Fuji X-E1 vs Panasonic GX7 MILC comparison Part 2

On the left Panasonic GX7 with 14-42mm Mk2 lens. On the right, Fuji X-E1 with accessory handle, thumb support and 18-55mm lens. The accessories make the X-E1 much more secure to hold but add to the bulk, mass and cost. The GX7 could probably benefit from some similar accessories.

Two modern versions of the "look-a-Leica" style

Part 2

In this post  I will briefly discuss the operation of each camera with emphasis on ergonomic issues. I will also investigate the various ways in which camera designers might utilise "Set-and-See" modules and the effect these have on the user experience.

Ergonomic issues vs ergonomic mistakes  Modern cameras are very complex, presenting their designers with a multitude of decisions which must be made  in the product development process. Most of these decisions affect the user experience. They are neither good nor bad, they just dictate that the camera will operate in a certain way and not in other ways.   For instance a digital Leica M rangefinder provides a very different user experience from, say, the Panasonic GX7 which we are talking about in this post. Both are "right" in the sense that they both work and  each is ergonomically coherent.

Mistakes  Some decisions are just plain wrong by any functional criterion. Here is an example:

Fuji X-cams AF button   The X-100 of 2010 has a button labelled [AF] on the left side of the monitor. You press this to activate the AF area, then press the 4 Way (cursor) buttons to move it's position.  The X-10, X-Pro1 and  X-E1 all had the same button in approximately the same location.

So what ? The problem is that with each of these cameras you need your left hand on the lens barrel to support the lens, adjust aperture,  zoom or all three.

So you need to become a juggler to move the AF area. The sequence is: left hand off lens> left hand press AF button> left hand back on lens> right hand off gripping/holding duties> right thumb presses 4 way controller> right hand returns to gripping/holding duty> continue with capture phase of camera use.  Feel lucky if the camera does not fall on the floor while you practice juggling.

With the X-20, a firmware upgrade to the X-E1, the X100s and X-E2 they fixed the problem by moving the [AF] button function over to the 4 way controller so you could change AF area position and size with the right hand while maintaining a constant grip on the camera with the left hand.  At last, they got it right.  But why was that button on the left side in the first place ?  Strange.................  

But enough about  mistakes, now I want to talk about camera control systems.

The glory days ?   The X-E1 and GX7 which are the subjects of this two part post appear to be styled to recapture some sense of the glory days of  mid 20th Century photography, when a camera was something special, a work of high craft,  to be handled almost with reverence, not just another electronic gadget.  In those days  a photographer had to know all about apertures, shutter speeds and much more to make any photos at all.

Pentax Spotmatic. I owned and used one of these for several years. It remains my all time nostalgic favourite camera. You can see all the control modules in this photo. I do understand that camera users might yearn for a return to this camera's simplicity. Until they actually start using it of course, at which time it's auto nothing operation might get a bit tedious.

 

Old technology operating systems  For many years  from the 1960's through to the late 80's,  I used film cameras with basic control systems and predominantly manual operation.   These included the Pentax Spotmatic, Leica M6 and Mamiya 7. 

Leica M6. Although this is a rangefinder the basic control layout is the same as that found on the Spotmatic above.  Basic, simple, engaging.

 

Although one of these is a SLR and the other two are rangefinders and two are 35mm while the other is a medium format, their user interface is very similar. At the front you have a single focal length manual focus lens, there  being no zooms and no autofocus in those days. There is a focus distance scale on the lens barrel and a depth of focus scale. You can preset focus distance and establish hyperfocal distance right on the lens barrel.  There is an aperture ring on the lens with fStops clearly marked. On top of the body there is a shutter speed dial. There is a little window in the dial to indicate  ISO setting, which in those days was called ASA or DIN. There is a little mechanical self timer lever and levers to advance and rewind the film and that is about the lot.

A camera like this is simple and direct in operation.  The user has to be very engaged with the camera's controls and the process of photography in order to make it work.   There is no "Auto" Mode or indeed any other kind of mode.

Note that all the control modules are of the Set-and-See type. You make the settings  and can see all of them  simply by looking at the camera from above.

Having enjoyed using cameras like this for many years then moved on to digital photography and electronic camera operation I  feel that  I have some understanding of the counter technology appeal of  cameras which reprise the good old days. 

It might be thought the disadvantage of the old style user interface would  be it's rather slow operational speed. In fact the experienced user with a high latitude film like Kodak Tri-X would set focus distance, aperture and shutter speed when moving into a location,  in the Prepare Phase of use. When the decisive moment arrived,  in the Capture Phase of use, the only action required was to press the shutter button.

No, the disadvantage of  Set-and-See modules is  that you can't see them while making pictures with your eye to the viewfinder.

This led camera makers to develop over a period of many years increasingly electronic means of  presenting  readouts of the primary exposure parameters (ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed)  in the viewfinder.

Which leads us to the next question.  If  ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed and other parameters of exposure and focus can be clearly displayed in the viewfinder, and they can, why put them on Set-and-See modules ? 

The answer to this question I think is that you don't need them on Set-and-See modules at all, but if they are located on such modules than those same modules are not available for any other purpose. This is the opportunity cost of locating any function on a Set-and-See module.

New technology operating systems     Since about year 2000, the standard operating system for digital cameras has been the Mode Dial and Control Dial  system. Sometimes there are two or even three control dials. The more the merrier (maybe).  Adjustments to ISO, shutter speed and aperture are made with the control dial(s) while the user is looking through the viewfinder.  This is not fundamentally  better than the old tech system but it does open up more options for the use of  Set-and-See modules.

Modern cameras have a vast array of features, functions, modes and options not even imagined in the old days.  These include such things as Focus Mode, Autofocus Mode, Drive Mode, Exposure Mode, Flash Mode................and  on  and  on and on.....it seems there is no end to them. One of these, the Main Shooting Mode,  is conventionally and sensibly allocated to a Set-and-See dial on the camera top somewhere. This allows the user to see at a glance whether the camera is in Aperture Priority Mode or one of the other modes.

The functions/modes most frequently adjusted  in Prepare Phase of use can be allocated to any remaining Set-and-Seemodules.  

Back to the Fuji X-E1 and Panasonic GX7 

The X-E1 uses a modified  version of the old tech control system described above.  The autofocus lenses have no distance scale or depth of field scale. However an analogue distance scale can be set in the viewfinder or monitor.  There are fStop markings on single focal length lenses but not the zooms which are of variable aperture design. There is a shutter speed dial. There is also an exposure compensation dial top right which is not part of the old tech control suite at all.

The GX7 uses a completely new tech Main Mode Dial and (twin) control dial layout.

Time and motion studies It is possible to break down the actions required to operate a camera into a series of steps,  observe the number and complexity of movements required to complete each step and note the time taken to perform each step.

Thus one can study actions required to shift from Manual to Shutter Priority to Aperture Priority to Programmed Exposure Modes. Once in one of those modes one can study the actions required to change Aperture, Shutter Speed, or both.  The exercise can be extended to include all primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters and also to setting various modes used in Prepare Phase of use.

I have done this and found that for most of  these steps the X-E1 requires more movements of the fingers and most of those movements are more complex than is required to carry out the same steps with the GX7.

So the GX7 is quicker to operate, and as we saw in Part 1 it performs faster and in some cases (low light focussing) better.

But as the song goes......"Is that all there is....?"...............Apparently not.

Several reviewers report they like using the Fuji X cameras including the X-E1 very much.  One said  "it's a wonderful way to operate a camera..". Other comments I have read include  "..it is a simple, elegant and highly functional design...." and  "...a beautifully designed and engineered camera..".

So some reviewers like it and there does appear to be a loyal fan base on user forums.

So whence the appeal of the Fuji X- cameras ?  I am unable to read minds so I don't know, but maybe the X-E1's semi retro style, user interface and slowish performance are  the appeal. 

For instance to change from Aperture Priority exposure mode to Shutter Priority mode on the GX7, simply turn the Main Mode Dial one notch. With a little practice this can easily be done with the eye to the viewfinder in 2 seconds, tops.

With the X-E1 and a zoom lens the procedure is more involved. It might, I suppose be possible for a very experienced user with a lot of practice to do it with the eye to the viewfinder but for me it went like this: Drop camera down from the eye> find the little slider right near the lens mount> push the slider to the correct new position> return camera to the eye. 

Another example:  If you want to operate the GX7  in Shutter Priority Mode, just turn the Main Mode Dial to enter S-Prio Mode. To change the shutter speed just rotate the front (or rear, depending on how the dial functions have been set in the menus) dial. That's it. Fast. Easy. Do it with the eye to the viewfinder  without having to perform a two handed juggle with the camera.

With the X-E1 things are not so simple. First lower the camera from the eye. If you start from Aperture Priority Mode with a zoom lens you need to locate and move the little slider which switches aperture function, probably with the left hand.  Then hold the camera with the left hand and grip the shutter speed dial with the index finger and thumb of the right hand. Rotate the dial off the A setting. Now every time you want to change the shutter speed you have to release your grip on the camera with the right hand to rotate the dial.  It may be possible for some users to do this with one finger but I found it more reliable to use two fingers. If your camera is fitted with a thumb support, forget about Shutter Priority, it's impossible to get two fingers onto the dial.    

To an ergonomics boffin like me these  X-E1 arrangements just seem like a  kludgy  workaround. But to another user, perhaps seeking a more contemplative style of camera operation, they  might be just what is wanted.   The X-E1  certainly engages  the user more in the process of operating the camera. This dialectic  could  be very appealing when compared to the fast but remote control  experience with the GX7 and many other current camera models.

Summary  The X-E1 and  GX7 might appear to occupy a similar retro, look-a-Leica market position. But each provides a very different operating  experience and  is likely to appeal to a different user group.

My advice --- Try before you buy. If you really like one of these cameras you might hate the other.

My pick ?  There is no way the  X-E1, (or the improved X-E2) or GX7 will tempt me away from my GH3, even though they have slightly (GX7) or substantially (X-E1/2) better high ISO  picture quality. Performance, ergonomics and the user experience all favour the GH3.  

By the way, the latest rumor I am reading  about the Fuji X-Cams is that the next model will have a hump top, DSLR style shape. I guess Fuji wants to be in all the key market slots. It will be interesting to see if they stay with the "Old tech" control system or go with the flow and use a Mode Dial and Control Wheel interface.

 

 

Fuji X-E1 vs Panasonic GX7 MILC comparison Part 1

On the left Panasonic GX7 with 14-42mm Mk2 lens. On the right Fuji X-E1 with 18-55mm lens.

 

Two modern versions of the "Look-a-Leica" style

Part 1

Historical background  One of the most famous camera designs of the 20th Century was the Leica M series, dating from the M3 of 1954. Although these cameras were too expensive to be popular, they were used by some famous professional photographers.  Leica M cameras with digital sensors are still made.  They still have manual focus lenses and continue to use the classic optical view/rangefinder top left on the camera body (as viewed by the user).

The first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera [MILC] priced for the rest of us and fitted with an electronic viewfinder [EVF] was the Panasonic G1 of 2008. It was, and many of it's descendants are,  styled like a little DSLR.  But a MILC can be made almost any shape and the EVF can be located almost anywhere.

So now we have MILC's in both "rangefinder" style and "DSLR" style.

At the time of writing rangefinder  style MILC models  with built in EVF are available from Fuji (X-Pro1, X-E1/2) Panasonic (GX7) and Sony (NEX 6/7).

Cameras tested  I recently had the opportunity to test the Panasonic GX7 and Fuji X-E1 side by side. This proved to be an interesting experience. These cameras have several similarities, notably the EVF top left and flat top body style. But each has a very different approach to the user interface.

User interface  The X-E1 uses a variant of the traditional, mid 20th Century film camera interface using a lens aperture ring and camera top shutter speed dial. 

The GX7 uses a Mode Dial and  control dial interface. This  system  started appearing on digital cameras from about year 2000.

So we have the traditional vs the modern.

Target user group  Professional photographers could use either of these cameras and come away with excellent results in the right circumstances. However my impression is that both are targeted at the enthusiast/expert/amateur user group. Neither has the performance needed for some types of photography, such as sport/action.

Kits tested  The GX7 came with it's Lumix 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 (Mk2) OIS  kit lens. The X-E1 had the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4.0 zoom, also with image stabiliser. I used the X-E1 fitted with accessory handle from Really Right Stuff and thumbrest from Thumbs Up.

As those two zooms are not a very good match for size or aperture I also included a Panasonic GH3 with 12-35mm f2.8 zoom which is closer in specification to the Fuji 18-55mm.

Dimensions and masses 

Unit	Dimensions Body only mm	Box Volume Body only cc	Mass Body + battery grams	Mass Body + battery+zoom lens +hood	Mass body + acc handle and thumb support +Lens	Mass Lens grams
X-E1	129x76x38	373	350	705	845	18-55mm 355
GX7	123x71x55	480	402	535	N/A	14-42mm 110
GH3	133x93x82	1014	550	910	N/A	12-35mm 305

 Longer lenses  As lens focal length increases we can see a striking difference start to appear in the size/mass of  Fuji X kit compared to  M43 kit. I was unable to find an exact lens match but the Lumix 45-150mm f3.5-5.6 is the closest current M43 match I could find for the Fuji 55-200mm f3.5-4.8. The Fuji has slightly more zoom range and a slightly wider aperture at the long end. At 580 grams the Fuji has almost three times the mass and 2.3 times the volume of the 200 gram Lumix. 

Initial impressions 

Feel  The X-E1 has a solid, hard metallic feel, reminiscent of a 1980's 35mm film camera. Presumably this is intentional and part of the X-E1's retro appeal. The Panasonic cameras have a  rubber or similar covering on the gripped parts which gives them a softer feel.

Size and mass  The X-E1 feels larger than the GX7 because it is slightly wider and higher. But the GX7 has a more prominent handle which gives it more depth and total box volume. The X-E1 bare body is surprisingly lighter than the  bare GX7  but that reverses when lens, handle and thumb support are added.

Comfort   Although, or perhaps because,  the GH3 is substantially larger than the other two cameras it is also the most comfortable to hold  and operate with my adult male hands.  The bare X-E1 felt as though it was about to fall unless I gripped it tightly. Holding the X-E1 was greatly improved with the accessory handle and thumb support.

System  The M43 system provides a wider range of  cameras and lenses than the Fuji X system. Until recently the Fuji X-Cams and lenses have been pitched at the upper/enthusiast market sector.  The recent arrival of the X-A1, X-M1 and X-Q1 suggests that Fuji also wants a piece of the budget market.

Test method  I made numerous photos of a variety of subjects with each camera and also photographed a test chart in controlled conditions, using RAW capture and Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 (updated just days before the tests).

Both these photos are crops from a single frame. Top, Panasonic M43 with Lumix 12-35mm lens. Above Fuji X-E1 with 18-55mm lens. I used a GH3 for the M43 camera here. It makes pictures which appear identical to those of the GX7 to my eyes.

Picture Quality  You can read all about the different technologies and sensor sizes inside the cameras elsewhere. I just evaluate the output picture quality.

Low ISO settings  Both on the test chart and with a variety of general photographic subjects I could not tell the difference between pictures made with each of the three body/lens kits.  There were the expected minor variations in exposure and color balance but these were easily equalised in PsCR.  Otherwise there was nothing in it.  With subjects having normal brightness range, I saw no difference in resolution, highlight/shadow detail or overall picture appearance.

With subjects having high brightness range I was able to achieve good highlight and shadow detail with each of the cameras, using the sliders in PsCR,  but there was noticeably less luminance noise in the lifted shadows of the X-E1 files than those from the GX7 which in turn had slightly less noisy shadows than the GH3.

The other thing I noted  was that at very high magnification the X-E1 files showed sharpening artefacts around  fine subject details such as small text or leaves. You would be hard pressed to notice this in the great majority of photographs. I saw virtually no sign of moiree artefacts or false color in any of the files from any of the cameras.

When Fuji introduced the X-Trans sensor (as found in the X-E1) they claimed it would have better resolution than a standard Bayer type sensor, on the grounds that the X-Trans sensor would not need the anti aliasing filter found on most Bayer sensors. 

Well, on my tests the pictures do not support Fuji's claim.

High ISO settings  One thing which Fuji does not claim for the X-Trans technology as far as I am aware is substantially lower noise at high ISO settings than other types of sensor.  But that is in fact where the X-E1 is clearly superior.   

With RAW capture the X-E1 at ISO 6400 delivers files with noise levels, color fidelity  and shadow detail the same as the GX7 at ISO 2500, an advantage of about 1.3 stops. The GX7 actually performs very well at high ISO settings, even slightly better than the GH3.  This ranks the X-E1 as  really excellent in the high ISO range and equal to many full frame cameras.

So, the X-E1 has a larger sensor than the M43 cameras with lower pixel density so you would expect it to perform better at high ISO settings and it does, convincingly.  All you have to do is persuade it to focus in the dim lighting conditions which might make high ISO settings necessary.

Performance  To cut a long story short, the E-X1 is a bit slow, the GX7  is really fast. This speed differential applies to almost everything: shot to shot times, AF single, AF continuous, and all round responsiveness to user inputs. I should make it clear that in most conditions the X-E1 is not bad, it's just slower than the latest M43 cameras including the GX7 and GH3. The X-E1 was running without the latest firmware upgrade.  I understand that the firmware upgrade improves performance and the X-E2 delivers further improvements particularly to autofocus.

The only performance issue which I rated a real problem in testing was the X-E1's slow, hesitant and often failed autofocus in low light levels. This made it difficult to utilise the X-E1's excellent high ISO picture quality.

I quite liked the manual focus system on the X-E1. You don't get FTM (full time manual focus simultaneous with autofocus)  and focus assist zoom with MF is not automatic as with M43 cameras. But you can press and rotate the rear dial to zoom in at 3x or 10x. Having to do this manually gives a level of user control over the process which I found quite satisfying.

Ergonomics--Holding   My regular camera is the GH3. By comparison, most cameras I have used including the X-E1 and GX7  present the user with a sub-optimal holding experience.  Worst is the X-E1,  which  I found  really quite difficult to hold securely.  There are reasons for this:

* The  X-Pro 1 lens axis is inset approximately 61mm from the left side of the camera. The X-E1 lens axis is inset 57mm.  On the GX7 the distance is only 42mm and by way of comparison the Sony NEX 6 lens axis is inset just 40mm. 

So what ?  Well, the X-Pro1 has an optical viewfinder which needs to be kept away from the lens or that is mostly what you will see in the viewfinder.  But the other cameras all have an EVF the position of which  in relation to the lens is irrelevant. Panasonic and Sony moved the lens axis well over to the left, allowing room for a handle on the right side.  But the Fuji designers did not move the lens axis across with the X-E1,  so there is not enough room on the right side for a handle and the fingers which hold it. Instead we get a vestigial little blob which is of  little assistance to the would be holder.

As a result there is a brisk trade in aftermarket handles. The one from RRS which was fitted to the tested X-E1 greatly improves holding and operating the camera, relocates the tripod socket to the lens axis and mates directly to several brands  of tripod head.

Panasonic's designers didn't do much better with the GX7.  They included  the  horizontal silver strip style signature running right across the top front of the body, just like  Leica M and   Fuji X cameras. But this compromises the handle and prevents the designers from using an anatomical shape.

* The E-X1 needs a control dial of some kind to operate many of the functions of a modern electronic camera. So a Rear Dial is provided.  As correctly described by Digital Photography Review, this is ..."perfectly placed for operation by your right thumb".  However most of the time when making photos you don't actually want to operate that dial. But it is located exactly where your thumb wants to rest. So Fuji X cam owners go get an accessory thumb support which keeps one's  thumb off  that dial most of the time and also improves grip stability. Fuji doesn't even make the aftermarket kit but they promote it's use.

Rear of camera arrangements on the GX7 are better but could be improved. The rear dial is well located but there is little support for the thumb. Already I read  in user forums that owners are experimenting with thumb supports which slip into the hotshoe like those on the Fuji X cameras and reporting beneficial results.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if  manufacturers got their products right before they left the factory ?

Viewing  Each of the three cameras has an EVF for eye level viewing and a monitor for viewing with the camera held away from the eye. The E-X1 and GX7 have the EVF located top left. The GH3 EVF is located in the hump on the lens axis, SLR style.

When I began studying camera ergonomics I thought the top left, rangefinder style would be the best place for an EVF. But after using both types over the years I have decided it makes very little difference, at least for the right eye viewer. The left eye viewer might have a different experience.  As is often the case with things ergonomic, I have found that detailed implementation of the viewing system does matter.

Eyecup  Each camera has a very different looking eyecup but each works decently well. The X-E1 and GX7 without it's accessory eyecup both tend to admit more stray light in bright conditions than I found comfortable.

EVF quality  The X-E1 has the nicest looking EVF with accurate colors and good highlight/shadow detail. It is not as adjustable as the Panasonics but doesn't really need to be. The only problem I encountered with X-E1 was a peculiar transient shimmy shake in the EVF preview image when I half pressed the shutter button. This was actually a bit disconcerting especially in low light.

The GX7 tilt up EVF  As far as I am aware this is a first for the camera industry. It could be useful in several circumstances.

Monitor    In my early days with digital cameras I only had access to models with fixed monitor, so I became accustomed to that, just as X-E1 users will adapt to their fixed monitor. But the  GX7 swing up down monitor is more versatile and the GH3's fully articulated monitor even better,  allowing the camera to be held high or low in either landscape or portrait orientation. It also allows other angles of view not possible with the other monitor styles.  Last but not least the fully articulated monitor can be turned inward for protection when not in use.

Part 2 follows......................

 

Favourite Lenses of 2013

Antipodes Islands. Panasonic GH3 with Lumix 14-140mm Mk2.

 

Most Versatile: Panasonic Lumix 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 Mk2

Highest Quality: Panasonic Lumix 35-100mm f2.8

Lots of M43 lenses  Micro Four Thirds camera users have a great selection of lenses from which to choose. Here are my two favourites.

Dream of the universal camera  I hate changing lenses. Professional photographers try to avoid changing lenses by mounting a body to each lens they expect to use on an assignment.

I suspect most camera users hate changing lenses. Ironically having to change lenses may be the least appealing aspect of owning an interchangeable lens camera.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone invented a universal all purpose do everything in all conditions camera/lens combination. Plenty of makers have tried.

All purpose or "Bridge" cameras can be found in the form of several models from Fuji, the Sony RX10,  Olympus Stylus 1 and several small sensor superzooms.  But there is a viable alternative with a larger and better performing sensor in the form of the Lumix 14-140mm zoom lens mounted on a  Panasonic G6, GX7 or GH3.

Panasonic's all purpose travel zoom  The first version of this appeared in 2009. It had an f4.0-5.8 aperture range. Most users found it had modest performance not matching the 16 Mpx sensors which soon came to dominate the M43 system. The current version was released in 2013. It is smaller, lighter, less expensive on release, has a wider aperture and significantly better imaging performance. Yes, it does everything better.

It is ideal for expeditions when you really don't want to be troubled by having to change lenses, but still want decent imaging quality in a lens with 10x zoom ratio.  I have been using one mounted on a G6 or GH3 for several months. It really is as good as Panasonic and the reviewers claim.

It delivers very acceptable image quality at all focal lengths with a bit of softness at the edges and corners cleaning up when the lens aperture is stopped down a little. Build quality is very good. AF is fast and OIS works well.

Total kit size and weight is about the same as one of the larger bridge cameras.

GH3 with Lumix 35-100mm f2.8.

 

The Lumix 35-100mm f2.8  This is the M43 equivalent of the classic 35mm ("full frame")  70-200mm f2.8 zoom, greatly favoured by professional and enthusiast photographers. The 35-100mm offers the same angle of view and constant aperture.  But it is muchsmaller, lighter, less obtrusive and less expensive than the 70-200mm f2.8.  In the 9 months I have been using the 35-100mm it has impressed me with excellent imaging quality at all focal lengths and apertures. It has excellent AF and OIS. It makes a very agreeable high performance walk around photographic companion.

Image courtesy of  camerasize.com.  Images of neither the  EF 28-300 nor the Lumix 14-140mm Mk2 were available so I edited this image of closely similar lenses to correct size in Photoshop.
Left, Canon 5D3 with EF28-300mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Right, Panasonic GH3 with Lumix 14-140mm f3.5-5.6.  Same angle of view, same aperture range.

Image courtesy of camerasize.com
Left, Canon 5D3 with EF 70-200mm f2.8. Right, Panasonic GH3 with 35-100mm f2.8.
Same angle of view and aperture.

M43, full frame and kit size  Much is being made as I write this about the new Sony full frame mirrorless ILC's.  Some excited commentators are forecasting the end of all systems which use smaller sensors. This is nonsense. The bodies are small but the equivalent lenses, particularly the superzooms and long zooms will be the same size as those for full frame DSLR's. The reason for this is that lens size, for any aperture and focal length, is primarily determined by sensor size. So the A7 and A7R are about the size of the full featured M43 cameras, but some of the FE lenses which have been released or planned  are a very different proposition.

My own view is that the full frame sensor will stay where it is now, in the hands of professional photographers and some enthusiasts while most development will be in systems using smaller sensors which are already delivering excellent image quality.

Favourite Cameras of 2013

GH3 with Lumix 35-100mm f2.8.

 

Favourite main camera: Panasonic Lumix GH3

Favourite backup: Panasonic Lumix G6

The season for awards    I have not the slightest clue which make or model might have been "best camera" of 2013. Such an award seems artificial and pointless to me. Individual photographers'  requirements differ so greatly that it is quite likely one person's ideal camera will be another's nightmare.

But I can tell you which is my personal favourite and why. The reasoning process might be of interest to readers considering their next camera purchase.

Photographic requirements  I am an amateur photographer. I record family, holidays, travel, and events. I like to record sport/action. Another section of my work is documentary, recording people, places, work and activities. I need a camera kit which is highly portable but also extremely capable, able to make images which are suitable for magazine reproduction or large format printing.  I am old and feeling my age. Anything large, heavy or bulky is completely off  the  menu. I don't care how many line pairs per image height it can reproduce.

Camera System  After many years experimenting I have settled on Micro Four Thirds (M43) as the system which offers me the best balance of image quality, performance and ergonomics in a compact kit.

Panasonic or Olympus ?  Having tried both I prefer Panasonic's approach to the user interface. This applies to the menus, control systems and ergonomics. Current model Panasonic and Olympus M43 cameras are quite complex due to their high degree of configurability. But I find Panasonic's ergonomic logic more direct, less convoluted.  The GH3 has features reminiscent of  Canon (D)SLR's with which I have a long history.  Control modules on the Panasonic are usually  located  where I expect to find them.

 

Why the GH3 ?   The first camera which I used, 60 years ago, was a medium format rollfilm Baldafix. Since then I have used almost every type of camera and system. The GH3 is my all time favourite.  Many reviewers appear to regard the GH3 as a video camera with less relevance to still photography. But I use it exclusively for still photos. I have to confess I have no interest in movie capture and have never made a minute of video with the GH3.

Overall evaluation  The GH3 is a photographer's camera. It rewards the expert/enthusiast user with a streamlined operating experience. It encourages the user to take control of the image capture process. It does not set up roadblocks.  It has thus far been reliable.

Image Quality  This is good enough for my requirements. Would I like more ?  Sure, but that will come in the next generation of GH cams and will be a bonus.

Performance  The camera operates swiftly. It is easy for the practiced user to drive efficiently. I never have to stop in the middle of a sequence and wonder how to reset some function. It has a large battery and a big buffer. It is easy to carry and operate.

Ergonomics  Holding, viewing and operating are all carried out smoothly and efficiently. The camera is very versatile. It can switch from photographing an infant close up to architecture to sport/action with just a few adjustments to the well designed and positioned control modules.

I can adjust all the primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters in Capture Phase of use, with my eye to the EVF. 

Prepare Phase adjustments are readily made  via  Set and See modules, buttons or the well implemented Q Menu.

The test of time  After 10 months of moderately high frequency use I still enjoy using the GH3. Of course I have ideas about ways in which the next GH camera could be improved but they are about details, not fundamentals.  Panasonic got the basics right.

I await the next iteration of the GH series with interest but am in no haste to replace the GH3.

Favourite Backup: The G6  The G6 got a bit lost in  market excitement about other cameras but I have been using it intermittently for six months and have found it to be nice to hold, with good image quality and performance. I conducted a big test earlier this year comparing the G6, Nikon D5200 and Nikon 1 V2, each with a 10x "travel zoom" lens. I found the G6 to be  the best all round performer providing the most satisfying user experience. I prefer it to the GX7, kept the G6 and sold the GX7.

 

 

I kept the G6 and sold the GX7: Why ?

GX7 on the left, G6 on the right. Obviously the EVF is in a different location.  But also the entire right side is different in each case. Can they both handle well ?

 

It's all about holding and handling

Moving against the tide ?  Last year I bought an Olympus EM5 with accessory battery grip and several lenses. I used this for several months then sold it, having decided to keep the GH2 already in my camera drawer. At the time the EM5 was the hottest thing in M43 world,  receiving many awards. It had better image quality and better performance than the ageing GH2.

So why did I sell it ?  In five words,  ergonomics and the user experience. The EM5 was a polarising camera. Some people loved it, others just couldn't adapt to its user interface. I was one of the latter.

Control layouts have similarities but also differences dictated by the style.

 

Lumix GX7 vs G6  I recently had the opportunity to own and  test the GX7 and  G6  at the same time. I found the GX7 to have  better picture quality especially at high ISO values. In several ways the GX7 also had better performance. The GX7 received many glowing reviews. The G6 did not even get reviewed by some sites.  But I kept the G6 and sold the GX7.  I went against the tide again.

Why ?  Same reason, ergonomics and the user experience.

I should make it clear that my main M43 camera is a Lumix GH3. So the G6 or GX7 would just be a back up in case of problems with the GH3 (of which there have been none, by the way). 

If I were choosing between the GX7 and G6 as a main or only M43 camera the decision might be a bit more difficult.  In that case I might keep the GX7 for it's better picture quality and investigate aftermarket thumb supports and accessory handles to improve it's holding and handling.

My hands are of average adult male caucasian size.

GX7  top, G6 above. Both handle/grip arrangements get the job done. I happen to find the G6 more comfortable and secure. It is also easier to carry in the hand all day with a lens attached.

The language of ergonomics (or lack of it)   There are many ways to identify and describe technical image quality, but the language and taxonomy of camera ergonomics is poorly developed. This blog is one camera user/buyer's attempt to rectify that deficiency.

One of the negative consequences of the paucity of language by which ergonomic issues may be described is a lack of attention to ergonomics (compared to technical image quality) in many camera reviews. A consequence of this is that it is possible to read many reviews of some camera only to discover after purchase that it is difficult or uncomfortable to hold.

Holding a hand held device   Given that the great majority of cameras are hand held devices one might have expected that analysis of holding and handling would have prime place in camera reviews. Unfortunately that is not the case. My own experience is that I have to buy or borrow a camera to evaluate it's holding and handling qualities. It might be argued that holding is an individual matter and that a camera which feels good to one person might be uncomfortable for another. But this ignores basic human anatomy. Human hands differ in size and length/width ratio. But they are all constructed the same way with the same fingers and joints operating the same way. No humans have the forelimb of a possum or a seal.

Studies of holding and handling  My investigations using mockups of whole cameras and handles have shown that it is possible to design small, medium and large cameras which can accommodate the normal range of variation in human hand size and shape.  The key lies in understanding which hand/finger positions provide a comfortable, strong base position and which finger movements are preferred by nature. The functional anatomy of hands and fingers preferences some positions and movements over others.

Mockup handle, front and top views. The mockup body has the same depth as the GX7. The handle is 3mm deeper but does not protrude beyond lens mount depth. You see here two versions of the parallel type. The mockup gives a  secure hold with less strain and positions the index finger to more readily operate the shutter button and top plate controls.

The design process  Earlier this year I read some promotional material by a well known camera maker (Nikon) describing the in house team's approach to designing a new camera. The promo indicated the team started with preliminary drawings then moved on to detail drawings and after that they made shaped mockups.

I think they are going about it the wrong way.   My work strongly supports the construction of  rough mockups as the  first step of the shaping  process, once guidelines about overall dimensions, mount size, flangeback distance and other essential engineering parameters have been set.

Nikon's capacity to make a camera with truly awful ergonomics was demonstrated with the 1 Series V1, described by one reviewer as a "mongrel".

How was the GX7 designed ?  I have no inside knowlege of the design process at Panasonic or any other camera maker. So I have to guess. Hypothesise to put a fancy word to it.  The GX7 looks and feels as though styling came before ergonomics. It has a specific shape and style which interferes with the creation of an anatomical handle and thumb support.

The G6  looks and feels as though it's designers learned from from the mistakes, of which there were many,  of  previous cameras in the "Small SLR-like" series of  Lumix MILCs since 2008. These include the G1,2,3,5 and GH 1,2,3.

GX7 and G6, Holding  The G6 has a substantial handle with anatomically sculpted shape. There is a distinct thumb support. You can get a proper hold on the thing without having to grip tightly. Finger spacing is close to that which the hand and fingers seek to adopt by nature with the "half closed, relaxed" posture.

The GX7 handle is small and does not conform to the shape of the fingers which are trying to grip it. The shutter button is not where my index finger wants to find it. There is only a vestigial thumb support. The space between the index and third fingers is greater than the space between the thumb and index finger. But the human hand in half closed natural position has a substantial space between the thumb and index finger but at the most only a few millimeters between the index finger and middle finger.

Holding the GX7 could be dramatically improved  if it used the handle and thumb support as shown in the attached photos of the mockup. But it would look different. I don't mean the color.  The style would be different and the layout of controls would be different.  Size could  be the same. The holding issue is not primarily one of size but of ergonomic design.

The challenge of design  Do camera designers preference style over function ? In my assessment they do it all the time, to the detriment of the user experience. I live in the eternally frustrated hope that camera designers will put ergonomics first and let the shape of the thing evolve to best serve the user experience.

So, I keep the G6   It's ergonomic realisation is some way short of perfection.  I would like to see the Function Lever (just behind the shutter button)  changed to a front control dial. It could perform all of it's present functions but also be available as part of the preferable twin dial control system. The rear dial needs to protrude slightly more, have sharper serrations and be angled upwards a little. These things would make it easier to operate without being unduly prone to accidental activation. Some detail improvements to the buttons would help make them a little easier to locate and operate by feel. The Fn4 button and surrounds need to be redesigned to make the button less prone to accidental operation. The shutter button could with advantage move 5-10mm to the left, giving a more natural position to the index finger.  Details, details,  but they affect the user experience.

However the basic size, shape, handle and thumb support are good for a small ILC and would be hard to improve I think.  The viewfinder is well located and the fully articulated monitor is very useful.

We shall see what the next round of models brings.

 

 

Panasonic Lumix GX7 Ergonomic Review

GX7 on the left with G6 on the right.

 

Much goodness but holding could be better

Market position and user demographic   The Micro Four Thirds camera system came to market in 2008. The original Panasonic G cameras looked like little DSLR's.  Presumably Panasonic was hoping to attract buyers wanting a DSLR style camera in a more compact size. Olympus' first M43 cameras used a flat top style without a built in EVF. Panasonic followed with a range of similar cameras with monitor only viewing.

There have been  requests from user forum members over the years for a rangefinder style M43 camera, flat top style with built in EVF located top left on the body.

It seems Panasonic was listening and responded with the GX7,  packed  with  features and specifications likely to appeal to the enthusiast user.

Some reviewers have described  the  GX7 as an evolution of the GX1, but I prefer to understand it as the first iteration of a new product line with a new style.  It could be seen as a modern version of the rangefinder "look-a-Leica" style, also found in Fuji X-Cameras.

On the left GH3 with 12-35mm lens, in the center G6 with 14-42mm (original version), on the left GX7 with 14-42mm Mk2 kit lens. The size and style differences are self evident.

 

Specifications and features  You can read a list of these in the manufacturer's brochures and other published material. I make just a few comments.

The list of specifications and features is very extensive, suggesting Panasonic is working hard to make this model a success.

Just to pick out some of the features which attracted my attention, the GX7 has:

* A tilting EVF located top left on the body, both features a first for Panasonic M43 cameras.

* An accessory rubber eyepiece, DMW EC-1 available separately, to shield the EVF from stray light.

* The monitor tilts up and down but is not fully articulated.

* Two axis in body image stabiliser (IBIS), a first for Panasonic.

* Wi-Fi capability, now becoming standard on current model Panasonic M43 cameras.

* Twin dial user interface with the front dial surrounding the shutter button, Olympus style.

* Video reported to be of very good quality.

* Focus peaking with selectable colors in addition to focus assist zoom with manual focus.

* Fast flash shutter speed of 1/320 second and a top shutter speed of 1/8000, allowing wide apertures to be used in bright light.

* Silent E-shutter with maximum available ISO increased from 1600 on the GH3/G6 to 3200.

* Time Lapse photography.

* In camera panorama mode (JPG only). This was introduced in the G6  but the version in the GX7 brings visible improvement.   Problems with stitching errors and other artefacts in the G6  appear to have been eliminated in the GX7.

* In camera HDR blending (JPG only).

* Shutter delay feature to eliminate any risk of shake with shutter speeds longer than 1 second which are not supported by the E-Shutter.

* Multiple hard and soft Function buttons with  user selectable functions.

* Touch screen controls which can be disabled for those who prefer to control the camera with the buttons and dials.

* Wireless remote flash unit control with FL360L or R.

* Ability to autofocus (AF-S) at extremely low light levels.

* The battery is rather small for a camera with EVF plus monitor, no doubt a consequence of the camera's compact dimensions and small handle.

The list of features goes on and on,  indicating a camera of considerable technical sophistication and capability.

ISO 3200. This photo has had some color balance correction in Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 but no other adjustment and no noise reduction.

 

Picture quality  This review is mainly about ergonomics, that being the main theme of this blog. However picture quality has a direct influence on the user experience and is obviously important.  Note that I distinguish "Picture Quality" being something which any user can evaluate, from "Technical Image Quality" which a laboratory would determine  using a special test protocol in a controlled environment.

For all tests I used RAW capture and Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3.

I had the opportunity  to test the GX7 alongside a G6, GH3 and a Fuji X-E1. I used a test chart and also made many photographs of general subjects with each camera using the same lens (except for the X-E1 of course on which I used the 18-55mm f2.8-f4 zoom). I will just summarise my findings.

Resolution/sharpness I found all four cameras gave the same resolution/sharpness at low to mid ISO settings. At ISO 6400 the EX-1 was best followed by the GX7, GH3 and G6 in that order. The difference was due to the amount of noise which when prominent interfered with rendition of fine details.

At ISO 12800 and 25600  (not available for RAW capture with the Fuji)  the GX7 had less noise than the GH3, with better retention of color accuracy and image detail. The G6 showed marked purple color shift in the dark tones, heavy noise and loss of detail at these ISO  settings.

ISO 5000. Mild noise reduction was applied in Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3.

 

Dynamic Range  At low ISO settings, rendition of highlight and shadow detail in scenes with high subject brightness level (dynamic range) appeared to be the same with all four cameras but the Fuji images had clearly less shadow noise than the GH3 or GX7.

Overall  I found the GX7 made excellent pictures in almost any circumstance. I would use this camera without hesitation right up to ISO 25600 and expect to get a usable photo. This represents a dramatic improvement from the original G1 of 2008, and a big improvement at high ISO settings over the G6 which is still a current model. Even better, the camera will autofocus in the low light levels which might require such high ISO settings.

Lens  I tested the GX7 with the diminutive featherweight, Lumix 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 OIS Mk2 kit zoom. The one tested had a plastic, or should I say "engineering grade polycarbonate" lens mount. Other  versions of this lens apparently have a metal mount, but the same optics. The fixed rear element of the optical pathway has a greater diameter than the diagonal of the sensor. This lens turned in a generally excellent performance. Zoom action was smooth. AF and OIS worked well. Performance on the test chart was right up with the much more expensive Lumix 12-35mm f2.8. In the field however I found that  sharpness at focussed distances greater than about 10 meters from the camera was not as good as the  12-35mm or the older design 14-45mm Lumix.  This may have been an issue with sample variation.  Lenses like this demonstrate that modern budget kit zooms can deliver remarkable picture quality in a very small package.

Performance   Shot to shot times with single AF are very good. The camera will make shots each with AF and AE almost as fast as I can  press the shutter button.  In M Burst drive with continuous AF, RAW capture,  the GX7 made 10 shots in 2 seconds, with a 95Mb/sec card, which is the same 5 fps frame rate as the GH3. However the GH3 has a much larger buffer and faster write times making that camera more suitable for continuous shooting.

Otherwise I found the GX7's performance to be brisk and responsive, in keeping with it's enthusiast appeal.

Autofocus, especially AFS  is very fast, sensitive and accurate even in low light levels. The camera will very occasionally miss focus but only in situations which would confuse any AF system.

Manual Focus  As with other recent Panasonic M43 cameras the GX7 offers full time manual focussing, which means you can focus manually while autofocus is active. Focus assist with variable zoom is automatically activated with MF and focus peaking is available in user selectable colors. Unfortunately focussing by preset distance on an analogue scale is not yet available on Panasonic M43 cameras. This feature is present on several other cameras, for instance the Canon G16 compact and Fuji X-E1, both of which I reviewed recently.  It is very useful when you want to preset the hyperfocal distance for any given aperture. The camera can then fire quickly without having to autofocus.

This photo and the one below demonstrate that sometimes a photo does not tell a thousand words. I doubt most people could tell by looking at the photos whether the GX7 above or the G6 below is the more comfortable to hold. My experience and that of several other users is that the G6 is more secure and comfortable to hold. 

You can't see it on this photo but the strap and it's lug fit easily in the wide gap between the thumb and index finger.

Ergonomics

Setup Phase  A newcomer might find the menu system of a current model Panasonic camera rather daunting. But the number of items is a consequence of the high degree to which the user can configure the camera to personal requirements. The visual presentation of the menus is clear and easy to navigate. Allocating functions to each Fn button and items to the user selectable Q Menu will be a steep learning curve for Panasonic novices. However all these things can be left at default settings initially and the camera will operate just fine. As with other recent Panasonic M43 cameras, the cursor buttons can be configured for Direct Focus Area  which allows the active AF area position and size to be changed quickly while looking through the viewfinder.

Menu Resume is available. This means a  menu will open at the last used item. It is very handy for people like me who often need to format a memory card.

In order to set up the camera for optimum responsiveness to individual requirements and in order to understand all those functions,  I found it very helpful to download and print out the entire 379 page  Advanced Operating Instructions.

The instruction manual has drawn some criticism on user forums but I think it represents a good approach to managing the considerable complexity involved. It's no light read though. You need to study it like a textbook and think carefully about the alternative settings available.

Just for the record I have found Olympus M43 menus and user manual even more difficult to fully comprehend.

Prepare Phase   Most items requiring adjustment in the few minutes prior to image capture can be congregated in the Q Menu. The contents of this are user selectable from a long list of options. Q Menu graphical interface is nicely designed, logical and works well.

Capture Phase 

Holding  This is the part of using the GX7 which I found least satisfactory. The GX7 has several characteristics which adversely affect holding. It is very small for a full featured camera and it is designed to a faux  rangefinder style. Part of the style signature is the horizontal silver band running along the top of the front face of the body.  This forces the grip downwards where it cannot be anatomically shaped like the grips on the GH3 or G6, and it forces the shutter button upwards onto the top plate. Some people have expressed themselves happy with the resulting hold on the camera but I had problems with it. 

Even after several weeks of frequent use to acclimatise myself to the new shape, my right index finger kept wanting to find the shutter button forward and to the left (as viewed by the user) of it's actual location. The middle and fourth fingers of my right hand never felt they had a secure grip on the mini handle with which the GX7 is equipped. The thumb support is very shallow for reasons which escape me. The designers could easily have made it deeper as on other recent Panasonic M43 cameras.

The GX7 with kit zoom lens or a small prime like the 20mm f1.7 is light enough to carry without a neck strap. A wrist strap would be sufficient.

Unfortunately I found and so did several others who handled the camera that the right side  strap lug dug into my palm just below the junction of the index and middle fingers. If one did use a neck strap the right side of it would be in an awkward  position relative to the right index and middle fingers.

I asked various family members to hold and operate the GX7 and G6. Every one of them preferred the G6 for the reasons given above.

Already there are reports on user forums of owners fitting a thumbs up type thumb support into the hotshoe and commenting that this greatly improves holding  and handling.  In this regard the GX7 appears to be like the Fuji X-Cameras many of which are kitted out by owners with aftermarket handles and thumb supports.  I would not be surprised to see aftermarket accessory handles being offered for this camera in due course.

GX7 Hold Top View. Some users will be happy with this, others will not. You can just see that pesky little strap lug which presses into my hand. Imagine this with a neck strap fitted. The strap and fingers will be competing for the same restricted little piece of real estate.

 

Viewing    The GX7 has the well advertised tilting EVF. This feature could be quite useful in some circumstances and I am sure some users will appreciate it. In the old days when I was doing macro work with a SLR I had to buy a separate angle viewfinder eyepiece at considerable cost. Such a thing is no longer required.

The EVF itself provides an acceptable but not wonderful viewing experience. I found the EC1 accessory eyecup desirable to reduce stray light entering the eyepiece. This does the job but when fitted restricts access to the Fn4 button.

The EFV is sharp but prone to blocked up shadows and purple/magenta color cast in the shadows. Reducing contrast to improve highlight/shadow detail also lowers color saturation.

I  found myself squinting more when using this viewfinder than I do with the G6 or GH3. The reason for this is not clear to me  but it also happened with the X-E1. I seem to be able to relax the left eye when viewing with the right eye using the GH3 and G6.

The monitor can swing up or down but is not fully articulated. In consequence the camera can readily be used overhead or underhand in landscape orientation but not in portrait orientation. The monitor cannot be turned inward to protect the screen.

Operating  Camera operation is generally very effective.  The Mode Dial and twin control dial control system is fast and effcient. The user has very good control over all primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters which can be quickly adjusted with a minimum of finger actions while keeping the eye to the viewfinder.

Design and operation of the control dials and buttons is improved over the G6.  The control dials are easy but not too easy to turn. Buttons protrude slightly more than the G6 and have a slightly sharpish edge for easy location by touch. However the GH3 with it's larger buttons and dials is easier to operate with gloves. The cursor buttons have a raised sharpish edge which is easily located by feel. This design is a slight improvement over the G6 and a huge advance over the GH2, the rounded cursor buttons of which I could never find or operate by feel. Neither the GX7 nor the G6 cursor control system is as easy to find and operate by feel, with gloves, as that on the GH3.

Fn button functions are user selectable. This enables each individual to configure the camera so it operates to personal requirements. Operation of the cursor buttons is user selectable. There are few cameras which allow more individual selection of button/dial functions. Users need to have  a comprehensive understanding of camera operation to obtain maximum benefit from this capability.

There is an AF/AE lock button with user selectable function, located where the thumb can reach it easily. It can be set to provide back button AF start,  DSLR style.  Surrounding this is an AF/MF switch. This gives only two positions, AF/MF, unlike the similar switch on the GH3 which offers AFS/AFC/MF and is therefore more useful. In addition there is more space on the GH3 allowing the toggle lever for the switch to be positioned on the right side of the AF/AE button for easier operation by the right thumb. The lever on the GX7 points upwards which is not where the thumb wants to find it.  It works, but is not as readily accessible as the layout on the GH3. These little ergonomic details do have a significant effect on camera operation. They remind us that shrinking the camera can adversely affect functionality. 

Notes on other reviews

Digital Photography Review  This site did it's typically thorough job although  I would like to see more discussion about ergonomic issues from dpreview. Some user forum members were disappointed the GX7 was awarded a silver, not gold rating by dpreview. On my assessment the silver rating was fair.

Imaging Resource  This is another site which has a record of doing thorough reviews with plenty of comment about the user experience as well as picture quality and technical analysis.

Camera Labs  This New Zealand based site offers a well researched review and comparison with other recent camera makes and models.

Popular Photography This magazine/website's GX7 review contains some remarks which are at odds with my evaluation. They describe Panasonic's approach to RAW as "lackadaisical" which leaves me wondering what that is intended to mean. They describe the GX7 noise levels at 1600 as "unacceptable" which is not my experience at all. They do however make reference to the holding and handling issues which I experienced.

Dxomark  This site publishes analysis of RAW sensor performance and lens performance using descriptors unique to DXO and often raising comment on user forums when, as happens quite frequently,  DXO's results seem at odds with user experience. For instance on 13 December this year DXO published results indicating that the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens would resolve 9 "Perceptual Megapixels" (P-Mpx, a unique DXO metric) on a GH2 or GH3 camera but only 5 P-Mpx on a GX7 camera. These results are completely at variance with my own test findings are drew many responses on forums indicating other  users have the same experience as me, namely that the GH3, GX7 and pretty much any 16Mpx M43 camera, deliver the same sharpness with any given lens.

Summary The GX7 is an interesting addition to Panasonic's growing stable of M43 cameras and one which I am sure will please many enthusiast users. It is a good illustration of the way in which a Mirrorless ILC can be designed to any shape, with the EVF located just about anywhere you want it.

I think this camera will be useful for candid and  street photography where small kit size and responsiveness are desirable. It would work well with a pancake style  prime like the 20mm f1.7   for fast unobtrusive operation.

I  found myself at odds with the holding arrangements and decided not to keep the camera. I am sure many other users will have a different experience with the GX7 and will enjoy using it. However I would suggest that "Try before you buy" might be a good policy, just in case you are like me and don't like the way it handles.