Mẹo vặt đồ gia dụng

Panasonic 5 Camera Picture Quality comparison

Full width frame

Panasonic has been very busy rolling out many interesting new cameras over the last few months. I have been testing several of them.

This post is a quick image quality comparison between the following five units:

* GX8 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8

* G7 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8

* FZ1000

* LX100

* FZ300

For this test I selected an outdoor scene with high brightness range and large amounts of fine detail.

I used a tripod and 2 second timer, set the focal length to (equivalent) 70mm and used 3:2 aspect ratio on the LX100, the only one of the group with variable aspect ratio. I used a lens aperture previously determined to be best for that camera/lens and the lowest standard ISO setting for each camera.

Lighting was overcast/sunny/bright, with some variation between frames due to the changing cloud

cover.

The top photo shows the full frame, cropped top and bottom for presentation.

The remainder of the photos are of a substantial crop from the full frame.

I had some pictures in 4:3 aspect ratio and some in 3:2 ratio, with pixel counts from 12-20 Mpx.

In order to evaluate the results on screen I output each file to the same horizontal dimension as the G7. This meant increasing the LX100 and FZ300 and decreasing the GX8 and FZ1000 in Photoshop.

I processed each RAW file in Adobe Camera Raw 9.1.1 to “best result” as determined by me.

The results are basically as expected from the specifications of the equipment used for each photo.

Lenses This proved an easy win for the 12-35mm as expected. This is one of the best zooms available for M43 cameras and I got a very good copy on this occasion. I have in the past had not-so-good copies. Panasonic announced some time ago that they had improved their lens manufacturing quality and maybe it is true.

The FZ1000 lens is excellent considering it has a 16x zoom range but is not quite in the same class as the 12-35.

The LX100 lens is very good in the center but softens towards the edges especially at the long end and 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratio.

The FZ300 comes in last. No surprises there but considering this is a 24x zoom it delivers very good results. My copy also stays decently sharp right to (focal length equivalent) 600mm at which point it delivers resolution the same as the FZ1000 cropped to the same angle of view.

Overall appearance At small output sizes you would be hard pressed to pick which picture came from which camera. The colors (after some adjustment in CR) and the overall appearance are very similar.

Highlight and shadow detail A few years ago I would have expected the camera with the smallest sensor to blow out highlights. But on this and several other tests I found each camera’s ability to render highlight and shadow detail very similar even with high subject brightness range. That is a commendable performance for the FZ300 which has a very small sensor.

Color rendition The M43 cameras with the largest sensor had the most saturated colors, followed by the FZ1000 then the FZ300. In this case, bigger is better.

Grain Again this went with sensor size. The larger sensors had the least grain. The difference was apparent at 100% on screen even at base ISO.

Resolution/detail Best was the GX8 which very slightly beat the G7. I had to look very closely at 100% or 200% on screen to pick this however. On many photos the difference will not be detectable.

Next came the FZ1000 which is very good but not quite able to match the M43 cameras with the excellent 12-35mm lens.

The LX100 delivers very good resolution in a broad central area of the frame although not as much as the FZ1000 and M43 cameras and it fades a bit at the edges due to the lens characteristics.

Last as expected is the FZ300. This does a good job for a 24x superzoom and is better than the

Canon SX60 and Nikon P900 which I tested earlier this year. But it can’t keep up with the other cameras tested here.

Summary

Image quality from the GX8 is marginally better than the G7.

Both these M43 cameras beat the FZ1000 but I suspect the 12-35mm lens has a large part to play in that. I did not have a 14-140mm lumix lens for testing but I have used this lens before and while it is a very good general purpose lens it is not in the same class as the 12-35mm.

The LX100 is outclassed outdoors by the M43 cameras and the FZ1000 but indoors in low light the tables are turned. Then the LX100 can use f1.7 to enable lower ISO settings for a better overall result.

The FZ300 is a good camera for the holiday/travel purpose for which it was designed.

For overall versatility, combining imaging ability, performance and freedom from having to change lenses the FZ1000 is an easy winner.

It has 5.3 times the zoom range of the 12-35mm and travels in the same sized carry bag as the GX8 with 12-35mm mounted.

The value for money equation also heavily favours the FZ1000. It can be had for half the price of a GX8 +12-35mm and is only 23% more expensive than the FZ300 which it comprehensively outperforms in every respect.

The last word

There is much excitement on camera review sites and user forums at the moment about new release full frame cameras with amazing pixel counts of 36, 42 and even 50 Mpx.

When I look at photos made with 20 or even 16 Mpx M43 and “one inch” sensor cameras like the FZ1000, I see an amazing amount of detail.

I see details most people could not have seen in the original scene. I wonder why the great majority of enthusiast photographers might want more resolution.

Đọc thêm »

Panasonic FZ1000 Firmware upgrade wishlist September 2015

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 22:55

The FZ1000 has been my main camera for the last 18 months and earned the Camera Ergonomics camera of the year award for 2014. It is the most versatile camera I have ever owned.

It is not perfect however.

There are two unappealing behaviours which could be improved by a firmware update and one function which I would like to see added, although I am not sure a firmware update could do it..

1. Auto ISO/minimum shutter speed responsive to lens focal length

In P or A Modes the camera sets an ISO which produces a shutter speed unresponsive to the focal length in use. This can result in unsharp pictures at the long end of the zoom due to the shutter speed being too slow for the focal length.

This should be easy enough for the clever software engineers to fix. The camera always knows what focal length is set. It also knows what shutter speed is generally required to prevent unsharpness due to camera shake.

I would like to see three versions of the auto ISO algorithm, slow, medium and fast, with the setting able to be allocated to the Q menu or a Fn button.

The suggested minimum shutter speed in each condition would be as shown in the chart below:

Lens setting	Slow	Medium	Fast
Wide, Focal length E25mm	1/20	1/25	1/30
Long, Focal Length E400mm	1/200	1/400	1/800

Thus for still subjects when the camera can be held steady, the Slow setting might be best to keep ISO as low as possible.

For BIF, sport and similar the Fast setting would deliver a higher percentage of keepers.

2. Lens Retractafter playback

This irritates FZ1000 users all the time. There are many posts about it on user forums. Surely this could be deleted in software or at least made optional.

Setting Zoom Resume is a partial fix with the present firmware.

3. Hyperfocal Distance scale in manual focus. The camera has an analogue type MF assist bar but this does not indicate the actual focussed distance or give any indication of near/far depth of focus at the selected focal length, focussed distance and aperture. Some digital cameras do have this feature so it can be done.

Đọc thêm »

The Essence Of Camera Ergonomics September 2015

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 16:47

Samsung NX10 Beijing You can make good photos with almost any modern camera.
In practice the main difference between them is the user experience, which is greatly affected by ergonomic factors in design and implementation of the control interface.

One of the more rewarding aspects of writing this blog is the feedback which I receive from readers.

This can be challenging. Some time ago a reader suggested I summarise in “two paragraphs” my ideas about camera ergonomics. At that time I had accumulated enough material for a substantial textbook and found this request daunting.

But then I realised that if I have something useful and meaningful to say about camera design and operation I should be able to summarise the essence of it in a few words.

So here they are:

In one sentence

Of two cameras, the one which can be operated with the fewest, least complex actions has the better ergonomics.

In a short summary

Ergonomics is about actions

Camera operation requires completion of Tasks in the Setup, Prepare, Capture and Review Phases of use.

Each task requires Actions of the hands and fingers.

The number of actions can be observed (by anybody, it’s not quantum mechanics) and counted.

The complexity of those actions can be observed (by anybody) and recorded.

These observations can be summarised as a score.

Holding, Haptics and Viewing issues are also factors in the ergonomic analysis.

Ergonomics is not about subjective experience, likes, preferences, speed or head logic.

The Subjective Experience of owning and using a camera is separate from but complementary to the ergonomic analysis.

Each individual’s Likes and Preferences are also separate from yet complementary to the ergonomic analysis

Ergonomics is not directly about speed of operation Speed to complete the various tasks is not measured in the ergonomic score which I have developed. However the camera which requires the fewest, least complex actions is likely to be the fastest to operate.

Ergonomics is about finger logic not head logic You might think at an intellectual or logical level that one type of camera control design might be best only to find that when the actions of working the camera are actually counted that a different control design is more efficient.

No Definitional Agreement

Of course there is no general consensus among camera users or the industry about my definition or any other definition of ergonomics.

I believe this is a serious impediment to effective camera design.

Without a broad, industry wide agreement about the essential nature of ergonomics, camera design is subject to fashions and whimsical variations without reference to the user experience.

The purpose of this blog is to stimulate discussion about these issues with the goal of encouraging consumers to tell manufacturers what design features are required for a good user experience.

In order to do that consumers need a set of concepts and language with which to investigate and communicate about ergonomics.

Example: When operating the camera in the Capture Phase of use it should optimally be possible for the user to adjust all primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters while looking continuously through the viewfinder and without changing grip with either hand.

Compare and Contrast: Image Quality

As with ergonomics, there are subjective and objective aspects to our appreciation of image quality.

I often read on user forums comments such as: “I really like (…insert your favourite brand…) because I like their colors” or

“I really like (..insert your favourite brand….) because of the luminous, almost three dimensional quality of the pictures”,

And so forth…..

These are subjective responses by users to some aspect of pictures which they have seen from various cameras on the basis of which a decision may be made to buy Brand X in preference to Brand Y.

But then along came some technical people who realised that most of the innate imaging capability of a camera system is determined by the amount of luminance and chroma noise in RAW files.

One organisation, DXO, has even come up with a system for scoring RAW image quality.

You can argue about the validity of this, and plenty of commentators, expert or otherwise, do so frequently. But you cannot deny that DXO has done what some might have thought impossible, namely to put a score on something which might seem to be arcane and subjective.

That is not to dismiss people’s subjective impressions about image quality but to accept that the objective measurements and subjective impressions are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

Compare and Contrast: Performance

Some time ago I posted a review about a camera which had some quite good qualities but which had a RAW shot to shot time of 4 seconds. That was an objective observation. My subjective response was that the camera was so slow I could not recommend it. But I was taken to task by some owners of this camera who said they had no problem with the slow shot to shot times.

So even with performance which is easily measured there are objective and subjective aspects to the user experience.

The way forward

We now have systematic, objective ways to evaluate a camera’s image quality and performance.

As yet users and reviewers are still using ad hoc, idiosyncratic, personal, undefined and unstated criteria for evaluating ergonomics. This is confusing for designers, reviewers and users of cameras.

With this blog I am attempting to rectify that situation. I have developed a systematic way to understand, describe and score ergonomics based on observations which any camera user could make.

Further reading of which there is a great deal on this blog:

* You can find Measuring Camera Ergonomics, Short Summary here, and

* Measuring Camera Ergonomics, Major Summary here.

* I have grouped posts on ergonomic topics into pages which appear at the top of the screen on most browsers.

* Here is the link to Basic Concepts

* Here to Design

* And here to Measuring Ergonomics

Đọc thêm »

G7 and GX8 Puzzling product differentiation

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 00:33

G7 Kit lens

Panasonic recently released two new micro four thirds cameras, The G7 and GX8.

I bought a G7 and have been reviewing it on this blog.

No doubt the two cameras offer potential buyers a choice, but the different specification sets seem a bit puzzling to me and also a bit frustrating.

I will post separately why I bought the G7 in preference to the GX8 but suffice for now to say it has largely to do with ergonomics which seem to me better implemented on the G7.

The GX8 offers several key upgrades to Panasonic’s M43 lineup. These include the new (Sony IMX 269 ???) 20 Mpx sensor and In Body Image Stabiliser (IBIS) with the ability to use both OIS and IBIS together with some lenses.

But if you want that package of features it comes with the GX8’s rangefinder/flat top styling, large-ish body and some ergonomic issues.

G7 in hand. Mostly good ergonomics

Flat top vs Hump top There are basically two popular camera shapes. One is the hump top/SLR, the other is the flat top/rangefinder.

The flat top can be used to achieve a low, slim line body which might be preferred by some users for its aesthetic appeal or because it can be slightly smaller than the hump top.

The hump top style is associated with DSLRs and is generally a taller, larger camera with a larger handle. Cameras of this type have more space on top for a built in EVF, Flash and hotshoe, dials and other controls.

But Panasonic is changing the script.

I am not sure I understand where Panasonic is going with the G and GX lines.

The GX1 was a flat top without EVF.

Then we jumped to the GX7 which was another flat top, this time with EVF but still with the typical slim “rangefinder” look. The GX7 had IBIS for the first time in the Panasonic M43 lineup.

Maybe that is why the upgraded 4 axis IBIS went into the GX8 rather than one of the hump top models.

But that is not the way I hoped Panasonic would go.

The problem is that the IBIS mechanism is bulky. So any camera in which it resides will perforce be larger than one without IBIS.

The GX8 is 36% larger by box volume than the GX7 and 36% heavier.

It seems to me the best camera for IBIS would be a hump top which already has a more bulky appearance anyway.

On that basis the upgraded IBIS and new sensor would have gone into a slightly larger G7 at a higher price point with the GX line remaining slim and stylish at a lower price point.

Or is that the market niche which the GM series is supposed to fill ?

Presumably the GH5 will come in with all the latest techno features at a price point above the GX8.

The M43 camera which I would prefer is more like a slightly larger G7 than the GX8.

Đọc thêm »

Panasonic G7 E-Shutter-vs-M-Shutter Image Quality

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 20:25

G7 ISO 6400 Mechanical Shutter (crop)

In their DPR review of the G7, Richard Butler and Samuel Spencer point out that use of the mechanical shutter may be associated with loss of sharpness due to shutter vibrations. This is rectified by use of the Electronic Shutter as demonstrated in the DPR studio test scene.

My own experience confirms this.

The authors say that ….images made with the E-Shutter….”come at some cost to dynamic range and a slight increase in noise at the highest ISO settings”.

Panasonic M43 cameras including the G7 record images using the M-Shutter at 12 bits per pixel.

But when using the E-Shutter some models record at 10 bits per pixel, presumably in order to speed up the E-Shutter scanning process. When it first appeared on M43 cameras, E-Shutter scanned the frame at about 1/10 second. The G7 scans at about 1/25 second but the penalty for the increased speed is reduced bit depth.

By the way I have seen early reports that the GX8 E-Shutter also scans at about 1/25 second but with no adverse effect on dark tone noise, suggesting full 12 bit recording even with the E-Shutter. I have not seen this confirmed as yet.

Update 28 September: My tests show that the GX8 E-Shutter scans at 1/20 second with no impairment of image quality, indicating 12 bit capture.

Back to the G7, I wanted to know what effect the 10 bit E-Shutter capture would have on my photographs.

So I ran some tests with my copy of the G7.

G7 ISO 6400 Electronic shutter (crop)

The first test was to photograph a still life at ISO 6400, 12800 and 25600 using first the M-Shutter then the E-Shutter.

I then ran the images through Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) 9.1.1 at default settings and viewed the files at 100% on screen.

I could see no difference between the M-Shutter and E-Shutter versions at ISO 6400 and 12800.

At ISO 25600 the E-Shutter version showed a just barely detectable increase in grain and just barely detectable decrease in dark tone detail, but I had to pixel peep at 100% with the images side by side to see any difference at all.

The photos show a crop of the original full frame.

G7 Electronic Shutter ISO 200 Underexposed 5 stops, exposure increased 5 stops in Camera Raw

G7 Mechanical shutter ISO 200 underexposed 5 stops, exposure increased 5 stops in Camera Raw

Next I did a RAW torture test. This involved underexposing the same still life 5 stops at ISO 200 then in ACR pulling the [Exposure] slider 5 stops to the right. This gave the same exposure in terms of aperture and shutter speed as an ISO setting of 6400.

When the M-Shutter was used this produced a normal looking photographic result, but a bit noisy and with some evident green color cast in the dark tones.

The test did show that setting ISO 6400 gives a better result with less noise and more accurate color than ISO 200 underexposed 5 stops then pulled up 5 stops in ACR.

When the E-Shutter was used there was more luminance noise and much more prominent chroma noise with a strong green cast in mid and dark tones. I could not find a way to correct this in ACR.

So, what is the point of this apparently stupid exercise ?

Nobody deliberately underexposes a photo 5 stops just to increase the [Exposure] 5 stops in Camera Raw.

The point is that it warns us what is likely to happen when we are working with a file in Camera Raw and we start to pull up the dark tones with the [Exposure] and [Shadows] sliders.

A photo made with the E-Shutter will show green blotchy noise sooner and to a greater degree than one made with the M-Shutter.

Does this matter ?

For the great majority of photos probably not.

But if you have a photo which requires the dark tones to be pulled up a lot in Camera Raw then yes, it could make a visible difference to the final result.

Đọc thêm »

Ergonomic evolution of the Panasonic G cameras 2015

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 17:47

G7 in hand. The best Panasonic G cam to date.

The original G1 model of 2008 was a trailblazer in the photographic world.

It was the first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. With no predecessor the designers had to go boldly where none had gone before.

They co-designed with Olympus and others a completely new sensor size, lens mount and internal workings. They got an entirely new camera system up and running from a standing start.

That was quite an achievement.

But with so much emphasis on the complex technology inside the camera it seemed there was not much R&D energy left for the all important Human Machine Interface (HMI).

When the G1 appeared I immediately saw that it was the first model of a type of camera which would one day displace the DSLR as the dominant type of interchangeable lens camera (ILC).

There have been some considerable technological barriers to surmount. The main ones are predictive/continuous AF on moving subjects, EVF refresh rate/blackout and shutter shock. The MILC makers are still working on these and I believe are close to achieving resolution of the main issues.

The other impediment to market acceptance was the poor ergonomics of the early models. I am pleased to report that this too, is improving although there is still work to be done.

I came to the G1 from Canon SLRs and DSLRs. I got fed up with these because they refused to focus reliably and were anyway too bulky and heavy for my liking.

My last Canon DSLRs were the EOS 40D, 450D and 60D.

The 450D had a cramped, uncomfortable handle and poorly implemented rear button haptics.

The 40D had a row of buttons below the monitor which is a most unsatisfactory place for them.

The 60D had decent ergonomics with a comfortable handle, shutter button and control dial in basically the right places, fully articulated monitor, big rear dial and mostly decent buttons. But I could see the 60D could easily be improved especially in way of the control dial and the row of buttons behind the dial.
I posted my ideas about the 60D on this bloghere. Canon continues to make DSLRs with the same layout as the 60D showing they are not advancing in the ergonomic aspect of design.

Moving to the G1 was a bit of a shock. Sure it was smaller but the problem was the poorly designed HMI. The camera was very awkward to use.

So, what do I believe Panasonic got right and wrong with the G1 ?

All my work on ergonomics to date indicates they got the basic concept right.

That is, small DSLR shaped camera with a handle, shutter button forward on the handle, Mode Dial and Control Dial, fully articulated monitor, EVF on the lens axis and plenty of controls for the expert use but an Auto [iA] Mode for the novice.

But they got the user interface wrong in several different ways as described below.

The G1 appears to be a scaled down L10 which was a DSLR using the 4/3 system, abandoned by Panasonic after a short time.

The problem is that cameras do not scale up and down for the simple reason that the hands which use them do not change size.

Simon Joinson’s 2007 Digital Photography Review of 2007 described the L10 as having “excellent handling and ergonomics”. I have never held an L10 in my hands but knowing what I now do about the elements of camera ergonomics I am a bit sceptical of that assessment, given the placement and detailing of some of the controls.

Anyway whether the L10 is excellent or not the scaled down G1 is decidedly not.

Mockup of the thin projecting handle used on early model Panasonic G cameras. If the pad of the distal phalanx of the index finger is on the shutter button the palm of the hand is forced away from the right side of the handle, leading to a weak grip and suboptimal stability.

The first problem is the handle. This is of the “thin projecting” type with shutter button perched on the top/front. A larger camera can get away with this as the deeper handle opens up the fingers of the right hand.

Same mockup as above. If I hold it in the strongest and most comfortable position as shown here the index finger is nowhere near the shutter button.

But a smaller camera exposes the weakness of the handle type. It is not shaped to conform to the anatomy of the hand and fingers. If the user’s index finger is to get onto the shutter button, as it must, the palm of the right hand is forced away from the right side of the camera leading to a weak and uncomfortable grip.

If the user holds the camera in something approximating a “best fit” grip, the index finger falls nowhere near the shutter button.

The middle finger of the right hand lays directly over the front control dial. In order to operate the dial the right hand must be released, camera support transferred to the left hand, the dial operated then the right hand returned to holding position.

The 4Way controller (cursor buttons in Panasonic speak) is difficult to use as the buttons are low and flat on top, almost impossible to feel with the thumb.

After the G1 I took an excursion into Samsung land with the NX10 which is almost exactly the same size as the G1 but much nicer to hold and operate. I learned a lot from comparing the two and discovered that the details of the HMI can make a very big difference to the user experience.

I missed the G2 which is basically a G1 with the control dial moved to the back, in much the same position as the GH2 which I had for a while.

Then came the G3 which I rate the worst Panasonic G cam ever. It hardly seems possible but they replaced the poorly designed handle of the previous models with an even worse one, this time not even a proper handle but a little protrusion such as you might find on a compact camera.

This model seems to have been an attempt by Panasonic to explore the “smallness” concept even further than before.

It is an ergonomic failure.

The shutter button is in the ergonomically suboptimal top/rear position on the body.

The rear dial of the G3 is so buried in the back of the camera the only way to turn it is to push the very tip of the thumb, just beneath the nail, into the dial. This is very awkward and uncomfortable, requiring a big change in the position of the right hand. Worse, the dial is the push/click type and I usually pushed it in too far when I tried to turn it.

The Cursor buttons are still the same old…same old…flat tops….not good.

My copy had a gap between misaligned body panels at the right lower rear corner so every time I tried to use the camera the sharp edge of one of the panels cut into my hand.

Picture quality is quite good. Pity about the hideous ergonomics.

There was no G4 presumably for superstitious reasons. But then along came the GH4. Go figure.

The G5 goes some way to getting the G line back on track with the original and I believe optimal concept.

It has a larger, more curved, more anatomical handle. It is more comfortable to hold. The shutter button has moved closer to the optimal position. The thumb support is well shaped and angled. The cursor buttons are of rocking type, unfortunately not the same as that on current FZ cameras and unfortunately with a smooth chrome style finish when the module really should have a highly textured rough finish so it is easy to locate by feel.

The rear dial has moved into the thumb support which would be the optimal position if the thumb support was large enough, which it is not. So the dial has to move right around to the right side of the rear of the camera. In addition it has the rounded, soft lands which make it difficult to operate smoothly.

So the G5 is a modest step forward ergonomically.

The G6 is a mild upgrade of the G5 with minor styling changes. Ergonomically they are almost identical. Both have sufficient space for a front dial just behind or around the shutter button but both have instead a toggle type lever with limited functionality.

G7 A compact, well designed very functional ILC that is a pleasure to use. This camera packs a lot of capability into a small package.

Now we come to the G7. This is the current model and represents a big ergonomic upgrade for the G series, making it easily the best ergonomic G cam thus far. It returns to the original concept of a small DSLR style camera. It is only 1mm wider and 2mm taller than the G1 but better designed all round.

Handle shape and shutter button position are significantly improved. The handle is fatter, deeper, more rounded and better shaped to fit the hand than previously. The shutter button has moved further inboard (to the left as viewed by the user) to allow a more natural position for the right index finger on the shutter button with the hand wrapped comfortably around the handle.

A full twin dial design is now provided for the first time in the G line. The dials are very well designed, shaped and positioned for easy operation by the right index finger and thumb. Dial haptics have improved markedly. It appears Panasonic is finally getting the message that dials should have sharp serrations with sufficient projection for smooth reliable operation. The front dial is concentric with the shutter button for easy access and operation by the index finger. One click gives 1/3 EV step value change. Nice. I would have continued the serrations up onto the top of the dial a bit further but I quibble.

Rear dial position and implementation is quite clever. There is not enough width in the thumb support to embed the dial GH3/4 style, so the designers have put it just above a thumb support with cutaway top to enable the thumb to rotate the dial without having to shift grip with the hand. Dial haptics are good. The dial is easy to rotate but doesn’t get bumped inadvertently. Serrations and resistance are just right for smooth operation.

There is a little ridge down the right side of the control panel (to the right of the 4Way controller) to prevent inadvertent pressing of the Disp and WB buttons. Nice. It works too.

The G7 also acquires Panasonic’s Focus Mode lever seen on several cameras from the L10 onwards, and a proper Drive Mode dial to the left of the EVF hump. These features permit efficient operation in Prepare and Capture phases of use.

Altogether I rate the G7 as almost perfect. But not quite…………….

The Cursor buttons have reverted to the old flat type which are not so easy to locate by feel. They are usable but I switch between the G7 and the FZ1000 often and I can say the “rocking saucer” type cursor button module on the FZ1000 is much easier to locate and operate by feel.

The same comment applies to the Disp button which is required in Capture Phase of use to re-center the AF box. It needs to be elevated slightly more. Maybe 0.5mm would do the trick.

Panasonic could fix these problems in production. They would make many friend in the process.

So there you have it.

Evolution of the G line has been a bumpy ride with many hitches, glitches, backward moves and ergonomic mistakes along the way.

But the G7 is almost there. With some minor haptic modifications it could become one of the top ergonomic performers on the ILC market and I include all ILCs of all sizes and types in that group.

Đọc thêm »