• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Panasonic Micro Four-Thirds Camera: the DMC-GX7 (1 Viewer)

J

Jim M.

Member since 2007
Supporter
United States
Panasonic is billing this as their answer to the Olympus OM-D EM-5; it has a new sensor for which Panasonic claims better low light performance than the Olympus. Also has an EVF with higher resolution than other Panasonics, and a physical switch on the camera body to change between manual and auto focus--should be esp. handy when you can't get the auto focus to focus on a bird in dense brush. Will not be available till September in the U.S., and I believe these reviews are of pre-production cameras.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-expert-review-22581

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8599640731/panasonic-gx7-first-impressions-review

The first review says it compared the lowlight performance with the Olympus, and found that the Panasonic had less noise, but the Olympus had better fine detail. Certainly doesn't sound like a clear win for Panasonic for bird photography purposes. It will be interesting to see further reviews.

I'm considering upgrading to one of these two cameras, from my G3. Not dissatisfied with my G3, but just looking for something a bit better since I've had it for several years, and there doesn't seem to be anything much better coming soon. So far leaning towards the Olympus based on the remark on "fine detail"; also, it is now $100 cheaper than the GX7, has a weather sealed body, and like the GX7 a nice EVF. I also shoot mostly in JPEG since you get spotting scope class magnification with these cameras in that format using the virtual teleconverter option with no loss of image quality, I've read the Olympus has especially good JPEG processing. I would welcome any contrary or confirming thoughts on any of this.

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
J. Moore said:
Panasonic is billing this as their answer to the Olympus OM-D EM-5; it has a new sensor for which Panasonic claims better low light performance than the Olympus. Also has an EVF with higher resolution than other Panasonics, and a physical switch on the camera body to change between manual and auto focus--should be esp. handy when you can't get the auto focus to focus on a bird in dense brush. Will not be available till September in the U.S., and I believe these reviews are of pre-production cameras.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-expert-review-22581

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8599640731/panasonic-gx7-first-impressions-review

The first review says it compared the lowlight performance with the Olympus, and found that the Panasonic had less noise, but the Olympus had better fine detail. Certainly doesn't sound like a clear win for Panasonic for bird photography purposes. It will be interesting to see further reviews.

I'm considering upgrading to one of these two cameras, from my G3. Not dissatisfied with my G3, but just looking for something a bit better since I've had it for several years, and there doesn't seem to be anything much better coming soon. So far leaning towards the Olympus based on the remark on "fine detail"; also, it is now $100 cheaper than the GX7, has a weather sealed body, and like the GX7 a nice EVF. I also shoot mostly in JPEG since you get spotting scope class magnification with these cameras in that format using the virtual teleconverter option with no loss of image quality, I've read the Olympus has especially good JPEG processing. I would welcome any contrary or confirming thoughts on any of this.

Best,
Jim
Click to expand...

Hi Jim
I'm at the same sort of stage as you. Had the G3 for a few years and looking to see if there's anything available that might offer some improvements.

I notice that the Olympus is capable of shooting at 9fps, the Panasonic at 5fps, which is another variable I often consider. Both those burst rates are pretty decent (better than the G3). I do find that the burst rate drops considerably with the G3 if shooting at high ISO. It's definitely one area I'd like to improve upon with my next camera body.

Hobbes
 
Thanks for the comments Hobbes. One thing that should be mentioned is that the Olympus reported ISO is different from the actual ISO, so a shot taken when the ISO is set at 1600 is actually at 800--a somewhat dodgy practice. See here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5

I believe DXO mark measures performance against actual ISO rather than the camera settings, and the Olympus still looks like the best of the m4/3 bunch in low light performance. But they have not tested the GX7 yet, and I'm not sure how the testing in the reviews above was done.

Best,
Jim
 
Jim, I am still using my GH2, so no personal experience with newer cameras:

1) I was very impressed by high iso images from the GH3 when I looked at them online (from production level camera). I will be expecting that sensor to come into G type cameras soon.

2) when comparing images on the DPReview forums, the biggest difference in OOC jpgs between my GH2 and olympus models was with slight difference in white balance and a stronger use of vibrancy in the olympus jpgs. As I prefer raw images so that I can make my own compromised between noise and details, I can easily make the tweaks on vibrancy and white balance to get images that I prefer. Therefore, I do not feel this difference makes any real difference to me. (this image was shot at iso 3200 with my GH2: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/468823/ppuser/7427 -- I could probably have gone harder with noise reduction without loosing too much more detail, and I could definitely have selected the background and reduced noise selectively in that if I wanted to).

3) my most important point for choosing a camera is how easy it is to select a small focusing square and have it select only the head of a bird, for example. When the OMD came out, there were several people complaining that it was necessary to select focusing square again every time the camera had been turned off (I hope I remember this correctly - the forums at DPreview should be able to answer this pretty easily). If that is still the case (they could have updated the firmware) then the camera would be a non-starter for me.

4) I would love to have a good built in image stabilization in the camera body.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
1) I was very impressed by high iso images from the GH3 when I looked at them online (from production level camera). I will be expecting that sensor to come into G type cameras soon.
Click to expand...

DXO mark gave the Olympus sensor a slightly higher mark than the GH3 on low light abilities (probably too slight to be noticeable). As the GH3 is also bulkier (even more so than GH2 I believe) and more expensive, it doesn't appeal to me much--especially since one of its strengths is video, which I do very little of.

njlarsen said:
4) I would love to have a good built in image stabilization in the camera body.
Click to expand...

You did notice the GX7 has that? But why do you want it given IS is already in the 100-300 panny lens? What's the evidence that in-camera IS is better? (Just curious.)

njlarsen said:
3) my most important point for choosing a camera is how easy it is to select a small focusing square and have it select only the head of a bird, for example. When the OMD came out, there were several people complaining that it was necessary to select focusing square again every time the camera had been turned off (I hope I remember this correctly - the forums at DPreview should be able to answer this pretty easily). If that is still the case (they could have updated the firmware) then the camera would be a non-starter for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip (and comments on JPEGs). Maybe those who use the Olympus can comment on whether it needs to be reset.

Best,
Jim
 
J. Moore said:
DXO mark gave the Olympus sensor a slightly higher mark than the GH3 on low light abilities (probably too slight to be noticeable). As the GH3 is also bulkier (even more so than GH2 I believe) and more expensive, it doesn't appeal to me much--especially since one of its strengths is video, which I do very little of.
Click to expand...

I have read a lot of critique of how DXO mark does their testing, most of the points going above my head. That is why I felt it was prudent to look at some images myself, and I liked what I saw. One main point of this part was that I have difficulty imagining the sensor from GH3 not making it into other models, hopefully the G7?

J. Moore said:
You did notice the GX7 has that? But why do you want it given IS is already in the 100-300 panny lens? What's the evidence that in-camera IS is better? (Just curious.)
Click to expand...

I have read some reviews claiming that the olympus model is slightly sharper, and it certainly weighs less.

Another thing to keep in mind now that we talk waporware (cameras coming but not yet available in production models): the next olympus (OMD-1) should be able to accommodate the older 4/3 lenses, of which a couple has very good reputation ...

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
I have read a lot of critique of how DXO mark does their testing, most of the points going above my head. That is why I felt it was prudent to look at some images myself, and I liked what I saw. One main point of this part was that I have difficulty imagining the sensor from GH3 not making it into other models, hopefully the G7?
Click to expand...

I've read criticism of just about every review site--think it comes with the territory. I like DXOmark because it at least tries to use objective testing; you can "prove" just about whatever you want to prove by looking at sample shots in my experience. To be clear though, the DXOmark testing is confirming your impressions--GH3 currently seems best in class for low light along with the Olympus for m4/3. But I expect the GX7 to at least match it, and both it and the Olympus lack what for me are drawbacks of the GH3. The GX7 sensor is supposed to be new, so I'd expect it to be panny's best m4/3 for the moment, but that remains to be seen.

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
http://www.43rumors.com/ has a couple of posts on this camera, which is supposed to be announced in mid September. There are some leaked photos from it too. It is supposed to be able to use the older style lenses because of (1) PDAF on the sensor, and (2) either a built in or an included adaptor.

The site also has more on the GX7.

Niels
 
Hello everyone

i was going to start a thread about this GX7, but here i found it. not that i want to get a new camera but since i noticed that my 8 mouth old EPL5 is very fragile, and i am afraid it might not last as long as i want, i like to think of another camera to replace. the EP5 seem to be the best but the GX7 got my attention.

i can say a few points here.

1- 9 fps seem to be WOW but after i got it and used it i find it frustrating, birds always move and in many times all you 9 frames will be OOF, guess 5 fps would be best.

2- was disappointing about no less that ISO 200 and so is the case with the OM-D but after using it i fond shots in ISO up to 320 are practically noise free, can't say much about higher ISO values never used more than 800, that is really nice.

3- the in body IS is the best thing about GX7, it will allow using some marvelous Olympus lenses like the 12-50mm and the 60mm/2.8 macro, these are quire long and need IS. but when using long reach lens like the 100-300mm the in body IS does not work, you will have to use the lens OIS. and i think this is the case with the 200mm lens. the OM-D provide an interesting types of IS which i never understand.

4- not sure how the tilted view finder work but seem to be an interesting thing to know more about.

another thing might be silly but i find the OM-D design more elegant and brought back some lovely memories of the good old OM film cameras.

one last thing i am sure the GX7 will have a Wi Fi capability right.
 
Thanks Niels for the link on the forthcoming OM-D E-M1.

njlarsen said:
the next olympus (OMD-1) should be able to accommodate the older 4/3 lenses, of which a couple has very good reputation ...
Click to expand...

Which lenses are you referring to? Looking at the chart below there is a 300mm prime that weighs 7 pounds (cough, cough), and a 70-300mm Olympus with similar specs to the Lumix 100-300mm micro 4/3.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/lense.html

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
The 70-300mm for 4/3 is nothing like the limix 100-300mm, very poor in AF.

I think he is referring to the marvelous 50-200mm f 2.8 it is there best, and the 300mm prime is a truly remarkable lens, but very expensive (sniff sniff).
 
What I am most disappointed with is that long(ish) telephoto primes aren't even in roadmaps. I guess that 150/2.8 will lack reach for anything other than shooting from well prepared blinds, and even with hypothetical 2x TC it will be equal to 100-300's 5.6 at the long end. M4/3 needs decent 300mm f/4, until then I think I will invest in some older 300mm, f/4 or maybe even f/2.8, and focus manually.
 
kNikS said:
What I am most disappointed with is that long(ish) telephoto primes aren't even in roadmaps. I guess that 150/2.8 will lack reach for anything other than shooting from well prepared blinds, and even with hypothetical 2x TC it will be equal to 100-300's 5.6 at the long end. M4/3 needs decent 300mm f/4, until then I think I will invest in some older 300mm, f/4 or maybe even f/2.8, and focus manually.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the older Nikon 300/4 AF lens. A very sharp 300 mm and will work well with Micro 4/3 cameras.
Neil.
 
kNikS said:
What I am most disappointed with is that long(ish) telephoto primes aren't even in roadmaps. I guess that 150/2.8 will lack reach for anything other than shooting from well prepared blinds, and even with hypothetical 2x TC it will be equal to 100-300's 5.6 at the long end. M4/3 needs decent 300mm f/4, until then I think I will invest in some older 300mm, f/4 or maybe even f/2.8, and focus manually.
Click to expand...

I am also disappointed that m43 has not taken advantage of their 2x crop and produced a higher quality 300mm that can still be handheld.

Panasonic recently stopped development of their 150mm f2.8 and removed it from their lens roadmap. They are now focusing on smaller lenses for the GM1 camera. This doesn't bode well for something longer coming from Panasonic.

Olympus has 3 pro lenses in their recent lens roadmap. The 40-150 was just delayed until later this year and the wide angle zoom was pushed out until 2015. The longer telephoto lens won't come out until sometime after that (2016?) and we still don't don't know if it will be a prime or zoom, if it can be handheld and how long it will be. And when talking about something more than 2 years away the plans can always change.

I have been using the 100-300mm since I pre-ordered it just over 3 years ago. I have gone through 3 bodies and have enjoyed my GH3 for the past year. But I want to get a better lens and I don't see anything coming from m43 for a long while. With the latest Tamron 150-600mm announcement I have decided to switch to a Nikon mount version for this birding season. It will be heavier than what I am using now but I should still be able to handhold it. This will be my first DSLR so there will be some learning pains.
 
Last edited:
As I said elsewhere, there is a very heavy sigma 300-800 for m4/3 - other lenses might be coming from them. If I were to go the nikon/canon route I would probably do canon with a 7d and the plan would be that eventually canon has 400 5.6 and 100-400 that both weigh less than the tamron.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
As I said elsewhere, there is a very heavy sigma 300-800 for m4/3 - other lenses might be coming from them. If I were to go the nikon/canon route I would probably do canon with a 7d and the plan would be that eventually canon has 400 5.6 and 100-400 that both weigh less than the tamron.

Niels
Click to expand...

The 300-800 is certainly not handholdable. :)

The 100-400 didn't interest me that much due to it's age. The Nikon 80-400 would be a more significant upgrade with better IQ and IS as well as much faster AF.

The 400mm f5.6 is too limiting without IS. I would only use it for BIF which is only a small subset of what I take.

The Tamron is the only cheap 600mm solution that is only 1lb heavier than 100-400.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

yarrellii
Vixen @Six 6x18: quirky and surprising pocket binocular
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
has530
has530
yarrellii
Sky Rover 8x30 ED first (underwhelming) impressions
Replies
11
Views
2K
gcole
G
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
C
SWAROVSKI AX VISIO: MY LEARNINGS IN A NUTSHELL
Replies
18
Views
2K
Canip
C
G
New March Drawing for Kowa Optics
Replies
12
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top