chile7236

hazmat12: Wonder what the price is?

chile7236: I'm not sure what these pics prove? That they came from a phone?

Carlos Loff: Way to go Canon, I have always wondered, with so many people diving and having photography knowledge, why isn´t there in the market a digital Nikonos

Pictures by Todd: I never ever post to dpreview although I've been an avid reader since the very beginning. Anyhow, I just wanted to chime in that I'm super impressed with this GX-85 and now have two that I use professionally along with my Omd-em5 mk2 and my Nikons. Yes the Nikons have some advantages in certain situations, but I'm thinking of selling my D4 bodies as they prett much stay relegated to ballast in my camera bag recently. Here's a link to the first wedding I brought the GX-85 on. I only shot jpegs on the camera since Lightroom couldn't yet convert the Raws, but it did a great job. Will be using them again tonight...

http://picturesbytodd.com/ida-jons-wedding-manor-house-at-prophecy-creek/

Cheers,

Todd Zimmermann

RickD: Nikon made an awesome camera. Their advertising has managed to focus attention away from this by highlighting a feature they haven't really implemented. Its entirely reasonable for consumers to expect "WiFi" on a newer and more expensive camera to work at least as well as on older and cheaper models. We shouldn't have to read the fine print. There should be truth in advertising. The best response from Nikon at this point would be to apologize and fix the WiFi.

chile7236: It's a camera. Not a fraggin' wifi router. If you're upset about the technicalities of the wifi protocol and how you have to MAKE it work, sorry but pressing a mfg with legal action is kind of dramatic. I don't feel for the "plaintiff"...Nothing about my camera inventory is about wifi ...it's about photography...or rather, my attempt at it. Lack of wifi/touchscreens/video/or other doodads do nothing to detract from that experience.

chile7236: It's a camera. Not a fraggin' wifi router. If you're upset about the technicalities of the wifi protocol and how you have to MAKE it work, sorry but pressing a mfg with legal action is kind of dramatic. I don't feel for the "plaintiff"...Nothing about my camera inventory is about wifi ...it's about photography...or rather, my attempt at it. Lack of wifi/touchscreens/video/or other doodads do nothing to detract from that experience.

MrWalrusGumboot: Maybe it's the way I'm interpreting it in the summary, but just wanted to be clear that 5-axis stabilization works in 4K video with any lens. Not just the Panasonic dual IS lenses.

I think it's a fair a balanced review based on my experience using it. The viewfinder is indeed the biggest let down, but I think it's priced accordingly. I'd expect weather sealing and a better viewfinder to drive the price up. Next G7/GX8?

bgbs: I'm glad to know my ancient D700 does just as good as the latest cameras. I have no reason to upgrade after looking at D500 and D5 images.

Erik Magnuson: Visual tracking and adjusting to minor changes in motion is more important with tighter framing (i.e. longer lenses). Shooting field sports with a 70-200mm zoom is certainly less challenging than say tracking a jet flyby at an airshow or bird in flight with tight framing. But until there are longer telephotos with fast focus in E-mount, perhaps it does not matter much.

krectus: Pretty shocked that a DSLR released in 2016 can't shoot 4k. Especially a camera aimed at videographers (with it's own special video zooming device!). Surely Canon, who seems to need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 4K world has a reason to not do this. The camera is capable, it's a big selling feature if they did? Why?! Why wouldn't they do this!?! It's 2016. Every smartphone released this year can do it. It really bothers me, I can't figure this out.

DavidNJ100: Why would someone buy this over a Sony A6300? For video, the Sony wins hands down. For stills, it isn't clear.

24Mp with the kit lens is a joke. That less couldn't resolve half that resolution with a decent MTF.