The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GX7, the Swiss Army Camera?

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I hesitate before posting this as I don't want to start a pixelpeeper war.

BUT

My experience of talking to photographers earning a living from their cameras suggests that they would prefer better high ISO performance to get more available light opportunities when they have had to use flash in the past. Plus the benefits of speed/aperture that optional high ISO brings.

Most are happy with the number of pixels they already own.

Tony
I agree with that, but actually we are already there with IQ and high ISO capabilities in most cameras sold today. Definitely this is true for m43 since the introduction of the OMD.

So the question which comes up is, do we need even better high ISO? Are we all shooting surveillance or do most of us (including pros) shoot at least in low light? Photography is painting with light at least, so I think this answers the question.

Point with Pana sensors is, that so far their sensors were not so great low light performers, this might have changed with the GX7.

My point is, they are late to the game, given what the OMD offered already 18 months ago. Then concluding from that I could not care less about a slightly better high ISO performance compared to an increase to decent and versatile resolution - which for me is in the range from 20-24MP. I agree more is not necessary for most applications.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Yesterday I had the chance to finally play with the new VF4 (on an EP5). I had very high expectations in the IQ I would see when looking through - at least after all the overwhelming reports - but I was badly disappointed. While the image you see is definitely larger that the one in the OMD, the quality was rather below the EVF of the OMD. Plus I had the impression that the colors were still a bit off.
Peter
I own the VF-4 which I use mainly for macro with the mZuiko 60mm on the OM-D and we must have very different copies!!

The VF-4 resolves at twice that of the OM-D EVF with a very clear optically adjustable screen with very natural colours which is exactly what I need for nature photography in the wild. Add the fully adjustable to 90 degrees tilt it is the same as the GX7. How it compares in the metal so to speak, we shall just have to wait and see.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Peter
I own the VF-4 which I use mainly for macro with the mZuiko 60mm on the OM-D and we must have very different copies!!

The VF-4 resolves at twice that of the OM-D EVF with a very clear optically adjustable screen with very natural colours which is exactly what I need for nature photography in the wild. Add the fully adjustable to 90 degrees tilt it is the same as the GX7. How it compares in the metal so to speak, we shall just have to wait and see.
Great to hear your VF4 performs so well, I only can speak about my test yesterday and I was underwhelmed. Maybe there is a difference if you use it on the EP5 or the OMD - something like refresh rate ????

Even the Leica VF2 on the Leica X Vario performed much better IMHO.
 
Are we all shooting surveillance or do most of us (including pros) shoot at least in low light? Photography is painting with light at least, so I think this answers the question.
The pros I work alongside do just as much work indoors as outdoors. We are helped by the new fast f1.* primes that m43 has made affordable.

But stick your camera on auto ISO and see what reading it gives in your living room or office after dark with the lights on and I'd be surprised if you were seeing readings brighter than ISO1000. Move to somewhere more atmospheric like a bar or restaurant and you'll be nudging 3200 often.

Probably half my paid work is in these situations.

Tony
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The pros I work alongside do just as much work indoors as outdoors. We are helped by the new fast f1.* primes that m43 has made affordable.

But stick your camera on auto ISO and see what reading it gives in your living room or office after dark with the lights on and I'd be surprised if you were seeing readings brighter than ISO1000. Move to somewhere more atmospheric like a bar or restaurant and you'll be nudging 3200 often.

Probably half my paid work is in these situations.

Tony
I wouldn't dream about using auto ISO for paid work, but the I am a bit old-fashioned.
 
I wouldn't dream about using auto ISO for paid work, but the I am a bit old-fashioned.
Not old fashioned. Just stating the obvious :D After all we are PROFESSIONALS aren't we? We don't dig auto like the p&s brigade:eek:

My point though, was suggesting that you took your camera into an ambient lit room and then maybe into a bar or restaurant and let it tell you (auto saves time though unprofessional :) ) what ISO it needs.

Unless you are relying on the pancake primes you will almost certainly be groping around settings from 1000 to 3200. Give me a noiseless 3200 and I'll willingly forfeit the craved for 24mb pixels for my current 16mb.

How big do you guys print your stuff?

Tony
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Originally Posted by Godfrey
Are we all shooting surveillance or do most of us (including pros) shoot at least in low light? Photography is painting with light at least, so I think this answers the question.
You've misattributed that quote. I never said that.

With that understood, my 'indoor work' is usually done at ISO 800 to 1600. Yes, I've used higher too, once upon a time now and then. But I feel stratospheric sensitivity settings are just as much a marketeeting-driven silly fad as the massive mega Mpixel obsession. I'm much more interested in camera responsiveness, handling, and control ergonomics with nearly any recent sensor. I had occasion to pull out my ancient E-1 the other day and do some shooting with it. It's ridiculously quaint 5Mpixel sensor with a realistic ISO 800 limit for best results still returns beautiful results and allows me to capture amazing quality photos in dim circumstances. I've printed work from the E-1 at 20x24 inch size, which isn't easy but works very well. Aside from the lethargic write speed to card, the E-1's responsiveness in shooting still place it at the head of the class, even with an adapted manual lens it's ahead of the much more recent M9, six years newer, and its ergonomics are second to none.

I hope the GX7 can at least challenge that standard. ;-)

G
 
Last edited:
You've misattributed that quote. I never said that.

G
Sorry. I am not sure why your name got attached - but then I am not sure about the quote system here anyway:eek:

In the last year I have had to supply digital files taken from a quite old Ricoh DR. Also a low pixel count by today's standard and they have been used A4 in magazines.

Camera marketing staff find it much easier to talk pixel count than to tell the man in the street about noise reduction or shutter reaction. In my view that is what drives the industry and, in my view again, to our detriment.

Only this morning my dentist was asking what I though of the Nokia phone with its forty something pixel count. As soon as I moved the conversation to ease of use and speed of shutter button his conversation came to a standstill.

Who the heck wants a forty something pixel shot if the shutter has clicked the major part of a second later than you intended? But that sells Nokias!

Tony
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
How big do you guys print your stuff?

Tony
I have a photo taken with the GH2 and 7-14mm touring trade fairs as a background wall at the moment. The print is around 300 x 250 cm. The client complains that he can't read what it says in fine print on the machine parts, but his customers are very impressed :)
 

clay stewart

New member
I have been waiting for several years, for a camera like this, but perhaps, not this one. My first thoughts, after seeing pictures were - the EVF sure sticks out a long way and why did they have to make it tilt, if the LCD tilts the same exact way?

I've read a couple hands on impressions, that mentioned the EVF sort of catches on things. I wish they would have just did something like the Fuji XE1, instead of trying to be fancy, because I think they got so fancy that I'm not really interested anymore. I do like my new G6 though, with an all black 14 2.5. Maybe it's the "one" I've been waiting for - a mini R9 with a 28 2.5 pancake. :)
 

hot

Active member
You can build ANY camera with ANY viewer, ANY display, 100 milliards of pixels, 10 inch² sensors - and you ALWAYS will find 100 milliards of people saying:

I have been waiting for several years, for a camera like this, but perhaps, not this one.

Perhaps they should try a HelloKittyCam ...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have been waiting for several years, for a camera like this, but perhaps, not this one. My first thoughts, after seeing pictures were - the EVF sure sticks out a long way and why did they have to make it tilt, if the LCD tilts the same exact way?

I've read a couple hands on impressions, that mentioned the EVF sort of catches on things. I wish they would have just did something like the Fuji XE1, instead of trying to be fancy, because I think they got so fancy that I'm not really interested anymore. I do like my new G6 though, with an all black 14 2.5. Maybe it's the "one" I've been waiting for - a mini R9 with a 28 2.5 pancake. :)
The same was true of the viewfinder on the L1, and on the G1: they stuck a good way out the back of the camera. Having used both those cameras extensively for several years, I loved it: it made it a LOT easier to get my glasses right up to the viewfinder without smashing my nose into the back of the camera so I could see the whole EVF display. Never got caught on anything for me. And the tilting feature ... Absolutely excellent. So useful on a copy stand, when you're trying to shoot at a low angle in bright sunlight, etc.

As said before, any camera they make will have some people grousing. I don't know why, just seems to be the preferred activity of the current milieu.

The G6 does look nice too, and the resemblance to an R9 is quite clear. But the GX7 is closer to my personal preferences... ;-)

Godfrey
 

clay stewart

New member
You can build ANY camera with ANY viewer, ANY display, 100 milliards of pixels, 10 inch² sensors - and you ALWAYS will find 100 milliards of people saying:

I have been waiting for several years, for a camera like this, but perhaps, not this one.

Perhaps they should try a HelloKittyCam ...
Man, I don't want a HelloKittyCam. You have to admit, if they had kept it simple like a Fuji XE1, it would have been exactly what most of us had been waiting for. Now, it's just another compromise. Simplicity in design is was makes the rangefinder type camera so attractive, but Panasonic just doesn't get it. Sort of like they don't get that most people like black bodies, I guess.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Man, I don't want a HelloKittyCam. You have to admit, if they had kept it simple like a Fuji XE1, it would have been exactly what most of us had been waiting for. Now, it's just another compromise. Simplicity in design is was makes the rangefinder type camera so attractive, but Panasonic just doesn't get it. Sort of like they don't get that most people like black bodies, I guess.
Speak for yourself. The GX7 is pretty much exactly what I've been hoping for in the Micro-FourThirds line. It's not a rangefinder camera at all, neither are the Fuji X cameras. My M9 is a rangefinder camera ... there's a world of difference between that and any TTL electronic camera.

G
 
Last edited:

monza

Active member
I'd venture, by the very act of posting, that he *is* speaking for himself. :)

But he he did also say the evil Fuji word. ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Man, I don't want a HelloKittyCam. You have to admit, if they had kept it simple like a Fuji XE1, it would have been exactly what most of us had been waiting for. Now, it's just another compromise. Simplicity in design is was makes the rangefinder type camera so attractive, but Panasonic just doesn't get it. Sort of like they don't get that most people like black bodies, I guess.
To some of us, the tilting viewfinder is an excellent addition. I've been wondering why nobody else have done that after Minolta disappeared. The A2 was really one of the greatest cameras around.
 

clay stewart

New member
You guys are right, I guess I'm the only one that wanted a simple, XE1 style M43 body and quite frankly, you've made me ashamed of myself, for wanting such a silly thing. Silly me.
 

monza

Active member
Your error was mentioning Fuji. If you had said "You have to admit, if they had kept it simple, it would have been exactly what most of us had been waiting for" then there would not have been any blowback. :)
 
Top