News Reviews Features Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review

January 2015 | By Allison Johnson

Panasonic's new baby CSC is the Lumix DMC-GM5, a camera that continues the theme of miniature styling established by the Lumix DMC-GM1 only a year ago. For those who need a refresher, the GM1 is the almost inconceivably small interchangeable lens camera bearing a 16MP Four Thirds sensor and Micro Four Thirds lens mount. The GM5 is an addition to the range, rather than a replacement for the GM1, bringing some small (that's the theme here) but notable new features to the lineup.

The GM5 offers the same imaging basics as the GM1, including that 16MP Live MOS Four Thirds sensor, but adds a 1.16 million pixel electronic viewfinder and a clickable rear command dial. It's a slightly bigger camera, but in the scale of the GM-series that means an extra 5mm here and there. They are both truly small cameras.

Panasonic GM5 specification highlights

16MP Live MOS Four Thirds sensor
Built-in Wi-Fi (no NFC)
3.0-inch, 921k-dot touch-sensitive LCD
1080 HD video recording at 60p
Bundled flash
1/16,000 maximum shutter speed (with all-electronic shutter)
Focus peaking
Picture-in-picture magnification for manual focus
Micro HDMI output
Magnesium-alloy shell with aluminum top and bottom plates

Minor differences exist between the cameras in terms of hardware. The GM5 uses a slightly lower-resolution 3.0-inch display (921k-dot vs 1036k-dot), but adds 1080/60p video recording where the GM1 tops out at 1080/30p. The GM5 also introduces a few more physical buttons to the rear control layout.

Less fortunately, the GM5 uses the same battery as the GM1, a DMW-BLH7 that's rated to 220 shots with the GM5. That's an extremely low number, even among cameras the same size as the GM5, and especially against other interchangeable lens cameras.

The GM1 offers a pop-up flash, which has been omitted from the GM5 in favor of a hotshoe. A small flash accessory is bundled with the camera, with a guide number 7 at ISO 100 and a pretty poor 1/50 second flash sync speed.

Panasonic GM5 vs. GM1 vs. Sony RX100 III

	Panasonic GM1	Panasonic GM5	Sony RX100 III
Sensor	16MP, Four Thirds	16MP, Four Thirds	20MP, 1"-type BSI CMOS
Sensor size (mm²)	225mm²	225mm²	116mmじゅうろくみり²
Lens Mount	Micro Four Thirds	Micro Four Thirds	Fixed
Zoom range (kit or fixed, 35mm equiv.)	24-64mm	24-64mm	24-70mm
LCD	3.0-inch 1036K-dot fixed touch screen	3.0-inch 921k-dot fixed touch screen	3.0-inch 1229K-dot tilting
Flash	Built-in	Bundled	Built-in
Viewfinder option	None	Built-in EVF	Built-in EVF
Raw shooting	Yes	Yes	Yes
Connectivity	Wi-Fi	Wi-Fi	Wi-Fi with NFC
Video capture max. resolution	1080 60i, 30p	1080 60p, 60i	1080 60p, 60i
Stabilization	In-lens	In-lens	Optical Steady Shot
Dimensions	98.5 x 54.9 x 30.4 mm (3.88 x 2.16 x 1.20")	99 x 60 x 36 mm (3.9 x 2.36 x 1.42″)	102 x 58 x 41 mm (4.02 x 2.28 x 1.61″)
Weight	274 g (0.60 lb / 9.60 oz)	281 g (0.62 lb / 9.92 oz)	290 g (0.64 lb / 10.23 oz)

The key feature differences between the GM1 and GM5 are outlined above. What's hard to quantify in a comparison table is the impact of two added customizable Fn buttons, a clickable control dial and inclusion of ISO on the four-way control pad. These things can make a real difference to enthusiast shooters.

Comparing an ILC to a compact seems like an unfair fight, but the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III is close to the GM5 in terms of size, features, price and some of its target audience. Opting for the RX100 III would mean making do with a much smaller sensor and fixed lens. The RX100 III does offer something closer to true pocketability, a higher resolution sensor at 21MP, an articulated LCD and a faster lens.

Kit options and pricing

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 is sold as a kit with a LUMIX G Vario 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH. MEGA O.I.S. lens for $900/£700. A kit with the Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH lens has appeared in the UK for £950 but doesn't look to be available in the US. Bundled with all kits is an external flash.

It's no coincidence that the stocking-stuffer-sized GM5 is shipping in time for the 2014 winter holiday. Is it ideal for an enthusiast looking for a big sensor ILC with a small body? Or is an enthusiast better off committing to a slightly bigger or smaller camera?

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

Gear in this story

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5

I own it

176

I want it

I had it

Discuss in the forums

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Compact System Camera	$897.99
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Compact System Camera	$897.99
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera with 12-32mm Lens, 16MP, 3" Touch LCD Display, Full HD 1080p Video, HDMI/USB, Wi-Fi, Black	$755.00
Panasonic DMC-GM5KR Lumix GM5 Interchangeable Single Lens Camera (DSLM), Plus 12-32 mm with Included Kit Lens	$799.99
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GM1 16.0 MP Digital Camera (Silver, W/ 12-32 Lens)	$549.00
Panasonic DMC-GM5 Mirrorless Digital Camera (Black Body Only)	$630.95
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GM1KS Compact System Camera with 12-32mm Silver Lens Kit	$697.99
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GM1 16.0 MP Digital Camera - Orange (Body Only)	$440.89
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Mirrorless Interchangeable Single Lens Digital Camera with 12-32mm Kit Lens, 16MP, 3" LCD Screen, Full HD 1080p Video, HDMI, USB, Red	$768.99
Panasonic LUMIX GX7 16.0 MP DSLM Camera with LUMIX G VARIO 14-42mm II Lens and Tilt-Live Viewfinder (Silver)	$797.99
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera & 12-32mm Lens (Orange) with 64GB Card + Hand Grip + Case + Battery + Tripod + Tele/Wide Lenses Kit	$699.95

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 437

Nice set up with Pana15, Oly 25 and 45. perfect image Quality in a way nobody else can deliver in such a small package. Never used a flash for the last i guess 5 years. 1.7 lenses and there is not need for a flash. Also with the pana 14-140 it is a small superzoomer with much better image Qualitiy than FZ1000 or RX10 and much smaller. And you can use the fast primes.......
My normal day set up
Gm5 with 14-140
G7 with 100-300
GM1 with one the the primes
....or in any other combination in a small bag under 2 KG with 3 Bodys and 5 lenses...is there anything else i need??

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

For such tiny cameras, a built-in flash is best. As it is, it can't compete with the A6000. Only for owners of M43 lenses. I will wait for the GM7.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Huh? For some it is about size. The A6000 is much larger and has an APS-C sensor. Two different class cameras. The comparison you are making is odd.

2 upvotes

I'm getting a GM5 to complement my A6000 and A7S :) The GM5 will be great for food pics at restaurants and gatherings with friends, as it's small and unobtrusive.

0 upvotes

Another Panasonic flashless camera for the consumer market!

3 upvotes

Here's another consideration. I hyper-extended my shoulder/upper arm area several years ago. Up until that time I used and loved Canon Cameras and Lenses. On my next trip to France I was in severe pain from carrying around the Canon with lens. I just couldn't do it. So, after much consideration, I switched to the Lumix line of cameras. I am now equipped with a GX7 and a GM5. What a nice way to still enjoy taking photos during travels while not aggravating an old physical injury. I think the Lumix G series of cameras offers a nice alternative to heavy DSLR cameras while still having the ability to use a full range of quality lenses.

6 upvotes

was just imagining this with one of the oly body cap lenses... would that still produce better images than, say, a nikon p340? surely it'd be better than a smartphone.

just to take the portability idea to the extreme. i used to have a ricoh gr with me 24/7. my pana gf is just a bit too large/heavy for carrying around all the time.

0 upvotes

Great little camera! Had it since the holidays. It can go places no other ILC can go.

I put the 15mm on it and throw it in a coat pocket if I'm not taking a "big" camera with me. Superb little performer. Surprisingly, the "kit zoom" is an *excellent* lens.

5 upvotes

yes, even from what you can see in test images, the kit zoom seems to be a really impressive piece of engineering. in germany some dealers even offer olympus cameras in a kit with this lense.

3 upvotes

I want 1080/60p video recording with my GM-1, should be included in new FW.

1 upvote

Here's a thought for the reviewer's once in a lifetime vacation...bring a once in a lifetime camera setup. For all the rest, use the GM5 and its various jewel-like lens options. Absolute sensor performance doesn't mean that much to me anymore. Sensors have gotten so good relatively that if you can't cope with any of the modern sensors, you're doing it wrong. With a 5D2 and 1D3 handy to me, I want the biggest gap in size and handiness to those...I still take my GM1 everywhere and have produced more keepers with it than any other camera I've owned. My NEX flirtation was short lived...not small enough to be unobtrusive to go everywhere.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

10 upvotes

It is as if Panasonic marketing does things specifically to spite customers. I have, and love, the GM1.....When I can use it, which is any time there is no sunshine in the area. I was hoping for the GM5, or something similar, since purchase of the GM1. Now, Panasonic decides they are not going to sell this interchangable lens camera, body-only. I do not need, and will not pay for, another identical kit lens. At a bare minimum, they should offer a kit version with the newer 35-100 lens.

It is probably foolish for me to rant here. My purpose is to make Panasonic aware of the fact that I- a loyal Panasonic customer- want a body-only option for this camera. How insane must I be to think that Panasonic would monitor a consumer based site like DPreview?

8 upvotes

In NL there are shops that sell body only. 599 Euro.
I know, since I bought one.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

Thanks, maybe there is hope for me.

0 upvotes

I agree, it's annoying.
However: the 12-32 kit lens sells rather well on ebay...

1 upvote

Here in Sweden you can find several resellers selling both the camera and the kit lens as split-box offers, at much lower cost than the camera-only or lens-only retail prices to boot. I just picked up the GM1 for 1990 SEK (about $195 USD exkl sales tax - it was introduced at 7990 SEK camera body cost) excluding the kit lens, and I found the kit lens "bulk" at another retailer for same price. A lovely package at a lovely price. Here, Panasonic cameras are notorious at being sold on close-out rock bottom prices a year or so after introduction, unlike Olympus who hold their prices much longer. Guess it may be because of the rate that Panasonic spits out new models.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

I would buy the GM5 body only as well. What a stupid move by Panasonic. They could be making more money by selling the GM5 body only OR with the 15mm as a kit lens.

My money will stay in my pocket.

3 upvotes

Just saw the deal "GM1 for 1990 SEK about $195 USD".

It is interesting to see Panasonic's price holds very well in the USA in the past year.

1 upvote

Yes I bought one and a second GX7 body for 3490kr or
420 USD

0 upvotes

Ia Aus there are 3 choices. Body only, Body + 12-32mm, and otionally 35-100mm kit lens as well. SO I think the problem is with Panasonic USA. I got both lenses, but will sell the 35-100, as I have the f2.8 version.

1 upvote

"Dated sensor"

Come on: this is electronics: it is 2015: if it is in stock it is out of date!

10 upvotes

So? Better don't release anything at all since it's outdate quick anyway? What's your point?
I definitely hoped for a new sensor... but well, the existing one is still fine, all the other improvements are at least as valuable for me.
With the great IBIS, you can reduce high ISO problems in many cases.

0 upvotes

I will wait until they are £250 -should be end of the year

1 upvote

What does the GX7 with kitzoom cost?

Unless Samsung introduces some radically new NX-mini in the next few months, I think that price is unlikely by the end of the year.

0 upvotes

Actually I would suggest that the GM1 is more of an enthusiast camera than the GM5 which leans to a less enthusiast ease of use evf. "to make it easier". Enthusiast means offering a challenge to the user to make it work well. Point and shoot means "easy living" to get "acceptable" images but incapable of doing much more no matter how you try.

So if you look for easy living then you can use the GM1/5 as such, but a camera that bring out enthusism must always be an enthusiast camera. To see it otherwise is more a user problem than a problem with the camera itself

1 upvote

You have a strange definition of "enthusiast".

Put a good lens on either and keep the ISO 3200, or below, shoot raw, and both are capable of stunning images.

7 upvotes

That is one of the most bizarre pieces of reasoning related to camera gear I've ever encountered.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting

6 upvotes

Bizarre? How can an evf turn a camera from being a casual users camera into an enthusiasts camera? Or vice versa. Either both cameras are for casual users or both can be enthusiast cameras.

They are substantially the same piece of equipment.

But I guess some words are necessary to pad out a review of cameras that are substantially the same thing.

0 upvotes

You seemed to be arguing that the GM1 was more of an enthusiast camera than the GM5 because the GM5's EVF made it easier to use. That is a bizarre argument all by itself for what should be obvious reasons, but just in case they are not just do a quick inventory of all the top of the line cameras that pretty much ONLY appeal to professionals and enthusiasts and make a note of which ones have viewfinders and which ones don't. And that's to say nothing of the fact that you went on to imply that the GM5 was somehow less capable than the GM1 just because the EVF rendered it more of an "easy living" offering.

But moreover, all of these cameras are marketed to casual users and enthusiasts alike. This is evidenced by the fact that they include both beginner-level and enthusiast-level features and modes. So I would submit that it is not the camera itself that dictates "enthusiasm" but rather the person who is using it. I would think that would be rather obvious.

2 upvotes

Give me a break. The LX100 scores 85% and the GM5 77%. According to DPR even the IQ of the 12MP sensor, zoom lens equipped LX seems to better the GM5 with the 45mm/1.8. I had the LX100 and returned after one week. Its IQ is noticeably and clearly inferior to the GM1/GM5 with any of the mft prime lenses. The "Leica Vario Summilux" (what a mouthful) glued to the LX100 is actually a pretty disappointing performer and especially fully open at its wide an long ends not good enough and easily bettered by most zooms of other compacts (e.g. RX100III). I picked up the GM5 last night and with either the 15mm, 25/1.8 or 45mm primes its so much more serious as a camera as compared to the DPR hyped LX100.

7 upvotes

There are higher than normal % of return as seem from online-store for LX100.

DPR are normally only looking for PROs of a given camera.

They do report CONs if they are easily to be identified.

DPR's "Lab test" are very good, and worth a look.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

ek,

Just for the colour alone the lens on the LX100 is a real draw. Correct, it is not incredibly sharp when open past f/2.8. However sharpness is almost always overrated.

The RX100III does NOT have the good colour of the LX100. Though this may not be a lens thing.

Perhaps the GM5 would score higher if one could buy the body without a not great kitzoom.

Then though both cameras likely use the same sensor, one as you realize takes interchangeable lenses, meaning it's in a different class.

1 upvote

I agree that the LX100 has a poor lens (or maybe what we're demanding of it is unreasonable..?). Either way, the lens is sharp in the center, but is poor at the edges of the frame, especially at the wide end (24mm equiv), and overall at the 70mm end. You can see all this in the DP Review image gallery (I have bought two and returned them, couldn't believe the softness at the edges), but I think anyway there's way too much focus on all the features on the camera and not enough on the optics which create the image.

0 upvotes

Ashton45:

I think the LX100's lens is reasonably sharp, corners included, when stopped down past f/2.4. But I've not gone out and bought one.

I think it's a fine camera.

Luminous-Landscape has a nice review by Reichmann.

0 upvotes

Thank you for the review Allison.. nicely done. I would add that its so short sighted of Panny not to include a tilty screen.. a small discreet camera like this would be used a lot in street shooting- cafes-tight crowded spaces ect.. its allmost a must here..

4 upvotes

Tilty screen? That is what the wifi is for, setting the camera on the ground, and controlling the camera from your phone!

0 upvotes

Good point WesternSage.. i have seen this being used.. and once i update my phone it will be great to try it out. I can see there are benefits to wifi with phone& pad.. and to tilty screen.. Being 66, i tend to keep things simple now.. but open to your suggestion.. cheers.

0 upvotes

Someone forgot to update the score icon on main review to reflect the silver award.

0 upvotes

I love the camera but it is WAY too expensive (GM1 is still pricey too, even used). People should take a look at the Panasonic GF6 which doesn't have the 1/500s shutter limitation which I think could be a problem for fast motions. Too bad the GF7 also has the screwy shutter.

1 upvote

This is because the GM1/5 contrary to opinions given are in fact extremely well built enthusiast cameras. Trying to jawbone price this down to an average mans budget only highlights that the GF7 is going to be the real point and shoot.

0 upvotes

I imagine a lot of engineering went into the GM1/GM5...and they have no competition now that Oly seems to have decided to not come out with a PM3 model.

0 upvotes

2012 m43 sensor is not more dated than a 2012 D800 sensor.
All made by Sony. Would ppl find this sensor "dated" if mounted on a recent camera ?
Not me.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

6 upvotes

2 years old is considered dated in the computer world.

0 upvotes

"2 years old is considered dated in the computer world."
Some 10-15 years ago that statement would be considered a truth, but not anymore.

4 upvotes

gLOWx:

This is likely a Panasonic+partners 4/3s sensor. (There's no such thing as an m4/3s sensor.)

And my nearly 4 year old a laptop is still more advanced than most.

0 upvotes

Modern ultrabooks are FASTER than most 4-year-old workstations.

0 upvotes

nerd2:

They're not faster than my laptop.

And there would be big speed increase with my laptop, if I put a full SSD in as my laptop's C drive.

Remember ultrabooks don't have i7 quadcore CPUs and discrete videocards.

Now right, there are faster laptops than mine, but those aint cheap, and very few can match the screen on mine for colour work.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

http://www.xoticpc.com/gigabyte-p34wv3cf2-preorder-p-7617.html

Quadcore CPU, 970M GPU, 14" IPS display and 1.7kg. And it is technically a ultrabook.

0 upvotes

nerd2:

Impressive machine.

Not sure it qualifies as an ultrabook and I never disputed that there are faster laptops today.

Also, and more important, not sure it's available yet.

Then most important, I ever wouldn't go buying gear like that from a vendor without a big service network.

Last the link says "ultrabook-like", so not.

I'm sure it's close the way an i7 15" Macbook is.

I can't really think of a "real" ultrabook with an optical drive. I guess there could be one.

Then a 5 year old Xeon workstation could very well still be faster. Would have cost $10,000 when new.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

nerd2:

From the Wikipedia Ultrabook standards:

That laptop is too fat for the 2012 14" screen standards.

The standards get a bit fatter the next year, and it would qualify.

There are no Wiki Ultrabook standards listed for 2014--last year.

I'm seeing bloat creep.

Then that laptop is definitely NOT available yet.

So in 6 months let us see if has shipped and it has to have been accepted by gamers--and that means no overheating problems.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Intel hasn't made much progress on their cpu's since sandy. Bridge.
Released in 2011. If you have a i5 or above from that series it means the desktop will outperform about every laptop available now. Since it has more or less the same architecture while being clocked 50% higher due to less heat restrictions.

Intel did bring the power consumption down and increased the potential of the gpu.
However a decent 2011 dedicated gpu still outperforms the iris pro from intel.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Yeah! First camera in two months. Another silver award! Pop that champagne folks.
You'd have to be an artichoke not to get a silver award these days.
Lucky that you got the comment about the sensor being 'dated', that word is going out and will turn into 'special' in a few months...You have to decipher these reviews like an intercepted KGB document from the 70s.
Here is the way I read it:
It's expensive for a 3yo sensor and 3/4 sucks vs. new sonys APS-C that can be had for half the money, only redeeming quality it fits in my handbag which is a complete mess anyways.

3 upvotes

Where is Sony A77 Mark II review guys? How many years will it take you?

5 upvotes

What ru tlk about? These reviews are done.
Sony A77 II ---check
Sony A7 II ---check

Dont you like the new 'hors d'oeuvre' format we got just before xmas? Should have been enough to push any drone buyer toward the product of their choice...preferably bought through amazon. I expect that only the big ticket items/high'coolness' factor products will get a review going forward.
DPR was Phil Askey one man vision and is long gone. Sad isn't it?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Still no control over minimum shutter speed for auto-ISO in the A and P modes???

1 upvote

Maybe good if you have really small hands. The GX7, which I love, is barely large enough to operate without accidentally hitting one of the various buttons. There's a functional limit to small.

0 upvotes

It's not just the size of the camera that's important, but the way the controls are designed and laid out.

I have big hands. I own a GM5 and find it easy to operate without hitting the wrong buttons.

I find the GM5 to be more ergonomic than Olympus's E-M5 and E-M10, both of which are significantly larger cameras.

2 upvotes

lol

Next people will ask DPR about the true meaning of "bad JPEGs".

1 upvote

Ed Chen:

Is the EOS M2 even available. I don't see it in the USA at least.

And the older model is basically gone from stores too.

0 upvotes

With respect, and having enjoyed her review in a number of ways, I still think Allison needs to provide us with her criteria for labelling the GM5 sensor as "dated." Many here and elsewhere (eg the m4/3rds forum) have rushed to surmise what they think she means, but it is better to give her the chance to tell us herself. I hope she does that.

12 upvotes

I've had mine for about a month and it's been in my handbag or coat pocket ever since. Just love it. I slipped a tiny but sturdy manfrotto tripod into my handbag as well which is very useful to take pics in exhibitions, cafes or churches. Or to use the GM5 with a smartphone to take short videos of kids in a way they don't notice it too much.

Upcoming Metz 26 could be a compact match to the GM5 for those unhappy with the supplied flash.

Have hardly used the evf so far because the lcd is good enough for the current weather over here (grey or partly sunny).

Thought my 14-140 (version 2) lens would be unbalanced on such a small body but it's OK and will remain the main lens I use on mountain walks.

Wish Oly would come up with an e-pm3 with decent screen and wifi to hold the primes.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

It is surprising that DPR has not highlighted the aging 16 Mb sensor on 4/3 before. It appears to have been used widely on both Pany and Oly products for several years. What is curious is that Sony, the largest shareholder in Olympus, has not offered its partner upgraded sensors to better compete with Pany. When Sony bought the shareholding and provided a cash injection to Olympus it spoke of the synergies between Olympus lenses and Sony sensors - there is the obvious competition between 4/3rds and APSC ILCs but why aren't Olympus redesigning their lenses for Sony cameras? Meanwhile Olympus are investing effort in sensor shift on their 16 Mb sensor to generate 40 Mb images (albeit from a tripod) . And at the same time Sony is selling its 20 Mb 1" sensor from the RX100 III to Pany for the CM1 phone ,and the FZ1000 superzoom, and to Canon for the G7 X. So does Sony have a new generation of sensors ready and waiting? PS. If I'm not mistaken another investor in Olympus is Nikon

0 upvotes

I don't get the autofocus remark. Single point autofocus of GM1/GM5 is decisively better than A5100/A6000, especially under low light. And despite using a purely contrast detect system, continuous autofocus is very very useable. It's most certainly not "more point-and-shoot-like than the competition". Quite the opposite, it's one of the strenghts of the camera.

7 upvotes

Panasonic AF is the fastest in mirrorless world.
But Sony is close behind.
And Olympus (along with Fuji) are last ;)
But i still love my Oly for what i do.
For wildlife/sport, i would have bought a Panasonic.

3 upvotes

gLOWx:

Have you tried a Sony A6000 or Samsung NX1?

0 upvotes

I'm really happy with my GM5. For years I've longed for a pocketable camera with EVF and with a small tele lens. Panasonic did it, and did a fantastic job at it.

This is not a camera for people who want an item of lust like the OM-D or X-T1. This camera is a tool to add to your toolbox. Together with the pancakes and collapsible zooms, it makes for a perfect companion to a full frame system. It gets the job done.

3 upvotes

Strange, I'm lusting after the GM5. I find the Pansonic GM and GX series better looking from a design perspective than the OM-D products. However, the X-T1 beats them all for sure.

1 upvote

Allison, very informative and well written review. :)

I think almost every comment below this one could be ignored.

Carl

9 upvotes

What about comments above yours?

Also below there plenty of comments on the camera and various arguments, etc. Not one of which spends any time commenting on the reviewer.

(No, I've not read the review. Though I did give the 1st gallery shot a look, thinking it was a 160000 ISO example.)

4 upvotes

16000.

0 upvotes

My point exactly, above.

0 upvotes

cg:

Um.

Comments on the camera, independent of the reviewer/review are to be ignored?

I know this is not your first visit to the DPR website.

What world are you living in?

And now you've posted below your own comment.

A GM5 review is going to attract comments and perfectly valid debates about the GM5.

2 upvotes

You're missing my point entirely. That's ok too, cuz its no big deal. Moving on :)

1 upvote

First camera review in almost a month and a half! And a seven pages long.
Congratulations, DPR!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

6 upvotes

DPR ONLY have 15 (?) staff.

In the other words, if take 2 man year to test one camera, DPR can review 7.5 cameras which is about "a month and a half" per camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Somehow Phil Askey could do as much if not more as a one man band.

1 upvote

yeah! what ever happnd to that guy??

1 upvote

The content of the site continues to drift away from what it was under Phil. However, I chalk that up to the dominant marketing presence of Amazon, and not to any shortcomings of the current core staff. They're great guys. With all this other editorial stuff that's appearing, it's quite an achievement to turn out any reviews at all. I anticipate the day when DPR will disappear under the dark waters of Amazon marketing interest and long-time DPR participants will drift over to another site more like what they had and loved in those earlier years.

0 upvotes

As far as I can tell, Phil seems to have settled in Malaysia, supporting his son's development as an auto race driver!

0 upvotes

That's a shame DPR didn't show a comparison of the EVF size compared to other models (Sony RX100 III, Panasonic LX100 and some other MFT bodies).
It's difficult to gauge how small it is compared to a "regular" MFT body (E-M10, GX7, etc.).

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

in 35mm terms:
GM5: .46x
RX100 III: 0.59x
LX100: 0.7x

And I thought that RX100 viewfinder is too small to be of any practical use

1 upvote

Good info.

I have tried RX100 III's EVF, and it takes me a while to use it practically.

The GM5's EVF is even noticeably smaller, I'm not sure it is useable.

May be it is better than nothing.

0 upvotes

Thanks for the info!
Ugh... it's so small. To me that's a deal breaker as I really dislike composing using the back screen :-/

0 upvotes

I find the GM5's viewfinder to be adequate for composition. I use it about half of the time when shooting, with the LCD for the other half.

On my Olympus camera I shoot with a VF-4, which is probably the best viewfinder on the market. Coming from the VF-4, the GM5's viewfinder seems like peering down a tunnel at an old TV set. However, it is still "good enough" to do the job.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

@y thxbb12 Just go to camerasize.com

0 upvotes

Yes, a graphic showing the relative apparent sizes of EVFs, similar to those comparing sensor sizes, would be very helpful.

0 upvotes

I guess they don't want to include it because for most of the people it'd be misleading. Size isn't the only important thing about viewfinder. Here is a specific case, cause it's very small, but otherwise it could lead people into believing that larger EVF is universally better, which is not true.

0 upvotes

You could say the same about sensors...😄

0 upvotes

@Plastek
For the most part, larger EVFs are usually better than smaller ones. Something similar to what it depicted on page 13 of the E-M1 review could have been done: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/3
I don't understand why DPR doesn't always show an image comparing the tested camera's EVF with the competition. The EVF is one of most important parts of a camera!

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Little, Improved

That is ambiguous grammar.

Is that supposed to mean the camera has hardly been improved over the previous version (as in little improvement) or is a small camera that has had improvements made to it?

"Small, improved" is less ambiguous if you are going to adopt a spartan headline and use a comma instead of a "but" or an "and".

</grammar alert>

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting

6 upvotes

I had that exact subconscious interpretation of the opening line. In fact I had dismissed the camera as receiving a "negative" first impression. It wasn't until late last night that I finally realized that the reviewer meant to say "it's a small camera. It's an improvement over previous versions".

3 upvotes

The comma is there. Any ambiguity is playful and engaging. It’s the kind of thing that makes writing (and reading) fun!

13 upvotes

Sorry, I didn't find the grammar ambiguous at all.

I read "Little, improved" as the camera being small and improved.

Then again, English grammar is different to American grammar and from generation to generation with a mix of colloquialism and vernacularism thrown into the metaphorical bag. Ergo, being pedantic over grammar is a paradoxical oxymoron.

Oh, yeah! I think the camera is pretty good and good review!

0 upvotes

pretty, good ;)

1 upvote

Could have been a combination of dyslexia and skimming through and not paying attention. But my brain registered "little has improved". That's all. Good review though, and I like the camera on paper. Will wait a bit for the price to settle.

0 upvotes

I don't really understand the GM5 vs. RX100 III comparison based on pocketability, I had/have both. When I owned the RX100 II yes, I could put it in my jeans pocket, but it was very heavy tight and uncomfortable. Some of my jackets have bigger pockets, but than now I can put my GM5 w. kit in it that too. So? Call it pocketable? C’mon! What kind of clothing you guys generally wearing? “Sony fit?”:-)))
I have a nice set, the GM5 with 14-140mm (28-280mm) lens on it, in a small “case logic” bag. Great versatile combo, only 476g (1.05lb)! It’s no other kits comes close to that, comparing/including size, weight, IQ or versatility!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

lacix;

RX100s are smaller than GM5 with lens.

Off course, GM5 is more pocket-able while you carry ONLY GM5 body with you while you are going out.

Make sense now for your "I don't really understand"?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

No! I mean with the kit 12-32 lens is "pocketable" not much less than the RX100

0 upvotes

The RX100-3 has FAR better IQ in low-light b/c RX100-3's lens is two stops faster than the Pana kit 12-32 which most of people are using as it comes with the camera.

Also, the GM5's sensor is "DATED"/OLDER as DPR indicated.

Take a look by yourself:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcgm5&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m3&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=3200&normalization=print&widget=167&x=-0.0038033021305986002&y=0.004323570432357012

Same for your 14-140mm IQ wise.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I don't really need to look for reference, because I used both (OK I had the RX100 II) camera! I just comparing the thousands of images created my self! Yes the RX100 III have faster lens.
In low light? You kidding me!
Check the RAW ISO 6400 The GM5 is better!

1 upvote

:-)) another point of view!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcgm5&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m3&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&normalization=full&widget=167&x=0.873255269320843&y=-0.16178521617852162

0 upvotes

His point is that the lens is faster, so the RX100 would be at ISO 3200 or 1600 whereas the Panasonic would need to be at 6400 with all else being equal (the shutter speed)!!!

For $200ish, one can get the nice F2.5 14mm lens however...

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

lacix;

I just noticed one thing that you have ZERO knowledge about cameras.

YES?

0 upvotes

Higher ISO sensor scores of GM5 makes up the difference of the faster lens!
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GM5-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III___979_957
Slow focusing and not very effective RX100 stabilizer makes it even worst! I used it and I know it!
You are full of your self! Yes?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

"but its 16MP sensor struggles to compete with high-res APS-C chips"

DPR bias: there is no similar remark in the Canon 7D2 review.

8 upvotes

Cause Canon 7D2 is noticeably better than GM5.

0 upvotes

Not compared to a full-frame camera it isn't.

0 upvotes

@Plastek, but the IQ of 7D2 is NOT better than the same Sony A6000. Quite the opposite.

While GM5 gets the negative remark about its sensor, 7D2 conclusions fail to mention that IQ of modern APS-C Sonys and Nikons is more than noticeably better.

0 upvotes

Read my post again.
Canon 7D2 is noticeably better than GM5.
Gap between 7D2 and D7100 is nowhere near as huge as gap between GM5 and D7100.

0 upvotes

ThePhilips:

The Canon 7DII is a somewhat better high ISO camera than the A6000.

No, that's not the only thing to image quality, but it is a good measure of one aspect.

And I've not yet tried the Canon with a Zeiss or SigmaArt lens.

While the A6000 I've used with a SonyZeiss.

0 upvotes

@Plastek
You're right - the 7D2 is better than the GM5. More resolution. Better tracking. Slightly superior at higher ISOs. Better ergonomically. But where it absolutely blows the GM5 out of the water? Better blunt object for crashing though a plate glass window in a smash and grab. Apples and oranges.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

"The Canon 7DII is a somewhat better high ISO camera than the A6000."

Where?? I've been over the DPR's IQ comparator couple of times when review was published. There is not a single place in the chart which 7D2 renders better than the A6000. 7D2 consistently lags behind the A6000 by about 1/2 stop. In fact, the 7D2 is pretty close to my GX7, ditto GM5 and GM1.

Enjoy:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=canon_eos7d&attr13_2=sony_a6000&attr13_3=panasonic_dmcgx7&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.028493496156516484&y=0.31591813180536066

0 upvotes

ThePhilips:

From the raws I've shot with both the Sony and the Canon. Could probably get a bit more out of the Canon 7DII if I were using a better Zeiss lens.

Why do think I'd just invent something without having tried both cameras? (I think it's pretty close.)

You know that you linked jpegs?

And when you switch the studio scene that you linked to raw, my point is made nicely.

Thanks. Oddly I did enjoy, but not in the way you'd have thought.

0 upvotes

> You know that you linked jpegs?

Of course. Because DPR's RAWs are too JPEGs. Because you can't see RAW. Because it is RAW. And if one looks at a developed image anyway, why not look at the best possible developed image? Precisely what DPR's JPEG mean.

> my point is made nicely.

And what was your point is? That if you look at under-developed RAWs, all you can see the the messy noise, but you like the noise of 7D2 better? compared to the noise of A6000 and GM5?

And that's precisely my point. When you develop the RAWs to DPR's high standards, 7D2 IQ is worse when compared to the A6000 and is comparable to GM5.

I too understand that if DPR openly wrote that Canon IQ sucks compared to the modern Sony and Nikon, the Canon fans would have tore the site apart and the flame wars on the forums would have ensued for months. I understand that, yet it is also unfair to other cameras to be criticized where Canon gets a slack.

0 upvotes

TheP:

That the Canon performs better as a high ISO camera.

And you still linked jpegs instead of extracted raws as you should have.

I didn't read what DPR claimed about the Canon 7DII, I'm going with my own raws, though in this case DPR backs me with that link.

DPR has hand problems with the studio scene anyhow, so it's best to get other raws too before coming to a solid conclusion. And I have those other raws.

1 upvote

HowaboutRAW:

The 7D Mk II in no way is a better low light camera than an A6000, or most of it's competition that are generally a generation behind in terms of release dates.

The sensor itself is only marginally better than the ancient 18MP canon sensor on their 700D.

This is from direct comparisons, testing files in a workflow, and reviews.

DPR is likely paid by canon to do dogs breakfast reviews. Note how they don't do the noise and image quality comparisons as directly between other cameras anymore?

i mean the camera isn;'t that important, its just a tool, but being misleading is an entirely different story.

1 upvote

tkpenalty:

And I shot with both and stand by my conclusion.

That's all I can say.

If you've indeed shot with both, and come to a different conclusion, then we'll just have to disagree. It's not as if I think the 7DII is much better at high ISOs than the A6000.

Irony, the D5300, which uses the same Sony A6000 sensor, likely is a bit better than the 7DII. So a typical Sony problem for a Sony body.

0 upvotes

I think APS-C is the "baseline" that all other interchangeable cameras are typically judged against is why the author made that comment.
I think the 16mp m43 sensor is amazing for its size when compared against all but the latest 24MP APS-C Sony sensor. And even there, for what most of us use our images for, the 16MP m43 sensor is 95% as good.

1 upvote

Funny to see all these notorious m4/3 haters still hating. :)
There argumentation is the most funny part. Thank you dpr for posting this review. Ans in the comments we can read that m4/3 is alive and kicking because it fears the people who use other systems.

5 upvotes

This series of tiny cameras are actually the only m4/3 bodies I consider reasonable.

If I'm suppose to use something smaller than APS-C - it must at least come in a compact-sized setup. Shame that overall it's heavier than RX100, and hardly fits the jeans pocket, but still it's probably the best thing that m4/3 has to offer.

2 upvotes

I don't know if it's just a testing fluke or a real camera difference, but the studio comparisons at high ISO (1600, 3200) look a good deal better for the GM5 than for my LX100. I'm seeing my $900 going down the drain. :-(

0 upvotes

Doesn't the LX100 only use a portion of the sensor? I thought that was one of the compromises to get the zoom range?

4 upvotes

Why is your $900 going down the drain? it's one of the best point-and-shoot cameras on the market. Of course the image quality is a bit worse than a system camera, but so what? It should still take great photos most of the time.

11 upvotes

The LX100 at 1600 RAW looks about half a stop cleaner than the GM5 to my eyes.

Also don't forget that in real-world use, the lens on the LX100 has a 2-stop advantage over the bundled 12-32 at any focal length.

That means that in the same lighting conditions, you can use ISO 400 when a GM5 user would have to use ISO 1600. That's a real advantage right there. Of course, a GM5 user could strap on a 14/2.5, 17/1.8, 15/1.7, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 60/2.8, 12-35/2.8, 12-40/2.8 or any other m43 lens (such as the Noktons) if they want more speed (and are willing to spend the money).

That's the tradeoff between getting a CSC and an ILC. You have a package that's unmatched in speed and size for a given pricepoint, at the cost of versatility, range and ultimately, maximum aperture. I think both the LX100 and GM5 are fantastic cameras, and it's different strokes for different folks.

7 upvotes

Voldenuit:

What you're seeing is the fact of a better lens, on the LX100, doing better high ISO work than the not great kitzoom which comes with the GM5.

Put a good PanaLeica lens on the GM5 and the results will be very similar at ISO 1600 and above.

CSC=ILC. "S" stands for system.

1 upvote

I doubt the LX100 kit can equal the GM1/5 with the Pan-Leica 15mm attached at high ISO. Same for the older 20mm for that matter.

1 upvote

@morepix. What you're ignoring is the fact that in the same low light situation, the kit lens on the GM5 is around three stops slower so photos from your LX100 will look better because its ISO will be lower. Trying to put an equivalent zoom on the GM5 will be both very expensive and make the cameras huge. You could get a prime, but if that's what interests you, you would have bought a fixed lens camera.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

morepix:

Jpg or raw?

0 upvotes

mcshan:
Now try to change the focal length on the 15 or 20mm. Not going to happen. It's all a matter of compromise. LX100 offers compact size, plus zoom and better light gathering than GM5+kit zoom, at a reduced IQ over GM5+good prime.

0 upvotes

The focal length changes when you walk towards or away from the subject. Just like photographers have been doing for over a hundred years.

That being said, the LX100 is a great little camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

There are plenty of cases where that's not possible... not to mention the perspective changes as well. A wide angle held close to the subject doesn't look the same as a telephoto lens shot from afar, even with a subject equally filling the frame.

0 upvotes

Yep, and conversely relying on a zoom makes you lazy as you won't explore all the framing options; instead of walking a scene to get the best composition you can just stay where you are and twist the zoom barrel. One mid focal length prime (35 or 50mm equiv) covers the majority of your needs and you can always use a second prime for your rare needs. These are 4/3 lenses, its not like they are very big after all.

But as you said, the LX's zoom is better than the GM5's kit zoom, but a nice prime still gives you better IQ.

Don't get me wring, I think the LX is a very nice camera. Its what the Fuji X30 should have been.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

The PanaLeica 1.4 25mm is amazing on the GX7.

Kind of bulky for the GM5 though.

0 upvotes

Thanks to those of you who have reminded me of the 2 EV advantage of the LX100 lens vs a kit lens on the GM5. I hadn't completely overlooked that fact, but I was still a wee bit disappointed that something in the studio test setup of the two cameras made the GM5 look better. I need to let that go: one can't have everything.

0 upvotes

morepix:

Again:

Jpg or raw?

0 upvotes

Thank you Beyond, I hear you. I am enjoying this very civil discussion.

0 upvotes

@HowaboutRAW: Raw. Don't care much about JPG.

0 upvotes

morepix,

Okay, just wanted to be clear.

Some parties in these comments go on about image quality when commenting on raw shooting cameras.

0 upvotes

I find it amusing people get hung up with the "dated sensor" comment. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

Even ignoring the competition with bigger sensors, m43 sensors have remained largely the same since 2011-2012, since the jump to 16MP. With only marginal improvements through better image processing and those improvements are still hotly debated in forums here. I don't think it would be responsible for DPR to hide this tidbit about the sensor in the overall review.

This is the same situation as to when 43 DSLRs and early m43 cameras were stuck with the dated 12MP sensor for many years. All my 43 cameras are from that era, they take fine photos, you just have to be aware of their limitations compared to more recent cameras with the latest sensor tech.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

9 upvotes

Peopel are "hung up" because that statement and yours is incorrect. Evident by DxO measurements. 56 score for the GX1 16 MPixels, 60 for the GH2 and 61 for G6. Compared to 71 for the GX7 and 74 for the GH4 (the best sensor out there. Evident by the various reviews here on dpreview too.

If it is correct, who cares. But it is not. Finally, as as user of all 16MPixel mFT sensors the difference is signficant.

When we look at Fuji..what has changed? Sony? Significant changes since NEX7 (2011)? No. So even reltively. Reltive to what is it long in the tooth? Not most of the competition. And most certainly not when we take a peak at canons APS-c sensors...

It is nonsense.

2 upvotes

Gx1 and GH2 are essentially the same old generation.

GX7, the GM series and GH4 are the current generation.

Get ready for similar dated sensor comments with the eventual EM5 markII review since it is already known to use the same Sony sensor from 2012, tweaked with a new image processor.

0 upvotes

GX1/G3/G5: worse DR especially than GH2
GH2/G6: worse DR, tonal range and colour sensitivity (and noise) than Sony mFT sensor (GH3. EPL5/EM5)
SOny mFT sensor: somewhat worse DR than Panasonic EM1/GH4 sensor

There is a clear difference that is easily notable between the first and the second 16MPixel mFT sensors and the last two.

EM5 using the Sony sensor indeed will be criticised, but mainly for the reason (I think) that we now have EM10 with that sensor, EM1 with a somewhat better sensor and now EM5 MarkII again...The main problem may well be it lacking good focus for AF-C. Where EM1 and GH4 offer it, the EM5 is unsure here.

1 upvote

Jusy my two pennyworth but i think it is a mistake by Panasonic to not provide a built in flash.
Ok add-ons are more powerful etc but who are these cameras aimed at?

The LX100 - no flash and now the GM5?
Basic photo punters do not want to carry a separate flash around with them to a friends house or out in their other pocket. Just want to take a quick snap oh hang on everyone I need to find and then attach the flash - hey where did everyone go?
A built in flash is one of the functions that make cameras like the E-M10 and the NEX I mean A6000 lines popular.
A built in flash is dam useful. If there is no room on top anymore why not squeeze one on the front like the days of old - software or the camera can remove red-eye.

Personally I would not choose a camera without one, I know that counts for zip but it is a feature that I look for. Currently have D610, X-E2, NEX-6 and E-M10.

Gonna start a bring back the built in flash campaign haha.

12 upvotes

well... depends and depends again...

The truth is that many that like a bit of photography (me included) just hate the built-in flash. I do have built in flash on all my cameras, but almost never use them (I like the one on Fuji X-E1 that can be shot facing the ceiling... however it is not able to stay in that position, and you have to hold it with a finger).

For indoor - family, friends and parties shots, I think this camera coupled with the tiny 14/2.5 or even better 20/1.7 lens will produce better results without any flash. And is also a lot nicer to just shoot without making everyone turn their heads, or scaring the children with the flash, or becoming annoying with a flash at every minute... and the list can continue :)

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

If you use aperture versus flash as your lowlight crutch you reduce DOF which may be unacceptable in many non-portrait artsy situations.

And no matter what your aperture there are some situations where flash is the only answer and your $1000 P&S won't get the shot while a cr@ppy iphone camera with it's horendous flash will give you something worth taking home.

Cameras such as the A6000 let you tilt and bounce the flash for results that occasionally can be quite nice.

A flash is nice to have around as a fill light to soften harsh shadows on sunny days.

2 upvotes

The simple answer...look for a bigger camera.
This camera is all about small and having a VF. ...obviously ..adding a flash would make it larger..Something had to go!
You can buy a larger camera with a built in flash...but not this small one. Seems simple to me.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

A good reason for a build in flash is, that it also makes it possible to trigger at bigger flash. Even a small guide number can be used for outdoor portraits, but then there is the sync speed limitation to consider.

1 upvote

I agree completely. I love using fill flash in some of my shots, I have pretty much perfected this over the years for handling situations where the subject cannot be moved out of a shadow or there is no time - with great results. Same with low light situations. I had a Sony NEX 3 (forget precise model) with a screw on flash and hated it. Missed many opps.

This is a case of Panasonic not being as good as miniaturising technology as the world leader, Sony. The RX-100 MK3 is an incredible feat of engineering, no matter ones' brand preference.

1 upvote

The RX100 III is small and it has both a small EVF and built in flash. Just something built in for light duty would have been nice on the GM5.

1 upvote

while seems reasonable to compare to the RX100 III, try to remember that is a NON-interchangeable lens camera with a smaller sensor... so it's kind of normal to be smaller...

However something like a tiny LED flash... like the ones from the smartphones, probably would not have increased the size... but on the other hand probably wouldn't work to trigger other flashes as well.... so...

0 upvotes

You can use one of small flashes designed for E-mount cameras with RX100. I picked RX100 mkII cause it comes with build in flash with an ability to bounce it from the celling - no, it doesn't have EVF, but IMHO such a tiny EVF on tiny camera is nothing more than a waste of space.

And a lack of interchangable lenses in case of this small camera is actually an advantage - it allows you to get brighter zoom lens than any ILC camera of similar size can offer, and you don't have all the hassle with interchangable lenses.

0 upvotes

Olympus E-PM2 weighs the same as GM1 or GM5 and has almost twice the DXO ISO performance and built in IS, and if you want you can put a VF-4 on it

4 upvotes

Olympus E-PM2 uses SONY sensor, and IS is very useful in deed.

Panasonic is getting tooooo old for making salable cameras with wrong price even if DPR give Panasonic couple of GOLD.

No hope, if Panasonic keeps doing these.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

1:- the EPM2 is shutter shock City
2:- it weighs more than a GM1 and is a lot bigger
3:- DXO`s ISO ratings are Bollox a lot of the time and that comparison is a poster child for that ..

If you want a bargain Oly, that`s currently the EM10 , forget anything without 0-sec antishock

6 upvotes

Agree with AdamT.
There's absolutely no way that an E-PM2 has "twice the ISO performance" of a GM5. If there's any difference at all in image quality, it will be much less than a stop.
I shoot with a GM5 and an older PEN camera and the GM5 has much superior image quality.

6 upvotes

EDIT: (deleted post, had some errors in calculation)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Not only that but I compared the GX7 to the EM5 and at high ISOs in RAW, the GX7 which if anything had the advantage, especially at ISO3200 and above where the files have less chroma noise / red spotting - the GX7 sensor has better DR too . I also expected the EM5 to beat it by a margin. it surprised me when the GX7 was actually the better alround.

1 upvote

@AdamT: aha...I am not the only one to note this. I have GH4 and EPL5. The DR is better clearly on the GH4. But I was astonished that shooting Noctilucent clouds were bettert oo, een though DxO for instance said it was a bit the opposite. It is not even difficult to see the GH4 is better than EPL5 at high ISO in the dark. I was doubting my own view, but your remark seems to confirm this.

1 upvote

More examples of the near uselessness of DXO sensor scores.

0 upvotes

GM5 from GM1, where is GM3?

So GM10 will make the LCD flippable. and GM15 will be fully articulated. GM20 will has a new sensor?

By then, Sony will be a10000 or a15000.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I don't understand why manufacturers (other than increasing gross sales I suppose) come out with ILCs then don't offer them as body only.

9 upvotes

Seriously. Or for that matter, why rebate programs (which work best for LOYAL customers) require you to buy a BODY (such as Nikons).

Its pretty pathetic "basket"-engineering by the Marketers, who don't understand that they are alienating their best customers. Not everyone who buys a camera or a lens is a new customer never owned a DSLR/ILC before. In fact, I would guess that most passionate DSLR owners have bought several cameras and quite a few lenses over the years, more than the "new guy" who makes a spontaneous purchase on a "bundled" package, but doesn't ever even buy a 2nd lens.

Brand loyalty comes from the way a company interacts with its customers as much as the products themselves (which are often very similar to other companies' products). If companies look like they are always "chasing skirts" trying to find "the new girl," it doesn't sit right with current brand owners.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

The GM5 is available body-only.

1 upvote

Well if that's the case, then I guess I'm mistaken. The article only mentioned the kit for $899 and when I search a few retail sites like amazon, i also only saw kit.

0 upvotes

The table on the first page comparing the GM1, GM5, and RX100 Mk. III is misleading in an important respect. For some purposes (weight, zoom range) the Panasonic M4/3s are listed with their kit lens, but for other purposes (depth), they're listed without it. As your pictures on page 2 show, put on the kit lens and the package becomes more like 3 inches (75mm) deep. An RX100 Mk. III is pocketable in most reasonable pants pockets; with the Panasonics and their kit lens, forget it unless you have cargo pockets.

Also, since we routinely list lenses with focal lengths as "35mm equivalent", can we please routinely do the same thing with apertures? For some purposes it's convenient to see that the 12-32mm kit lens is an f/7-11 equivalent and the RX100 Mk. III's lens is an f/4.9-7.6 equivalent. IOW, (1) the Sony can achieve shallower depth of field, and (2) in low light, its much brighter lens will tend to more than compensate for its somewhat smaller sensor.

4 upvotes

Listing focal lengths as 35mm equivalent is good, but definately NOT for aperture.

The whole aperture equivalence is total BS and serves only to confuse. Not everyone is even interested in DoF across different sensor sizes, and f2.8 is f2.8 regardess of sensor size when it comes to EXPOSURE.

Personally I am sick and tired of the whole aperture equivalence argument as it is so often used by those with an axe to grind to put down cameras with less than FF sensors.

19 upvotes

Pocketing cameras just means lint, which has jammed more P&S powered zooms than anything else.

4 upvotes

Brainstorm: Someone should make photographer pants/jackets with a lint free camera pocket.....

0 upvotes

GodSpeaks, yes, when it comes to exposure, f/2.8 is f/2.8--but that only matters if you're trying to set exposure with an external meter or the Sunny 16 rule or something. If what you're trying to do is estimate how well a camera-and-lens combination is likely to perform in low light (or in blurring the background), then equivalent aperture is the appropriate measure.

I don't have an axe to grind, or a FF camera (do still have MF and 4x5 film cameras).

Yes, pocketing a camera can mean lint, but I often go for small neoprene cases that add very little bulk to the camera while protecting it from lint, spare change, etc. in my pocket.

1 upvote

If f2.8=f2.8=f2.8 m43 makes no sense at all, as pocketable RX100 III has two stop brighter lens than this kit. Oh it is even faster than $1000 professional m43 zoom lens too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

"If autofocus, low light performance or resolution are higher priorities than size, then I'd encourage you to look at the GM5's highly capable APS-C peers."

What does autofocus have to do with sensor size?

0 upvotes

Nothing.

...But earlier in the text from the same page the APS-C Sony A6000 was mentioned as a potential peer to the GM5. Given that the Sony does indeed have faster autofocus, better low light performance and higher resolution I'd assume that's what the reviewer was referring to when he wrote "APS-C Peers".

Comment edited 0 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Yes I also believe that this was a comparison to the A6000. The GM5 is best chosen almost purely for its diminutive size.

1 upvote

In specs highlights no lens specs; in the comparisons table no lens comparisons! Well, what does a lens have anything to do with photography?

1 upvote

I'm a northerner, and I've got a GM5, had it since mid December. I've spent a lot of time outdoors in the cold with it--and its never failed me yet, or even come close. I live in the north, ski for hours a day a couple of days a week, hike in the mountains, etc. It's on my day pack shoulder strap on the lower left of my chest. That's why I bought it. I'm out at -10 sometimes and out at a dozen degrees a lot. I'm out for hours at a time in cold and snow and lots of sun and wind, and its beautiful. I just looked back quickly at the pics, mostly outdoors in the cold with friends or landscapes, in high beautiful and cold! places.. Battery or camera failure didn't cross my mind. I carry a spare battery. I haven't used it once.

PS: I'm a fairly big guy with large hands and I'm out in the cold(I have good gloves and mitts and praise the lord for handwarmers) and I haven't had even a moment's issue with controlling this camera. Night and day compared to the GM1.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

8 upvotes

Nice camera-for about $450.

10 upvotes

"The RX100 III does offer something closer to true pocketability, a higher resolution sensor at 21MP, an articulated LCD and a faster lens."

Am I missing something?

GM5: 99 x 60 x 36 mm 281g
RX100 III: 102 x 58 x 41 mm 290g

And a faster lens isn't worth crap if the sensor is significantly smaller, which in this case it is; not to mention the Panasonic is an interchangeable lens camera.

4 upvotes

And the RX100III has a fidgety popup EVF.

In its defense, the RX100III has a plenty good sensor and a good lens.

But the GM5 is a somewhat better high ISO camera, though to get the most out of it you'd have to use expensive, not small, PanaLeica lenses.

2 upvotes

a) RX100mk3 sensor is only 1.35x smaller than m43 sensor.
b) RX100mk3 sensor is BSI
c) RX100mk3 lens is still faster if you consider the sensor size. It is equivalent to f2.43-3.78 lens for m43, which is faster than pro zoom lens for m43!

It's always hilarious to see m43 people saying 1" sensor is too small but m43 is 'large enough'

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

How about some love for the Canon EOS M2? Its just about the same size 105x65x32mm 274g and has an APS-C sensor. With the 22mm f/2 lens, its just as pocketable as the others in this thread.

4 upvotes

225mm divided by 116mmじゅうろくみり = 1.94, not 1.35.

3 upvotes

davob:

Those are area figures, right?

1 upvote

Yes--you're missing that the listed Panasonic depths do not include the kit lens, but the Sony depth does. Put that 12-32mm on the Panasonic and it's more like 75mm deep--not pocketable unless you have cargo pockets.

(Curiously, the listed weights do appear to include the kit lens.)

1 upvote

Yes, areas as set out in table on first page of review.

0 upvotes

The RX100 III is more pocketable, by simple virtue of the zoom lens retracting into the body. The GM5 is only smaller if you remove the lens.

With that said, neither cameras are really tiny, not like how you slide a smartphone into tight jeans pockets. But they are relatively small for what the offer, technological marvels, more easy to carry in purses, coat pockets and baggy pants than other cameras with similar specs.

2 upvotes

RX100 is tiny enough. Fits jeans pocket just fine, and anything notably smaller than that will heavily suffer on ergonomics.

And yes: brighter lens is worth more than a crap, even if sensor is a bit smaller than the m4/3 one.

0 upvotes

nerd2: I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The Sony RX sensor is only half the size of a M43 sensor.

This means that Sony's lens is equivalent to an f3.5-5.6 lens on M43 - in other words, it's equal to the Panasonic with its kit lens.

I considered buying an RX100 III and after trying it out in-store I thought it was a great camera. However, the GM5 was greater still, so I went for the Panasonic.

2 upvotes

davob:

I barely ever read reviews, especially for cameras I've handled.

Note about notation: sq mm.

0 upvotes

Nerd2 and NZ Scot, you're both off a bit. The RX100 Mk. III sensor has 52% the area of the GM5 sensor/ the GM5 sensor is 1.9x as large--so to be equally good in low light, its lens must be about (just under) one stop brighter, all else being equal. But in fact of f-stops, the Sony lens is two stops brighter on both the wide end (f/1.8 versus f/3.5) and the long end (f/2.8 versus f/5.6). On top of that, the Sony sensor is somewhat more advanced, so the reality is that the RX100 Mk. III is a better low-light camera than the GM5 with the 12-32mm kit lens. If you want the GM5 to pull ahead, you have to skip the kit zoom and use a fast prime.

3 upvotes

Ed Chen:

Is the EOS M2 even available. I don't see it in the USA at least.

And the older model is basically gone from stores too.

0 upvotes

Half area = 1.414x size.

0 upvotes

No, half area = 0.5x area size, and/or 0.71x linear size.

But I suppose what you meant above is that the diagonal of the GM5 sensor is 1.35x the diagonal of the RX100 Mk. III sensor, which is about right. And that does mean that, all else being equal (which it isn't, because sensor technology slightly favors the Sony), the GM5 would need a 12-35mm f/2.4-3.8 lens to equal the Sony in low light performance and/or for equally-thin depth of field.

0 upvotes

Are the menu fonts and shooting display icons reduced in size from the narrower monitor? I'm thinking about difficulty in camera operation for people with poorer eyesight. Especially so with low resolution monitors. I remember the small square monitor on the D70 made it extremely difficult for me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Have you used a Panasonic LX7?

If you can use that menu, the GM5 shouldn't be hard.

0 upvotes

I'm using an E-M5. Are they similar?

0 upvotes

The LX7 is a small point and shoot Panasonic with a very good PanaLeica zoom lens on it.

So no, not similar to the EM5.

I guess it depends on how big the EM5's rear screen is.

0 upvotes

I just got my GM5 about 5 minutes ago, just before finding this review on DPR. Probably would not have changed my mind after reading it.

I bought it to replace my compacts (Coolpix & LX5) and complement my DSLRs, not for the Wi-Fi. The Sony LX100 was a consideration, but it has a fixed mid-range lens.

My criticisms of this camera is the price (Sony A6000 would have been more cost-effective), and the noise in low light (judged by my Panasonic G5). But who cares about JPEGs?

Yes the battery drains quickly. But I saw 3rd Party batteries at B&H for $4.99. Carry a few! And why would GM5 owners not have a 7-14mm? I've ordered one.

I also question the conclusion "16MP Four Thirds sensor starting to look a bit dated". But it would be great if Panasonic could come up with an update which performs better in low light. Rumour is that Olympus will bring out an approx 40MP work-around this year.

All in all, I'm looking forward to have a near-pocket-able camera with exchangeable lenses.

3 upvotes

@mont: I was considering the same alternatives for the same reasons, but I don't look forward to adding another lens mount format, so I'm encouraged by this review of a mft body. Not crazy about the 1/50 flash sync though b/c one of my kits is an ultra compact portrait travel kit w/speed lites.

0 upvotes

Just unpacked it, heck, it is smaller than the old Nikon Coolpix compact! The flash is tiny! Here is Aus we also get 2 kit lenses included. The 12-32mm and a small 35-100mm - which I may sell as I have the f2.8 version.

2 upvotes

@ PP
Yes I struggled with another lens mount too. I am a Nikon guy, but gave up on waiting for Nikon for a new DX body. But I got another Panasonic G5 cheap before Christmas which I had converted to full spectrum. So now I have 2 bodies to share lenses. Maybe one day I'll get a Olympus upmarket MFT SLR replacement to complement the set.

0 upvotes

Update. I have used my camera for the first time yesterday and today. I have to say the reviewer has a point re the battery. My battery was exhausted after only 53 pairs of RAW/JPEG photos - on a brand-new charged Panasonic battery! That is very, very low. I haven't received my order of extra batteries yet. Still, I am impressed and like the camera.

1 upvote

Total comments: 437

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2015 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site

Feb	MAR	May
	14
2014	2015	2016