Panasonic Lumix DC-GX850 real world samples

"...Like the GM5 it replaces, it's just barely coat pocketable with its collapsible 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens attached...."

I don't understand this (above) in the description. Today I walked about with my GM5 and Panasonic 42.5mm f 1.7 attached, and no problems getting this in my coat pocket. No weight problem either. The kit lens would be even smaller.

5 months agopermalink

Big coat, big pockets.

5 months agopermalink

Allison Johnson

I guess my coat pockets might be on the smaller side, it does just barely fit with the kit lens.

5 months agopermalink

zakk9

I carry the GM5 with the 12-32mm in the cargo pocket of my shorts or trousers all the time. It's the camera I choose when I don't want to carry a camera.

5 months agopermalink

I took a look again at my GM5 with the 42.5mm f1.7 stuck on it. Basically the body is a pack of cards. The lens while mounted, basically makes the entire thing add up to 3 packs of cards, including the empty space around the lens.

With the 12-32 it's two packs of cards - tops. I dont think I have any coat pockets that cant fit two packs of cards.

5 months agopermalink

Allison Johnson

Sorry guys, it's been a while since I've used the GM5. I guess it's smaller than I remembered, I stand corrected and I'll make an edit to the article.

5 months agopermalink

CallumG

Good image quality. Particulary impressed with recoverable shadow detail. I'd actually put it on par with a Canon 760d for RAW malleability.

5 months ago*permalink

But is that "RAW malleability"....or the JPEG processing settings not adequate for what the camera can do?

5 months agopermalink

Sir Nick of High Point

One of my favorite sets. Great shots!

5 months agopermalink

aliasfox

I don't think there are any surprises with this model, though there really shouldn't be. The internal platform really hasn't evolved much since the GM1/5 and GF7/8.

My opinion is that if you don't need 4k and can live without DFD, it might be a better option to look for a lightly used GM5 on ebay. You can get one for a little cheaper than Amazon's price, but you get a metal build and a viewfinder. Got the fiancee one of those a few months ago (after I botched an attempt to fix her GF3), and she likes it a lot - and surprisingly, I like it a lot more than my Oly E-PM2 that I use as my smaller body when I don't want to break out the E-M1.

Comparatively, you'd only be able to get an RX100 II for this price, with the slower lens - I'd personally trade a bit of kit-lens reach for some flexibility of being able to throw on a 20/1.7 (or 14/2.5, or 17/1.8) indoors/at night.

5 months agopermalink

tkbslc

Even the 1" compacts with the "slower lens", have f1.8 or f2.0 at the wide end. Meaning they still have a lot of low light ability.

5 months agopermalink

aliasfox

True, though I wouldn't mind the option of having f/1.8 at 90mm eFL, or the option to throw on a 40-150 for more range.

Any of the RX100s is a great multipurpose jacket pocket camera, but for me, personally, I'd like the option to switch out lenses as my needs grow.

5 months agopermalink

"...Even the 1" compacts with the "slower lens", have f1.8 or f2.0 at the wide end. Meaning they still have a lot of low light ability..."

But all those cameras have lenses that are nominally "F1.whatever"...yet not very good at all at that setting. So it's a marketing spec.

5 months agopermalink

tkbslc

You aren't making sense, I'm sorry.

5 months agopermalink

Aroart

It would be supper awesome to have a smackdown of this vs a Sony rx100v or even Pani own lx10... yes I know there are a 1 inch sensor..

5 months agopermalink

Wcure

Very nice photos

5 months agopermalink

mcshan

Would be fun to see shots with the 15mm 1.7 or even stealthier older 20mm. Glad that they kept the GM1+5 line going.

As it is with just the small kit lens these look good.

5 months agopermalink

yslee1

This is more of a GF than a GM though. I really liked the GM cameras, missed the huge clearance sale over them.

5 months agopermalink

Expat Nomad

Some moire, however a little sharper than my GM1. The E-shutter still looks like it drops the capture depth to 10bits. Colours have improved - I quite like them.

As good as the kit lens is, buy a cheap 20mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8, and you hardly need to use ISO above 800.

The challenge is the shutter use on bright days, where the overall potential of the camera with good primes and wide apertures is wasted by the requirement for E-shutter.

5 months agopermalink

"...As good as the kit lens is, buy a cheap 20mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8, and you hardly need to use ISO above 800...."

Not true. Definitely not in "P" mode. Not in Intelligent auto mode ether. Even in Aperture priority, you'll find indoors n low light our outdoors at night it goes to shutter speeds you might not like, even if you cap ISO at say 1600 let alone 800.

5 months agopermalink

BarnET

Better to Get the 42.5mm F1.7 these days.

Slightly better optically and stabilized.

5 months agopermalink

eno2

A nice entry LV camera and the 4K video is a very nice bonus.

5 months agopermalink

Autriche78

I had this and loved it. The kit lens is super sharp and the interface is brilliantly designed once you get the hang of it.
I returned it because it fell apart at higher magnification, especially over 1600, and my Fuji X-series experience has spoiled me badly when it comes to being able to shoot at pretty much any ISO.

I also ran into shutter shock almost immediately when using the Panasonic 45-150. And I did want to add zoom capability, so that was a deal breaker for me. Even with electronic shutter, I was getting smearing and ghosting on some pictures at higher shutter speeds. Couldn't figure out what the cause was - one picture would have it, the very next wouldn't.

Having said that, if you are happy with shooting below 1600 and foregoing enlargement and pixel peeping, it's a really beautiful, tiny camera with unbelievable AF accuracy and very responsive with the kit lens. I had zero issues with the kit lens and the camera. Only when I added the zoom did I have issues.

5 months agopermalink

BarnET

As a guy that can still compare the 16mp X-trans with the Gx8 i have to agree.

Panasonic knows how to make camera's work very easily. They don't get enough credit for their touch UI's which have been among the best for the last 6-7 years.

But the smaller sensor does have limitations. (Also advantages made clear with the noticeably smaller lenses)

5 months agopermalink

Vit Adamek

That's strange you had run into shutter-shock issue with this camera. I shoot, amongst other cameras, Panasonic GM1 with Panasonic's 45-150 which is supposed to have same shutter-shock-proof shutter mechanism and never seen a hint of a shutter-shock on that camera.

5 months agopermalink

What does this device cost? The image quality is way below par. Despicable.

5 months agopermalink

cameron2

> What does this device cost?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=panasonic+gx850+cost
(Or just look at the Amazon ad on this page that shows $547.99.)

> The image quality is way below par.
Strange. I looked at the images, and they looked like what one would expect from a modern digital camera with consumer grade glass and a 225mm^2 sensor in a compact consumer-oriented body. Do you have any specific issues that you would like to highlight that show that the image quality is out of the expected range considering, um, say physics?

> Despicable.
Yeah. Good, rational point.

5 months agopermalink

harsh criticisms for a sensor of 225 sq mm ... most people who use and admire the output from m\43 realize there is a trade off from say , ff but the small size of bodies ,deep dof often useful, and small lenses but know that this sensor produces lovely excellent quality files at reasonable ISOs and can even give a usable 4x6 print at 3200\ 4000 ISO

yet everybody praises the i inch sensor in the sony rx100 series 1 inch sensor at 116 sqmm , literally 1\2 he size????...and performance
or the confetti siaed sensor in the iphone at about 17.5 sqmm? ... dont even ask..............

all kinds of love for those .....go figure

5 months ago*permalink

Let's be honest fanboys.

Have a good, long, serious look at the image gallery, through a well calibrated high quality monitor.

These images are comically bad.

5 months agopermalink

the only fanboys i know of are the ones who deride cameras they never use sensor formats they dont understand or appreciate the capabilities of,

and then ride off into the wild blue happily shooting away with their iphones
happy with its output

you cant make this stuff up

5 months agopermalink

@cameron2: Relating perceived image quality to physics is by far the most stupid statement I've ever ever seen here, and it's only early March.

Physics have nothing to do with perceived image quality. Image quality is either good (or maybe very, very good), or it's (laughably in this case) bad. Regardless of the sensor size or quality or film size or quality that image is a result of.

Stop staring at your own gear driven navel.

5 months ago*permalink

@Cosinafile: I looked at the images (did you?), not at the gear or the "physics".

What does that make you?

5 months agopermalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

Mike,
What do you find bad about these images?

5 months agopermalink

Everything, except the photography and the subject matter.

5 months agopermalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

Thanks for being very specific. Do I detect a kind of jealousy from a Nikon fanboy? Could very well be the culprit here.

5 months agopermalink

à JeanPierre: Jealous of whát exactly? ROFLMAO!

5 months agopermalink

s1rf4n

Compared to MikeF4Black's Nikon 810 these are lacking in quality...that being said however looking at these photos on a large calibrated screen..they are not bad at all..calling these laughable shows an obvious lack of photographic integrity. Nice work from the DPR staff on putting these together.

5 months agopermalink

Karroly

"The image quality is way below par"
What is par ? If you mean FF or APS-C then you compare apples and oranges.
If you mean other M4/3 gear, please, give us a name...
When I look at picture #3, #14 and #30 taken at both ends of the zoom and full aperture, I can see a quite good lens.
When I look at picture #25, I cannot see any chromatic noise in the shadows and the luminance noise is barely noticeable, while the camera is still good at retaining a good level of details.

5 months ago*permalink

For all commenters: I don't relate image quality to gear, I relate image quality to image quality. I look at each image on its own, and I form an opinion of its quality. The 'gear' used doesn't come into it, it doesn't interest me.

Geddit?

5 months agopermalink

Revenant

Well, photography and the subject matter are what counts in the end for most consumers. IQ problems that require pixel-peeping or a "good, long, serious look" to be discovered, simply won't be perceived by the majority of people, who enjoy looking at pictures rather than pixels.

5 months agopermalink

@Revenant: (cold out there?) You mean good photography doesn't merit a good, long, serious look?

Oh well...

5 months agopermalink

JeanPierre Thibaudeau

To Revenant
I agree with your statement, that's why most people are satisfied with the pictures that they take with their smart phones. And to add to this, the screen on their phones is usually bigger than the ones on expensive cameras. Efficience and portability at once.

5 months agopermalink

Revenant

"You mean good photography doesn't merit a good, long, serious look?"

That's not what I meant, and I think you understood my point.

5 months agopermalink

@Revenant: "most consumers" and "good photography" or, to be more precise, "good photographs". Not the same thing.

5 months agopermalink

panther fan

@MikeF4Black
We could all agree with you, if you tell us what you think is wrong. To much cromatic aberration? to much noise? lack of sharpness? lack of micro contrast? etc...
Just saying it is bad is no proper statement

5 months agopermalink

s1rf4n

@ Panther fan....What is wrong is Mike uses a large 2800$ 36.6 Mpeg FF camera body that is capable of outstanding photos. Apparently Mike believes this Small lite weight 500$ body from Panasonic should be able to take as good a pictures....not realizing that if this was the case Nikon would be out of business for sure.

5 months agopermalink

@S1r... uhh, got confused, can't remember.

Anyway, I don't "apparently believe" anything.

Again: I JUST LOOK AT THE IMAGE QUALITY!

Photographical technique, fine, subject matter, fine.

5 months agopermalink

panther fan

Your comments are despicable. Apparently there doesn't need to be a reason.

5 months ago*permalink

Karroly

@MikeF4Black,
Apparently, you can put words on what you find good : technique, subject, but as "panther fan" points it, you are just not able to put words on what you find bad...

5 months agopermalink

@Karolly: Yes, I know, I'm verbally challenged. Please don't hold it against me.

5 months agopermalink

zakk9

MikeF4Black's argumentation reminds me of a 6 year old boy that I encountered once who, when confronted with a well assorted breakfast table stated "I don't like anything on this table". It would be interesting if you could specify exactly what you think is bad about these photos.

As for myself, I sold my D810 a year ago and now take photos, also commercially, exclusively with a GX8 and a GM5. Although the D810 offered better image quality, the change has not affected my ability to sell my images in any way. Rather the opposite actually, since the lighter kit enables me to carry my cameras in situations where it wouldn't have been possible or desirable with the heavy Nikon gear.

5 months agopermalink

MyReality

"the pictures look bad" is totally subjective and has value only to the person make the statement. In some cases the picture will also look bad when taken with a 8x10 view camera. The sun looks bad to me. The point is that the statement is not relative to anything, so it has no meaning to anyone else.

5 months agopermalink

yes i looked at the images

that makes me....... someone who looked at the images .

5 months agopermalink

Vit Adamek

@MikeF4Black
I am starting to strongly believe that micro 4/3 is the best system for budding amateur or GASy enthusiast, or a second system for pros for private shooting and travel. So many bodies to choose from, great selection of native lenses. Great adaptability of vintage or other system class. Great portability vs image quality and that will get only better as the sensor tech advances and hopefully even leaps at some points. 12mpix BSI micro 4/3 without anti-aliasing filter anybody? Great IBIS + Dual IBIS. Focus tracking is getting there as well. Good control over depth of field. Etc, etc, etc... :-)

BTW: the only thing sub par was you initial comment :-P

5 months agopermalink