Home / Cameras / Camera / Panasonic Lumix GX7 / Image Quality and Verdict

Panasonic Lumix GX7: Image Quality and Verdict

By Phil Hall



Our Score:


Panasonic Lumix GX7: Image Quality

Just as the GX7 looks, feels and performs as its £899 price tag suggests, it takes great photos, too. The likes of the Fujifilm X-E1 do edge the GX7 for absolute image quality overall, but the margins are very fine.

Panasonuc Lumix GX7

Click the photo above to view the full gallery of test shots

The GX7's 1728-zone metering system is the same as that implemented in the Lumix G6 and delivers similarly sterling results. In a variety of lighting conditions exposures are reliable, with only the slight tendency to underexposure.

Colours are similarly pleasing from the GX7. Results in 'Standard' colour setting may be a little too under saturated for some tastes, although if that is the case there are a selection of other colour settings from which you can choose.

Panasonuc Lumix GX7

Click the photo above to view the full gallery of test shots

The claims made about the GX7 delivering improved noise-free results are generally borne out on review, with images generally proving noise-free right up to ISO 1600. Even looking further up the ISO range to ISO 6400 and noise is still very well controlled.

Although noise is well controlled there is some loss of detail owing to the noise reduction technology. Raw files do retain more of this detail, although they do appear noisier as a result.

Panasonuc Lumix GX7 5

Should I buy the Panasonic Lumix GX7?

There's no escaping the fact that the GX7 faces some serious competition. The likes of the Fujifilm X-E1 and Olympus PEN E-P5 are excellent cameras, but the GX7 is more than a match for both.

It may not handle noise quite as the former, or appear as stylish as the latter, but the outstanding screen and built-in viewfinder really elevate it. That's especially true when compared to the Olmypus, which doesn't have an EVF and which is considerably more expensive when you add an external one.

To our minds it also edges the Sony NEX-7 thanks to it superior controls and handling, though it's a close run thing.

For more options, head to our best cameras round-up.


The Panasonic Lumix GX7 is a real leap forward in comparison to its predecessor, the GX1. It’s a solidly designed CSC with some real stand-out features, including the tilt-angle viewfinder and exemplary touchscreen LCD, that takes great photos, too.

Overall Score


Scores In Detail

  • Design 8
  • Features 9
  • Image Quality 8
  • Performance 8
  • Value 9

Michael Kehm

August 2, 2013, 10:08 am

Looks EXACTLY like Sony NEX6... I hope Sony is not Apple...;-)

alex mason

August 2, 2013, 11:46 am

It does! I have an NEX6 as well and I didn't notice until you said that. It definitely does from the rear. The layout is almost identical. I do like the titling EVF though, that is a nice touch, as is the inbuilt 5-axis IS. This is something I wish Sony had done instead of going lens based because when you use the E to A mount adapters, A mount lenses aren't optically stabilised because the Alpha SLRs have inbuilt IS.

Just noticed the mechanical AF/MF switch. Again a nice inclusion and something Sony should have kept on the NEX-6 from the NEX-7

Hamish Campbell

August 4, 2013, 6:52 pm

what happens when you put a stabilising lens on a body with built in stabilisation?


August 8, 2013, 1:31 am

NEX 6 and NEX 7 has a bigger sensor than GX7 and NEX 7 has internally 3.5 mm audio input for external microphone. I wish the GX7 has an option to attach external audio input


August 11, 2013, 3:55 am

It's a key point
of difference from other cameras in the range, which don't normally have
it built into the body?? OLYMPUS has done along century ago man...


August 12, 2013, 7:57 am

In Panasonic's range.

Graham Culleton

August 13, 2013, 11:08 am

Lens takes priority and cameras stabilisation is switched off.


August 19, 2013, 3:09 pm

A score of 1 out of 10, and still recommended?? What do Panasonic have to do NOT to get a recommendation I wonder?!


August 19, 2013, 3:31 pm

The 3:2 aspect screen ratio is photographer-friendly. Agreed, the sensor is 4:3 but the former is more pleasing.


August 19, 2013, 3:46 pm

Sorry, that's an error. It should update with the correct shortly, which is 9/10.


August 19, 2013, 7:36 pm

How does the EVF compare to this of the OM-D or VF-4?

Javier Alvarez

August 19, 2013, 7:53 pm

does the image stabilization for during video recording? Also, are you able to switch aperture settings during video recording, as well?


August 19, 2013, 8:18 pm

One more early review listing an image quality section and completely failing to make any comments about dynamic range in comparison to other cameras in the same market space? Hmmm?


August 19, 2013, 8:35 pm

The GX1's heritage is much more related to the LC-1 than any NEX. There are some similarities in the silhouette but when you start to compare part by part, there are much more differences than similarities.

alex mason

August 19, 2013, 10:19 pm

Lovely looking item. Very similar to the NEX-6 in shape and layout. Perhaps this is convergence in action, that this is a pretty good general layout. Where it bests the NEX is surely the titling EVF and the mechanical switch for AF/MF, something Sony should have left on the NEX-6 from the 7. Power switch placement looks better, so too does the movie button and the second control wheel around the shutter button would be much preferable to the wheel in the d-pad location on my NEX-6.

My only reservation then lies with the 4/3rds sensor. They can talk all day about how they have repackaged the sensor and improved the processing, but at the end of the day my gut feeling is physics will win out. That the larger APS-C sensor in the NEX cameras will ultimately lead to better IQ, especially with RAW files.

Still 4/3rds absolutely steals the show when it comes to lens choice. SONY need to get their act together in that regard (and also on menu design which is generally convoluted and awful).

and i just realised the comments from the preview are also here and so I have commented twice on the same points. Oh well, I ain't turning back now!


August 20, 2013, 9:26 am

I wonder... Did you bother to read the review?


August 20, 2013, 11:29 am

I thought the same of the M43 sensor vs. APS-C but then I bought an Olympus E-PM1 as a small backup camera a little over a year ago. Fast forward to today & I've sold both my APS-C & the little E-PM1 in favour of an all M43 kit that includes an Olympus E-PL5 & a Panasonic GX1. While understanding how personal these decisions are, I find that I've now always got a "good" camera with me & I struggle to tell the difference between the results from either format. I really like the GX7 package, especially now that it uses the Olympus wireless flash system & it has a very useful silent shutter mode. It's a definite contender to replace my GX1.


August 20, 2013, 12:17 pm

the APS-C sensor of the nex will not give you better IQ, since the IQ is not driven only by the sensor, but it does include the processing chip and the lens you mount on it.
on the other hand it will give you for sure bigger lens.
so if the size is not a problem for you, you should go for a full frame sensor, and enjoy the real advantages of a bigger sensor, if you are stayin in the smaller sensor area, the difference between APS-C and 4/3 is really not an issue anymore.

Hamish Campbell

August 20, 2013, 1:30 pm

I was thinking it looks not much different from my Panasonic GF1, in terms of button layout and body shape.


August 20, 2013, 6:16 pm

I'm interested on this one also ;-)

alex mason

August 20, 2013, 10:02 pm

Lenses are probably the biggest factor IMO. I have never been too enamoured with my NEX results. However, having used it with a CZ 24-70mm I was rather taken aback at the results. Probably the sharpest things I have ever seen come from a camera under my control. Similarly, stick a cheap lens on a full frame and you'll just waste the advantages.

I did compare the NEX 6 to the OMD and I felt the NEX had the edge on noise at the higher ISOs and slightly better when it came to depth of field. Some people don't notice these things, I do. So the sensor does make a difference in my opinion (given similar grade glass and by passing processing) with regards to photo site size. Physically larger photo sites are an advantage, so long as you can feed them correctly.

Still we are talking about the NEX-6 and the OMD here. These cameras are not the cutting edge anymore. Things improve, tech converges. Perhaps you are right.

I tell you what, one good reason to go for a m4/3 camera would be to get away from SONY's awful user interfaces. Christ, I'd like to meet the man who did the UI on the NEX-6 and I'd like to smack him. Its ruddy awful; clunky, slow and seemingly all jumbled together. It seems to be a common trait amongst a lot of SONY products.

alex mason

August 20, 2013, 10:10 pm

I don't think I'd go lower than APS-C for the moment. A key feature really of the APSC sony's was the fact you can buy any number of adapters and use what ever lenses from which ever manufacturer rather easily. The sensor size being the same as most mainstream DSLR's means you just have to make the stand-off distance and it should work.

In other words I wanted to downsize because I hate carrying all that weight associated with a big SLR, but I am not ready to give up the access to some great, high quality DSLR glass. I can hire a good lens and the required adapter when I need the performance, and I get to keep a relatively compact and light set up for the rest of the time.

lets face it most of SONY's e-mount lenses are not particularly amazing in the IQ stakes...a partial side effect of trying to make them smaller... so being able to get hold of proper glass is big tick in the box for me.

Eric Zachary Ryder

August 25, 2013, 12:48 am

TOTALLY agree on the Sony UI. It was so bad I sold my NEX-6 on eBay not long after I got it. Took a bath on it and waited for the Panny G6. I like the G6 a lot, but I'm selling it for the GX7 for the tilting LCD and the newer sensor - though, really, I kind of doubt I'd be able to tell any real difference between the two. My ONLY gripe on the GX7 is the LCD doesn't flip out like the G6. But its not a deal breaker.


September 1, 2013, 2:04 pm

If you do the math (sensor area divided by the number of pixels), NEX pixels are just 7% larger, IMO not enough to provide any significant quality increase, just take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/art... ...there's a bit of an advantage in number of pixels though since it helps to "average out" the noise if you down-sample. But this is assuming all other things being equal, which is not the case, especially when it comes to lenses. I would personally choose a full-frame camera in a professional setting where low-light performance is critical. Otherwise I would favor overall usability where lighting conditions are acceptable.


September 12, 2013, 9:24 pm

LUMIX G, IR Converted, 14-40 kit lens - I'm pretty pleased with the overall quality although I think for non-IR I would prefer a better lens.

comments powered by Disqus