How "small" is the GX7?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by meyerweb, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Not as small as I (and perhaps others) thought it was. I was thinking that once the price came down this would make a great second body / travel cam, but after looking at camerasize.com, I'm not too sure. The G3 is taller and a little deeper, but not as wide. With a lens mounted, I don't think it's really all that much bigger.

    The first three pics are compared to the G3, the last to the GH2.

    It certainly looks to have better ergonomics than any of the smaller RF style cameras (looking at you, NEX), but I'm not sure it's worth trading a G3 for as a second body, unless the IQ really is a dramatic step up.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Brian G

    Brian G Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Nov 16, 2010
    Victoria, BC
    Looking at the size comparison images you've posted, I'm not sure there's much in it one way or the other.

    Seems to me that your decision to change over to the GX7 would have to be predicated on other considerations, such as "is it better?" . . . or perhaps just "do I like it better?".

    Nice to have choices.

    Cheers
    Brian
     
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Good comparison. I guess there are 2 ways to look at it - either the GX7 is not 'that' small, or the G3 is indeed pretty small. The GX7 has a lot of nice extras of course, but a secondhand G3 is probably a more sensible compromise for a backup camera...
     
  4. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    I find the comparison to the GH2 to be even more interesting than to the G3. For years, some people (read "Olympus owners") have complained about how big the GH2 is, but the GX7 is every bit as wide, and taller at the shoulders.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticize the GX7. It looks like it may be an excellent camera (pending real-world testing of the final version). It's just that the GX7 isn't as tiny as some may think it is, and the GH2 really isn't as big as many people think it is.
     
  5. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    The reason it is not "small" is because it has the protrusion at the back for the eyepiece. If you shaved that off, people would be saying, "wow, what a small camera and packed with features".
     
  6. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Well, people also complain about the E-M5. Which is about the same size (smaller in some dimensions, even), if you ignore the 'hump'. But the viewfinder hump can make a significant difference in how easy a camera can be packed away, and the GX7 looks to be a winner in that respect.

    Honestly, I would've almost preferred a slightly smaller camera without a built-in flash. But then I haven't used a camera with a built-in flash (and essentially never used the external flash when I had it, so I sold it) since 2008, not counting the occasional iPhone shot. And the very rare occasions I use flash on the RX100.
     
  7. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert

    Exactly. I hated that G3 EVF protrusion. (OK, maybe hate is a strong term, but definitely I wanted that protrusion out!)

    Looking at the comparison pictures, my first thought was 'Oh no! It protrudes!!!' :eek:
     
  8. hunyuan7

    hunyuan7 Mu-43 Regular

    140
    Aug 31, 2011
    In an odd way, maybe the extra beef in size and weight can better balance the 14-140 and 100-300.
     
  9. htc

    htc Mu-43 Top Veteran

    579
    Jan 11, 2011
    Finland
    Harry
    :rofl:
     
  10. htc

    htc Mu-43 Top Veteran

    579
    Jan 11, 2011
    Finland
    Harry
    Exactly. That GX7 protrusion doesn't bother in that sense and EP-5 doesn't have it at all (or that hump/protrusion is in different pocket ;-)
     
  11. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    For a lot of us, I think that's the crux of it...we will have to see what real world results produce!
     
  12. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    I am the same way about the protrusion. Maybe since it sticks out less, it will be less noticable, and less likely to snag?

    Sent from my LG-P769 using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  13. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012
    Thanks for this nice comparison. It's longer, but low, and I assume still pretty small in use.


    Agreed. As a GX1 fan who bought a G3, then sold it and got a G5 (sold G5 too), I was/am impressed with how very small the G3 is. I recently purchased another G3 to use alongside my GX1s, mostly for hot shoe flash work, and sure like that it's no larger than the GX1s. In fact, the G3 is shorter than a GX1 with a LVF2 atop which I used most of the time.


    When it's time for me to buy a new body, the GX7 is currently the obvious choice when I want to move away from the GX1. The viewfinder protrusion is an interesting topic, whether it's a negative or a positive.

    Yesterday and Monday I did a shoot with several bodies and lenses, a few GX1s with LVF2s mounted and one G3. One might think (myself included) that a built-in and less protruding EVF on the G3 might work better. However, in side-by-side use I found the higher, central, and more rearward position of the LVF2 eyepiece on the GX1 more comfortable to use, whether I was wearing glasses that I slid down my nose and out of the way or no glasses. I have a big nose so this may be a factor.

    So if the protruding viewfinder on the GX7 is similar in use to the LVF2, I might actually prefer it to cameras like the G3 with a more SLR-style LVF.