The numbering jump from 1 to (gasp) 7 indicates that Panasonic considers the Lumix GX7 more than a normal evolutionary upgrade. And they might be right, it certainly looks like a serious camera. I would call this a semi-pro camera at least.Most importantly, for the first time for a M4/3 camera from Panasonic, it has in-body stabilization (IBIS)! Hallelujah! The lack of that (meaning prime lenses don't get stabilization) has been, in my eyes and many others, the main Achilles Heal for the Panasonics, which otherwise are excellent. But now you can use for example Olympus' wonderful 45mm or 70mm lenses, and have stabilization on a Panasonic body.
It's a bit bigger than the GX1, but with the added IBIS and now a tilting screen and a tilting viewfinder (a first!), I think that's justified, and while it may make it a not-pocket-camera, it makes for better handling when shooting for realsies. This is a real camera, not just a holiday camera.
I think it looks really nice too, maybe their best looking M4/3 ever.
I started with Panasonic when the M4/3 type cameras came out, because the Olympuses had slow autofocus. When Olympus got that fixed (and good!) I moved to them because they have in-body stabilization. And now both brands are up to snuff in all important areas, it's a tough choice!
But then you can mix and match like I said, for example use Panasonic, but take advantage of some of Olympus' top-notch prime lenses. Or use Olympus and take advantage of some of Panasonic's great zoom lenses, like their newly upgraded compact 14-140mm. It's all good.
4 comments:
It looks very nice. Sometime in the next year I will be replacing my GF1 and it will be great to have multiple choices. There is also the prospect that Panasonic will update some of there other cameras to also have in body stabilisation, giving us possibly the GF7, G7, and GH7 as choices, and Panasonic fixes their numbering scheme.
Looking at the progress in this market, will we see the end of the APS-C DSLR market in a few years, as DSLR become the tool of professionals and very serious amateurs who expect full size sensor, and anyone else who is serious about photography, but not too serious buys a fully electronic camera.
Very good question.
I dunno. Reduced-sensor DSLRs may seem a bit redundant. But then they are cheaper than mirrorless ones, for some reason. And the jump up the full frame is a *big* one, both in price and in size (not the least the lenses).
Also, there's the big legacy of lenses, particularly for Nikon and Canon.
Yes, still a gap but the gap has been closing. Considering that we used to have full-frame film cameras I don't think they need to be made as large as they are.
Anyway, teh photography business is rather strange, and it is hard to predict what people will want. I printed off an A3+ print recently, for the first time in years. It looks fantastic, but that is achieved by having the camera on a tripod and soft lighting. Most people have never seen anything of their own at that size, but it still doesn't stop them buying 24MP cameras.
Yes, a good 10MP looks great in A3, perhaps even A2. (I've done it, I have an A2+ printer.)
Post a Comment