**G100 REVIEW: AS GOOD or as BAD as ITS USER?**

[Stevie Boy Blue]

INTRODUCTION

Whilst not without its critics, the Lumix G100 could appeal to anyone keen to enter Panasonic’s world of Micro Four Thirds system cameras, especially he or she looking to keep things as compact and lightweight as possible without compromising on image quality. Even some long-term and well established users of the system may be tempted by the appeal of this model, too.

Before I continue with this review, allow me to first give some insight into why I bought the G100 in November 2020 and have used it fairly consistently for the last 11 or so months.

As a longstanding fan of Panasonic Bridge cameras and the convenience that comes with the fixed lens design covering so many focal lengths from wide angle to telephoto all in one package, I didn’t seriously envisage a time that I’d ‘need’ to return to an ILC system. (I’d used 35mm film SLRs for many years up to 2004, when I purchased the FZ20, my first digital Bridge model.)

I was so impressed by the output of the FZ20 that I never felt the need to pick up my SLR gear again. FZ20 image quality up to ISO 400 easily matched that of 35mm film even back in 2004 and has largely improved with each incarnation utilising the same sized sensor. In my opinion, the current FZ330 represents the pinnacle of Lumix Bridge design, albeit it with a few more pixels, a change from CCD to CMOS chip and updated processor that to my eyes renders output unparalleled in its sector. Moreover, with no requirement to change lenses to cover all the focal lengths I’d ever require for ‘my photography’, why would I ever need another ILC at all?

Well, unfortunately for some of us, circumstances can and do change things. As a long-term disability of mine worsens as I get older, for some time I’d considered not only travelling lighter, but also switching from my main interest in wildlife photography back to street, portrait, landscape, etc. I’d still shoot wildlife on occasion, but with my priorities now focussed on shorter focal lengths, it made sense for me to look for a smaller package with a larger M4/3 sensor.

Up until a chance viewing of the G100, I’d considered the LX100 2 as it seemed ideal. I then thought about the possibility that, over time, dust might eventually reach the sensor behind the fixed lens, despite the fact that Panasonic has implemented more robust counter measures than they did on the LX100 Mk 1 as a means to rectify the problem and hopefully nullify the number of complaints and returns associated with the original. On further inspection, I noticed the LX100 2 has no PASM dial, the presence of which I value highly and view as a must have on any camera I use regularly. And so any inkling I had toward the LX began dwindling there and then, despite the LX’s 24 – 75mm (equiv in 35mm terms) fast lens offering some additional appeal.

Enter the G100 with kit lens 12 – 32mm plus mini tripod. As we know, in equiv 35mm terms, 12 to 32 mm on a 4/3rd sensor equates to 24 – 64mm due to the 2X crop factor. Although the LX offers fast apertures throughout its optical range, I tend to shoot much of my work at or smaller than F4 anyway. I rarely take photos in low light conditions and I know I wouldn’t miss the extra few millimetres at the longer end of the LX. 64 as opposed to 75mm is neither here nor there. Most importantly, if I were ever to get dust on a G100 sensor, unlike with the LX, I could remove it pretty much instantly. Plus, with a G-series camera I had the option to change lenses to boot! Win win in every sense and especially because the G100 with kit lens and tripod was the cheaper option when I bought it.

Even as I write this in October 2021, the LX 100 2 retails on average £749 here in the UK. Just £599 will get you a G100 with kit lens. Add an extra £50 to £79 and you can add the tripod/grip and still stay under £700 for the whole caboodle. As they say, “you pay your money, you take your choice.” I chose what was the best option for me, and I’m in no way knocking the LX by having rejected it.

VIEWFINDER

And so to the meat of the review. Of extreme importance to me is the clarity of any camera’s electronic viewfinder. Detailed and accurate live view facilities are as invaluable as they are attractive and useful in my experience. The fixed lens compact LX 100 2 that I rejected has an EVF with 2,700,000 dots of resolution.

Interestingly, even most other models in the ILC G-series that I also considered briefly along with the G100 harbour the same or similar EVF as the LX resolution-wise. I was surprised by this, but especially appreciative to find that the G100 has an EVF that packs in a whopping 3,680,000 dots. In my experience, it is super clear in use too, despite it being of the cheaper LCD type rather than OLED.

I cannot overemphasise how influential the presence of a high quality EVF is on my decision to purchase any camera these days. The fact that the G100’s rear LCD screen is fully articulating is a real bonus, too – despite the fact that I have no use for the touch-screen options also incorporated in the specifications and which can be easily turned off in menu.

NOT JUST FOR VIDEO/VLOGGERS

On closer inspection and with camera in hand, the main aim of the G100 appears obvious from its small and unassuming form, which is to merge creativity with affordability. Clearly this camera’s designed to appeal to a growing generation of users who are just as happy shooting video as they are taking still images, be they serious about the quality of output or not.

Seems to me that small as it is, beyond its few restrictions by design that can’t be avoided, the G100 is as powerful or weak, useful or not so useful as any individual user wants it to be – limited only by the ability of the person taking photographs or shooting the video, pretty much as applies to any camera ever made, and especially in this more modern digital age. Arguably, never quite like it does today as the old adage rung so true: “A poor workman will often blame his tools for a job poorly done.” And let’s be honest here, some folks just cannot take good photographs or shoot good or interesting video with any camera – be it a Hasselblad, a Leica, a Lumix or whatever.

No offense to anyone is intended here, but I reckon a reasonably competent photographer should be able to shoot at least reasonably good quality photographs with almost any camera but one that’s entirely unfit for purpose. Thankfully truly poor cameras are few and far between, and for general use the G100 is possibly as good as anything one could expect for the current price tag or even its slightly more expensive original RRP. It’s certainly better than I expected it to be considering its time-limited and cropped 4K video and comparatively short maximum mechanical shutter speed, by today’s standards at least.

WHAT? NO IBIS FOR STILLS?

From what I read on this forum alone, it would be easy to assume that no M4/3 or other ILC shooter can live without IBIS; some might even say no IBIS, no sale. I always smile to myself when I see specific cameras are rejected for that reason alone because it’s simply not true in most instances. Yes, IBIS is undoubtedly a luxury of modern technological advancement but it sure ain’t an absolute necessity for shooting still photographs. Just ask anyone who’s never used the feature and I’d guess you’ll receive the same reply.

As someone who has yet to explore the presence of ‘In Body Image Stabilisation’ (IBIS) in any camera, I can’t say I miss what I’ve never had or experienced. Hence I really don’t care in the slightest that the G100 lacks IBIS for still shots. Ultimately, I’ve never used any camera – digital or analogue – that I couldn’t hold steady enough without it, or at least for longer focal lengths where I’ve used bridge cameras like the FZ330 and FZ2000 which have IS built into their fixed lenses.

Where any long lens is equipped with its own image stabiliser, I’ve yet to appreciate any requirement or need for the camera body to also be stabilised, despite the fact I know many reading this will already be fans of the ‘dual IS’ system now associated with other G-series models when coupled with appropriate lenses.

I can’t speak for those who own and have come to rely on a system incorporating both IBIS and lens IS that both work in unison. I can only be certain that during all my 50 years as a photographer, many spent using film SLRs and with the last sixteen using digital compacts/bridge cameras, I’ve yet to need it. If I use a long lens with IS incorporated, I simply don’t ‘need’ IBIS as well. That’s not to say I wouldn’t come to appreciate dual IS if I had it, and I may well miss it if I once had it and then lost it. But again, providing the lens is stabilised, I know I’d be okay in the absence of any IBIS I might lose.

Just in case you’re wondering, I’m defending the fact that the G100 has no IBIS for stills. (For video, however, it does have variations of in-body e-stabilisation including 5-axis depending on whether you’re shooting HD or 4K HD footage subject to chosen FPS, apparently to no real detrimental effect beyond cropped 4K output and which still looks mightily impressive on playback See the two links I provide and recommend below.)

Re stills, neither am I even remotely concerned or disappointed by the G100’s maximum 1/500th of a second mechanical shutter speed. 95% of the time I prefer electronic shutter (max 1/16000 of a second) anyway, especially as it affords completely silent and inconspicuous operation, which is often a bonus for the likes of wildlife and street photography. When photographing landscapes or flowers/etc, I merely set the camera to automatically float between mechanical and electronic shutter appropriate to aperture priority mode, which has been my preferred method of capturing ‘the moment’ for many years now. For the record, even at low speeds with mechanical shutter, I’ve seen no evidence of shutter shock on the G100 anywhere up to the maximum 1/500th of a second. Obviously the phenomenon does not apply at all when using e-shutter.

IMAGE QUALITY

I only shoot fine quality J-peg, never RAW files. I prefer not to have to Post Process images at all where possible and therefore strive to set things up to my individual taste in-camera. If absolutely necessary, I will conduct small PP adjustments in Photoshop 7 such as when preparing photos for print or perhaps reducing original file size for internet display. But by and large I post photos that look exactly as they popped straight OOC, occasionally having cropped them if required. Hence a variety of crops and reduced files sizes have been used to illustrate this review.

During initial tests, I wasn’t in the least bit surprised to see that G100 out-of-the-box default settings yield results that are softer than I like, with the usual excessive degrees of fine detail smearing apparent when both noise reduction and sharpening are left at ‘0’ and with photo mode set to standard.

I prefer standard to alternatives like natural or vivid but appreciate that, as a reader, your mileage may vary. I like what I like but also respect that your tastes may differ from mine, in which case you’ll experiment with settings that suit you rather than those I provide here. Ultimately, I strive to reproduce details and colours as they were when I shot them. You, on the other hand, might like to add or decrease contrast and/or saturation, perhaps to degrees approaching HDR levels. Ouch, my eyes hurt just thinking about the added effects some folks post here and everywhere on the www! ;-) Each to their own though, eh?

In my experience, the requirement for altering in-camera J-peg engine parameters from factory-set defaults has applied more since (c)MOS tech replaced CCD and seemingly regardless of actual sensor size. Hence, as applies with the FZ330 and FZ2000, dialling back the NR to minus five and increasing sharpening to plus one or two depending on the scene shot by the G100 brings about the levels of crispness I much prefer to see in fine details such as fur, hair and feather.

As the same sensor as that found in the G100 is ‘supposedly’ shared by other models in the G/GX-series, I’d expect the same tweaks as those mentioned above to be equally effective in the likes of the G9, GX-whatever incarnations, etc. If not, I’d be very surprised indeed and even accounting for the more modern J-peg engine incorporated in the G100.

Regarding video, all I’ll say here is that 1080p output is superb if you’re happy to stick with the lower resolution format in preference to the memory/storage-sapping 4K files you can shoot as an alternative. The Nokia microphone also works exceptionally well for tracking and recording sound. In fact, the G100 makes for a great sound reorder in its own right. But as I bought it primarily for stills photography, beyond my flirtations with 1080p recording, I’m supplying links to a youtube review made by Markus Pix, a guy who can comprehensively demonstrate its true virtues as a video camera where our DPR guys failed quite miserably in comparison. I’d advise anyone serious about the G100 to watch both the first and second video in the order I’ve posted them.

Part one:

Part two:

I’d even go so far as to say that where DPR’s Chris Nichols and Jordan Drake struggled to get to grips with the G100, and to the extent they ‘stupidly’ (in my opinion) labelled it ‘the worst camera of 2020’, Marcus is clearly more enthusiastic about all that the model offers, both from a video and stills perspective. Obviously I must agree too, which is why I’ve gone to some lengths to inform DPR readers via my user review, albeit mostly compiled from a still image perspective.

For those wishing to watch and read them. Chris and Jordan’s contentious views of the G100 can be found via these two links:

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/3740301881/dpreview-tv-the-best-and-worst-cameras-and-lenses-of-2020

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7969955154/dpreview-tv-best-and-worst-awards-in-pictures?slide=12

IMO, it’s a shame that the entertaining and obviously knowledgeable ‘Marcus Pix’ doesn’t work for DPR. If he did, I’m guessing that the camera would have been more appealing to those who have clearly been influenced by the negative opinions of the other two guys.

And why is it that as consequence of digesting negative comments about any model, some readers feel compelled to not only avoid buying it but also go on to bandy around the criticism in the absence of their own firsthand experience?

Unfortunately it seems that at least some degree of herd mentality is present on websites like this. So much so that some folks even wait to read DPRs reviews of specific models before buying, to the extent that where a reviewer rates a specific model sub-par and/or criticises it too heavily (perhaps even labelling it worst camera of any specific year ;-) ), the reader shuns it without question. Crikey! What happened to thinking for yourself, folks?

All I’d say to those of you put off shopping for the G100 (or any other camera) solely by the views of DPR’s so-called experts, in YOUR hands it could exceed all your expectations if only you’d try it. At the end of the day, reviews are based on individual opinion – even those official DPR versions. More to the point, your hands-on opinion of any camera is arguably just as valid as anyone else’s, so please, please, don’t underestimate your own potential to garner the best results attainable with any product where others might have failed to do so. Although everyone’s a critic from time to time, not every reviewer is a genuine expert in any particular field, even though they may or may not pretend to be.

Ultimately, search via google and you’ll note that 90% of reviews of the G100 are positive. This leads me to assume, rightly or wrongly, that perhaps the 10% minority who failed to bring out the best in the camera were too inexperienced or maybe even lacked sufficient time to do so. Either way, I’d advise you to try out the model for yourself. Although no camera’s perfect, the G100’s arguably nowhere near as bad as a minority of reviewers would have you believe it is. Well, that’s my opinion, at least.

In fact, I’d say that as a lightweight, carry everywhere stills camera for the likes of landscape and off-the-cuff shooting almost anywhere, it’s a pretty awesome little tool that renders surprisingly good results even with the 12-32mm kit lens one has the option to buy it with. And if you add the cheap as chips and surprisingly small and sharp 45-150mm (90 – 300mm equiv) zoom as I did a couple of months back, the sheer fun zone associated with the whole set-up simply expands without increasing weight or size by too much at all. Even with the 45-150 fitted, the whole G100 package is smaller and lighter than my FZ330. Amazing!

Ultimately, I’d say ignore the naysayers, especially those who claimed face detection doesn’t work whilst video recording. As you’ll see via the links I supplied above, Markus without doubt proves otherwise, just as anyone who owns the G100 could do too. Overall, whether you’re shooting video or stills, with the optional 12 – 32 mm kit lens attached, the G100 fits easily into a large coat pocket or appropriate compartment of a rucksack, making it an ideal carry anywhere package for recording an array of situations such as many we find locally or when travelling further afield. Portraits, landscapes, street, close-up flowers, etc, all are well within the scope of this attractive package.

Note that the camera is available to buy as: Body only. Body plus 12-32mm kit lens. Body plus lens and tripod/grip, with which you can operate the shutter via supplied cable attachment. I bought the complete kit back in November 2020.

CONCLUSION

Worst camera of 2020? No way was that ever the G100. Those two chuckle brothers were wrong! ;-)

In my view, this camera equates to a rather cute, compact, convenient and yet surprisingly powerful package capable of producing some truly wonderful output via both video or still mediums.

The G100 handles very well for such a small unit and its superb EVF makes framing shots a very pleasurable experience indeed. For me, the sum of its parts total far more than I anticipated from its size or specification. Suffice it to say that I am really pleased with my purchase almost one year after making it.

Although I still love my FZ330 and FZ2000 and reserve both for longer reach wildlife shooting, I really do appreciate the lightness, sheer portability and fun associated with the G100 when shorter focal lengths are the order of the day.

As I say, ignore the negative reviewers, especially those who criticise in such a flippant manner with apparently no real justification for doing so. Remember the old adage: “a poor workman so often blames his tools for a job poorly done.” No offense intended to anyone, but really, need I say more? ;-)

Thank you for reading my review.

Happy shooting to all...

PS: For anyone interested, my reviews of the FZ330 (300) and FZ2000 (2500) can be read via the links below:

FZ330 Part 1: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4437570

FZ330 Part 2: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4565945

FZ2000: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4513863

Cheers...

PPS. As I rarely visit DPR these days, it’s unlikely I’ll respond to any feedback that relates to this review. Ultimately I’ve said pretty much all I have to say on the G100 in the above text so hopefully there’ll be no need for me to add anything below. To those who may still wish to add their own input here, be it positive, negative or indifferent, I thank you for your time in advance of any contribution you may care to make.

And of course, should you be encouraged to consider buying a G100 as a consequence of my efforts to inform you of its real value as a camera, then the time I’ve invested here has not been wasted and you’ll get to experience the real bonus for some money well spent. All the best and thanks again for reading...












Unless otherwise stated, all image files have been reduced in size/cropped. J-pegs OOC.




























100% Crop

































Cheers all...

 

[Tom Caldwell]

As I've said several times over the years, I think Panasonic could reverse the fortunes of many of its smaller cameras if it came out with a really good detachable VF that was designed to be less obtrusive. If the GX800, for example, was compatible with such a VF I'd probably buy one in a heartbeat. If the VF was capable of working with the GX9, it might become a better offering to those who cannot get on with the field sequential VF that's already built in, too. Imagine being able to put a G9/G100 VF on a small camera when you wanted to.

Worth thinking about …..

(Thunk) - nah,nah,nah - Ricoh did this with its very interesting GXR modular camera. The evf was separate and of course quite expensive in its own right. Camera + clip-on evf = costs more than camera with evf built in.

Furthermore the little blocky thing on top makes it harder to fit in bag when mounted. Dismount and it is likely to be left at home just when it is truly needed (arrrgh!).

I also tend to use my evf 90% of the time as my go-to when shooting if it is there. So why unclip one for 10% of what I do? (Presumably for a smaller format camera body? - see above about being left at home)

Having a clip-on evf might make more sense for those that get 90% of their images off the lcd screen, but if this is the case then it makes for an expensive add-on. Furthermore if you want a great big clip-on it is going to be mighty expensive, bulky, and even more likely to be left at home ….

At least with a built-in evf you know for certain that it will always be there when you need it. Then you find that using the evf more will arguably make for better photographing technique.

My evf just has to be effective and I can say quite sincerely that the quite small field sequential (FS) evf in the GM5 is quite effective and transforms the GM1 from a pseudo point’n’shoot into a full systems camera capable of using any lens that can be mounted on M4/3 - even the large ones.

What might be more interesting and what I would support is a “universal” plug that might connect a large evf unit of the style sought after my many on to the hot shoe of (presumably) RF-Style camera bodies whether or not they have a smaller evf built-in.

Consequently those that like the idea of the huge clear evf can satisfy their needs even with a RF-Style camera body that already has a small FS evf. Then if you forget to take your large clip-on you can still have a go at using the built-in FS evf in an emergency.

Making the mount connection universal means that you will only have to buy one large clip on evf for all your future M4/3 camera bodies.

Win win.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Man, Panasonic get so frustratingly close to building some exceedingly good cameras, missing out on just some tiny details. This is not a knock on the G100, but the only thing I would have liked to have seen, was a faster mechanical shutter. IBIS -neither here nor there, I'd miss it on lenses such as my Siggy 56 and 30, but could still live with it. But that 1/500 limitation with resulting slow flash sync is just to much for me. So, so close. And the GX9, nearly perfect, but for that tiny EVF. Don't get me wrong, if they were all that's available, I'd buy one in a heartbeat, but the issue is that there's other options out there. Like my G9 Yeah, completely different category, but to hard to overlook. Thanks for the excellent and balanced review.

Like any company in the technology business new models can come out of the spare parts bin to a certain degree. Much of the design of the G100 can be traced back to the GM series where the Panasonic engineers managed to make a new compact shutter to enable the GM series to be made so small and still have a mechanical shutter of sorts. Not to everyones satisfaction.

Much of the GM design found its way into the GF7-GX850 series and now the G100 could be said to be the love grandchild of the GM1.

Of course made tiny means compromises and the GM series seems to have been made-well tiny and launched at a premium price. The market might have come to love the GM series (eventually) but Panasonic found that it had to reduce the price to move the stock - the love came too late to save the GM type.

Panasonic seems to have been trying to figure out how to sell a more compact body ever since. The GF-7 and is annual successors seems to be directed at a cheaper build in a larger more plastic body and pitched at a less involved market. Not sure if that made them any more attractive to the multitudes but Panasonic could probably make money at a lower price point with them. The idea obviously was to skin the entry level market for a body without an evf but having a tilt lcd. That seemed to be a version of the GM that raised a bit of “we-want” clamour at the time. Whether they sold a lot might be debatable and it certainly has not reached the cult status of the GM5. I did not see a lot of price discounting and the model was updated annually for a while.

The G100 is trying another marketing tack - now there is a larger evf and a side hinged lcd but much the same innards except for the sensor.

It still ain’t a GM5 and comes to the party as a sort of hybrid mish-mash of not small enough, but better evf and debatable side hinged lcd version of the GX850 but misses out on the greater sophistication of the GX9 with its often maligned but nevertheless quite useful field sequential evf.

Obviously if you need a great big clear evf the G9 is winking at you. If physical size is not a real issue then the G9 is winking with both eyes

We are so lucky that M4/3 has trialled so many camera body sizes and types. Furthermore I would rather that a new type be made and sold even if it is never upgraded. The alternative is like the dslr selling gambit - you get a dslr and 20 years and many updates later you are still getting a dslr until they finally stop making the dslr type. If this body still is your onion and you don’t mind updating it frequently then you are in camera heaven. Sony has done much the same thing with the A7/9 body style.

On the other hand I can have a GM5, GX9 and G9 and have quite different camera bodies. For those with Olympus on their mind there are other graded bodies to choose from.

What a great mount system to live in ….

That the GM series (for example) has never been directly upgraded is a wonderful thing as they are in fact not bad cameras at all for the long run. Truly - do we wish to find that the camera we bought two years ago is obsoleted by new versions at least three times in every 10 year cycle? The GM is the last and greatest of its unique type just as much as the “been around for a while” G9 is still an excellent camera and no rush is needed to update it either.

It may come across at times, that I'm anti small cameras. I really am not. I think we're on the verge, or very close to seeing a good spec small camera appearing, from Panasonic. All it will take I think, is a global, or close to it sensor becoming readily & economically available, & they'll be away. Something perhaps, like the new stacked sensor that's due to appear in an m4/3 body. No shutter mechanism required, easy to package, cheap to produce. Faster & lower power processors have got to help too, reducing cooling requirements even for the same, current processing speed. Lets face it, they already have a wealth of small, compact & excellent IQ lenses in production, at some point surely they've got to have another crack at it. Considering also, the shrinkage of larger format bodies. No better time to take the step, & stand out from the crowd I might even be tempted to buy one myself

Panasonic tried to make their GM series a stand-out for build quality and innovation.

That is why they were expensive when released and why they are still around and sought after when technically they might be regarded as getting quite long in the tooth. If they had been cheap and nasty they would be barely a memory by now.

Small cameras require feature compromises but still cannot be built that much cheaper if they have to be built to a high standard. Some things like ultra-fast video cannot fit a large enough battery and the body is not big enough to act as an effective enough heat sink.

Poking and prodding controls creates more natural body shake on a smaller camera type and yet including IBIS is more problematical especially because they are full systems cameras and can be used with quite large lenses.

Add tilt lcd and you are already fouling up the ultra compact systems camera and looking at the point’n’shoot market again. Point’n’shoot (only) off the lcd and we are back into cheap camera territory and have moved away from the systems camera concept.

The camera buying public are fixated that very small cameras should be cheap, easy to use, and pocketable - and therefore: not much use.

Ergo - I might as well use my mobile phone camera.

Then by the time the features supplied justify the market price the camera body is as big as the G9 and the forum complains that it is larger than (some) FF system camera bodies.

Cannot win …

But the GM5 is a full systems camera with very basic video and few user conveniences. It was expensive when launched and only became popular when Panasonic reduced the price to about as low as they would ever go. Many years later the street second hand price for a good one is about the same as the general street price when new became.

But as a basic camera for still shooting it works quite well. Whilst not pocketable in my book it certainly can be packed into a quite small camera bag.

On the other hand the GM1 is just as good but fitting a substantial size Panasonic 200/2.8 on it might introduce some point’n’shoot crazy antics whereas by using the GM5 quite useful evf the same lens is quite do-able for normal use.

The whole photographic world would have to re-assess what they saw as a “proper camera” body (size) if an updated GM5 were ever to be made.

But at least the current street price of second hand GM5 camera bodies seems to indicate that a belated appreciation is emerging.

The G100 is a virtual tank by comparison. Seems an excellent camera though and in my book Panasonic is just releasing test versions of various styles of camera bodies to see how the market emerges.

If I was not committed up to my eyeballs in the GM series I might just buy (one only) G100 camera body - despite the side hinged lcd that I don’t particularly care for.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Tom Caldwell wrote: ….

That the GM series (for example) has never been directly upgraded is a wonderful thing as they are in fact not bad cameras at all for the long run.

That's a matter of opinion. I bought a GM1 thinking it would be a neat little pocket camera, but even as a secondary body for street snaps I found it extremely frustrating to use.

Steve, with due respect, you were never a candidate for a GM series camera body. Being small it was not the pocketable camera that you were looking for. It was also not a cheap build. You would have been better off with your mobile phone camera or a Sony RX100. I came from the Ricoh GR which must be one of the very best cameras for street shots. These Products are made and sold to be compact, pocketable, and (other than the GR) simple to use. But none of them even tries to be a systems camera with exchangeable lenses.

The GM1 was more limited by relying on the lcd screen for focus/framing. The GM5 rivalled larger camera bodies when it came out with a useable evf. At the time of release it had the same (slightly crippled) 16mp sensor as the larger mainline M4/3 camera bodies. Technically for stills shooting it could rival the image quality of these larger camera bodies.

One of the first things I did with my brand new GM1 was to slap a 42.5/1.2 Nocticron lens on it …. Woo-hoo street shooting here I come… The next was an Olympus 12/2.0 ….

The performance was extremely poor at the time, e.g. a buffer so small a single exposure bracketed shot would fill it, and the usability of the GM1 was dire even compared with other small cameras.

Is your usability means “easy to use”. If so then the GM1 was never meant to be a simple camera for street snapshots. It was and is a full systems camera capable of mounting a range of M4/3 lenses. But it does take some effort to fully appreciate on the part of its user.

I came to M4/3 via the GM1 with no current knowledge of how then current Panasonic camera bodies worked. It took me three full days with the 350+ full size manual to get to a full grip on just what this little wonder could do. Simple on the surface, the hidden detail was remarkable.

Some of this was just understanding how Panasonic digital camera worked in general and not GM1 specific and acquiring more Panasonic camera bodies was a lesser learning curve.

To me they were far too limited when they were released and there's no way in hell I'd want to use a GM body in 2021.

Did you ever read the full manual? - I would have been less willing to use the words “too limited”.

Truly - do we wish to find that the camera we bought two years ago is obsoleted by new versions at least three times in every 10 year cycle?

Yes. If it meant that there was a highly functional GM camera available today then that would be well worth it for me. To me the GMs are thoroughly obsoleted even if there isn't a direct replacement.

I doubt if there could ever be a camera made the same size as the GM series that you might appreciate. The cameras are not so cute/simple as you required and the very compact size means that features that you particularly want cannot be easily implemented.

Tiny camera bodies require compromises and I have found that I can live with the compromises that the GM5 (in particular) requires. They are far from obsoleted for me as they are still my primary go-to cameras even though I have larger (newer) M4/3 camera bodies for the instances when I need more diverse horsepower.

I respect your comments but the GM1 was obviously not the camera that you were seeking - but this does not mean that it was a failure camera for those that were actually seeking a tiny systems camera that had some considerable still-image capture power despite its necessary limitations.

 

[Pete_W]

CONCLUSION

Worst camera of 2020? No way was that ever the G100. Those two chuckle brothers were wrong! ;-)

Great tone this guys sets, insulting people and calling people stupid, he believes hes the only one with the brain to handle this camera, with all its limits that probably true

When Chris and Jordan reviewed the G100, it irked me that a modern, capable product that must have taken a bunch of time to design, was so poorly received because of one singular point - the lack of IBIS. The Canon M series, and the Fuji 100 series, for example, have no IBIS, either. NO Canon camera before the R series has had IBIS, either. In fact, the list of IBIS-free cameras is a long one, but from the reviews you'd think it's impossible to take a photograph without IBIS.

It seemed from the backlash that followed about the G100 that no one in the Panasonic camera division knew what they were doing - the G100 was a complete farce, doomed to failure. And in so doing perhaps Chris and Jordan gave little thought to the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of designers, engineers and production staff at Panasonic who must have wondered what they had done wrong. Perhaps they felt a little 'insulted', too.

Oh, and I have to admire the cheek you have, kalisti, replying to one perceived insult with a definitive one of your own.

I agree. It was I think an unfair review.

Many of theses DPR reviews completely overlook context and make unfair comparisons.

--
Pete

 

[SteveY80]

Tom Caldwell wrote: ….

That the GM series (for example) has never been directly upgraded is a wonderful thing as they are in fact not bad cameras at all for the long run.

That's a matter of opinion. I bought a GM1 thinking it would be a neat little pocket camera, but even as a secondary body for street snaps I found it extremely frustrating to use.

Steve, with due respect, you were never a candidate for a GM series camera body.

Since I bought a GM1, and also used Nikon 1 cameras, I clearly was a candidate for a small camera with interchangeable lenses.

I would still love a tiny but capable camera body to use with my various m43 lenses.

Unfortunately, Panasonic's products just didn't cut it for me.

Being small it was not the pocketable camera that you were looking for. It was also not a cheap build.

The build quality was fine, at least ignoring the terrible click wheel on the GM1. Despite that, the poor performance and tiny buffer made it feel cheap to me, even when compared with Nikon 1 bodies that cost less money.

You would have been better off with your mobile phone camera or a Sony RX100.

I'm certainly much happier with my RX100 VI than I ever was with my GM1. I'd love to have the versatility of interchangeable lenses, but I can live with the limitation of a 24-200mm equivalent lens more easily than all the limitations and deficiencies of the GM1. The RX100's vastly superior performance and usability more than compensates.

I came from the Ricoh GR which must be one of the very best cameras for street shots.

Personally I want a zoom lens and tilt screen for street/travel photography, so that Ricoh isn't interesting to me.

The GM1 was more limited by relying on the lcd screen for focus/framing. The GM5 rivalled larger camera bodies when it came out with a useable evf.

To me a tilt screen is far more useful than an EVF. I rarely use the EVF on my RX100 or GX9. It's just not a feature I consider that important.

One of the worst limitations of the GM1 was its poor performance and tiny buffer. My understanding is that they weren't fixed on the GM5.

At the time of release it had the same (slightly crippled) 16mp sensor as the larger mainline M4/3 camera bodies. Technically for stills shooting it could rival the image quality of these larger camera bodies.

That's nice if you only care about image quality and not C-AF, shooting more than 7 shots without filling the buffer, fast performance, dual controls, the flexibility of a tilt screen, a mechanical shutter faster than 1/500s, flash sync over 1/50s, etc.

One of the first things I did with my brand new GM1 was to slap a 42.5/1.2 Nocticron lens on it …. Woo-hoo street shooting here I come… The next was an Olympus 12/2.0 ….

If only there was a small m43 camera body that actually did those lenses justice.

The performance was extremely poor at the time, e.g. a buffer so small a single exposure bracketed shot would fill it, and the usability of the GM1 was dire even compared with other small cameras.

Is your usability means “easy to use”. If so then the GM1 was never meant to be a simple camera for street snapshots. It was and is a full systems camera capable of mounting a range of M4/3 lenses. But it does take some effort to fully appreciate on the part of its user.

No. I'm talking about features like dual controls to make manual mode more practical. Even the rather basic Nikon 1 J1 had that, while the GM1 had the worst control wheel I've ever used.

The really primitive Auto-ISO that Panasonic cameras were afflicted with back then its another usability issue fixed on newer small cameras. I consider a tilt screen to be a major usability improvement too.

You've obviously never used a recent RX100 of you think they're simple cameras for snapshots. In fact, the latest model has inherited quite a few features from Sony's flagship full frame mirrorless cameras. They have an AF system more advanced than the G9, let alone the old pre-DFD Panasonics.

The old GMs are extremely basic and primitive cameras in comparison.

A recent RX100's advanced AF, 100+ shot RAW buffer, and high speed shooting makes it easy to capture action, such as acrobatic street performers, or people doing scateboard stunts. In contrast, the GM1's poor performance made it a frustrating camera just for shooting exposure bracketed shots of still subjects.

Wouldn't it be nice to have both the flexibility of interchangeable lenses and the kind of usability and performance that the best compact cameras offer?

To me they were far too limited when they were released and there's no way in hell I'd want to use a GM body in 2021.

Did you ever read the full manual? - I would have been less willing to use the words “too limited”.

I don't think reading the manual is going to increase the size of its buffer, improve CAF, speed up performance, give it a decent auto-ISO implementation, add a tilt screen, increase the shutter speed and flash sync, give it an extra exposure control, or even fix the horrible fiddly little control wheel it does have.

Truly - do we wish to find that the camera we bought two years ago is obsoleted by new versions at least three times in every 10 year cycle?

Yes. If it meant that there was a highly functional GM camera available today then that would be well worth it for me. To me the GMs are thoroughly obsoleted even if there isn't a direct replacement.

I doubt if there could ever be a camera made the same size as the GM series that you might appreciate.

I appreciate my RX100 quite a lot. If I didn't shoot wildlife and macro it could replace my m43 kit.

The cameras are not so cute/simple as you required and the very compact size means that features that you particularly want cannot be easily implemented.

If Sony can implement them in the RX100 then they aren't impossible in a small m43 camera. For that matter, Nikon's 1 series cameras were a similar size and didn't have all the limitations and compromises of the GMs.

 

[vigna]

Thank you for sharing your experience on GM1, it is hard to find one in Australia. That is why I went with G100, it is good as my Ricoh GRii. Most of us enjoy the photography with appropriate tools we have and unfortunately a small portion are fixed with their tools.

 

[Cruisin66]

Hi Stevie hope you are well.

I know this is an older thread now but still of relevance, for which I thank you for taking the time to have done such a comprehensive job of it.

I have a few questions about the settings you use to get the SOOC jpegs just right. I know it is always a bit of a personal thing, but not sure if you did write them somewhere, I know you did for the FZ2000, would they apply to the G100 and G90 also or do you believe the newer Panasonic color sience is a little different?

I have been trying around a bit with good results but still feel it could be better. After seeing your shots which the 14-140 and 42.5, I wonder if it is my lens or camera thats a little off. I do not have those lens but do use the P12-60 and P12-32. What are your standard jpeg and white balance settings for this model?

You mention you do not use iDynamic or iResolution but do you use Shading Compensation or Diffraction Compensation?

Also what about the monitor and evf screen settings. I think the evf is great very high res but due to being LCD type, my color seems a little strange and needs tweeking, what do you set yours to?

On another note we here in the Southwest USA have strong sunlight and shooting around the middle of the day is never a good idea but sometime that is the only time we get out. I suppose there in England you might be at a different lattitude and things could be better. So I have noticed using CPL or ND helps a lot here.

I know many questions but I know you are a master at this art and can bring out miracles with your skill. I am like you, I would like the best possible output straight out of the camera without having to go back and do touch up. I feel it is like back in the film days you just try to get it right from the start. I admire your work and photos over the years and seen you have won numerous challenges and prizes. Keep it up and thank you again, I will always be a fan of your work and words.
Hope you have a great weekend and a good time out in England.

Greetings!

 

[telefunk]

Thx. Love this review! So glad there are still some unbiased people on this site.

 

[Richandhiscat]

Thx. Love this review! So glad there are still some unbiased people on this site.

Can't think what you are referring to...;-)

 

[Richandhiscat]

I'm liking this camera more and more, such that despite the size I'm now taking it out in preference to the GM5. Here's one the wife took on a balloon flight yesterday:

 

[v11f]

Beautiful colours ... well done !

 

[Stevie Boy Blue]

Hi Stevie hope you are well.

I know this is an older thread now but still of relevance, for which I thank you for taking the time to have done such a comprehensive job of it.

I have a few questions about the settings you use to get the SOOC jpegs just right. I know it is always a bit of a personal thing, but not sure if you did write them somewhere, I know you did for the FZ2000, would they apply to the G100 and G90 also or do you believe the newer Panasonic color sience is a little different?

I have been trying around a bit with good results but still feel it could be better. After seeing your shots which the 14-140 and 42.5, I wonder if it is my lens or camera thats a little off. I do not have those lens but do use the P12-60 and P12-32. What are your standard jpeg and white balance settings for this model?

You mention you do not use iDynamic or iResolution but do you use Shading Compensation or Diffraction Compensation?

Also what about the monitor and evf screen settings. I think the evf is great very high res but due to being LCD type, my color seems a little strange and needs tweeking, what do you set yours to?

On another note we here in the Southwest USA have strong sunlight and shooting around the middle of the day is never a good idea but sometime that is the only time we get out. I suppose there in England you might be at a different lattitude and things could be better. So I have noticed using CPL or ND helps a lot here.

I know many questions but I know you are a master at this art and can bring out miracles with your skill. I am like you, I would like the best possible output straight out of the camera without having to go back and do touch up. I feel it is like back in the film days you just try to get it right from the start. I admire your work and photos over the years and seen you have won numerous challenges and prizes. Keep it up and thank you again, I will always be a fan of your work and words.
Hope you have a great weekend and a good time out in England.

Greetings!

Thank you for your kind words and feedback re this review and my overall photographic experience, Cruisin’. I always appreciate your input in response to my efforts here.

Wow, yes, you’ve posed a lot of questions, at least some of which I’ll try to answer in the time I can currently spare.

Regarding my Jpeg settings for the G100, perhaps you missed them under the section covering ‘Image Quality’ in the review. If you go back and read again, you’ll note that by and large I use the same settings as for the FZ300, minus any tweaks to the default AWB settings. Although G100 output is on the slightly cold side, I’m happy with that, hence I’ve left auto white balance where Panasonic set it in factory. I can see how their colour science has improved to some degree over older models in this respect.

Re add-on filters, I prefer not to use them. Even the most expensive ones can cause ghosting, and all can and often do affect contrast to varying degrees. If you or other readers insist on using filters against my advice, I’ve no problem with that. It’s your choice. But you could try upping the in-camera saturation and contrast parameters to compensate for the otherwise dampened and potentially less sharp look that is almost sure to apply at ‘0’.

Re the viewfinder, I’ve never adjusted that away from default parameters. It is accurate from the point of view that I can clearly see when things are or are not in focus. I never worry about how bright or dark the image may look, as I know from experience how to expose shots in line with what I’ll see when I review results on my PC in relation to what available light levels were when pressing the shutter release. Yes, I regard the viewfinder as an indispensably valuable tool for my work and a rough guide to exposure, but more for focus accuracy and eye-strain-saving levels of resolution and overall size than for colour representation/accuracy.

For me, the EVF is an initial guide that I always prefer to use over any alternative rear screen. For me, the screen is only useful for angled shooting, the type of and positions for which are not possible to conduct through a viewfinder. 90% of the time, my rear screen remains turned inwards with all touch screen options switched off.

It may also be worth noting that I always shoot with minus 1/3 exposure compensation as my default EV setting in preference to 0 EV, adjusting up or down from this only as required. In my experience, the subtle underexposure of -1/3 adds a little punch to the look of OOC Jpeg output whilst also affording slight protection from blown highlights. I’ve employed this tactic with my smaller sensor bridge cameras since 2004, and I find it translates/applies equally well with my Panasonic M4/3rd gear.

Ultimately and perhaps more importantly though, Cruisin’: When it comes to achieving the best OOC Jpegs we can muster, I’d say the way we shoot and expose our images is as vital to results as the tweaks we make to in-camera default Jpeg image parameters re noise reduction, sharpening, contrast, saturation, not forgetting of course the mode of picture we choose. I always prefer to select standard picture mode, and shoot Jpegs at the highest quality (least compression) setting. Unsurprisingly, many (but certainly not all) folks prefer the alternative RAW option simply because they have no clue how to expose images properly at the time of shooting. For these guys, RAW affords the safety net of recovery in post that could otherwise be entirely absent if they got it all wrong at the time of shooting a Jpeg. Then, of course, we have those that shoot both Jpeg and RAW files simultaneously, some of (but certainly not all) of whom like to compare their competence as photographers with the skills they posses in post processing RAW files from scratch, perhaps in hope of seeing more detail in their home-developed and baked efforts than applies to Jpegs cooked in camera.

Of course, there will be many other reasons why folks shoot RAW over Jpeg, or indeed Jpeg over RAW. But ultimately, it will always be the guys who admit to using RAW as a safety net to inappropriate shooting technique, or simple human error on the day, who have my utmost respect. And I’m pleased to note that some folks in RAW Vs JPEG debates here on DPR do hold their hands up to that. Kudos to them, for there’s arguably no shame at all in admitting to being fallible. Truth is, anyone can take an inappropriately exposed photograph; it’s just that some of us actually do prefer OOC Jpegs and are happy to delete our mistakes as and when they arise. Simply put, there are no rules here; we can shoot in the format of our preference for either convenience or in view of further post processing. As long as we are happy with the end result, that is all that matters.

Oh, and re diffraction compensation, I have that set to auto in the menu.

One thing I’m picking up on is that you and I differ in terms of our expectations re dynamic range. I sense that you’re more into seeing shadow detail than I am in your OOC Jpegs, and that you’re therefore more inclined to try in-camera settings that digitally enhance the appearance of detail in darkened areas. I DO NOT use such settings.

I shoot primarily to print, not for PC/Internet display. I print on average just 1% of all 60,000 plus images that I shoot in any one year. If I regard any image as a wall hanger, either for my own pleasure or for a sale or gift, it gets special treatment in my old Photoshop 7 software. Although I’ve no interest in RAW, I have well over 20-years experience in Photoshop and am aware of how malleable Jpegs that were properly exposed at the time of shooting can be compared to the uncompressed format. It’s an absolute fallacy that Jpegs cannot be enhanced in post. If I were to shoot all photos I take year on year in RAW, I would need heaps of storage space compared to what I require for my original Jpeg files. If I feel any Jpeg selected for printing would benefit from a tweak in shadow detail, or whatever, I do this in Photoshop before increasing the overall file size and changing from RGB to CMYK to produce print-ready-copy at a minimum 300 dpi.

As I’ve said before, I don’t use so-called intelligent functions that are built into Panasonic Cameras; I have all of those firmly switched off.

Bottom line. If someone sets their G100 or whatever camera I use for OOC jpeg shooting exactly the same way as I set mine, then they go on to achieve results that differ from mine, there is only one reason, and that comes down to how the images were shot – even if that applied to our standing shoulder to shoulder photographing the same subject on the same day at the same time. That is one reason why I was so slow and reluctant even to discuss personal Jpeg settings for many years until relatively recently. Once the basics are dialed in, the main factor between a good or not so good result comes from the camera user and the individual’s skill in producing a good photograph. One’s chosen Jpeg settings are just the start, and I do not believe natural talent or many years of practice/experience in the field are given due credit anywhere near often enough by those who see a nice shot and then go on to ask: “Was that shot in Raw or Jpeg? If Jpeg, what settings did you use?”

Well, I can give anyone my settings, but I’m offering no guarantees re the results any individual photographer will make when using them. Not wishing to appear aloof or a know-it-all, and I certainly mean no offence to anyone at all here. But it’s obvious that some folks who post images to forums like this would benefit from general photography tutorials far more than they would from receiving in-camera Jpeg settings from experienced folk. As I say, so many factors apply but none is more important than knowing how to frame and shoot an image to begin with – and that includes the experience and stealth involved with, say, creeping up on a skittish wildlife subject or reading a situation in anticipation of what might happen next with either people or animal subjects. There is simply no substitute for experience and overall ability – and that’s before folks begin adding filters, usually because their camera/lens retailer recommends one. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? It’s extra money on top of a potentially lucrative sale. Shame on them.

So many people here use filters, some including UV versions because they feel it ‘protects’ the lens as well as filtering UV light. Truth is, the lens/camera to which one attaches a separate UV filter already has a UV filter built into it. It doesn’t need another – especially one covering the front element – and which to varying degrees will negatively impact results. As for protecting a lens from impact damage?

Nah! Chances are that if one was to bash a lens hard enough to break a filter, it would almost certainly and at least scratch the lens element sitting just a millimeter or two below it. In my experience, the best way of avoiding accidental damage is to always respect and handle your gear carefully, whilst ensuring that the hood supplied with the lens is attached to it at all times – especially where risk of damage is higher, such as in the field and when we’re trekking around, etc.

Ultimately, if you or other readers must use a filter, at least acknowledge and respect that it's sure to have an impact on the quality and sharpness that we might otherwise expect from a lens absent of any extra glass, whilst also being prepared to make in-camera adjustments (or even post adjustments) to compensate for the filter’s presence. I have to do this even when using the built-in variable ND filters of my FZ2000 bridge camera, so I’d sure need to compensate for any such filter I might attach to a M4/3rd lens. As I said above, though, I don’t screw filters to my lenses. I much prefer to shoot without them.

Phew, that’s me done now.

Hope this helps a bit.

Thanks again for the complimentary remarks and your questions.

Cheers...

 

[Stevie Boy Blue]

Thx. Love this review! So glad there are still some unbiased people on this site.

Your'e very welcome. I'm glad you 'love' the review and that you regard me as an unbiased person.

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it.

Cheers

 

[Stevie Boy Blue]

I'm liking this camera more and more, such that despite the size I'm now taking it out in preference to the GM5. Here's one the wife took on a balloon flight yesterday:

Yep, I can appreciate why you like this camera more and more. That's a nice shot from your wife up there. Very well done indeed.

Thanks for posting.

Cheers...

 

[Cruisin66]

Hello Stevie,

thank you very much for taking the time to responde to my many questions, I am sure it took you a good while to write that all back. In any case I apoologize if I over asked to much. I am sure if we met one day, we could go on talking for hours. Although I know you are the more experienced photographer with many years on your shoulders.
I agree with all you say, and I understand your point of views.
I have done some more treaking to my OOC Jpgs and tried not to use any i functions and the results are pleasing. I know sometimes we become a little too picky, knowing that what we shoot is already amazing if one thinks how limited digital cameras were over 10 years ago.
We are going out this weekend camping and I will try some astrophotography with the G100 with my new 9mm. Also get some live composite shots. Amazing this little cam can do so much.
Thanks again for your input.
Take care of yourself and greetings to you!

 

[2ndact scene1]

Took my G100 for the second time yesterday. I am liking not only the camera but even the 12-32mm lens. I had some free time today and found your post on the G9, which I was thinking of buying but instead I went small and chose the G100. I saw a link to this review and decided to take a look.

My first reaction is that brevity is not one of your strong points!!! Well, a lot of people think I have the same problem. So let me try to be brief! I really like the G100, so obviously we share that.

Likes:

Amazingly compact while still being a MILC.

Latest Lumix sensor; same IQ

Excellent EVF

Excellent Rear Screen that articulates (first camera that I have considered that a positive).

90% of the features and controls of my GX9

Great touch controls (without a joystick, how do move the focus point without a TS? If you use the key pad, don’t you give up all the features assigned to those keys?)

The mini tripod is way more useful than I expected.

Flies under radar on the street. Looks like a joke to some.



Dislikes:

lack of IBIS removes ability to use slow shutter speeds on unstabilized lenses without a tripod.

1/50 sec flash sync is almost like having no flash function.

I don’t see anyway to set a minimum shutter speed in the auto ISO function (auto only).

A grip would be nice for when you want to shoot hand held for long periods of time (mini tripod is a partial substitute).

I really cannot think of any other negatives and that last one is a bit of a stretch.



So we don’t agree on touch screens and IBIS. We are the same generation and I would just suggest you give them a try! I hated articulating lcd’s until I bought this camera. Try something with an open mind and then you can say you at least did that (maybe you did already but just a suggestion).



As to Chris and Jordan, I enjoy watching them and they are very knowledgeable. I think if you put out a camera and call it a blogging camera but fall short on important features, you should expect to get blasted (the most vocal people on photography You Tube channels are all video centric. - not a criticism - I wish I knew what Jordan was talking about most of the time because I have basically no knowledge in that area). What they lost sight of is that this is a hybrid camera and still photographers are part of the audience too.

OK, I wasn’t that brief. Sorry!!!!

 

[John Bean (UK)]

without a joystick, how do move the focus point without a TS? If you use the key pad, don’t you give up all the features assigned to those keys?

Assign a button to "Focus Area Set"... then press it ;-)

I hated articulating lcd’s until I bought this camera.

To my surprise this was also my experience.

 

[2ndact scene1]

without a joystick, how do move the focus point without a TS? If you use the key pad, don’t you give up all the features assigned to those keys?

Assign a button to "Focus Area Set"... then press it ;-)

That is how you had to do it on my TG5 and TG6. It is a workable option but I prefer the touchscreen. Just touching the screen to move the focus point is very convenient sometimes.

I hated articulating lcd’s until I bought this camera.

To my surprise this was also my experience.

--
John Bean [GMT]
"Note: If pictures and physical have access, please in kind prevail, thank you for understand." - quotation from an ebay listing.

 

[alcelc]

without a joystick, how do move the focus point without a TS? If you use the key pad, don’t you give up all the features assigned to those keys?

Assign a button to "Focus Area Set"... then press it ;-)

That is how you had to do it on my TG5 and TG6. It is a workable option but I prefer the touchscreen. Just touching the screen to move the focus point is very convenient sometimes.

I hated articulating lcd’s until I bought this camera.

To my surprise this was also my experience.

Assign DFA to a fn key is an interesting control.

When you want to set focus point by the 4-way navigation keys, hit the DFA.

If you want to use the default features assigned to the 4-way navigation keys, touch the shutter to cancel DFA. The default features will be back immediately.

A step further I use DFA as an ad hoc Touch AF. To avoid accidental moving of focus point, I have Touch AF disabled on my cameras. When I need Touch AF, I can hit the DFA assigned fn key, Touch AF indeed is also activated. I can use my finger to move the focus point on LCD instead of through the 4-way navigation keys! If I wish to return the focus point to the center, hit DFA and DISP will do, followed by touching shutter to cancel DFA.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Just touching the screen to move the focus point is very convenient sometimes.

I'm glad you added "sometimes" because I generally disable touch while the EVF is in use (most of the time for me) after several instances of unwanted AF frame movement, and in any case on the G100 I usually have the LCD folded away unless I'm actually using it (in which case I do indeed use touch).

I don't often move the AF point anyway, preferring half-press and recompose unless I know the lens I'm using has significant field curvature. I don't mind having to press one extra button when I do need to move it.