Dpreview post GX7 studio comparison samples

Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8599640731/panasonic-gx7-first-impressions-review/2

From the looks of it, the sensor is on par with the E-P5 (and NEX-6) at low to mid ISOs, but at 3200 ISO and above it appears to retain more detail at the expense of a little bit more noise. This is probably due to the lack of an alias filter. For those who like detail, this might be the M43 camera to get. The GX7 might pan out to be a baby D800E!
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
Melbourne, FL
DPreview studio comparisons are useful because they are done carefully in terms of lighting and exposure that makes valid camera comparisons possible. (Most of what gets posted on the web as test shots are useless.) They updated their test scene and added some useful user features. One of the new features is the ability to view images from the different cameras resized to the same size. Personally, I compare RAW files when checking noise. JPGs are good for comparing in camera JPG processing. Using low ISO, RAW images can be used for evaluating sharpness, but this is highly dependent on what lens was used. There seems to be negligible noise differences between the GX7 & EP5. The two cameras also display similar amounts of moire. In the absence of definitive information on anti-alias filters, we're left to make inferences base on different lens DxO test results for the same lens tested on different bodies.

Based on what I saw in the DPreview samples gallery, I was very impressed with the GX7 metering. It looks like none of the shots were done with exposure compensation, and they were all looked pretty good. The color rendition looked very natural with a long tonal range. They don't look like default Olympus files, but in camera JPG settings can be changed for more pop. The files certainly look better than default GX1 files. Looks promising.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
620
Location
Alabamastan
Does the OM-D have that goofy keep colors warm setting? The OM-D output has a very strong yellow cast to it, wonder if they left that on? GX-7 output at high ISOs look much more natural.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
620
Location
Alabamastan
Some spots it looks like the GX-7 is saving more detail in the jpegs than the Nex-6 at high ISO. Looking at places like the lettering on the paint tubes and the playing cards in the upper right hand corner. Then other places like the tuft of green fuzz in the upper right hand corner the NEX seems to do better. I find the skin tones in the model images much more pleasing than any of the other cameras except for the 5D MKIII. The fact I am flipping a coin between the output of the NEX-6 and the GX-7 makes me want this camera even more.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
Melbourne, FL
The OM-D, like all the recent Olympus cameras has the keep warm setting, and by default it is set to ON.

Some spots it looks like the GX-7 is saving more detail in the jpegs than the Nex-6 at high ISO.
You're looking at JPG processing, possibly at default settings, so I wouldn't draw any sharpness conclusions. I know that with my GX1 the default NR setting gives soft files, but when turned lower the files are sharper with little or no added noise.


When DPreview runs a full review there will be lots of numbers, but it will still take a review by a good photographer, who knows what they're looking at, to give some idea what the relationship is between the numbers and how the pictures look.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
The OM-D, like all the recent Olympus cameras has the keep warm setting, and by default it is set to ON.



You're looking at JPG processing, possibly at default settings, so I wouldn't draw any sharpness conclusions. I know that with my GX1 the default NR setting gives soft files, but when turned lower the files are sharper with little or no added noise.


When DPreview runs a full review there will be lots of numbers, but it will still take a review by a good photographer, who knows what they're looking at, to give some idea what the relationship is between the numbers and how the pictures look.
For jpegs they still look pretty good. Though I've seen samples on the net where the GX7 looks really mushy with NR at high ISO. Also this sensor should be new, as it doesn't match the specs of either the OM-D/GH3:

From DPreview:

GX7
Effective pixels: 16.0 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors: 16.8 megapixels

E-M5
Effective pixels: 16.1 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors: 16.9 megapixels
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
Melbourne, FL
Lately, I've taken to doing flickr searches on gear I'm interested in. I check the EXIF data, which often contains JPG settings for things like saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc., and look at full res images (when available). A lot depends on the skills of the person taking the picture, but after looking at enough pictures I get a feel for the inherent characteristics of the gear.

It was a flickr search that convinced me that the EOS-M had some real image chops, and it does.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Still the cheapest aps-c sensored mirrorless camera with a fast lens. Plus Canon shooters can still go to town with the adapter.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
Melbourne, FL
Isn't the M-mount a dead end?
Dead as a door nail if you're trying to sell them, but I'm not trying to sell mine. Limited in the types of subjects that it's good for due to slow AF, but its basic IQ is very, very good. There is no $300 camera/lens combo that can touch it. With the right camera settings the JPGs are very nice; not quite as good as the 16 mp Olympus', but much better than the GX1. I just think of it as a poor man's X100. (I read a post by someone who had/has both and thinks the M has better IQ.)

I don't care if Canon doesn't sell any more lenses for it in North America, because I don't want a second system; just a walk around, fixed 35mm FOV fixed lens camera.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
Melbourne, FL
The NX300 with the 30/2 would actually be much better, because the focus is much, much faster among other things. Kirk Tuck has been very impressed with it, once he got past the lack of a viewfinder. Just can't buy one for $300 though.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
My local Best Buy has quite a few NX300s and have quit having Olympus in stock.

Thus in mirrorless systems, they maintain the following brands.
- Sony
- Samsung
- Nikon
The NX line is definitely riding the coattails of Samsung's success in other areas such as the Galaxy phone and notepad devices and TVs. If it they were solely surviving on cameras alone, I think they'd be in the same position of Olympus!
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
6,505
Location
Wolfe City, Texas
lol
Quoted for its comedic value !
I certainly wouldn't argue the point, but I had the X100 (not the s) and I don't think it had anything on the EOS-M as far as image quality goes - no contest for all other obvious considerations though (like viewfinder/general ergonomics).
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
Melbourne, FL
Michael Reichmann (Luminous Landscape) is trying out a GX7. He posted a picture shot with it. This doesn't tell me anything about the camera... yet. I will be looking forward to his comments because he knows what he's doing, knows what he's looking at and shoots with a wide variety of very good gear.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom