Awaiting the GX7, Recalling the L1

[Joel Halbert]

Andy Crowe wrote:

Just to point out that Olympus was actually first in the corner-VF DSLR with the E-330, and in fact the L1 reused the E-330's optical subsystem (lens mount, mirror box, viewfinder, auto focus and exposure sensors)

Yes, I clearly acknowledged that in the original post. The L1 wasn't about firsts in technical features; being the first Panasonic interchangeable-lens camera, it was about design, intent and statement of purpose. High quality construction and superb kit lens.

The big technical firsts were of course wrapped into the G1, a landmark camera that was, conversely, about technical change but being pointedly non-risky (in Panasonic's interpretation) regarding external design.

It would be interesting to speculate how M43 might have launched (better or worse acceptance) had Panasonic pursued the corner-VF body design language in the first model. Would it have attracted a stronger following and been more widely noticed, or would it have put off customers who didn't want to stray far from the DSLR look in a new system camera? Panasonic chose the latter interpretation. Note that some people most fondly recall the GF1 over the G1 (some even think the GF1 was first), and Olympus chose the rectangular design, albeit without a VF, when they entered the M43 market.

--
JoelH

 

[Donald Chin]

amalric wrote:

The problem here is that only you seem to care about these things, or some hard meastrubator like tiny jorginho

All the rest are more than satisfied by the latest Sony sensor, and with good reason. It takes wonderful images, with blown highlights belonging to the past.

Are you undergoing a mid-age crisis, or did your wife throw you out for excessive gear expense?

Am.

 

[amalric]

This is an interesting narrative. I generally don't like plain industrial design, when it mimicks something it isn't. The L1 was surely an exception, and then Panny must have made a poll and saw that people, the market, preferred dSLR shape.

Photogs and consumers however are different beasts. How to explain the preference that photojournalists have always expressed for Leica?

The dSLR shape was really pushed by commercial photogs. because ti was a kind of Lego kind of system. You could stretch it anyway you wanted, provided the lens was in line with the mirror and the OVF. Precise focus and TTL were its merits.

We are now in a completely different, digital setup, so there is the risk that for the first time, by keep aping the dSLR form factor, camera makers might lag behind consumers themselves. Retro is a patch up while trying to find a new paradigm.

In a way Ricoh and Sony are much more adventurous than O&P. The problem of course is to innovate but yet to be financially rewarded.

Am.

 

[SuperY]

Nop... It is E-300, not E-330, that has side VF. It is the 2nd 4/3 dSLR after the legendary E-1.

 

[eques]

Jorginho wrote:

eques wrote:

A very interesting post!

You are right, the GX7 will be a success only, if the package is just right and matches the price.

The difficulty is, that this GX7 comes rather late - the EM5 has set a high standard, and now, with the EP5 as direct rival but without EVF, plus the NEX 6, NEX 7, it's rumored successor, the X Pro 1 and XE1, it has to top their sensors significantly.

This will be difficult with a 16 MP sensor, so there has to be a higher pixel count, and I doubt a 18MP multi aspect sensor will do it.It would have to be a 24 MP sensor or some new technology, but I don't see that for this year.

With just a GH3 sensor and EVF and only 2 axis IBIS the GX7 will be behind the aging EM5, not a big recommendation.

Peter.

If it is true that in order to succeed, mFTs need to have IQ as good as the best APS-c and the same resolution the end is close. Because you simply cannot expect that to ever happen.

Panasonic needs to have that 18 MPixel sensor with EPL5 IQ. That is enough.

Yes, it is enough, for you and me. But MP number is an easy thing to point out and convince custumers.

The latest APS-c sensors did not perform much better so the there is a gap but it is not very big. Now, within the mFT range of cambodies, here is what GX7 would make very tempting.

1) EVF built in. I think this is a huge thing. It is what many who buy EPL5 and other cams wanted for a very long time

Yes, this is what keeps me from buying an EPL5.

2) AF tracking rivalling the Nikon1. That would quite huge too and would really put it well ahead of anything Oly offers currently

This is why I have tried Nikon 1 (but abandoned it because of disappointing IQ)

3) IBIS, even if 2-Axis, with 2,5 to 3 stops gain would put Oly at a further disadvantage because that Oly-exclusive and excellent feature (for primes especially) is now no longer unique. And here is the advantage: you have IBIS and still do not get purple fringing etc.

4) 1/8000s shutter and TRUE ISO 100. So ISO 100 gets you the best DR and best noise.

5) Video like the G6. Would be nice and should be possible

6) Of course FP (also in video , intervalometer, inbody panorama etc are nice to have

Of course, finally.

7 Better JPEgs, but panny has come a long way already.

Now 1) and 2) will be quite a challenge. But they are not impossible. The other things can be done already in other cams, so why not in the GX7?

If can do all those well enough, GX7 would turn the tables I think. I also think that the price for that is > 1000 euro body only...

You are right with all of your 7 points - they would mean a Nex 6, a NIkon 1 and an Olympus EM5 wrapped in 1 body. I would certainly love it.

Still, to make it a success, it would need 1 or 2 points that make it stand out from the crowd. Something easy to see and point out. "Look, 24MP OLED sensor plus tiltable EVF - no other camera can give you that!"

Peter.