The Reviewer responded in part to my criticisms of his review but I didn't get a chance to respond to that before the thread ran to the 149 limit.
I would like to take the opportunity to respond again just a bit -- not to flog a dead horse, but to get some clarity here.
The reviewer wrote:
And if you think reviews are all opinions, then I am afraid you don't know what reviewing is all about. Sure, opinion comes into it, but see below.
What you needed to do was abandon going the step of specifying a market category and simply tell people what the G7 does and let people (and Panasonic) sort themselves out. Then you could have talked about the camera and its capabilities objectively -- and given your opinion about how it achieved its potential.
There is no call for you to say whether or not you would buy a certain camera. We all understand you cannot buy every camera you review.
A reviewer's task here is to test the camera and tell us whether or not it performs as expected; whether it does the job it is built to do; whether or not, in your opinion it does the job well (with some objective references, of course, like evidence).
The fact is the G7 can appeal to a very wide audience because it can be used successfully at any level from fully automatic, through P mode or various other modes, up to a very complex level, and that includes both stills and video. That is the point which should have been a highlight -- it can serve a wide range of users and in particular, it can provide a platform for users to develop their skills and capabilities.
Instead, you were focused on your imaginary audience and meeting their imaginary needs.
I have not had the chance to look at the G7 yet (I live in a part of the world where the nearest comprehensive camera store is approximately 5000 kms away) but I use both the G6 and GX7. I switched to the G6 from the Olympus E-PL3 with great relief for the far simpler, easy to use controls Panasonic offers. I checked out a Sony camera or two along the way. That's a menu to use in the field? They must be joking!
But the point is that with just one or two changes, I was able to go straight into action at a good level with the G6 and have subsequently made it more my own with further changes.
As a reviewer, you might have thought to mention this possibility. That, for instance, you can customize the buttons for adjustments that are your first level of interest, then do the second level on the Q Menu.
In fact your review could have started something like this:
Panasonic's G7 is the latest in the G line of cameras which introduced micro 4/3 photography to the world with the revolutionary G1. It is a worthy successor to its predecessors and a camera that must lay strong claims to the affections of stills and video photographers from beginners to enthusiasts and professionals alike.
It does a lot of things very, very well with category leading capabilities packed into its compact, robust, polycarbonate body.
It is hard to pin down the G7's audience or market -- some might call it a jack of all trades, but unlike the proverbial jack, it is a master of pretty much everything it does.
And in this iteration, it offers stills only photogs some exciting possibilities drawn directly from its category leading video capabilities.
Is that fair? I believe so. I also believe the shutter shock matter is definitely up for mention, but equally, the e-shutter, a very valuable tool, must get a guernsey.
And on top of that, the video capability is a big step up too. What is the competition for that?
For goodness sake, Richard, where is your sense of proportion?
It clearly is not "if both…are considered". This is an excellent stills camera with some features which lift it above the ruck, and an excellent video camera with some features that lift it above the ruck, and both together in one compact package at a compact price -- WOW! Super value whether you lean towards stills or videos.
Further, Richard, you denied an accusation by another poster of systematic bias against Panasonic. You proposed several other reviews you did of Panasonic cameras.
I checked two of them, the GH3 and the LX100.
FOUR YEARS WAIT -- and you blew it.
By the way -- let it be noted for the record that in the G3 review, you were remarking negatively on the G3 being somewhat simplified compared with its predecessor, the G2.
Now you are complaining about the G7 being too complex.
Good one, Richard. Or was it the other bloke complaining about the loss of features in the G3?
I would like to take the opportunity to respond again just a bit -- not to flog a dead horse, but to get some clarity here.
The reviewer wrote:
You used the wrong word here -- there is no such thing as a totally OBJECTIVE opinion is, no doubt, what you were trying to say. And of course there is not, an opinion is subjective by definition. But you did not have to drag your misguided opinion into the lead of the review.Member said:
And if you think reviews are all opinions, then I am afraid you don't know what reviewing is all about. Sure, opinion comes into it, but see below.
Sorry, this is rubbish. As I pointed out originally, you set up what amounts to a straw man potential audience/market -- then talked about how the G7 failed to meet its needs! Huh?Member said:
What you needed to do was abandon going the step of specifying a market category and simply tell people what the G7 does and let people (and Panasonic) sort themselves out. Then you could have talked about the camera and its capabilities objectively -- and given your opinion about how it achieved its potential.
There is no call for you to say whether or not you would buy a certain camera. We all understand you cannot buy every camera you review.
A reviewer's task here is to test the camera and tell us whether or not it performs as expected; whether it does the job it is built to do; whether or not, in your opinion it does the job well (with some objective references, of course, like evidence).
Sure, but your assumptions about the audience were rubbish. That is the problem. Just accept the fact that you totally boobed. You did not have to have that assumption to write an excellent review. As it happens, your assumption about the audience turned our review to nonsense.Member said:
The fact is the G7 can appeal to a very wide audience because it can be used successfully at any level from fully automatic, through P mode or various other modes, up to a very complex level, and that includes both stills and video. That is the point which should have been a highlight -- it can serve a wide range of users and in particular, it can provide a platform for users to develop their skills and capabilities.
Instead, you were focused on your imaginary audience and meeting their imaginary needs.
Because, as you admit yourself, it can outgun the Rebel -- that's the answer to your last point! And it means that the Rebel is not the G7's peer -- it is a camera of lesser capability.Member said:
I have not had the chance to look at the G7 yet (I live in a part of the world where the nearest comprehensive camera store is approximately 5000 kms away) but I use both the G6 and GX7. I switched to the G6 from the Olympus E-PL3 with great relief for the far simpler, easy to use controls Panasonic offers. I checked out a Sony camera or two along the way. That's a menu to use in the field? They must be joking!
But the point is that with just one or two changes, I was able to go straight into action at a good level with the G6 and have subsequently made it more my own with further changes.
As a reviewer, you might have thought to mention this possibility. That, for instance, you can customize the buttons for adjustments that are your first level of interest, then do the second level on the Q Menu.
Sure, you can believe that -- but why didn't you say it about lots of other cameras? Why has no-one mentioned it in respect of any other mirrorless camera (that I know of)? It is just fatuity. YOU might pretend it is not a criticism; in fact, it reads as such. It is saying the G7 is a camera without a clear sense of direction or purpose behind it. It is a non-camera camera.Member said:
In fact your review could have started something like this:
Panasonic's G7 is the latest in the G line of cameras which introduced micro 4/3 photography to the world with the revolutionary G1. It is a worthy successor to its predecessors and a camera that must lay strong claims to the affections of stills and video photographers from beginners to enthusiasts and professionals alike.
It does a lot of things very, very well with category leading capabilities packed into its compact, robust, polycarbonate body.
It is hard to pin down the G7's audience or market -- some might call it a jack of all trades, but unlike the proverbial jack, it is a master of pretty much everything it does.
And in this iteration, it offers stills only photogs some exciting possibilities drawn directly from its category leading video capabilities.
Is that fair? I believe so. I also believe the shutter shock matter is definitely up for mention, but equally, the e-shutter, a very valuable tool, must get a guernsey.
Richard, you are talking to a writer and editor here. The "however" is the wrong word; end of story. "This mirror-neutral feel" is the rubbish in your head. It is not and never has been in the heads of your readers. It is a nonsense. Forget it. It does not change the meaning of "however". You are not the red queen and we are not in mushroom land. As I said previously, ou should have used "further" or something similar, because what you were saying extended the point, it was not in opposition to it from the reader's point of view.Member said:
From a stills perspective, the G7 looks pretty exciting to me. Great new EVF, the step up in sensor and processing from the G6, 1/16000 shutter speed (albeit e-shutter with its acknowledged limitations), the silent running e-shutter (try taking concert pix with your Rebel or E-M10 or whatever, and learn what it feels like to be bounced out on your b*m), but most of all the effective 30 FPS 8 MPX stuff. Wow!!! Tell me -- what other camera offers this and at what price?Member said:
And on top of that, the video capability is a big step up too. What is the competition for that?
For goodness sake, Richard, where is your sense of proportion?
It clearly is not "if both…are considered". This is an excellent stills camera with some features which lift it above the ruck, and an excellent video camera with some features that lift it above the ruck, and both together in one compact package at a compact price -- WOW! Super value whether you lean towards stills or videos.
All this without addressing the problem of you introducing the G7 review as a mini-category review -- an approach that was not applied to any of the competitors. They were reviewed as cameras within their own brand and line.Member said:
Further, Richard, you denied an accusation by another poster of systematic bias against Panasonic. You proposed several other reviews you did of Panasonic cameras.
I checked two of them, the GH3 and the LX100.
- These were not your exclusive reviews, as the G7 was, but joint efforts.
- The GH3 one is okay -- in fact, excellent -- but the LX100 one in my view is odd. It is just the camera that you could have applied your bemused "who is the audience" question to, but in a quick reading, I did not see that. it is a huge step away from the very compact, pocketable LX predecessors, and raises the question of why anyone would buy it when they could get a GM5 instead.
FOUR YEARS WAIT -- and you blew it.
By the way -- let it be noted for the record that in the G3 review, you were remarking negatively on the G3 being somewhat simplified compared with its predecessor, the G2.
And this after hailing it as a worthy successor to the G mantle.Member said:
Now you are complaining about the G7 being too complex.
Good one, Richard. Or was it the other bloke complaining about the loss of features in the G3?
Last edited:
