Panasonic GX7 Notes, Part the First

Review by Carl Weese

This will be the first of several short posts detailing some of my reactions to the newly introduced Panasonic Lumix DMC GX7 camera.

Quick background: I began using Micro 4/3 format with a Lumix GF1 about three and a half years ago. I thought it would be a supplement to the APS-C system I was using, more appropriate for some of the work that I do with digital capture (I still do some of my work with large format film, which is something to bear in mind when you consider my comments). Instead, I quickly found I only used the previous digital system to access lenses I didn’t have equivalents to in Micro 4/3. As the (rather few) lenses I needed in the format became available and I got them, I stopped using APS-C entirely, not so much as a conscious decision, as that it stopped being something I needed. I preferred the results, for many reasons, from the slightly smaller format cameras.

About a year later, I got on the B&H waiting list for the Lumix G3 when it came out, because I wanted the integral EVF. When it arrived, I found that the build-quality wasn’t as nice as the GF1, but the EVF was, as expected, much better, and more convenient than the accessory EVF for the earlier camera. They had bumped the MP count from 12 to 16 without losing exposure range (a.k.a. dynamic range) or noise performance, though without improving either.

Then, I was, in digital age terms, patient. GX1, G5—many offerings of ever smaller cameras, which are for a different audience—while all along Olympus was keeping up or jumping ahead with their own new cameras. Until the GX7 was announced.

It had always been obvious to me what I wanted from Micro 4/3—a digital experience as close as possible to my decades of using M Leica film cameras. When the GX7 was announced, I got on the waiting list. This past Halloween, as dusk set in, there was no Trick (we live far enough out in the country that there are no kids on patrol) but a definite Treat. A new tool delivered by a weary UPS driver.

Storm Fronts, Ancramdale, New York, 11/17/13. With my earlier Micro 4/3 cameras I would have needed to do a lot of work in Adobe Camera RAW to hold the wide range of subject brightness here. With the GX7, an exposure with no plus or minus compensation held the range so easily that I had to raise the contrast in ACR to convey the drama of the scene.

All the talk about this camera seems to center on the "retro" styling. In fact, the new design of the body and controls really is a big deal and will be the subject of subsequent posts. But for now I want to talk about the capability of the sensor. No graphs or charts, because what I care about is how much subject information the sensor provides that, after RAW processing, I can make into convincing detail and tone in a print.

There's plenty of data in a RAW file that you can't print. RAW file processors can also invent data that wasn’t recorded, based on an algorithm analysis of existing data (that's also known as "guesswork"). I don’t find this convincing—RAW processing is easy to overdo. Nothing new about this, of course. The Zone System and similar traditional techniques were all about the fact that film can handle vastly more data than printing paper. The trick to controlled exposure and development is to limit the film’s data content to a range the printing paper can handle. That well-controlled combination of film and paper can handle a range of subject brightness that still exceeds the ability of digital capture; but capture keeps on improving and catching up.

Compared to the G3 (I haven't seen results from any intermediate releases) the GX7 has a big gain in exposure range. Not a tweak, but more like nearly 2 EV of usable, convincingly printable exposure range. Scenes that would have strained the ability of the earlier camera fit so comfortably that they look a bit "flat" at the ACR defaults and need to have their range expanded in RAW processing. As a side effect, many scenes that would have required minus exposure compensation to avoid clipping the highlights are fine without compensation. This is good because if you haven't lowered the overall exposure to save the highlights, you won't have to pull the darker values back up in RAW processing, and that can mean richer, smoother dark values in the final print.

The other sensor issue everyone cares about is high ISO noise. I'm old enough that I'm just amazed at how much better digital capture is, even with smaller sensors, than 35mm film ever was. Still, comparing again to the earlier Lumix G3, I'd call it a one-EV gain: 1600 looks like 800 used to; 3200 looks like 1600 used to. That means that in "available darkness" I won't hesitate to use 3200 and will expect results I couldn't get close to with 35mm film.

•     •     •

Next, camera body style, features, and handling.

Carl
Website / Working Pictures blog

©2013 by Carl Weese, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Sam: "Yay! Carl's back! Can't wait for more posts, and more pictures hopefully? I always enjoy looking at my lovely print of yours of the Bon Air Motel."

Steve G, Mendocino: "An excellent start and I'm very much looking forward to the rest of the series. I currently have a pair of G3 bodies and was happy with them, but your observations on the dynamic range of the GX7 vs. the G3 have acted like a shot of starting fluid on my GAS!"

Comments

[Wolfgang Lonien]

You're right about this Carl. When I recently looked at an ISO 3200 image from the Olympus E-PL5 I thought wow, that's better than film ever was. But on the other hand, when I looked at some ISO 200 film shots from my OM-2N I thought yes, there's grain, but it looks so much nicer than digital noise...

[John Krumm]

You sensor observations are consistent with my own with my Olympus EM1. I'm not as used to the increased DR. On sunny days it looks great, but on cloudy days (or low contrast shots in general) it can take a little more massaging to get the look I'm used to with my older cameras.

[Bill Collinson]

Carl,

Thanks for the useful comments on the GX7 minus all the numbers, as they are available in abundance elsewhere. I was surprised to see your name on the byline, I associate your work much more with big negatives than m4/3!

Clearly the convenience, ability to use a staggering array of glass, and the ever improving IQ continue to expand the appeal of this smaller-sensor format.

It is especially nice to hear that Panasonic continues to tweak more DR out of these (relatively) small sensors. I shoot an Olympus E-PL1 and things have gotten to the point that I think its time to invest in one of the generation of m4/3 bodies hitting the street now.

Do you primarily compose with the EVF or do you use the display as well?

Looking forward to Part II, thanks for contributing your thoughts here at TOP.

-BC, Austin TX

[Tom Simonsen]

Thanks for an interesting article.

I too started my µ-4/3 migration with the GF1; going through a few models until ending up with the G3 (and GX1). I don't agree that the G3 isn't an improvement noise-wise compared to GF1. I never used the GF1 above ISO 1600, and found ISO 1600 a bit too noise, usually stopping at ISO 800. I find that the G3 is usable up to ISO 3200 and have no problem with ISO 1600. It might be that the G3 has more DR at the higher ISO, so the noise just looks less?

I borrowed the GX7 last weekend and I too found it to be big improvement image-wise. I think will be able to use it at ISO 6400, when I buy mine. Another big improvement for me, is that it gets the white balance much better indoors, where I need the high ISO.

I am looking forward to the rest of the series.

[Steve G, Mendocino]

Carl:

An excellent start and I'm very much looking forward to the rest of the series. I currently have a pair of G3 bodies and was happy with them, but your observations on the dynamic range of the GX7 vs. the G3 have acted like a shot of starting fluid on my G.A.S. Thanks!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Thanks for the notes, Carl. I was sorely tempted by this camera due mainly to its articulating lcd AND evf, two features that I find very desirable. (Tilting lcds on my NEX 7, RX100II, and E-M5 have become utterly indispensable to me.) Ultimately, however, I decided to pass and leave the micro four-thirds format exclusively to my E-M5. But if I was starting from scratch with the format the GX7 is certainly the best value for performance and portability in micro four-thirds today.

I find the marketing description of "retro styling" on the GX7 bewildering, don't you? Its features are about as far from "retro" as you can get. It seems that any cameras that don't look like an slr or telephone are being called "retro" these days.

[Chaitanya Patel]

I agree with Tom. I remember moving from a Nikon D50 where I spent most of my time at ISO 1600 to a GF1 and being disappointed with the image quality at anything above ISO 800. The G3 has been a huge improvement in low lighting conditions, and I'm very happy to use it up to ISO 3200.

I'm surprised you didn't see an improvement with the G3. Perhaps we take very different sorts of pictures.

[Ken Ford]

Carl, thank you - I'm looking foward to your next installment!

[carlweese]

Hey everyone, flaky internet connection here in NYC. I probably won't get to comments till Monday. Just a quick note, if it goes through, that I'm not surprised people have different reactions to noise comparisons between cameras. It's not a binary comparison. There's how much, but then the character or texture, and how that relates to specific pictures. Individual reactions are important. Also, I seldom need to use really high ISO and tend to just take a look with a new camera just in case I ever need to go above 800 or so.

[Steve goldenberg]

Have you tried a 6400 print from this yet? They're simply astoundingly good. I also shoot a Leica M typ240 and I have to admit this little camera produces holds its own in comparison to it. It has similarly awesome image quality and more importantly is a delightful camera to use - just like its bigger brother.

[John Camp]

I'l be interested in your handling discussion -- I have two of these cameras, and I have some observations, not universally good, although I'm not sure how I would fix the problems...or even if they can be fixed. I do like them more than any other cameras I've used, including Leicas. My D800 mostly sits on a shelf, to be be used only for specific projects. I also think that Nikon and Canon are crazy to sit on their hands...they need to create similar systems. Soon.

[D. Hufford.]

I have pretty much decided on buying one due to its handling (and, of course the absolutely mandatory tiltable EVF), design, focus performance, and other improvements. Everything seems just right on the ones I have handled. A little too good to be true, I suppose.

It is very nice to hear that the sensor has so improved. 1600 was pushing it hard on the Olympus E-P3, and my older Nikon DSLRs weren't much better. And improved dynamic range---oops, exposure range---is something that was sorely needed.

[Binoculars]

I remember moving from a Nikon D50 where I spent most of my time at ISO 1600 to a GF1 and being disappointed with the image quality at anything above ISO 800. The G3 has been a huge improvement in low lighting conditions

[Marino]

I have been waiting for a GX7 to appear at my local brick-and-mortar reseller to appear on its premises.This happened last night. I bought it. I have been using m43 for the last 4 years, beside my main Nikon gear (GF1, EPL1, GH2 versus D700/800). The many reviews I read online, including this last one by Carl, had made it clear it was what we had been waiting for: a small, compact, higly functional street camera. Well, insofar since i got it in my hands it really looks to be such a camera. The most amazing feature? The ABSOLUTELY SILENT electronic shutter, Amazing. Zero sound. Nil. Nada. Insofar you shoot at full lens aperture. Get one!