio Rojilla wrote:

I think most of the GX7's advantages have more to do with the fact that it is a brand new model (not even for sale) and the Sony an aging one.

But looking at the image you posted I can only think of two things:

1- Sony was right.

2- Where's the size benefit?

Click to expand...

There is no size benefit as far as camera bodies go. The size benefits are in the lenses, and this is due primarily to the smaller 4/3 sensor.

Look what happens when you put a kit telephoto zoom on each camera...



--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-PL2
Olympus OM-D
Sony SLT-A55
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

Click to expand...

--

dgreene196 said:

dgreene196 wrote:

dgreene196 said:

tjuster1 wrote:

There SHOULD be a size benefit in the bodies too, and I think this is the greatest flaw in m43 at the moment. My only objection to the GX7--which seems like it's a great camera--is that it's too big. If they made it smaller than the NEX-7 (or NEX-6) then it would really have my attention. Don't understand why Sony can do it but Oly/Panny can't.

Click to expand...

Smaller isn't necessarily better. I don't feel that the GX1 I currently own handles as well as the Nikon D7000 I used to own (a much, much bigger camera). It has several advantages - smaller size (so it's with me more), compact/wide-angle primes designed for the sensor size, but having a smaller body just for the sake of making it smaller makes little sense to me. I look forward to playing with a GX7 (and the next OM-D model) to see if some of the things I dislike about the GX1 have been improved upon to work better for me. The size of the body is only one of many things that matters to me in my hobby, and it's pretty far down the list.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

And that's the gist of it. I get that you want a larger camera, but I don't, and my point is that it should be possible to make a smaller m43 camera--something along the lines of the NEX-5N, or NEX-6 with integrated VF. I'm not trying to convince you to want a smaller camera; don't try to convince me to want a larger one.

And, please, don't ridicule my argument by saying I want a "smaller body just for the sake of making it smaller". I want a smaller body because it will be easier to carry, and can fit more easily in a pocket when coupled with a small pancake lens. I'm willing to trade off "usability" for smaller size (and, in fact, I don't find a camera like the PM2 limited in any way in terms of usability--only wish it had better IBIS).

dougjgreen1 said:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Sony's camera bodies have been plenty competitive for a long time. The shortcoming of their system is entirely the lack of lens support, especially in terms of good quality native primes.

Click to expand...

The lack of lens support ? That might have been an issue a while ago but not so much these days. There are quite a few really excellent native primes to choose from (Sony, Zeiss, Sigma) and then there's the LA-EA2 adapter that allows you to shoot all available A lenses with phase detection AF. Besides you'd be hard pressed to find a better platform for legacy glass. However, especially the 7 has issues with wide angle RF lenses and some other quirks and flaws (which camera hasn't ?) but luckily I'm not too much of a wide-angle shooter and the IQ at base ISO/RAW is to die for.