Is the EVF on GX9 really worse than that on the GX7

I know the specs suggest they are the same, but I have read conflicting reports about this comparison in the real world. This would be a key issue in my decision whether to upgrade to the GX9, with its superior stabilisation.

Can anyone with hands-on (or eyes-on) experience comment?

Tim, you've been around here long enough to know that a minute difference, possibly noticeable at 400% becomes a problem; a minor difference that's possibly noticeable at 100% becomes a major issue; and any kind of actually noticeable difference becomes the excuse for WWIII ...

Check it out for yourself is my advice!

According to proponents of the G9, the EVF in the E-M1 MkI/MkII is all but useless by comparison. I find that they work perfectly well for me ... .

JaKing wrote:

Tim, you've been around here long enough to know that a minute difference, possibly noticeable at 400% becomes a problem; a minor difference that's possibly noticeable at 100% becomes a major issue; and any kind of actually noticeable difference becomes the excuse for WWIII ...

Check it out for yourself is my advice!

There is much in what you say, oh wise one.  

DiffractionLtd wrote:

If you shoot a lot of manual lens stuff on the fly, you'll notice and appreciate the GX7 is better. If all you do is use the finder to compose, it probably won't matter. If you can use the magnifying feature most of the time, either camera is fine.

In fact, as a glasses wearer, the key feature for me is often the eye point. It's really frustrating when you have to press your specs up hard against the camera and then make a big effort to see into the corners of the image. That's something camera makers could address quite easily I imagine.

Tested GX9 in showroom, basically the same as those of GX7/85 I'm using now.

yslee1 wrote:

timo wrote:

I know the specs suggest they are the same, but I have read conflicting reports about this comparison in the real world. This would be a key issue in my decision whether to upgrade to the GX9, with its superior stabilisation.

Can anyone with hands-on (or eyes-on) experience comment?

Never had them side-by-side but I do think the GX9 has a pretty nice EVF. I did try it side-by-side with the GX85 and I thought it was a little better. The EVF unit might be the same but the magnification is a little bigger and clearer.

and same resolution as well. Basically it is the same evf on GX7, GX85 and now GX9.

I don't have the GX7 but compared with my 5-year old EM-5, I find the EM-5 better, which is really surprising. I think size wise they are about the same but I cannot explain it - I find the GX9 EVF difficult to see clearly. I wear glasses by the way.

timo wrote:

DiffractionLtd wrote:

If you shoot a lot of manual lens stuff on the fly, you'll notice and appreciate the GX7 is better. If all you do is use the finder to compose, it probably won't matter. If you can use the magnifying feature most of the time, either camera is fine.

In fact, as a glasses wearer, the key feature for me is often the eye point. It's really frustrating when you have to press your specs up hard against the camera and then make a big effort to see into the corners of the image. That's something camera makers could address quite easily I imagine.

I always wear glasses. The eye point on both my E-M1s is sufficient for me to see the entirety of the EVF. As I have astigmatism as well as normal correction, I have to use my distance script part of my bifocals.

I set the dioptre correction of the camera eyepiece to very close to the middle of the range.

Ivan Guoh wrote:

I don't have the GX7 but compared with my 5-year old EM-5, I find the EM-5 better, which is really surprising. I think size wise they are about the same but I cannot explain it - I find the GX9 EVF difficult to see clearly. I wear glasses by the way.

Because Pany use a 16:9 display unit on GX7/85/9. Under 16:9 format for still or shooting video, it is excellent to have a larger evf (EM10 is only 0.62x IIRC, EM5 is slightly larger at 0.74x but of lower resolution 2.36M dot vs GXs' 2.74M dot).

When shooting in 4:3 full resolution format, around 25% of the evf would be black out and so, the viewable area would be reduced to roughly 0.53x of 2M dot... small and still high resolution to the combined effect of never comfortable for long time using . A major reason that many users are more happy with EM10's physically smaller evf.

The sequential display unit also causes a lot of problem like tearing etc (not for me). If Pany can use a OLED 4:3 display unit, it would actually be a frantastic evf I think.

timo wrote:

I know the specs suggest they are the same, but I have read conflicting reports about this comparison in the real world. This would be a key issue in my decision whether to upgrade to the GX9, with its superior stabilisation.

Can anyone with hands-on (or eyes-on) experience comment?

I've owned the GX8 and GX85-EVF was fine. The only one I really disliked was the GH5-very small with smearing of the image. The GX9 is better than any of them in most respects. Size, sharpness and image.

Keit ll wrote:

The viewfinders on the GX series of cameras are their greatest weakness & this matter needs to be seriously addressed.

Many cameras now have noticeably superior VF's & people are starting to notice

As the EVF on the GX8 is still one of the best around.

peppermonkey wrote:

Keit ll wrote:

The viewfinders on the GX series of cameras are their greatest weakness & this matter needs to be seriously addressed.

Many cameras now have noticeably superior VF's & people are starting to notice

As the EVF on the GX8 is still one of the best around.

Well exactly, The GX8 viewfinder is great. The GX7 is so-so. Some say the GX9 is even more so-so, although it is allegedly the same unit. I couldn't find one in stock to test it last time I looked.

(The VF on my now-defunct Fuji X30 was great - much better than the GX7, which made it a pleasure to use, despite the lower sensor resolution etc. etc.)

-
Tim
'If I were you, I wouldn't start from here ... '
http://timauger.smugmug.com
http://timauger.blogspot.sg/

timo wrote:

...

(The VF on my now-defunct Fuji X30 was great - much better than the GX7, which made it a pleasure to use, despite the lower sensor resolution etc. etc.)

Never try X30.

But 100% agreed with you. Sometimes more resolution is only better for a larger size evf. In case of GX7/85/9, the still relatively high resolution (around 2M dots crowed in a 0.525x evf vs 2.4M dots in a 0.74x evf of EM5) is indeed a burden, will stress our eye more .

Take LVF-2, the external evf of GX1. It has 1.44M dot resolution, a norm of evf of its day, and 0.7x magnification. It has less detail, image not as crispy sharp and bright as GX7/85/9, but is is good enough to check focus, framing and exposure control and is very comfortable to use for a very long time.

-
Tim
'If I were you, I wouldn't start from here ... '
http://timauger.smugmug.com
http://timauger.blogspot.sg/

DiffractionLtd wrote:

alcelc wrote:

yslee1 wrote:

timo wrote:

I know the specs suggest they are the same, but I have read conflicting reports about this comparison in the real world. This would be a key issue in my decision whether to upgrade to the GX9, with its superior stabilisation.

Can anyone with hands-on (or eyes-on) experience comment?

Never had them side-by-side but I do think the GX9 has a pretty nice EVF. I did try it side-by-side with the GX85 and I thought it was a little better. The EVF unit might be the same but the magnification is a little bigger and clearer.

and same resolution as well. Basically it is the same evf on GX7, GX85 and now GX9.

It might be just fine as far as they go, but Panasonic shouldn't have gone backwards here. The idea is to compete with and exceed the DSLR, and they won't do that by making EVF's worse than they could be. But who knows? The GX9 is clearly an exercise in cost-cutting over the GX8 so the costly parts were dispensed with or reduced in quality.

and yes, Pany's naming has created a lot of confusion.

Sadly Pany don't take this opportunity to make it right (change the 16:9 display unit of GX7/85 to 4:3 and the problem could be solved immediately).

G85 with all the extra like mic-port etc at a launched price very similar to GX9, can pack with a 0.74x 2.36M dot evf... It shouldn't cost Pany a lot to change the 16:9 0.7x evf of 2.74M dot to a 4:3 native one(?).