Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Real-world Samples


We’ve just published a gallery of real-world samples shot using the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7. The GX7 is Panasonic’s latest Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera, and one of the company’s most interesting models yet. It features a new 16MP sensor, tiltable EVF and LCD, and offers several enthusiast-friendly features including highlight and shadow tone adjustment, an electronic (entirely silent) shutter and in-body image stabilization – a first for Panasonic. Click the links below to view our gallery of real-world shots. 

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Samples Gallery

There are 33 images in the Panasonic GX7 samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don’t abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the ‘galleries’ section of, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Samples – Published August 14th 2013

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7



I am sold finally. I was holding out for long as I have a significant investment in Canon already for an amateur hobbyist. So it was never a real need to change to a different system. But the convenience of M43 and great design and IQ of GX7 has me convinced to have this as another alternative to lugging the heavy DSLR kit. I always liked the L1, LC1 era cameras from Lumix. Panny finally has gone back to the rugged, semi-retro design – I like it.


The second bar shot of the two guys taken with the 20mm has just sold me the camera and lens. As someone who does a lot of indoor family shots, I hate noise or using the flash indoors, reserving the flash for fill in outdoors. The bar shot is clean and the dynamic range good enough that one can ‘feel’ the warmth of the sun. Now to find £1000.


Pretty decent hi ISO results considering they are jpgs, but the real test will be RAW, but it’s encouraging.

I like the look and size of the GX7 and it has an EVF built in. Not going to trade in my OM-D anytime soon but it appears we are at the point that no matter what size sensor you get now from m4/3 up, you really can’t complain too much about IQ any more. Yes bigger sensors will always do better, but there has come a point that the m4/3 are very good and good enough for most people.

Doesn’t mean I will be selling my DSLR’s though as there are plenty of other reasons to keep them for many purposes but the list is shrinking.


At least there’s consensus.

Peter Gregg

These images are surprisingly good. High ISO with the kit style lens delivers very usable pictures and can easily be made even better. I am really surprised the high ISO did this well. I have the OMD and the GH3, and these ISO 12800 and 25600 ISO pictures are much better. An this is only from JPG? if you can handle LightRoom like a master, the final images will be even better. If you have a few tricks up your sleeve than these images look like they can take on a larger sensor camera with ease. Well done.


Looks like we will have to be shooting in RAW with the GX7. These JPGs are of poor/horrible quality in the normal ISO ranges. I don’t look at the gimmicky ISO ranges that sell cameras, just ISO 100-1600. I will keep my fingers crossed they were processes via software for the web and not straight out of the camera.

Image samples are always hard to decipher, was the shot done to show the camera’s dynamic range, color rendering, focus accuracy, etc…?


I agree and wrote pretty much the same below, but a lot of people disagree with me. You wrote exactly the same thing I did.


Few cameras except for the original Fujifilm X100, the X-Pro1/X-E1 and some of the Olympus m43 cameras have super high quality JPEGs. But even those aren’t perfect.

But if you think the first few 20 f/1.7 portrait images or a base ISO image like P1000067 are “horrible quality”, I’m guessing it’s because either you didn’t bother downloading the original files or you are pixel peeping the heck out of the images at 100%.

The first image at ISO 3200 has some obvious NR, but looks great at normal size, certainly as good or better than any EM5 JPEG at ISO 3200.

But with NR set to normal on any camera you’ll get similar results, but even so images are sharp and detail smearing is kept to a minimum at most reasonable ISO. And fortunately colors are not overly warm like some Olympus JPEGs.

But I don’t know a single enthusiast who actually shoots JPEGs with a kit lens, so why even bother making a big deal about OOC JPEG web samples?


@marike6, you are correct, I am picky but I have owned many cameras and didn’t say my piece lightly. (I own the X100 and you are right on the JPG output — plus you have to deal with the write speed buffer).

I did view the full image and -sorry- they look like a point and shoot quality. It would be nice to have a great JPG engine so that it provides camera owners one more option when shooting.

Everyone bashes “pixel peepers” but yet there are numerous reviews, tests, and webpages dedicated to it. Don’t hate the peeping. One day you may need to crop and it sure is nice to do it when your image isn’t crap at 100%. I occasionally see a better view in processing and have options to crop and still print large.

I also agree with you that JPGs are for either casual images, or for family sports where fps matter. Crappy jpg output isn’t a deal breaker, but it does increase the workflow and nice to know ahead of time.


The full potential of the m4/3 system finally looks to have been realized with the GX7.

The JPEG images from the sample gallery look encouraging. Very encouraging indeed.



This GX-7 raises expectations, it comes with nice ingredients. But as a “mostly daylight shooter” these first samples are disappointing to me. As a APSC User with 2.8 Zoom there is nothing in these (daylight) pictures that attract me in any way.
High Iso Performance seems to be good but what I see in bright light or orange saturated evening light is just not a reason to change system. A DSLR might be heavier, but takes just the better picture.


“A DSLR might be heavier, but takes just the better picture.”

A few shrunk jpegs from an otherwise untested camera and you’ve already cast judgment that all DSLR’s are better, especially in bright or evening light? Surely you’re joking.


Always so difficult to tell with these “sample photos”..

I am VERY interested in the GX7 but completely opposed to “pre-ordering” cameras. Besides all the other manu’s have new cams being announced in late August and September. If a mirrorless Full Frame cam with interchangable lenses comes out I’ll go for that.

As a matter of fact if Panasonic can fit a FF Fovenon into this body I might just pre-order 🙂


It exists; Leica. It fills the specifications of a mirrorless camera, just people dont think of it like that. You can adapt almost anything to it apart from lenses that are really too small for FF image areas.

Mikhail Tal

These pictures are as good as anything I’ve ever seen from any APS-C censor camera.


Really? They look OK, but don’t exaggerate.


these honestly look very poor. Looks like noise reduction is eating the details like there is no tomorrow on these, I assume all Jpegs. I will reserve my judgement til I see Raw files, but Panasonic once again proves that its jpeg engine truly sucks. Just check out Olympus OMD or Fuji XE1 jpegs for a change

M Hamilton

Care to point out any specifics, because the globe shot completely disregards your comment, at ISO12800 might I add…

Demon Cleaner

I have to agree with M Hamilton, Absolutic. I’m guessing you didn’t read the exif data before making that comment? I wont take my OMD above ISO3200, but the ISO 6400 and even ISO12800 samples here are very impressive. I’d be happy using them.


I agree with Hamilton as well. That 12,800 shot is very impressive.

For me the test of a good system is what happens when you go indoors and this unit gets it done really well.

Stu 5

Absolutic could be referring to the other 12,800 photo of the carpets which is not good at all where there is a lot of noise reduction loss even before you check out the full resolution image.


add another who disagrees. Even if you are talking about the underexposed area in the ISO12800 image, overall it is still impressive. My Canon APS camera would look worse.


Well I will review them again on my iMac when I get home, but on my work computer (which is a PC, yes, but with a 24inch monitor). I did not look at ISO12800 photos because nobody shoots at ISO12800. However, shooting around ISO1600-3200 is relevant and I was looking at ISO2000 and ISO3200 portraits. Specifically the first two photos. I see loss of detail due to noise processing. It is hard for me to compare to OMD at ISO3200 because i don’t shoot OMD at JPEG either, I don’t like how it renders photographs at higher ISOs in JPEG. However I do shoot OMD in RAW up to ISO3200 and get consistently good photos with lots of detail at ISO3200 which clean up easily in Lightroom. Example


some makers cook raw files heavily, too. for JPEG, I think Pana has less failures/artificials than Oly or Pentax.

anyways we cannot just judge by these samples because we don’t know the environment or the subjects, what they really look like.

I suggest shooting a same subject with random fine details from a tripod at base and high ISO settings, so that we will be able to see how noise reduction can perform (better all high ISO shots come with a base ISO one as much as possible).

Mario G

The text on the globe (around central/SE China in particular) is almost unbelievably sharp at 100% crop.

Vlad S

@Absolutic: I opened the first two male portraits at full size, and they are plenty detailed. Especially the older man’s – the pores on his forehead are very clear, and the hair in his moustache and beard is very crisp. Looking at your image though, I don’t understand what your beef is – the skin is smoothed and looks completely waxy, and the eyelashes are all smudged. I can’t see how your image is more detailed than the GX7 samples.


@ Absolutic, I completely agree with you. Ignore the buffoons that are saying “12800 looks great what are you complaining about” nobody shoots that so why not look at the ISO 200 shot with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 (the little girl, birdhouses, etc…) and then post a comment. They look like crap for IQ, but good for colors and dynamic range handling.


Chris96326, I am glad someone saw exactly the same thing I did.
Vlad, what can I say, lets agree to disagree.


Any chance of taking a long night-exposure of the stars, aurora or a night cityscape? Something in the 10 second or more range lowest ISO and ISO400 or more would be awesome, as that is something all of my micro 4/3 cameras over the years would struggle with. Lightning shots were never really “pow” shots like with my old Sony DSC-R1 had.

I’ve owned G1 and the GH2, and after a few tries with long night exposures, have sort of put it aside until technology catches up on these smaller cameras.


hi, I didn’t even have any problems with my G3 and could produce better results than some apsc cameras. there are no stars in my tumblr, but some long exposures, mostly 60 sec exposure. I did stars too, it works…. the epl5 has a much better sensor than the g3 and the results are amazing.


Lightning shots are no problem at all. May be it were the lenses? I have shot lightning with the GH2 and it was okey. The GH2 sensor is really much better than your Sony sensor in that cam as nice as the R1 was. But I recently took some lightning shots under subpar conditions (did use a tripod because I forgto it, so they are just fixed on my dashboard…).

EPL5 is clearly better than Gh2 though that is true.

draschan the winning picture got shot with an omd


The OMD is great at it from what I have seen, no argument.

The older Panasonic sensors (G1, GH2) would produce a mottled-looking dark background instead of a film-like grain gradient. Also they are very bad at hot pixel noise, which is worse the longer the exposure no matter the ISO or using dark-frame. You can get fake stars in post if two hot pixels are adjacent. Re-mapping doesn’t help BTW as they are not saturated pixels, only more sensitive by a little.

Once I noticed these problems, I couldn’t let it go as it looks very unnatural and almost impossible to remove in post. I do have some great lightning shots, but the dark sky backgrounds are still mottled, and it does show up in print. I also have to manually remove the hot pixel noise for those few fake stars. I also had problems with horizontal streak noise from interference on both cameras on anything but the lowest ISO if I pulled the exposure at all of the darks.


That pancake lens performs quite well.



It’s good but I see nothing the E-M5 could not do, do you?
Not that I did expect that.

Kim Letkeman

But then you’d have to shoot an Oly lol …

M Hamilton

I’d be perfectly fine with image quality = E-M5.

The GX7 is a better ergonomic fit for me.


I can’t sse whether something is exposed at 1/8000s. But as my EPL5 has the very same IQ is an OMD, my impression based on these JPGs is that the higher ISO’s if the GX7 indeed look better than the ones my EPL5 can shoot.

When I heard it was a Panny sensors, I was not very happy with it. I feared another rehash of the GH2 sensor, which is not as good as the EPL5 and for me would not suffice. But if these JPGs are an indication of what we can expect in DR, in RAW, tonailyt etc than it seems very close to the Sony 4/3 sensors and that is good enough for me.


@ Markol, The E-M5 can do all this (got one… loving it), but the GX7 form factor is the major difference. It is like the nex-7 series and when I had that camera, l loved using it and it made me shoot more. As for the E-M5, it is a bit cramped for me with my average sized hands. I mean cramped both in size and buttons, but the performance is what keeps it my prime camera. With the GX7, if I can mount my current m4/3 lenses, half are Lumix anyhow, to a GX7 form factor camera, I see that as win win. Ever shoot an Nex-7? It may just be the form factor that dominates the mirrorless market on day.

Also, these images don’t look that good. I am keeping my fingers crossed that they were compressed for the web and not out of camera.

Just Having Fun

Yowza! ISO 25600 in good light looks very usable.

I suspect that Panasonic is doing some very heavy NR in the shadows for their JPEGS in order to accomplish this, but they are doing an excellent job overall. I doubt the RAW files will look as good, but most camera buyer only use JPEGs (unlike us here).


Well, actually that is where this sensor seems to have gained a lot in RAW too. Sure the high ISO shots are smudged etc, no doubt. But the RAWs I saw were MUCH better than the G6 RAWS at high ISO. So it is simply a better sensor at high ISO (unless Panny changed the ISO ratings drastically).


Is this a preproduction body? And is that the reason there are no raws for download?

Barney Britton

It’s a production-quality sample. And we’ll share Raw files soon (the camera isn’t shipping yet and currently they’re not readable by most raw converters).



Okay, but I always like to have raws on hand for testing as soon as significant raw extraction software is available for that file type.

Obviously for raw capable cameras, it’s a really bad idea to draw conclusions about IQ from jpegs. (Jpeg engines are a different story.)

Then since this camera may not be on display at my local retailer the week it starts to ship, I won’t be able to get raws there, so I look for raws here, or at other digital camera websites.

So how about sharing a 4 or 5 raws? I’ll see if UFRaw can do the extraction, and then wait for C1 or ACR.


I’m impressed wit the high ISO shots. Panasonic wasn’t kidding about the improvements to their sensor. If Olympus wasn’t coming out with something next month, I’d jump on the GX7. But I’ll be patient and wait. If the cost really is 1500 Euro for the new OM-D, the GX7 will be my choice.


As much as I hope that the new OMD is even better, the first signs are that it will not be mch better in the IQ deprtment. But that is okey, I am perfectly happy with that. What is more importantis that it has a good cahcne of being suoperior in the AF-C department. And that is not something many people will use a GX7 for I think.

Stu 5

Really need to see something that test out the DR range though as these high iso shots don’t at all.


I hope they do a few more with moving subjects and other lenses. So far not bad.


NEX-7 successor is about to be released. Decisions, decisions!


Why? There’ll be better Nex cameras, APSC sensors usually do high ISOs better than m4/3s sensors (no, I don’t want to read claims about the Olympus OMD which struggles at ISO 1600), and APSC sensors always do shallow DOF better. Then last Sony has started to work out some of the lens problems with the Nex system, and good m4/3s lenses remain expensive. So except for lenses the Nex 7 is an excellent camera.

Just Having Fun

Having owned the E-M5 and several NEX cameras, I can say the latest m43 cameras equal NEX at most higher ISOs. The E-M5 does have better IS and a better lens selection with faster apertures though. Let’s see how well the GX7 IBIS is and if Sony ever put IS on a NEX body to use with every lens and save money.



What raw extraction software are you using and do you own the Nex 5, 5n or 6? Frankly even my 2010 Samsung NX (with the latest firmware and shooting raw) beats current Olympus m4/3s above ISO 1600.


M4/3 is a winning format for most people’s need I guess.
This baby seems to be superb.
Pana made a great job…
Who believed it some 10 years ago that Pana is going to be amongst the leading players in photography?


>Who believed it some 10 years ago that Pana is going to be amongst the leading players in photography?

A: Leica?


Well I own three m43 camera’s and two are a Panny. I like them a lot but how is Panny a worldleader? It is still trying to be but truth is that saleswise they are outclassed by quite a few competitors. Not that I mind, I just buy cams that suite me. And this baby seems a good candidate.


M4/3, when on sale, is a winning format. Nothing beats a $199 GX1, but there are many options @ $1000. At least Panny is doing better than Oly, EP5@ $1000, new OMD rumored @$1500. Well, I guess die-hard fan boys will find a way to justify their purchase over full frame.


Personally I wouldn’t want a FF regardless of cost. Give me one tomorrow and it will be on ebay the next day.
Maybe you can’t afford a FF outfit but many of us who can, buy M43 for other reasons like size and weight and maybe also because nobody is going to care or notice that your pictures were taken on a FF or on M43.
So I would buy a $1500 M43 no matter how cheap a FF camera was.


Hmmm… It’s more expensive than a NEX6… I’m anticipating the full review.


Also better as it seems…


It’s not at all for sure that it’s better. The NEX6 using the terrific 16 mp Sony Exmor, which was the benchmark APS-C sensor for several years and is still being used in quite a few newer cameras like the Pentax K50, K-5 II, and Coolpix A.

Differences in format, and DOF aside, until the GX7 sensor is tested nobody knows if it’s going to match the Sony Exmor performance wise.


It doesn’t matter if the Nex sensor is a hair better or not. What good is it without lenses? I can count all the lenses for Nex on my two hands… 🙂


So this is why the GX1’s body prices have plummeted to near $200. Impressive.


The GX1 prices plummeted long before the GX7 was announced.


Making it one of the best bang for buck cameras available today.

Kim Letkeman

Because that is the nature of older m4/3 bodies. It was past due for a replacement. And as another poster mentioned, it is probably the best bang for the buck out there. Remember that you can hack the video and audio too …


Nice images, high ISO shots are impressive but I will wait to see what Oly has to offer in September.


Another really important point is that ALL recent Panasonic cameras will use 1/(2 times the focal length) or 1/60 of a second, whichever is faster, for Auto ISO shots in Program priority mode unless the ISO is already maxed out. Almost all of the dpreview shots in low light are at 1/60 of a second and almost none of them have any motion.

If dpreview had taken a shot with any motion at all under those conditions it would have been readily apparent that the shutter speed was too slow. Nikon cameras have a min shutter speed function that would prevent this from happening. In fact the really inexpensive Panasonic LX7 has the same function.

Maybe if dpreview pointed this out Panasonic would do something about it? They seem to listen to what dpreview says.


On the GH2 I used there was a really neat feature called intelligent ISO, it was detecting motion and adjusted shutter speed accordingly. Brilliant. I hope the GX-7 is having that feature.

Andy Crowe

Panasonic cameras have iAuto mode too, which either boosts the shutter speed if there is a lot of movement in the scene or slows it down if it feels like it can take it without causing blur.


The GX7 looks great. However, dpreview needs to stop treating m4/3s like it is Full frame when selecting the aperture. Several shots are at F10 and one is at F11. Absolutely NONE of the m4/3s lenses are sharp at those apertures.

In addition dust specs show up when stopped down that much which is evident in at least one of the images they posted.

I don’t know whether it is just pure laziness or whether they really think that m4/3s has too shallow depth of field to use anything but F10. If that is the case then why is everyone still talking about “equivalence”?

The only way that you could get a properly exposed image with these apertures is to explicitly select that aperture or use shutter priority with too slow of a shutter speed. Both of those show a lack of understanding of the m4/3s system.

If you really want to give m4/3s a fair demonstration learn how to use it properly instead of just shooting with it like it is Full Frame.

M Hamilton

Good point, I would have liked to have seen the 1/8000 shutter speed put to the test as well.

Barney Britton

Remember these are test shots, so for a lot of them, I purposefully put the camera in ‘P’ mode to see what apertures it would select in different lighting conditions. Turns out that like a lot of M43 cameras, the GX7 will happily select somewhat small apertures in bright conditions when left to its own devices.

See? We learned something.


Not a single picture at 1/8000 of a second which no other Panasonic m4/3s camera can do, and yet they used F11.0. Why?



Was that with Auto ISO or full manual ISO? Is it any different if you selected Auto ISO?

Barney Britton

Various, tbh. The shots in P mode were mostly in Auto ISO though (same rationale).


I agree that does show us something since that was in Program mode. I don’t believe my GH3 does the same thing though. I have never seen it select that high of an aperture value in Program mode. I use auto ISO though. I wonder if it changes the cameras logic?


I had a look at the EXIF data, and it looks like those shots were taken in iAuto mode, so it was the firmware selecting those apertures.

I think these images were just supposed to show what to expect out of the box.


@mpgxsvcd probably because the firmware decided the scene had “depth” so stopped down to get it in focus.


Apparently the camera was prioritized to shoot at lower ISO whenever possible since it judged that the noise may be more detrimental to the images than deflection used by that particular lens at that specific aperture. In these test photos using kit lens (and preproduction firmware), I think we should pay more attention to ISO and DR, as sharpness can be substantially impacted by the lens (and/or aperture used).


Were those program priority or full IAuto? Intelligent Auto is about the dumbest mode on Panasonic cameras. It does everything it can to mess the shot up.

Barney Britton

I didn’t use iAuto.


If even the pre-release firmware had some bugs for the P-mode, how could a photographer have not try others? Here is, for example, a 1/8000 sec shot with the Panasonic GX7

Kim Letkeman

As we all know, DPReview is not an enthusiast targeted site. Mom and Pop are the targets (or maybe their kids these days) and that means all auto most of the time. Fuji takes it on the chin and it appears that Panny does too in this case. Of course, if you want to shoot in an auto mode, iA+ makes a whole lot more sense than P. But I have learned to enjoy the high ISO and studio comparison tool and essentially ignore the text and many of the samples.

Barney Britton

“DPReview is not an enthusiast targeted site. Mom and Pop are the targets (or maybe their kids these days)”

Oh yeah? Someone forgot to tell me.


The harbour panorama is remarkable; presumably done in camera as a jpg.

M Hamilton

I thought the same, at full resolution I couldn’t see a single stitch line.


I see lots of stitching artifacts in the clouds. Still, it’s pretty impressive for a casual pano.

M Hamilton

Just to clear up the confusion, is this firmware 0.3 or 1.0?

M Hamilton

EXIF data says 0.3, that’s even more impressive because image quality is only going to get BETTER.

Barney Britton

I am assured that our camera represents final shipping-sample quality, so things are unlikely to change (I asked about the FW version too, but that’s what I’ve been told).


Barney, Have you guys shot any sample images with the G6? How do they compare? Does GX7 really have a new, and better, sensor?

Barney Britton

Working on it 😉


Wow…look at the high ISO’s. Sometimes they shoot at 1/4000 s….so it is high ISO but not low light. These can look pretty good. Hwoever: the bike shot for instance is 1/20 s and I do see detail, I do not see smudging nd I do not see too much noise. Or theyir JPEG engine is fantastic, or their ISO 6400 is ISO 1600 in reality or it is a bot of all and a very good sensor. I still keep reservations, but this looks really better than my EPL5 at high ISO.



+ i never thought that 14-42mm II kit lens, would be that sharp…


I had high hopes, but I wasn’t expecting them to look this good.

M Hamilton

September can’t come soon enough!

Demon Cleaner

Images are very encouraging. GX7 looks a winner.


Nice images, it seems to handle high contrast scene well, suggestive of improvement in DR, and high ISO images are also quite clean. I have a GH1 and am impressed by how this camera handles skin tone indoors. The new 20/1.7 is still as sharp as the old and seems to render background a little smoother, although there is no side by side comparison. Wonder how do these images compare to those of the G6?


I do not think so. That is my only true reservation but I may be looking in the wrong place. When I look at the clouds I still see the detail is lost in the highlights. Mightbe the JPEG engine.


I simply viewed these full screen as I would normally do. However I did not see blown highlights in the clouds. I did see some blown highlight on the top of bald head 🙂 I too assume these were JPEGs and in JPEGs, you could still see blown highlights using the OMD sensors. However this problem has been reduced to the degrees that most people would not find it too objectionable in casual daily use of these cameras. It is certainly about time for me to replace the GH1.


Good photos but when i compare it to my D7100/Tokina 11-16/Tamron 24-70vc 2.8 i can tell instantly that is a pocket quality.

Quality is subjective, and hard subject to argue but i can assure you that mirrorless is not there yet.

I am not a fan or a boy but Nikon DSLR leave this in the dust as far as pure IQ.

M Hamilton

laughable…Let’s compare a $1000 camera w/lens to a $2500+ set-up, HOW FUN!


The quality of these samples is very good. The available light bar shot at ISO 1000 is really quite impressive.
Because Nikon make great SLR’s should become grounds for dismissing other camera brands and types is a bit immature.

I’m quite impressed with this camera. So will my shoulder be.


Not sure what specifically did you mean by “not there,” which is why people here questioned your judgement and fairness. Many of us also own Nikon, you know? Keep in mind that most of these images were shot with the kit lens. Look at those shot by the $400 20/1.7 lens for sharpness and bokeh. Both lenses you mentioned for your 7100 have pro-level glass so they should be very sharp.


its can not match even my previous nikon D3200 which is 500$ cam

Good but not a DSLR IQ

Andy Crowe

Can you actually point to a “pocket camera” that these compare to? I mean, a pocket camera like the Sony RX1 will easily beat your D7100 in high iso 😉

M Hamilton

D3200? Yea ok there SamboTroll.


Mirrorless has got nothing to do with it. As if you cannot use this sensor in a Samsung or Sony APS-c mirrorless…
You compare apples and oranges with those lenses.

Mirrorless is here for a multitiude of people, because the IQ is similar to your D7100 (APS-c and m43 mirrorless) but the size is not. Fortunately for us.


Sambo….what am I supposed to see in your pics that a m43s, Samsung NX300 or Sony NEX with the right lens cannot do? First pic is not very sharp btw. Not a problem with a portrait, but as we look at max IQ it does not seem ot be such a good example.


The test shots are here for technical analysis, attempting to push the camera beyond its limits. It is not a promotional showcase. Your examples are under good lighting with what looks like a premium portrait lens. I found other shots in your album which are quite noisy in comparison.


As long as my camera produces good, usable pictures I do not care if another $1000 and/or pound of weight will get me an incremental improvement in test-chart shooting ability. I want a camera that I am comfortable carrying *anywhere* I go.

For me and a lot of other people, the DSLR just isn’t “there” yet. I’m not convinced it ever will be. Some of the bodies are impressively small, but they still have to contend with bigger lenses.

To those of us for whom size and/or weight and/or discretion matter (hikers, street shooters, etc.), a camera like this is a great option.

It’s not such a good option if sports or action are your thing, but for all kinds of other use cases it makes a DSLR largely obsolete.


Probably shouldn’t get into this argument, but actually, several of the GX7 portrait samples where taken with the 20 1.7 (a combo that is more expensive than the D7100 / 35 f/1.8). So price has nothing to do with it. And the 20 f/1.7 is one of the very best m43 lenses, so I completely disagree with Jorginho that it’s an “apples to oranges” comparison. And it’s not only the lens that makes sambomax’s samples look so fantastic, it’s the shallow DOF and the rendering.

Honestly I was expecting a bit more from these GX7 samples, particularly the ones made with the 20 f/1.7. I understand that these are JPEGs, but based on these samples, no I wouldn’t say “IQ is similar to the D7100”. It’s really not all that similar. But that doesn’t mean the GX7 is not an excellent camera.


These images were not taken to optimize for resolution and sharpness of the sensor. All outdoor pictures were taken with the kit lens which is known to be mediocre. The excellent 20/1.7 was used indoors, but it was shot almost exclusively wide open with shutter speed at 1/50 or 1/60. Thus sharpness could have been reduced by shallow DOF and motion blur. However it seems to me that the new 20 has better rendering in bokeh so it is also possible that in the new version they trade sharpness for softer bokeh.


Mr Hamilton
what do u mean? want to see the exif?

APSC mirrors can match DSLR but lack of good lenses is a major problem. M4/3 is a temporary product line to be soon disappear. APSC mirrors-less has a great potential as the lenses selection evolves.


Your D7100 surely is an excellent camera, but I think your view is very limited. Yes, the selection of lenses for m4/3 is smaller than that of APS-C, but the quality is on par. I do not think that you could tell from this shot, that is was made with a “pocket cam”:

Personally, I hope that m43 will last, because I will never want to buy a large, heavy and noisy DSLR. It’s good to have a choice.


I do not think the Samsung NX300 has bad lenses. I do not think that Fuji has bad lenses. They have some very good lenses and sensors, especially Fuji it seems. I can agree that m43 output looks like pocket cam output, but it depends what model you mean.

Aal things in this universe are here for some time and dissapear so I am sure DSLR, m43s and all cams we see around today will dissapear sooner or later.

In the meanwhile I enjoy the m43 format and I hope you enjoy whatever you shoot with.


@Marike: Sambo was reffering to thw D71000 11-16 and 24-70 lenses. These are not comparable to the 20 mm lens as a price combination nor the way the pics will look. The 20 mm is pretty bad portrait lens for example. It is a sharp lens, true, but it deforms pretty badly. And the combo is cheaper than the kit he mentiions (D7100: 24-70 and 11-16 mm).

Besides: we are looking at JPG output, so we cannot be sure how well (or how poor) it performs in RAW relative to these JPGs.

We both know she means the outut is as goo as an average pocket ca, ot the RX1 or thatFuji x100s. With such a attitude or such eyes, your peception of IQ is quite distorted I think.


The globe picture is pretty impressive.

M Hamilton

I agree, ISO12800 and you can still read all the countries on the full rez image. Leaves my E-P3 in the dust.


I don’t know or care whether Panasonic has made huge strides in sensor tech or has simply started using Sony chips… this and the barroom shots @ ISO 2000 and 3200 have me seriously tempted to get in a preorder queue. Yes, the shadows in the globe picture are nasty, but look at the detail in the well-lit areas. Wow.

I know base ISO of 200 isn’t so great for those who want low ISOs for large-aperture daylight photography, but I think those of us who like shooting at night are in for a treat with this camera.

M Hamilton

If the GH3 is any indicator, the ISO125 on the GX7 will also be VERY useable.


sambomax: are we looking at the same samples? They look very good to me.


DSLR Price, high end pocket quality


In what way did you find the quality to be like a compact camera?


DSLR quality, high end pocket size

Andy Crowe

Please point me to a compact camera that can do ISO 6400 as well as image P1030161 as I’d buy it straight away!

Or were you talking about high-end compacts like the Fuji X100? 🙂


quit feeding the troll


Translation: “I need some attention!” Satisfied?

Source Article from