The GX8

<p>It looks like Panasonic is paying attention to the still photographers. While this latest model in the "GX" line will shoot 4K, it's clearly designed with still shooters in mind. The first 20MP sensor in this format, a larger body with a more substantial grip, weather sealing, DFD focusing, improved AF tracking, and a nice button and control layout. Yes, the tests need to be done, but this one looks pretty good. Only thing missing is a built-in flash. But I can live with that.</p>

<p>Unless you are making mural sized prints I believe 16mp is the absolute optimal sensor capacity. Nikon and Canon must agree because this is what they use in their most expensive professional cameras. It offers an ideal combination of size, speed and capacity and is more than enough for print and the internet. It's always amusing to read a comprehensive review of the latest Fuji camera that heaps praise on their great sensor and concludes that they need to upgrade to a bigger capacity sensor to stay competitive. Actually, 12mp is probably more than enough. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's always amusing to read a comprehensive review of the latest Fuji camera that heaps praise on their great sensor and concludes that they need to upgrade to a bigger capacity sensor to stay competitive.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Even though I agree that 16MP is more than adequate, Fuji DOES need to move to a larger capacity sensor to stay competitive. More megapixels = more sales. Sad but still true, even today.</p>

If the sensor delivers higher resolution and without any negative costs in use, then I would not be quick to judge the choice. Most of us are not impressed with more and more megapixels although we can tune down the resolution in the menu choice if we want to. Clearly some users feel they need that amount of digital data. I do not, but let's see the other values in the images. The more I look at the design, the more intrigued I am by the choice of features and the classic shape. I do not agree that the micro four thirds has to be in a feather weight league per se. Small means chunky enough to handle well and beefy in construction. It is a kind of pastime to seek out perceived flaws and second guess the designers. I like Panasonic's approach to design and notice we can still get the mini size in micro four thirds. This one is aimed at a different market. Maybe not the likes of us all-) although maybe a few of us. We shall see before Thanksgiving anyway.. ( Yeah, I confess I would like to own one, but steely resistance is the watch word lately:-).).gs

Panasonic has been innovative in choices, I must say. Well,they can afford to be as a large consumer electronics giant along with Sony. Recall that Panasonic jumped into the micro 4/3 electronics size boldly along wit a new lens mount and lenses with the G-1,- which is still a usable camera,- although it carried on the SLR shape. Now they are eliminating the legacy optical finder hump and using the flat deck on top to redesign the control surfaces. And squeezing into the electronics the successful body stabilization which keeps getting better and better. I never expected that we would get into semi pro territory until Olympus OMD series (which have sold well). And then the pro line of Olympus lenses, which have gotten fine reviews. And the throw in like Cracker Jacks kit lenses which suprised everyone with decent images albeit a little slow in the zooms. Then Panasonic and Olympus come out with fast (ok, fairly fast zoom lenses). With a pair of them, the 12-35 and the 35-100 one can get a whole lot of lens coverage. If one is a birder in flight, you have a hard slog no matter what....maybe an adapted ED 300mm for now. Then we had the " ah heck I miss an optical finder and the sense of seeing the blooming thing without ribbons and ghosts" business. Well, that has been fixed pretty well you have to admit. Up to 100% coverage of the EVF in one model. OLED and super duper screens that allow all kinds of images overlays. Or none!

" Slow autofocus with contrast detection...." was declared vis a vis phase type...True, but hey are making strides, definite strides for much shooting and I bet they will nail that one eventually...we await the tests for moving objects on this new baby...

High ISO. Here we get into how high is UP and noone at the roulette wheel has the right number.. So what can we want next? Some stuff. A teleconverter to squeak a little more out of the 2.8 lenses and even the fixed 1.8s. A flash system up to the semi pro ranks, since the pipsqueak ones on board are never fully useful in a camera like the GX 8 level. On the GX 7 the diopter of the EVF is finicky. Hope they fixed that some on the GX8. Note that I needed a bigger eye cup add on and looks like new model has one already...good show Panasonic. What else....produce and include a DVD on the operation of the camera and hire someone to write a good manual with how to do it stuff. The GX 7 one is over 370 pages, and my history of WWII in the Pacific is smaller. (So I can bitch about a few things as a member in good standing of the persnickety club.... If I can not own a Porsche Panamera, a nice camera is going to have to be my luxury splurge now and then. How about you...oh yeah, must take pictures and be reliable. And have the bigger battery that the GX 8 now sports vs the GX 7)

<p>Agree with Gerry: if you can get higher resolution with no penalty, why not? If not for better looking big prints, then better cropping/adjustment ability. I have a GH3 now, and will likely sell it for the GX8 which is better suited to my needs. I do little, if any video. And the GX8, if it's a good as it looks, will make a killer walk-around when paired with the 14-140 and a nice light travel kit with the 7-14, 12-35, and 35-100. Very high quality glass that can take advantage of that new sensor.</p>

<p>As it is now, I've made 4' wide prints from the GH3, and they look really nice. Surprisingly good, actually. So I'll take a long look at the GX8. If the EVF is improved, that alone might be reason enough to upgrade.</p>

<p>I think its a done deal for you Gerry. There is a GX8, maybe passing Hawaii on a ship at this moment or already in a store somewhere, with your name on it. I'm the same way although I work from the other end and try to catch them as they are discontinued. I'm just now starting to look at the OMD EM5. The problem is, once you balance wants and needs and make your decision, it doesn't end there. You have to keep making the same decision every time you go out to photograph. I'm going to an event later today and I have changed my mind four times as to what to carry. It usually comes down to how the back and hip is feeling.</p>

>> There is a GX8, maybe passing Hawaii on a ship at this moment ....>>

 

Good news, pal. I got my outrigger canoe ready and on my way to intercept and interdict....

As a by the way, I decided after much thought to buy the OMD EM-1 so I could use my fine ED Zuiko lenses, like the great macro 50mm F 2.0 (one of their finest achievements.) It is as noted by many a very fine upscale camera with a lot of good qualities and a lot of adjusting which makes it kind of boggling but one can tame it if you decide to tame it...I may never use an Art Filter, but who know? Now this part surprised me. I liked the hand grip and the finder but I decided to spring for the battery vertical grip attachment. Lo and behold, it makes the basic camera an almost perfect ergonomic beast ( I use beast in a laudatory sense). So my conclusion is that the package may have more girth and weight but it has 'balance.' And fits my kind of large fingers. Important yardstick that..

 

Now for the days when I may not need a lot, I can fit the GX7 ( bought on deep sale price btw in current coin) into a small bag along with the FL36 flash, and wi 20mm Lumix version I attached, a good value lens. And in another compartment, the Olympus 45mm 1.8, another good value lens in today's prices....currencies change over time, you know..... So what can I NOT cover photographically with that light Mirrorless Mover my lightest of all bags..Heck, .must be something, huh... Birds in flight well no, birds in leather and heels, well maybe:-) Just kidding ha ha ...Sorry dear....-g-

<p>I think I have to agree with David and Gerry on this. I've been printing on GX7 files at 18 x 24 and getting really nice prints but there's very little headroom for cropping. Also it would be nice to go even a tad larger if wanted. I will be taking a look when it lands in So Cal. It will be important to me to see what its quality is at higher ISO settings. It seems squeezing more pixels into an already small sensor could create a noise problem though Panasonic seems to be saying it has better quality at higher ISOs than the GX7, that would be good if true.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you are making mural sized prints I believe 16mp is the absolute optimal sensor capacity. Nikon and Canon must agree because this is what they use in their most expensive professional cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ha ha. really? actually, the Nikons you mention cost that much because of frame/buffer rate and build quality, not because of a low-MP sensor. Professional sports journalism cameras always cost more because they have a high build quality and performance standard to meet. They have a smaller sensor than their <em>other</em> professional cameras because you can maintain high FPS, buffer size, and low noise easier that way. But this is a ridiculous argument anyway because you can't compare a 16mp m4/3 sensor to a 16mp full frame sensor as if megapixels were the only defining criteria. that's apples and eggplants. it's also ridiculous because Nikon's most expensive camera at one time, the D3x, once sold for $8000. now a 24mp full frame sensor can be had for around $1000. of course the D3x was a more professional camera than today's consumer models. but Nikon also put a 16mp sensor in the d7000 and d5100, two consumer cameras, before upgrading those lines to 24mp APS-C. if 16mp was the ne plus ultra, they wouldnt have done that. and just wait until the Nikon D5 comes out, which is rumored to have a 20mp full frame sensor.</p>

<p>Anyway, ive made my point about making flawed comparisons, but one has to wonder if m4/3 can go any higher than 20mp -- without encountering buzzkill levels of noise and diffraction? it's kind of telling that m4/3 stayed put in sensor size for five years while other formats bulked up on sensor steroids, and improved in other areas. Now they've taken an incremental step which doesnt even match the 50% sensor size increase from the Nikon d700 to the D3x; the actual resolution gain from 16 to 20 isn't really going to be visible, although the sensor may have other characteristics which make it "better." in any event, that's what m4/3 had to do to appear to remain competitive. i remember when Nikon made the argument that 12mp was enough, to which i dont completely agree; i'd consider the 42mp Sony A7rII <em>just</em> for the cropping ability; to be able to make a 21mp file out of a 50% crop has serious implications for pros, PJs, and wildlife shooters. i do admire Fuji for doggedly sticking to their 16mp sensor, but we'll probably see a 24mp chip in that line one or two generations from now.</p>

<p>Anyhoo, it's good to see some new innovation from m4/3, and as i said on another thread, i'd consider getting that body just to use the 100-400 on it (except that Fuji has a 100-400 on its 2016 <a href="http://www.fujirumors.com/new-lens-roadmap-released-it-includes-120mmf2-8-11-macro-35mmf2-100-400-and-1-4x-teleconverter/">roadmap</a>). still, 800mm in a small package with stabilization is nothing to be scoffed at.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I'm just now starting to look at the OMD EM5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the E-M5 is an insane price right now for that level of camera, but i really can't buy into yet another lens system without selling off some other stuff. i do admit to lusting after the LX100 though. i agree that buying at fire sale prices is the sane way to accumulate too much photo gear, or semi-sane, lol. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's always amusing to read a comprehensive review of the latest Fuji camera that heaps praise on their great sensor and concludes that they need to upgrade to a bigger capacity sensor to stay competitive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think this is because reviewers don't want to see Fuji go out of business because their lenses are so awesome and they do photographer-centric things like update firmware years after a camera has been out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems squeezing more pixels into an already small sensor could create a noise problem though Panasonic seems to be saying it has better quality at higher ISOs than the GX7, that would be good if true.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if it can shoot clean at 3200, that would be a major win for m4/3, but keep in mind these are engineering sleights of hand accomplished with noise reduction algorithms which can result in mushy pixel-smearing.<br>

<br>

from the camera labs Gx7 <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GX7/noise.shtml">review</a>: <em>"At 3200 ISO, large areas are becoming almost solid blocks of colour with little detail within. The GX7 has become quite noisy viewed at 100%, although in contrast the OMDs are still processing it out for a smooth, but smeared result. Once again I'd say the noise reduction on the EM1 looks a tad better than the EM5, but it's by a very small degree."</em><br>

<br>

the laws of physics are clear that when you start with an inherently smaller sensor, you have inherently more noise to reduce at larger megapickle counts. and doing things like on-chip phase detection to improve autofocus can also impact image quality. it remains to be seen, however, how the new tech in the Gx8 will address these issues. you may end up with sensor purists (lol) who stubbornly cling to the 16mp chip because they dont like the results of the bigger chip when pixel-peeping. don't laugh; it happens all the time in the Fuji camp. </p>

<p>3200 Raw files on current (GX7 and E-M1) are pretty clean. Noise reduction is in camera for jpg. Panasonic way over aggressive, Olympus better. Raw files on GX7 are about equal to the d700 Nikon. I wouldn't use them at 6400.</p>

It's funny in a way. The negative characteristic of "noise" is caused by physical electromagnetic factors, sort of like when magnetic tape had a problem with its signal being overwhelmed by the noise floor at certain low speeds. So they had a way to measure it called signal to noise ratio. In the photo world it is a grainy appearance in certain fields of the image I have read, like when you pushed film to the point when the silver grains clustered in a way that is unpleasant to some, but not to all obviously. My thought is that manufacturers have a hand in taking their image to a better place by their processing engine. And so I look for better signal to noise in each generation. For those who never go beyond ISo 800 ( which aint half bad I think in the real world) it is not a limiting issue for the small format. And last point, always get a view from a working professional who shoots with micro and other sizes and has tested the brands extensively. i refer to David Thorpe and his blog on micro four thirds if you want to check him out. Some good tidbits therein including his experience with the GX 7 and the EM-1:

 

http://m43blog.dthorpe.net/

I found a pretty comprehensive and of course favorable review of the GX 8 by David Thorpe who has much experience with the m43 cameras. I would look at it not so much as a paeon to this one model ( though he does kind of gush about this Leica looking and feeling model) but as another giant step for the micro four thirds and a firm avenue for Panasonic Lumix. Yes, eventually, but not too soon,I may see my way clear to get one of these models. I need the larger camera for what it offers. Not everyone wants a really tiny camera. Small enough and light enough says Thorpe. A lengthy and thorough review of the kind I find useful.

 

I was wondering what you our members think about the idea of the flat top design especially with the finder on the left side. I am of mixed feeling. The legacy location has a kind of sense to it, a turret location giving either dominant eye a chance, I mean it is not just anachronistic. Your thoughts?

Someone on Facebook bought both the GX7 and the GX 8 and did a decent shot that may be of comparative interest. The GX 8 is substantially larger, but it has a Leica style rangefinder look that may appeal to the RF folk. I am wondering which direction Panasonic is heading. The GH 4 which is definitely a large but not heavy thing I am told, Or the GM1 which I am told is bantam size and weight. I have large fingers and often have trouble getting around the GX 7 but it is a very nice machine and a not so bad price. The feature that appeals a lot is not 4K video so far, but the articulated finder. I miss that which I had in the nice GH 2. I find the variety fascinating. And wonder how it will shake out. My modest budget will not allow me to catch every new model. Nor do I need to keep up. Pre ordering a new mocel? I say fie on that rubbish. Pre order a book, fine, a camera no way.

A photo by someone who likes to get all the latest and greatest. Not I.