Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Review

There is optical image stabilisation in video. Only IBIS does notwork. So Oly lenses and other non-ois lenses have no stabilisation.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

@yabokkie I always use a separate sound recorder (Zoom H1) attached to the flash hotshoe whenever I shoot video, the analogue amplifiers in digital cameras often aren't great.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Scott Birch

Pro video used to require external sound recorders. Nagra, anyone?

Nov 8, 2013permalink

MDGColorado

It's possible the external mic input is deliberate product differentiation, but we can't know how much it have cost to add it. There is way too much second guessing about engineering in these forums!

Dec 8, 2013permalink

Optimal Prime

The orange background of the main page photo for the GX7 review is truly unflattering and an awful choice. Usually the new cameras are presented in a much nicer way. What happened?

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Also the picture could have been taken with a better overall sharpness , instead of focusing on the name and the left strap support.
Would only get a mediocre placing in a DPR photo challenge :)

Nov 8, 2013*permalink

Mike99999

DP Review is paid to discredit the micro four thirds system.

Make no mistake about it: the GX7, E-M1 and E-P5 are the worlds best cameras at the moment. You have to try it in your own hands to understand what the fuss is about.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

OneGuy

Orange is a male color. Changing an established background makes it stand out. You don't sell things by being super-rational [ok, you could if you are German]. I'd even put a dollop of whip cream next to it -- perhaps in a second picture.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Dimit

''Orange backround''....now this is a serious issue!!!

Nov 8, 2013permalink

@Mike99999 - No, DPReview is not paid to discredit Micro Four Thirds. We're not paid to promote or discredit anything so kindly don't make claims of impropriety that you can't support.

We gave the E-M1 and E-M5 our highest awards and the GX7 only just missed out. That would be a perverse way of discrediting something.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

NickNock

I used to own an X-E1, the build was horrible. Fuji repaired the camera. So when I manual focused, focus peaking was showing that I was in focus. However, the result was slightly blurry. AF it not make any difference.

In the image quality the low Dynamic Range of the X-E1 is better but it is a matter of luck to focus the camera. So after all it does not matter. The image in the X-E1 is a little flat. While GX7 IQ comes closer to the Leica M.

X-E1 lacks workable ergonomics effectively they are disastrous. You needed toothpicks to handle the camera. I exchanged it for the GX7. It has much better dials, buttons, options and room to handle the camera. At least you can hold the camera using both or one hand. Also the usability is by far better than the X-E1. GX7 is a mature product while X-E1 is several years back in this area. Undeniable the X-E1 is immature. You have given it an unfair value in respect to build quality. I wished that had a little bit better low Dynamic Range.

Nov 8, 2013*permalink

jl_smith

I'd have to completely disagree with pretty much everything you say about the XE-1. Obviously either the user or camera at fault, because nobody else really seems to gripe about XE1 accuracy (speed, yes). Ergonomics were awesome IMO.

All opinion, though.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Beat Traveller

I love the ergonomics of the X-E1, minus the placement of the AF button (although a firmware update has fixed that problem).

Nov 8, 2013permalink

NickNock

jl_smith

First of all it can not be user error because the camera(via focus peaking) indicates that there is focus. However the image is slightly blurred. After all Fuji repaired the camera and realigned the optics, they indicated that there was an issue. After comparing past images. It made a small difference but definitely is an immature product. There are a lot of notes on internet about how good the focus is.

May be you have not looked close enough.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Beat Traveller

So as usual, DPR go into fairly fastidious detail about the camera's performance, features, capabilities, etc; and people get hung up about the completely arbitrary score/rating assigned to it at the end.

Way to miss the forest for the trees...

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Vinc T

Comparing to the 1.5 year old E-M5, this GX7 has nothing really extraordinary. The only special thing about it is its tilting EVF, which is meaningful to only the minority. Why should DPR award a GOLD to something just caught up with its competitor?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Impulses

Focus peaking, silent/electronic shutter mode, Wifi/NFC, etc = nothing? Many of those features are just as valuable to some as IBIS or anything else that the GX7 merely matches.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Impulses

Not to mention it focuses under up to like -4 EV, AFAIK Oly's AF only works up to 0.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

marike6

Nonsense. What about the high-end video quality and frame rates, features that aren't even found in the EM-5 or the EM1?

What about the fact that it's the first rangefinder style m43 camera with a built in eye level VF?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

And never mind that the GX7 costs $250 less than an E-M5...

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Also, EM5 does not have a built-in flash, and has that fake penta-prism hump that always gets in the way. It is also widely accepted that Panasonic cameras have a better menu system based on what I read here.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Silent mode, 1/8000s shutterspeed, way better ergonomics, built in tiltable flash, tilatable EVF (nice for left eyed people), far superior video, will work flawlesly with Oly and Panny lenses (Oly does only a partial correction for Panny lenses leaving JPGs to be somewhat desired), RF style which can be important, no zooming of the IBIS all the time, good intervalometer, sweep panorama mode, focuspeaking, electronic shutter does not wear...

It has all m43 users were asking for for about three years or so.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

aeromonte

And don't forget if you use the GX7 with a tripod, it will not crack the bottom like the E-M5 has been known to do. That kills the weatherproofing feature.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

carlgt1

what I can't figure out is - at these higher enthusiast price points - that cross over well into APS-C territory, what is the advantage versus say a Sony NEX-7?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

M Hamilton

Better lens selection and on average lighter/smaller size lenses

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Stabilised lenses --- all lenses.
in the case of OMD series stabilised for Videos.
Great lenses and choices too.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Smaller & lighter (especially on the lens side), better lenses (both quality and selection), in-body stabilization, touchscreens, better interface/menus than NEX.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

tsammyc

Wireless flash control from pop-up flash. 600mm stabilised EFL lenses that can be used without tripod. Excellent 120mm EFL macro lens. Faster focus, doesn't hunt in low light.Wifi and control from a smartphone. Better high ISO image quality.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

duartix

I'd say that by the count of dpreview staff that came out justifying the review and the score, they're both mortally wounded.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

That's a false metric, so far as I can see.

For instance - there's no point us responding to people who disagree with how much weight we've given one factor or another. We've explained our thinking over 14 pages - reiterating our points isn't going to change anyone's mind.

Also, we're pretty busy in the office today and, since there doesn't appear to be any suggestion of any fundamental failing - other than a failure to draw the conclusion some people would like - it's better that we press on with preparing more content, rather than disagree with people one at a time.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

"since there doesn't appear to be any suggestion of any fundamental failing - other than a failure to draw the conclusion some people would like - it's better that we press on with preparing more content."

I don't know what you would consider a fundamental failing, but an unfair score is certainly one.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

79% is a good score.. I am not sure why everyone is so hung up on it.

Compared to the OMD-EM5 which scored 80% its practically just as good and thats great for a M43 camera.. Rememebr EM5 was scored against current cameras at the time. Its a much harder field for the GX7 post GH3 and EM1

It cannot be compared to EM1 at 84 becuase it is a PRO build camera.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

You justify your score below based on your comparative fine grained numerical scores. I think it would be useful to have them available in this case, and the rationale for each. That would give us a better idea of where you are coming from.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

@ Richard: I am not sdure but I have very rarely seen such a unanimous take on a review as this one. Almost all seem to agree that you have been to harsh on the cam. And you can say we explaine din 14 pages....That is nice, but the main point is not the review itself so much, but the double standars.
How can you explain an EVF adds bulk to this cam and is mentioned as a negative, why you do not do the same thing on any other cam with an EVF? We all know the video IQ of this cam is very good. We all know that videographers time and time again wonder when o when Oly comes with good video IQ. You score them on par? That just does not make sense to many of us.

But again: I know quite a few over here and they are not m43 users and hardly fans and still they share the thought that you underrated this cam. To me I guess it is the first time I think this about a dpreview review.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

The point system is inherently unfair no matter how you look at it, because different people value different things. If I don't care about video, then it is unfair (to me) for a camera to score higher because of better video when all other factors being equal.

If you are too lazy to look at the bars or read the article, then you will likely draw the wrong conclusion based on the points alone.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Olymore

Things that are important to me (or the reviewer) will be irrelevant to someone else and vice versa. That's why you have to interpret these reviews.
And why it's a waste of time arguing about unfairness and a handful of percentage points when the marking system is meaningless if your needs or likes are different to the reviewer.
Wi Fi, video, HDR modes, bracketing, number of AF points and about a hundred other things are totally irrelevant on a camera to me. A big bright viewfinder and weather sealing are important, Ability to take four thirds lenses a nice bonus. Which is why I rate the E-M1 massively higher than this. For other people it will be the reverse.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

@Jorginho - To be honest it's pretty common to get this sort of response to Silver awards (or Recommended ratings, before the current system was introduced).

The very nature of a Silver award is that it means the camera is really good and thus you get lots of people who have bought it or feel some affiliation with the brand who decide that we're under-valuing the product (after all, it's really good).

However, we spend a lot of time reviewing each camera, we also have lots of experience using its immediate peers, so feel able to distinguish between the very good and the very best. However, we do include all of the reasoning and evidence we've used to come to our conclusions, to allow people with different needs or expectations to draw their own conclusions.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

@Richard > The very nature of a Silver award is that it means the camera is really good…

Richard, I'm sure you have learned by now that Silver is not a good word to use here. It could be insulting even. I like this scale better: Good, Really Good, Really Really Good.

In wine, the difference between 89 points vs 90 point translates into a ton of money.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

kecajkerugo

Yet another good camera on the market...why do you all still fight?
Do not like lit go to Oly. Want to carry tank-like gun FF machine for that 10% better picture, your choice. Do you like Fuji menu over that one? Your preference.
It is reasonable to discuss camera's features, differences but naming such cameras "crap" in pure nonsense! The best and very the best hardware from each known company on the market is just at least adequate to take great pictures.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

carlgt1

Do you think a full-frame Nikon is just 10% better picture than a m4/3? Do you have any actual evidence of this (I'm being serious)?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Honestly, a Nikon D7100 (APS-C) is probably more than a 10% improvement over any mirrorless camera short of Sony's new full frame cameras. It's a damn shame that Nikon put such a sub-par sensor in their mirrorless cameras (the 1 family). If they'd put their current-gen APS-C sensor in a NEX-6 or GX7-style body, they'd have my money!

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

> Do you think a full-frame Nikon is just 10% better picture than a m4/3? Do you have any actual evidence of this (I'm being serious)?

Haha, you took the flame bait. Without specifying the scale, how can you argue what 10% means?

On the other hand, if you don't print more than 13x19, and don't shoot in the dark, 10% probably is a generous estimate.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

kecajkerugo

Yes I think, it is small percentage for majority of pictures tajen by majority of people. Those sepacialized needs are withing this 10% (or maybe 5%) difference. Willl bring you a few examples that you are wrong.
First one:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7/12
bring the D7100 do the noize curves comparometer and see that it is actually worse than a few moders m/43.
See some test done Steve Huff and judge yourself.
Look at abailable test pictures DC Review (full screen, how you normally show them to you family, friends and yourself (are you showing your vacations shots magnified to 100% on the TV set or a precious 32 in monitor?)
More to come (more specific).

Nov 8, 2013permalink

carlgt1

ok thanks for the replies!

Nov 8, 2013permalink

oldfogey

An undocumented but very useful feature of my old EPL-1 was the on body flash that can be tilted into a vertical (bounce) orientation with a little pressure from a forefinger. Unfortunately that capability disappeared from later editions of Oly cameras - so the "deer in the headlights" direct flash option is the only choice with Oly's newer m4/3 bundled flash units. It looks a little as though the Panasonic GX7 unit might be able to do the EPL-1 bounce flash trick. Could DPR or any of you GX7 owners out there comment on this?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

M Hamilton

Yes the flash can certainly be tilted up JUST like my old E-PL1 and it does a nice job of it too. :D

Nov 7, 2013permalink

oldfogey

Thanks for the response - They should make a selling point of it!

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Vignes

I used to own EPL1 but I bought a Oly 36 Flash to do bounce effect. The small flash in the EPL1 was useless for that effect. The point is, if you shots are heavyly dependant on flash effects, you're going to use a proper flash.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

oldfogey

No it isn't useless - in a small room with a white ceiling the EPL-1 flash in bounce mode is a very effective assist. You're forgetting that the sensitivity of modern digital cameras allow good signal to noise at high ISO and that some of the fast lenses available for m4/3 can give a usable image in typical ambient artificial light without any flash assist. And don't go telling me that I should be using a full frame. I do own a powerful add-on flash - but these days I almost never use it.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

TN Args

You can also use it by pulling the model near to a (neutral-coloured) side wall, hold the camera in portrait (vertical), and bounce the flash off the side wall. Gives a classy "sitting by the window looking at the world" look.

Nov 11, 2013permalink

tjbates

Everywhere else - this camera is a slam dunk. Strange that DPR thinks differently. The GH3 almost suffered the same fate. It was only for it's "video capabilities" that GH3 reluctantly gained the Gold award.
Looks like anything in this bracket is and will be compared to the OMD-EM5 from now on and for evermore. Fair enough, but the viewfinder eye cup will not fall off the GX7, the flash doesn't require two pieces of plastic to be removed and a separate flash installed, the menu layout on the GX7 doesn't require a diploma in frustration and the button layout and grip allows for one handed "eye-to-viewfinder" use- unlike the OMD-EM5.
I say this as a GH2 user and someone thinking of getting an OMD-EM5 if only for the fact that I've now got a fantastic collection of Olympus prime lenses. That said - the GX7 looks so much better on paper. It even shoots 25p video! I know the GX7 viewfinder is suspect but it's still so much better than the GH3 and OMD-EM5. IMHO.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

79% and a silver award is not a slam dunk? Its pretty damn good.

It was never going to go against the EM1 or GH3, they are PRO cameras.

its up against the EP5 and probably EM5 - it beats one and just 1% short of the other.. why all the angst?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Vignes

I think people are upset that Dpreview didn't give a GOLD award. I think it's not all about the points that determine the gold awards... similar confusion with Canon 6D 83% (Silver award)

Nov 8, 2013permalink

kreislauf

i think, awards or that score are nothing compared to owning that camera and USING IT FOR PHOTOGRAPHY or videography or a paperweight, WHATEVER SUITS YOU...
my nikon V1 got 69% and i loved shooting with it. i see the reasons for a scoring system but don't give too much on it.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Brian.T

Resolution of 4592 x 4584 ? Don't think that is correct

Other resolutions:
4592 x 3064, 4592 x 3064, 4592 x 4584, 3424 x 3424, 3232 x 2424, 3232 x 2160, 3232 x 1824, 2416 x 2416, 2272 x 1704, 2272 x 1520, 1920 x 1080, 1712 x 1712

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Jeff Keller

Thanks, fixed.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Timbukto

EVFs are like grips. Pretty individual in whether you like it or not. I can say that after using a Panasonic G3's EVF which made me literally *sick* to my stomach at times, I revolted against the idea of taking any EVF camera seriously. Eventually I got a cheap VF-3 for my E-PM2...this thing is almost B&W its color reproduction and resolution is garbage. Yet it does the job without ever making me feel sick. Have I bothered to figure out why there is a difference...not really, but I do know it doesn't effect different people the same way. I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to Panasonic EVFs now, but at the same time until I've tried it myself I can't say. The litmus test for me is to use an EVF while as a passenger in a moving vehicle.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

Now three weeks into upgrading my G3 and GH2 combo to G6 and GX7. For some reason with both on the shelf I'm grabbing the GX7 90% of the time. When I had a GF1 I took it when I really needed small, but otherwise preferred my DSLR or the GH1 once I had it.

For personal shooting - frost-kissed flowers when I first wake up, something impulse and not a planned shoot, I'm finding the GX7 often wins out over my DSLR kit. Only when I know that pixel count will matter - studio work for fine art prints I know will be printed large - is the DSLR an instant winner.

Raw image quality is a real upgrade from my last m4/3 kit. Handling is really nice, I put a hand strap on and have a long strap waiting to go on but think that might never happen, the camera really handles - literally - superbly.

The only downers: that wifi button has intruded way too often. For some reason my Nikon shoe flash don't fire reliably where the one Panasonic shoe flash I have does.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

King Penguin

Nice camera but sadly crippled by the small sensor.....I'll wait for the FF version from someone else.....

Nov 7, 2013permalink

photobeans

Crippled? It's made small intentionally so those of us who want small cameras and small lenses can pack it with 2 or 3 lenses in the back of the small pouch in our backpacks while mountaineering.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

What's the matter? Is a Micro 4/3rds camera not big enough of a crutch to make up for your mediocre photography skills?

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

mister_roboto

"What's the matter? Is a Micro 4/3rds camera not big enough of a crutch to make up for your mediocre photography skills?"

Really? Was that necessary?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

@mister_roboto You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Micro 4/3rds sensors are garbage. There's absolutely no way or how that you can get a nice picture in any circumstances out of any camera that has one. The OP is right, you can only take great photos if you have a FF camera in your hand. Who is behind the camera taking the shot matters little.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

mister_roboto

So... basically you're just being a jerk?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

King Penguin

Ouch......I'm just saying nice cam shame it's not FF. I've had M43, then APSC now FF. It's a nice cam but I'd miss my FF sensor and compact primes (AF-D lenses are pretty compact actually) too much.

By the way, I drive a BMW and use a iPhone, so there's a few other reasons to be abusive towards me.....

.....am I boverred?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

I disagree with your original comment but I take back what I said about "mediocre photography skills". I get irritated at how people just dismiss excellent cameras flat out because the sensor is something less than a full-frame. But at the same time I did nothing to elevate the discourse regarding this topic by taking a cheap shot at you regarding your skills as a photographer. So, my sincere apologies. I will try to keep it more civil the next time.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

King Penguin

You don't need to apologise, I'm English and therefore incredibily thick skinned.........you have to be, with a history like ours :)

As I said nice cam, shame it's not FF, maybe in a few years......

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Shamael

Mr vapentaxuser, I see that you are one more of those that believ that only the FF system is the real deal. Now, look at a shot taken by a 645 medium format and the same shot with a FF system, and then, FF is the garbage you talk about. All sensor sizes have a positive and a negative side, and that 2 sides again depend only on your own point of view.

If your intention is a shot with a limited focal plane where shallow DOF is important, and this is something you can achieve wit super fast lenses as well on smaller sensors, FF has this ability given by the sensor size. The ability of full in dpth sharmpness is on the other side not given to it for the simple reason that we do not move the lens to the right level to do this.

We stick with the same lens/sensor distance ratio, as well in a small sensor APSC, a FF dslr, or any other system. Even in mirrorless we keep a certain ratio to match the same specs as with a dslr.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Shamael

The result is an unmatched in depth sharpness when the sensor gets smaller, while shallower DOF occurs once you make it's surface bigger. A sensor in any size with the same pixel pitch will capture same detail and same resolution, and here it doesn't matter how big he is. A 12 mpix APSC is the same pitch and density as a 24 mpix FF, and once I look at my shots of D200 and see those of a 20 mpix Canon FF, I see the same resolution and smoothness with different DOF only.

The 4/3 sensor in 16 mpix has the same pitch and pixeldensity as the 24 mpix from Sony in APSC, and the shot he does is thus in the same quality, not in DOF, where you need a 0.95 Nokton lens to match what the APSC does with a 1.8 lens, or a FF with a 2.8.

Now, saying that all those sensors are garbage, is spreading garbage. There are enough samples and pictures all over the net to look at that prove the capacities of the 4/3 sensor in any way. FF is not the top of the iceberg, all depends of the goals you have.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

@Shamael I was being sarcastic.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Shamael

So, saying that a smaller sensor is garbage, is stupid. A 1" sensor draws heavenly good, even a 1 1/7 sensor does, all depends of the circumstances in which you use it and for what goal. At decent size of 5 x 8 inches prints, you wont see that much difference, and here again, only DOF can give you an idea of what sensor could have been used. Some are sharper in capture at base, some are less sharp. As an example, the 24 mpix Sony APSC sensor of the NEX-7. This sensor is used in many cameras, 16 mpix 4/3 from OLY is a crop of it, in all Nikon Cameras it is used, in Pentax latest K3 it is used, but in none of all that cameras, except NEX and Oly mirrorless, this sensor draws real sharp. On the other side, mirrorless often struggle with aberrations, while dslr's do here a better job.

One can't have it all, but after all, none of all hat sytems are garbage. 4/3 has proven to make excellent shots, with or without vapenatxuser claiming it to be garbage.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

@Shamael I don't think M4/3rd sensors are garbage. I was using sarcasm to get the same point across as you are.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

bluevellet

Shamael got his math seriously wrong, hopefully not a purpose.

Basically, in terms of depth of field (DOF), APS-C has a little less than 1 stop advantage over m43 and FF has roughly a 2 stops advantage.

So essentially, if you have a m43 at f0.95, you need around f1.2-f1.3 to match it with APS-C and f1.9 on FF.

Nov 8, 2013*permalink

LMNCT

One more point about the GX7. It has a setting for a "pinpoint" focusing target and it makes gaining focus on small subjects (eye of bird, etc.) a great deal easier than the large 'box' targets. Just a small point, but a very important one and one of the reasons that I purchase this camera.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Panasonic m4/3 cameras have had that feature since the G1 haven't they?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Gesture

Panasonic way ahead on focusing for YEARS. Spot and pinpoint focus, superb manual focus system. Never really ackowledged in reviews.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

LaFonte

I think it is well acknowledged. Panasonic was for years without question a top gun in contrast based focusing. Now it is starting to level up, but still take cameras like fuji x (I have one) and you would appreciate the panasonic speed.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

LMNCT

The EVF seems to be a point of confusion for those who do not enjoy eye-level operation. I own this camera and can tell you that the EVF is perfectly fine and a lot better than having only the LCD to deal with in bright conditions. If I had it to do over again, I would purchase the GX7 again. It is leaps and bounds ahead of the other bodies (both Panasonic and Olympus) which I own.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Valentinian

I respect this review. which proves once again to me not to make a judgement on a new camera based on its specs alone when it is released, but rather to wait for a professional review like this one.
btw, I was interested in this camera, not to buy it because am happy with my Em-5, yet interested to see the innovation trend taking a good direction.
Hopefully this trend will continue with refinements and improvements, and in a few years I will upgrade to a better camera.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

Infared

Some say the build quality on the GX7 is great ...some say it is cheap. I have never read so many conflicting remarks about the build of any other camera. I guess that it has to do with people's previous cameras, so it is all relative.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

khunstuart

Build quality on mine is spot on....

Nov 7, 2013permalink

toto435

GM1 seems to have better sharpness ?! isn't it the same sensor on both ?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Jeanadriane

JPG comparison...

Yes, it's the same sensor.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Seems like the GM1 has a little more moiré too, maybe it uses a simpler demosaicing algorithm that leads to more moiré but makes it look sharper.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

sbszine

Or a weaker AA filter?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Possibly, but the level of detail they're capturing looks around the same.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

108

I have no doubt that the IQ of this camera is on par with the EM5 and even EM1, plus you get built in flash, IBIS ( one of my major reservations with pana bodies ), better ergonomics compared to EM5, the excellent pana manual focus options, electronic shutter, iDynamic, etc...yet I have held it in store along the Olympuses and can't help to think it does not have the same built quality as the Olys ,it feels lighter, the EVF is way not as good as the EM1's, and very subjectively I think it is maybe not ugly but completely without inspiration , ordinary looking, flat. As for me I would put down the extra 2 or 300 euros and get the EM1 instead.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Len_Gee

the em1 looks ugly. A Frankenstien like cobbled together body. Tje appendage that is the grip, is out of place on the em1.

Not like the original classic EM-5 good looks.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

The Jacal

You should try one out, it is ergonomically superb.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

I think with EM5 they prioritised the looks, thats why ergonomics were not so great. With EM1 they went for function, hence great ergonomics but some people dont like the look. Whatever still looks much better than those D-SLR BLOBS

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Abaregi

I don't understand why people whine about scores.
All you need to know is in the review, try reading it.

If you think the Camera is a "gold" then good for you! You found a camera you love - go and buy it!

If you think the score should be lower - just don't buy it if it doesn't suit your needs - stop whining like an immature teenager.

I liked the review and the camera seems to be top of the class in m43 standards with the omd em1 depending on preference.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

TN Args

Your 24 'likes' must have all been by DPR staff. If your post was sensible, then we should not ever read the scores or the awards given to cameras. Nor should DPR publish them!

Fact is they COMPLETELY scre*ed up the review and scoring for this camera, in a way almost never seen before in DPR reviews.

Also FACT is that readers look to these reviews and scores and awards to help them to make decisions about camera purchases. Suggesting we shouldn't.... good grief, maybe DPR staff should approach their management and suggest they publish a big headline that their reviews are no use to anybody and should be ignored and preferably not read. The bosses (and advertisers) would be most impressed.....

Jan 1, 2014permalink

Gesture

Would create a new award level for this astounding camera: Platinum or Titanium.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Cane

you obviously don't shoot anything that moves, with AF?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

caver3d

And you obviously don't own the GX7. I do. Neither you nor DPReview know what you are talking about.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Simon Joinson

phew! good job someone does!

Nov 7, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

Hehe.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Gesture

How many cameras allow you to move the enlarged manual focus box or histogram wherever you want?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

It seems to me that -unlike in other disputed reviews- the camera per se is not bashed in the comments, but the review itself is. Good so !

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Demon Cleaner

Comparing the Pro's and Con's of the GX7 and its direct competitor the E-P5 are enlightening.

E-P5 Pro:
"Superb, high-res optional electronic viewfinder"

Yes, it costs $300 extra. You can get one for free with the GX7, but we're going to lob that in as a Con because we feel you need a $15 eyecup to use it effectively.

Leaves you dumbfounded after reading reviews that downplay poor ergonomics because you can purchase a $50 aftermarket add-on by Richard Franiec.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Percival Merriwether

I love my Lumix G5, and the GX7 looks like a real winner. Now, if Nikon would only make a full-frame version of a GX7, I'd be able to make use of all of my Nikkor lenses on a mirrorless body!

Nov 7, 2013permalink

jeffharris

I use all my Nikon AI-S lenses on my GX7 and GH2 with no problems at all. The Nikon macro lenses I have are excellent!

Adapting manual lenses is about the only way we m4/3 users will get telephoto primes to use NOW, while Panasonic and Olympus seem content to churn out zooms.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Owen

Nikon should have made it instead of their new Df.......

Nov 7, 2013permalink

jim stirling

"I use all my Nikon AI-S lenses on my GX7 and GH2 with no problems at all. "

There are a few problems Jeff such as the focal length doubling fine for longer lenses not so good for wider.There is no AF , and the lenses are often significantly larger and heavier than the native options.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

The closest thing to a full-frame GX7 is probably what Sony will be launching this spring...

Nov 7, 2013permalink

jeffharris

@ jim stirling

Of course the focal length is doubled. That comes with the territory. And yes, wide angles are sort of pointless, which is again, another given. But given the great selection of native M4/3 wide angles from various manufacturers (Panasonic, Olympus, SLR Magic and Voigtländer) and ultra-wides, like the 7-14mm, that's not an issue either.

As far as size and weight go, since my cameras weighs 10-12oz.±, vs. 2lbs.+, The size/weight of the body balance things out. The larger ones I only use with a tripod or monopod. For me, it's another non-issue. For others, of course it is.

The other point is that there are lenses, like long macros and fast prime telephotos that may never appear as native M4/3 lenses. For instance, even the Panasonic 150mm f2.8 is in limbo now, so, what's the solution? Switch systems? Wail about a lack of lenses? Or adapt… literally and figuratively. I prefer to adapt.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

whensly

I checked out this camera the other day, I own a GH3, and an LX7, have owned the GH1 and 2 and G3, so I'm pretty good to go with Panny. I found it bigger than I hoped, found the EVF small and uncomfortable. If and when the cam drops to $500, maybe. With my Fuji Xpro and Sony Rx1 I would probably choose to carry around a GX7 if it was just a bit smaller and cheaper. How about EVF capabilities on the GM1?

I have been pining for breakthroughs in the M4/3rd sensors which looks like a couple of years off. I figured Panny or Oly may pull the AA filter off the sensor and offer us that config to tide us over until a completely new sensor. Now I remember that Panny always had problems with digital noise so with these sensors so I'm guessing that will not happen.

With the great small camera big sensor offerings out there from Fuji , Ricoh, Nikon and I'm sure others, if I was not a legacy Panny owner I would probably have little attraction to the GX7.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

Jogger

Even though DPR keeps saying that the rating is separate from the assessment. I have to say that it really taints the whole review, to the point where i dont bother with reading the review anymore. The "best in class" RX100v2 and now this one are perfect examples of the disconnect.

Back in the day, I used to read them front to back, even on cameras i had no intention of buying. But, now there are other sources. I wont bother reading this one.

I bet DPR gets more page hits (i.e. more ad revenue) from the comments section than the actual review.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Iskender

Well, I guess you save time this way.

You *could* ignore the ratings instead, and read the content. But if you're that happy to just skip the content, you probably never liked it much in the first place. I don't think the rating has a lot to do with if the review is read or not.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

lookrndyou

Blathering on some more...

Sometime -- when -- IF? -- I get around to it, I can see dozens of menu items that may or may not come in handy. For now, the very basic and "photographic" parts of it just really work, and really work well.

The pictures, examined on the larger screen, simply impress and from long experience are what I bet are going to produce very beautiful prints, or any other end display.

I see it's traditional to include at least one whine, so here's a possible one. I'm a Photoshop user on a version a bit behind CC. Camera Raw can't "see" the RAW file version Panasonic has graced the GX7 with. This may actually be a blessing, since DNG Converter makes a good job and file sizes trimmed by 3-5MB each, of the native RAW files. So one extra step, for this workflow. YMMV. As they say.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

lookrndyou

(Blathering on...=)

The EVF feels and looks like a good SLR vewfinder and -- I know the nigglers who obsess on these things can tell me off -- the perception is of no delay in any of the process of taking a picture or looking at what you've done. At the moment of shutter release the EVF "blinks" dark, and so briefly it's only just preceptible. If I'm following a person walking across the street, the viewfinder image reappears so fast (really it's about like the dark interval using an SLR while the mirror is up, but, I'd wager, much shorter than that), and the lag is so minimal, that it is clear from what I see in the finder that the exposure happened when I hoped it would, and not...later. This last is confirmed if I shift my attention to my sly other eye squinting around the end of the camera.It's one very deep instrument.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

lookrndyou

Well, this will be 2 cents or a mere drop in a very large bucket. I am a GF1 fan and user, but the GX7 newly arrived is just so far beyond any (ANY) digital model I have ever used that I am simply overjoyed.

It sits in one's hand like a Leica -- or maybe like the OM-1 of yore. Controls are where they "should " be; almost from the first outing things seem to fall under my fingers without thinking about it.

The whole flow of taking pictures, being at the ready, and of the camera's overall quickness, make it a joy to use.

Then there is silent mode. There. I took a picture. Did you hear it? In fact, several.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

Even I'm a bit surprised on the final score and rating with this one, and I usually agree with DPR's conclusions.

And I do mean a bit, not a lot- as in a sarcastic reply. To me I thought the GX7 would get a gold award by dpr staffers, seems to tick off a lot of what they like in a camera. No worries though, there might be some intangibles mixed in there too with that score.

Personally I think the GX7 is the best camera for m4/3 Panasonic has ever built.

Carl

Nov 7, 2013permalink

From my use and discussing it with Jeff, I'd put it this way: the GX7 is really good, but not great. The tiling EVF is an interesting idea but if, like me, you're a bit sensitive to the field sequential LCD, then it's pretty much unusable (I'm going to check it against the G6, but it would be enough to stop me buying a GX7, personally). We didn't criticise it too hard for that, since not everyone notices/minds it.

The criticism of lack of stabilization for preview comes down to its intent - its inclusions, plus focus peaking should make this perfect for using old lenses on, but that's undermined by the lack of stabilization when you're trying to align your shots (there are also times that focus peaking only seems to highlight noise, so you end up using magnifies LV, where stabilization would really help).

The touchscreen interface is pretty good but it doesn't feel well integrated with the physical controls - there's massive and overwhelming redundancy...

Nov 7, 2013permalink

...None of the above are devastating flaws. Overall it's a very good camera, with the best JPEG results we've yet seen from a Panasonic.

However, in use it never quite lives up to the promise it offers 'on paper' - the whole isn't quite the sum of the spec highlights. At which point, against some cameras that are really well worked-out, that's a Silver (which still means this camera is really good), not a Gold.

To an extent, if it had achieved this much a year and a half ago, it might have been a Gold. However, arriving 17 months after the E-M5, it doesn't push the bar any higher (and arguably isn't as coherent a camera), so just misses out.

As always, though, if your needs differ and the things that we were disappointed by don't matter to you, then you're welcome to reach a different conclusion - we just hope our work helped in drawing that conclusion.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

To each his own. You do your job. And if you are particularly sensitive to field sequential EVFs, you have a personal point of view.
But I don't see your score as fair - the GX7 seems "really well worked out" to me relative to the nits you have picked.

A 79 is always basically a cop-out score. Give it a 78 or an 80.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

I agree . Too much personal likings/dislikings were used as pivotal arguments in the review. Sadly, it was not as balanced as I would have expected.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

The numerical score is based on our testing - the concerns we had about the consistency of interface, lack of stabilized preview, etc, aren't factored into the score. They're only included in the award chosen by the reviewer.

It's not a perfect system or one that it's possible to make 100% objective but, having been party to its development, an awful lot of effort went into making it as fair and consistent as possible.

Looking at the finer grained scoring, the score is around 0.6% lower than the E-M5, which sounds about right to me.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

Thanks for the reply Richard, I'm not surprised and it helps make more sense. For anyone who are negative about DPR's conclusion- they are absolutely entitled to it- why that is questioned on replies so often is beyond me.

To be surprised and mention it is one thing, to try and devalue their opinion or berate them, is intolerable to me. It's their opinion. We are all entitled to our own.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Richard, I have always respected DPR reviews, they were the one point of reference for me in the decision to buy a certain product or not. I know many camera dealers who link to DPreview when discussing camera specifics with customers. That is the more reason why I am not convinced this time. I feel your narrative in the review is balanced against the camera, can't help it.

While we are at that, would you consider to change the review in this point:

"The GX7's pop-up flash, which is released manually, has a guide number of 7 meters at ISO 200, which is typical for a camera in this class.

This flash cannot be used as a wireless 'master', though you can buy and attach an external flash that can serve that purpose."

This is objectively a false statement, the camera can indeed trigger wireless flash with the built-in pop up .

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

(unknown member)

Thank you Richard or taking the time to explain more about the context of the award. As one of the first ones that posted about it, I want to make clear i wasn't particularly upset just confused - more so because of the reasons given at the end (the three reasons).

This makes more sense even if ultimately I may not quite totally agree but makes me think and reflect a bit. Thanks for taking the time. Appreciated.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

"If it had achieved this much a year and a half ago, it might have been a Gold."

That's what's been bugging me. As great as it is, it kinda feels like it should have been launched a year ago, around the same time as the NEX-6 (probably its closest competitor). Tempting as the GX7 is, I can't help but wonder if by spring we'll see a 'NEX-6N' that blows it away. (It'll come sooner or later, of course, just a matter of when.)

Nov 7, 2013permalink

PicOne

Is the launch date a factor, or rather should it be.. how does it compare to other current cameras available in stores now? There is no Nex-6n yet.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

May we have the fine grained scoring on all reviews please.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

okfuture

Responding to HelloToe and R Butlers reply just above. He begins: "...None of the above are devastating flaws," and adds "it doesn't push the bar any higher."

That's the thing -- other cameras that have pushed the bar do have devastating flaws. The gx7 seems like an effort to bring polish, iQ, and usability into the complete package.

He references the e-m5 for achieving similar specs more than a year earlier. I'd rather have the same specs now, without the flaws: "Focus tracking distinctly unreliable ... Small controls sometimes awkward ... Several useful features hidden in obscure and confusingly-named menu options."

Nov 8, 2013permalink

moha

good article .. And Awesome blog i love this .. thanks

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

pedroboe100

Very little praise for the camera's amazing jpegs and color rendition in the conclusion. First camera I own that needs little or no retouching, esp. With WB.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

greenarcher02

Indeed. Although I almost always shoot RAW and like to play with different colors using split toning, the JPEGs from the GX7 and its WB is a vast improvement from the GX1.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Vinc T

Olympus has been offering that amazing color/jpg for a long, long time. So why the praise?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Iskender

Vinc T: Olympus are praised for good JPEG's, so why not others? The world won't run out of nice words.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Cane

I guess if it doesn't have pdaf for tracking like em1, you can't mention it. It got one sentence that it may hunt during tracking. How is this a huge deal on some cameras and barely mentioned on others?

Nov 7, 2013permalink

D200_4me

Once again, people have been personally offended and insulted by a review. ;-) The reviews contain a lot of useful information, regardless of the score given at the end. I know there are many other sites that have reviews, so rather than get upset about the score, I guess you could go look at another site that has a score you agree with? :-) I mean...if that makes you feel better. I've owned several cameras that didn't get a gold award here. So what? I liked them anyway.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

justmeMN

"Strong 'rainbow' tearing effect in EVF", "EVF is hard to see outdoors".

A $1,100 mirrorless camera that's not as good as a bottom-of-the-line DSLR.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

On the other hand a bottom-of-the-line DSLR viewfinder is smaller, darkens on DOF preview, can't be used for WB preview or image review and doesn't support focus peaking.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

greenarcher02

I haven't experienced the rainbow effect yet.

As for DSLR, I can't even use the viewfinder in dark places.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Fullframer

Cant use the viewfinder on a DSLR in dark places?? I have no problem using my D3S viewfinder in any condition. It is far better than any EVF ive used.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

rpm40

I would hope your $6,000+ professional 35mm body has a good viewfinder. :P

Nov 7, 2013permalink

I wouldn't call a D3S a "bottom-of-the-line DSLR" !

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Olymore

I have an Olympus OM-1n at home which makes the D3s viewfinder look like a dark tunnel and even that isn't as good as the latest EVFs in dark conditions.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Fullframer

D3S wasn't $6,000 it was $5,200 MSRP, I paid less than that before the D4 came out. That said, my D80 viewfinder was perfectly usable in dark places, which was a sub $1k DSLR back in 2006.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Fullframer

Sorry, but your Om-1N is a toy compared to a D3S or any other Nikon DX series camera.

Nov 8, 2013permalink

Summi Luchs

Silver award...so what. For me the GX-7 is the small and capable camera I was waiting for (years). It is right in the sweet spot between bulk, image quality and usability as a photographic tool. I have this camrea since it was available in Germany and have to say, that I'm not disappointed. Only few reasons left to take out my FF DSLR equipment anymore. I must admit that I do stills only, so the missing microphone jack doesn't hurt.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Why isn't the very useful feature of "Moving the enlarged area" when manually focusing an image mentioned as a positive point?
The review by DPR of the GX7 leaves me with a shallow taste , as if DPR was looking for reasons to downsize the merits of the camera .

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

DRNottage

Love the fact that manufacturers are wising-up and putting EVFs in, but these cameras end up so big, I might as well carry my Rebel- and my trusty Sony WX10 for awesome video, for plinking. Now IF it had a mic/ headphone jack...

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Demon Cleaner

So compared to the E-P5 the following is worth 1 point I take it? Congratulations DPR, you've outdone yourself once again.

* E-P5 is more expensive;
* E-P5 has no EVF, requiring a $300 add-on;
* E-P5 has a major fault: shuttershock;
* E-P5 applies focus peaking as an art filter, which reduces the display frame rate, stops the use of other art filters, and is unusable in video (where it's essential);
* E-P5's video quality is a mess with no 24/25/50/60p (no PAL frame rates);
* E-P5 has no electronic shutter;
* E-P5 wifi is only usable in iAuto mode (and unlike the GX7, no control of: WB, ISO, aperture/ss, exposure comp, focus mode, burst mode, bracketing, photo style, image quality, metering, flash mode, video quality and record options, stop animation, etc etc);
* E-P5's time lapse is limited to 999 exposures and doesn't put the camera to sleep between shots;
* E-P5 has no sweep panorama

Nov 7, 2013permalink

Yes, like I said here a couple of times but a nice summary. Also: all lenses will work perfectly fine on a GX7 while Oly does not correct panasonic lenses to the same extend as Panny does. So this cam is more universal as both stablise lenzes.
5-axis is all the EP5 seems to have left, unless I am forgetting something truely usefull.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

greenarcher02

Aesthetics, as some people like the Olympus designs better, but that's subjective.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

I was a bit disappointed with the score given, and the reasons provided for the score. They seemed like severe nit picking to me. If a professor gave me this mark on a paper, I think I would be justified in asking him to take a second look.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink

okfuture

I agree. They should stop doing the ratings if they aren't going to be consistent about them.

Just as one example -- they had lots of negative things to say about the X-M1 handling and use and positive things to say about the GX7 in this regard. Yet the scores show the reverse. Subjective reviews + scientific tests are great. But these scores are empty.

"We found this material to be a bit slippery, which doesn't give you a lot of confidence when you're holding the camera. ... Two other design-related things we weren't huge fans of include the very plasticky power switch / shutter release and the top control dial, which turns too easily and can result in accidental setting adjustment."

I take comfort in the fact that they didn't find any major problems with the GX7. After a few months of consideration, I can get this thing with confidence, sure it will be my camera for the next half-dozen years.

Nov 7, 2013permalink

mseawell

I'm at Ramstein Air for base in Germany. We have a mall and the guy that got me started was in (Chris has been shooting since the 60's) and he had the GX7. He let me handle this...gem. Fast AF, sharp, terric feel, ergonomically superb. Of course this is all personal but I can sum it up for you in one word...winner! I love the reviews on DP review but don't forget we all draw our own conclusions. You are upset it didn't get gold? Buy it and go out and take some award winning pics! The possibilites with this class of cameras (including the GH3 I received yesterday, the EM-1, EM-5, Sony A7/A7R are only limited by the photographer! People didn't like the GH2 (bad stills, just good for video) I have 9 IPA's HM's and 3 Spider Awards that beg to differ! Camera's are great but it comes down to the photographer. Love the GX7 and will (when money and Mama allow) get it.

Nov 7, 2013*permalink