SystemAgnostic

I think there is a market for simple to use cameras.

But also I think most buyers are enthusiasts - who want and enjoy to control camera settings. So that is where most camera models are headed.

These are my top 9 - some DP's list, some not:
* Panasonic GH5
* iPhone 4s
* Sony RX100
* Canon 6D
* Nikon D800 - started the trend of having a high megapixel version of essentially the same camera with a lower megapixel sensor.
* Olympus M5 mark 1
* Samsung NX1
* Fuji x100
* Sony A7

Key difference: I propose: What does $X get you in each system? The buyers guide is body only costs.
Admittedly, my proposal this is a really open ended question. But it is how I landed on micro 4/3. If I just considered the body only, then I don't think I would have. I priced out what I wanted, for example: body with x minimum features, light travel lens, fast standard/wide lens for indoors, and fast portrait lens.

I agree it wont be simple, and would be best with more restrictions: like for sports or landscape, etc - perhaps separate videos for each. I think Chris & Jordan are up to the task.

I just think this would make more sense for how I'm approaching my camera gear purchases. I really don't care about sensor size. But I am interested in depth of field, weight, etc. Right now I often have to view/read reviews for one sensor size or the other, and make some assumptions as to how they compare.

Grouping by sensor size makes sense from a technical point of view. I guess some people (especially on this website and forum) think sensor size is important. But I'd advocate that it is only of secondary importance because of the real benefits and limitations for each sensor size: to weight and size, ability to get shallow depth of field, high ISO performance and of course cost.

So how about a comparison agnostic of sensor size (other than tangible impacts). Like, What does $2000 get you in each system?

Thanks for the response. Where did you learn that? I'm surprised that ability to use joystick to change subject requires new hardware. But if so - I clearly can't blame Panasonic.

GH5 does not get the same improvements to autofocus to focus on animals and switch subject with the joystick? Does it have it already? If not, that makes absolutely zero sense. Perhaps it is a typo, otherwise as a GH5 owner I feel slighted. I guess they want me to buy a cheaper G9 next time?

G9 gets most of the video settings of the GH5, but GH5 does not get high res photo mode? Way to not show some love to GH5 owners.

For photography, I find that lens or body stabilization are both fine. For video, I find that body stabilization (or body and lens) are a bit better than just lens stabilization. I'm not sure why. Perhaps for photography I mostly need stabilization for long focal lengths, and for video I also need it for wide shots.

I agree with the Auschwitz Museum intention to ask people to think about the meaning of the place, including when they take photos there.

I'm not religious, but the older I get the more I see wisdom in the quote "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." To those who are eager to criticize people taking pictures or having fun at that site, I wonder how self critical you are of yourself?

The question isn't good image quality vs. bad image quality. The question is about great image quality vs. slightly greater image quality. For most modern cameras, you can't even see the difference in image quality unless you crop a lot or print very large, almost poster size. I don't crop that much, or print that large, so I would gladly sacrifice a little image quality for a more fun to use camera or other features.

Ho-hum. What is the point of Canon mentioning 8k video? Could it be because they are behind basically every other company with regard to video resolution, and have no consumer 4k cameras that use the full width of the camera? Sort of like a HS baseball player saying he has plans to be in MLB. Yeah, that is great son, keep at it!

Is this advertising campaign a farce, the only goal being to get people to see how beautiful Jackson Hole is and to get more tourists? It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. If they really wanted to stop geotagging, they need to put signs in Jackson Hole - near trails and sites.

This might sound petty - but the front dial is in the wrong position. I don't like Nikon because the front dial location is uncomfortable for my index finger. I do like Canon and existing Panasonic because they have the vertical front dial behind the shutter.

Now, inexplicably, Panasonic appears to have moved it to be more horizontal and in front of the shutter. I'll have to try it in my hand, but this is possibly a blocker for me to consider buying the camera.

As a frequent reader at DP Review, I'm not surprised to read a lot of complaining about the camera. To most of these folks I say: If you want a smaller camera, then buy a smaller camera. If you want "better image quality" from a bigger sensor, then buy a camera with a bigger sensor. If a tilting screen or a better viewfinder is an absolute requirement - then find another camera with those features. This camera isn't for you.

However, if you want an exquisitely fun to use and ergonomic and small camera with awesome video and good image quality, then this is on a very short list of alternatives. Personally, I only cross shopped between the original LX100 and the Fuji X100 series. It has a fixed lens of course, but I still think it is the only close competitor. I chose the LX100 for several reasons, but mostly because of far better video.

I'm happy with the choices they made for version II. I prefer the camera without the size and weight of a tilt screen or IBIS.

If I were in the market for this lens, this is great news. Version II prices will drop: for new, used and refurbished.

Such a shame that Samsung developed a killer system, at the exact right time, just before the "peak" of DSLRs. Four years ago they had technology which other manufacturers are just now beginning to catch up to. They could have still been a few years ahead of the pack now. But instead, they abandoned it.

I wonder if they had decided to make full frame mirrorless instead, if the market would have accepted Samsung more and they would still be developing cameras. It isn't inconceivable that they could have been market leader in a handful more years as DSLR market share shrinks.

Kudos to Panasonic, I wish them continued success. In my opinion, they offer features that are often class leading, along with best combination / compromise of enjoyable to use cameras with both strong photo and video functionality.

In the past the market was able to support several different systems and sensor sizes, I hope that continues to be the case and micro 4/3 can prosper.

And lastly, because of my thoughts above - I'm on the verge of selling all my crop Canon gear and using only Panasonic.

Let me get this straight: Canon can't master 4k, which is 8 million pixels, and they are releasing this press release type fluff for 120 million pixels?

Futhermore, the example screen shots only look about as good as 4k - and nothing like what I'd expect 120 million pixels to look like.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, Panasonic can price this at whatever they want. But if it was around $1k, i would consider it. At $1700 I wont.

Oddly, the kit lens is the 12-60 and not the tiny 12-32. I agree with others, I consider this an upgraded GX85. The upgrades are decent: 20 megapixel sensor, better viewfinder, tilting viewfinder. Perhaps the GX8 didn't sell as well as they hoped, or perhaps they still want to release an a high end rangefinder style camera later (smaller G9), just not yet.