I have both the G95 and Em-5 III. I figured I'd return the one I liked less...but have not yet figured that out yet. I like them both!

The review you agree is the review you do yourself.
I have used both - for short periods of time only - and both are solid cameras.
Will I replace my Z6 with either? I guess not. All of them hold silver awards.
The reviews themselves showed me a lot. I dont give much about the numbers.

It would be interesting to here what you experienced if you tried it, even if it's not a complete objective test. As it is now, I see no reason to upgrade my EM-10 II with anything from Panasonic when I own several Olympus lenses...

@Impulses
The E-M5 II is probably Olympus's best CDAF-only body, so it would probably be a useful comparison. That said, it's very hard to come up with an objective test of AF that can be consistently applied.

The other thing on DFD is that given none of the Panasonic lenses before the GH4 (first camera to have DFD) had the lens defocus profiles built in, Panasonic loaded the profiles of lenses before then into the camera. Officially Panasonic said they only have the profiles for Panasonic lenses, but could they also have loaded Olympus lenses too (nothing is stopping them from doing so)?

I have no idea whether they are using DFD, but I'm VERY happy with the Oly 12-40 Pro and 7-14 Pro on my GX8 (hopefully soon G9). Not buying anything longer from Oly due to the lack of OIS in most of their lenses, but those two are stellar zooms on my Lumix.

I think they miscalculated in pricing *up* the GX9 & G95 over their predecessors without truly significant upgrades beyond the 20MP sensor and a couple other things (and downgrades in some ways)...

You could argue that the higher end 12-60 kit lens is either to blame for part of that, or a value add despite the pricing, but then there's no body-only option for either so that just annoys existing M4/3 users further. At least the 12-60 does have a decent resale value.

FF or Fujifilm XT3

An X-T3 with lens costs $600 more than this camera. That's 50% more. Why pretend that they are in the same market category?

Your math is way off. That's not the price difference.

Try again.

X-T3 with 16-80 f/4 lens = $2,200
G95 with 12-60 kit = $1,200
G9 with 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 = $1.900. This is probably the most directly comparable to the X-T3. But now you can get an X-H1 with the 16-55 f/2.8 for $1,700.

Rich has got it.

And even if you go with the kit lens deal on the X-T3, you get the 18-55mm and it's $1800.

Which, as I said, is exactly $600 more than the $1200 that it costs for the G95 kit at the moment. $1200 * 1.5 = $1800...

Sergey: following your logic, everybody should buy FF Leica and be done.

However, there are different price categories, mobility issues and etc, m43 also have their usage as well.

Thanks, Richard. I didn't think of a PM, but figured it might come across as hassling over minor technical stuff. Nitty-gritty stuff like this is interesting to us technophiles and engineering-types, but I'd hardly call it important. :)

It'll change the results of our DR test, so it's useful for us to know.

We'll re-shoot as soon as we can. In the meantime I'll put a note in the review.

"We will re-shoot and re-assess this test and the score as soon as we can" - very interesting - when?

I think he's referring to IBIS, which is a real tho situational advantage towards ultimate IQ (low light scenes with static subjects etc.). OTOH Sigma's f1.4 primes are faster by equivalence on APS-C and the native f1.2 primes are pricey.

It's a pretty subjective advantage, just like being the only one of the trio compared to feature weather sealing... I'm really curious what Oly will bring with the E-M5 III since everybody else already played their hand, but Oly's refresh is long overdue so who knows.

The issue is not blame, it’s accuracy. Simply mention that it’s virtually the same price, but only comes as a bundle.

What, did they run out of space on the internet?

.

You're suggesting the review should say something like:

"The closest competitors to the Panasonic G95/G90/G91 are the Sony a6400 and Fujifilm X-T30. Both cameras are cheaper with their standard kit lenses and can be bundled with nicer lenses for around the same price as the G95 with its 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens."

Perhaps in a section called: Compared to other midrange mirrorless cameras. In the conclusion, maybe?

@Darkroom, your M43 fanbyyism is pathetic. I ♥ Panasonic, but Panasonic really SCREW up G90 introduction. You can keep blaming DPR and it will NOT do you or Panasonic any good against $899 Fuji XT30 and $899 Sony A6400. I just check both Amazon and B&H, both listed Panasonic G90 as $1197 with kit lens. So, are you going to blame Amazon & B&H video as well? Are you so deep in you own conspiracy theory that you cannot see clearly the BLAME reside 100% with Panasonic? Panasonic set the pricing; Panasonic set the bundled, the fault is not DPR, not Amazong, and not B&H video.

The kit-lens can be sold for 300. BUT! With the G85 there was the possibility to buy body only, and that was just 100€/$/... less than the bundle so people ended up buying the bundle, resell the lens for 300 and get an instant rebate of 200 on the body. So with this in mind the G90 still is 1100 body only.

@entoman. Indeed you are 100% right of cource. The compromise here makes this G90/95 a terrific camera. If we do take more lenses into the equation ... also non-stabilized primes then indeed the X-T30 is a less desirable camera ... for those purposes. But if I read here @dpreview that the G90/90 is a nice travel camera then, IMHO, there are so many other options. To me no crop for video is important, so the G9 would suite me better. I, very personally, also believe this camera may be a bit too expensive for what is offered in 2019 (?). But the G90 indeed seems a great 'compromise', as you wrote.

camfan - Fujifilm make very nice cameras, in fact almost any camera nowadays is extremely capable.

Choice of brand and model really comes down to personal preference for ergonomics, cost and lens system.

I use Canon DSLRs and I'm very happy with them, except when photographing birds, when I find the cost and weight of the long telephotos too much.

So I'm looking at getting an M43 system specifically for bird photography and occasions when I need to travel light.

For me the choice is between G9 or EM1 Mkii bodies, as I need cameras that are tough and will withstand harsh conditions.

Smaller pixels will always be noisier at the same exposure if viewed at 1:1 scale, however, this is not necessarily the case when you view the images at the same size. Make sure you look at 'Comp' mode [top right of the comparison widget] before drawing conclusions.

While true, buyers can get the same image quality by mounting the tiny, cheap, and incredibly sharp 20mm/f1.7. Particularly perfect for a scene like that (shot at 21mm/f4.5).

The PL10-25/1.7 is so astonishing because it really is like a "bag of primes." But if you can't afford that lens, you can always just get the literally bag of primes.

In that context, I would recommend starting with said 20mm/1.7 and the 42.5mm/1.7. Or the Sigma 30/1.4 and 56/1.4 options (and 60mm/f2.8) are also razor sharp.

There are other lenses available that will capture images equal to or better than that lens. The 12mm f1.4, 25mm f/1.4, 15mm f/1.7 to name a few. You can buy these three or the 10-50 for about the same cost it’s your choice.
No matter what system you use it remains true the image is in the lens. The body just records it. Invest in glass. Lenses hold their value while bodies come and go.
A kit lens on a pro body makes less sense.

Yes but some will still want an affordable camera system and look at this picture and this might be a bit misleading: wow this camera makes nice pictures.
No it's not without this lens :P
And I had the 20mm f 1.7. It has excessive purple fringing and to be honest at the image borders left and right it's not that sharp like a real premium lens. Otherwise it's a bang for the bug I agree :)

...but that's true of all systems, isn't it?

No one is going to be impressed by the pixel-level sharpness coming from an A7 III with the 28-70/f3.5-5.6 kit lens, or even an X-T3 with the ($700) 18-55/f2.8-4 kit lens.

Lenses are always what give you the wow factor, and the best lenses cost a lot, across the board.

We actually used this camera body to shoot a lot of our 10-25mm F1.7 lens gallery, which is why there are so many shots from that lens in the review / camera gallery. But I made a concerted effort to add a lot in with the 12-60 kit lens that you're forced to buy in the USA, to give as realistic a view of out-of-the-box IQ as possible.

But on the IQ page, I was okay using that image using the 10-25 to really show the maximum IQ the camera is capable of (not that the kit lens is particularly lacking).

" It has excessive purple fringing and to be honest at the image borders left and right it's not that sharp like a real premium lens. Otherwise it's a bang for the bug I agree :) "

LensRentals old tests of M4/3 primes would disagree with the sharpness assessment, maybe you got a less than optimal sample... I don't notice a big difference between my 20/1.7 and some of my much pricier glass (PL8-18, 17/1.2), at least when it comes to sharpness and CA. Bokeh does go cat eye towards the edges when wide open and it has it's AF quirks that make it useless for C-AF or video, there's loads of cheap sharp primes in the system that make less significant compromises (just not at 17-20mm :s they all have some kinda quirk at that FL).

@dpfan32 - the 20mm/1.7 doesn't quite reach the edge quality of the best zooms in the system like the 12-40/f2.8, but stopped down to f/4 it is close (within 10%)

@NicoPPC - the 18-55mm is a fine lens, and should be praised for its size and aperture, but optical quality is not in the same category as the other lenses in this discussion. It makes nice sharp photos on 16MP sensors - quite similar to the 12-60mm kit lens included here - but you can clearly see in the galleries taken with the latest 26MP sensors that the 18-55mm is not resolving well at the pixel level.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5505670310/fujifilm-x-t30-sample-gallery/9628672334

The 20mm f1.7 (40mm ff) has a very nice angle for my taste.
I like it much more than a 25mm on mFT (50mm ff).
A 17mm (34mm ff) is IMHO the most boring focal length of them all IMHO.
Maybe I'll get another copy. I sold it much because of the purple fringing. But hey: there is Lightroom to fix this problem :)
I liked the 24mm STM lens on my Canon APS-C (38mm ff) very much so the 20m for mFT is the equivalent for that.
And lets say it again: it's cheap. :) I can get one for 135 EUR.

Out of curiosity, what body are you using it on?

Panasonic bodies have a stronger UV-cut filter on their sensor than Olympus. Olympus chooses to put their UV filtration into the lens coatings, instead. As a result, Panasonic bodies tend to have better performance when it comes to purple fringing - this is a hardware phenomenon, and has nothing to do with digital CA correction (which you can also do, of course).

It's a slightly different phenomena, but also the reason why "purple flare" doesn't show using the P7-14/f4 on Panasonic bodies, but causes problems on Olympus bodies.

I noticed this most acutely when I compared the 4/3 Olympus HG 11-22mm lens on my Panasonic GX7 compared to an Olympus E-M5. Much less purple fringing visible on the Panasonic.

dpfan - FWIW, I was gonna mention it earlier but didn't wanna add too much clutter, this link is a distillation of nearly all you'd ever wanna know about the UV filtering and CA disparity that Androole is referring to:

https://alanwatsonforster.org/writing/mft-purple.html

A whole bunch of content bandied about on the boards for a few years was slowly added by Alan in there... I've never considered it a major issue (outside of the 7-14's more obvious flaring) but it can bug ya if you're picky. FWIW I've got some of the special 2A UV filters mentioned within, as well as both Pana and Oly bodies...

Been meaning to do some testing of my own for like a year, just haven't carved out the time, but if there's a comparison or something you'd like to see feel free to shoot me a PM.

Oh and LensRentals' old tests were done with a 16MP body btw... My 20/1.7 holds up to what they saw, it's easily sharper than any kit zoom I own and Pana kit zooms have often been better than Oly's. /shrug Bad samples do happen more often than a lot of us would like tho.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results/

If the far edges were truly worse than a kit zoom I don't think the average would literally be the highest score amidst the bunch of tested lenses (at f2.8-4, and it's already close wide open against lenses with f4+ max aperture). Granted the PL15 or PL12 and the newer Oly Pro primes aren't in there because they were still years away, nor the f2.8 or f2.8-4 zooms...

Honestly, it's the same with any manufacturers line-up these days. God knows how many Canon Rebel alphabet-soups there are, and what the differences between them are.

And Fuji has just as many models (actually more) in its current line-up than Panasonic does.

In any case, the basic naming theory is the same for all of them:

3-digit number = entry level
2-digit number = enthusiast
1-digit number = prosumer

GX = rangefinder-like form-factor
G = DSLR-like form-factor
GH = professional hybrid camera with DSLR-like form-factor

Once you know the basics of the market you're looking in, finding the particular feature-set that suits you is always going to be a slog. Unless of course you're looking at a company that simply doesn't offer any good choices, or hasn't bothered updating models in years.

It's true, the GX9 is actually the GX95.

I admit that in that respect, the naming is confusing.

Completely disagree that the G90 is less exciting than the G80, though. The body has quite a few legitimately useful upgrades. The only real complaint is the price point. People buying it primarily for video may be the sole exception.

As I see it, M43 cameras compete with APS-C ones at the same market. And this market segment is dominated by cameras with APS-C sensors, that's the standard. There are some FF cameras at the same price point (A7 I/II, RP), but these have ancient FF sensors with serious shortcomings and the cameras themselves have some heavy compromises as well. In comparison, the X-T30 and A6400 are up-to-date cameras with very good APS-C sensors.

So I think it is very appropriate to point out the disadvantage of the smaller sensor in each and every M43 camera review, as it offers a (slightly) below average IQ for its class. Until there is something like the A7 III available at this price, there is little reason to the same with APS-C cameras.

"As I see it, M43 cameras compete with APS-C ones at the same market. And this market segment is dominated by cameras with APS-C sensors, that's the standard."

Users don't care about market segments, users care about taking photos and prices. Good point about lack *good* FF alternatives at the same price level as MFT/APS-C, though.

I would say users care about market segments in the sense that they can be expected to compare similar cameras at similar prices. And a good reviewer should point out if a feature of the product is inferior to others in its class (of similar products at similar prices).

"Wobbling C-AF means the camera is not usable for sports, action or wildlife photography."

That's actually not true, according to the actual reviewers. In their tests of C-AF on recent DFD bodies, they always comment that the experience through the viewfinder is disconcerting, but then they are surprised and impressed with how good the hit rate is when they actually review the photos they took.

So I think the take-away is that these cameras are eminently, completely usable for sports, action, and wildlife. But they aren't very fun to do so, subjectively! Which I think is a valid argument. It's better to have a camera that's nice to use, as well as effective.

In any case, the wording in the review is specifically to call out the subjective experience. They actually explicitly say that the AF system is responsive and tracks fairly well, so they don't have really serious qualms with its performance.

The wording is essential though. How about this one: "The AF is really good in S-AF, which is what CDAF (which DFD essentially is) is known for. This camera is no exception.
When it comes to C-AF it is very good too but with some caveats. First of all it shoots 6 frames per second in this modus whereas similarly priced cmas wil get you 10 or even 20 shots. We think 6 FPS is clearly on the low side. More importantl is that fact that the DFD system introduces a visible wobble. It is disconcerting to us because it looks like the cam is oscillating between out of focus in focus all the time. In stills the end results tend to be fine with a high keeperrate. For video this wobbling is far worse since we can see it in the endresult which to any serious videographer we think is unacceptable. There are tools in the cam to do manual focus but surely this requires some practicing to say the least and is not for everyone. The competition uses PDAF which means you won't have this problem".

Funny you should have brought that up (no mention that aps-c not as good as FF), because my first thoughts when reading the review/conclusion was that why have I never read 'FF images not as good as Medium Format' ?

When similarly featured medium format cameras will compete with FF ones at the same price point, then you'll have a point.

To be fair, DPR doesn't consider market pricing changes over time in their analysis, they only look at initial MSRP.

The only FF camera to be actually released at an APS-like price point is the Canon RP, with a sensor which in some ways (DR) is no better than its M4/3 or APS-C competitors.

Ironically, the other main FF competitor that has made its way into the bargain price point by aging out is the Sony A7 and A7 II, which also has sensor performance that is no better than APS-C, but this time in low light conditions. The only advantage that sensor has is in base ISO dynamic range. So it's basically the opposite problem as the Canon.

The outlier, of course, is the Nikon D750 (or even D610), which has a sensor that trounces any M4/3 or APS-C sensor on the market, upside down and backwards. And is also miles better than the Canon RP or Sony A7 II sensor. But it's a DSLR, and has a lot of compromises (particularly for video) that modern shooters probably won't want to make.

Sorry, to be clear I don't think it fits directly in any comparison with the G95 (and the G95 would shoot massively better video, for whatever that's worth).

I was just trying to fit the thought into the overall commentary that says "M4/3 cams are compared to APS-C cams because of price overlap, so why aren't APS-C cams compared to FF cams with price overlap."

And there are plenty of APS-C models that sell for the same street price (body only) as the D750. Especially when promotional season rolls around, the A6500, D750, X-H1, and X-T3 are all within ~$100 of each other (along with M4/3 flagships like the G9).

That's fair. I can see what you mean in overlapping price points. I would argue once you start getting into lenses, there is less overlap (due to size and cost). For example, I would have no issues with shopping for something like a G9 whilst never giving the D750 a second thought because of how massive its lenses are.

I can fit a G9 size body plus something like the Panasonic Leica 12-60 and three primes or another telephoto lens in my tiny Kata bag. The D750 would take up roughly the same space, but I would only be able to fit one lens.

To each their own though. The D750 sensor is amazing and I won't lie, low light shooting with m4/3 leaves a lot to be desired.

Androole, RP has better high ISO performance than XT3, XH1, A6500 and alike. In their reviews, you will not see a sentence like "Falls behind its FF peers in high-ISO" in Cons section.
But "conveniently" you'll see the same comment under almost every m43 camera review.

so I agree with the core point that in every camera review they shall point out that what they can do better with similar price point.

they should add similarly priced FF to the comparison of apc and m43 reviews.

It mainly seems to be a matter of expectations.

While Olympus and Panasonic now reliably deliver weather sealing in the ~$1000 (or even less) price point, no other manufacturer does, and it's not expected. Therefore, "no weather sealing" is not a con listed on every mid-range mirrorless camera (like the Gold-awarded X-T30 and A6400).

As I've said before, for the mid-range price point, Canon, Fuji, and Sony are delivering high-end internals in low-end bodies. Panasonic and Olympus are delivering low-end internals in high-end bodies. People have different preferences.

But the m43 would be smaller and more robust.

So actually if you look for a small travel camera.. better get a rugged m43