Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF5 user reviews

lvl 26 September 2012

Good: Quality in a small package

Bad: Inflexible screen

Comment: Sounds like a great camera, small, pocket-friendly with higher quality output. But oh, that fixed screen. I find the rotating screen on my Canon G12 incredibly useful, couldn't manage without it. So for this great camera it's a deal breaker despite its great quality.
Also, you have to bite your wallet to get the package up to the same lens capability as a G12. But if the extra quality is there it might be worth the financial pain. But only the reviewer can find out without cost to himself how much better the panasonic is over the G12 for picture quality. Is it worth all that extra cash? That would be worth knowing. Maybe the Mk2 will have a swivel screen then my bank manager may feel the twinges.

72gerard 25 September 2012

Good: very light,large screen,filters,outstanding picture quality

Bad: none

Comment: In normal conditions always gives outstanding performance. By avoiding a plastic body there is a definite note of class. Well done Panasonic

mat-ja5 25 July 2012

Good: size and looks

Bad: not fully automatic

Comment: Really disappointed, especially with flash, thought it would pop up automatically when both in low light and in intelligent auto mode. Actually thought camera was faulty but camera repairs had a look and said its not designed to pop up automatically, manual button has to be pressed which is a real pain. Wish Id gone for the DSLR I'd fancied and not made compactness a priority.

Scott Haman 24 June 2012

Comment: Maybe a bonehead question here, but can I use my GF1 lenses on a GF5 or GX1, or any Panasonic micro 4/3 camera?

lvl 11 April 2012

Good: It's Panasonic

Bad: Cost

Comment: If you need a pocket friendly camera the system cameras don't do it. The bridge cameras are much better. So it's down to lens quality and lens range. Swopping lenses is a pigging bore when you should be creating pictures not fiddling with hardware. It's just toys for boys. So the default lens for a small system camera should be (35mm equiv) a 26mm - 160mm zoom. This covers 80% of basic needs. Does any maker do one? No! Failure. Is the extra picture quality of a small system camera worth the £300-£500 in extra lens costs plus baggage handling while out in the field? No! Conclusion. System cameras are not worth the extra hassle or the extra cost. What we really want is for makers of bridge cameras to improve lens quality by offering a 26mm - 200mm as standard and forgoing the 20X zoom which is a silly ego trip and quite unnecessary. And of course to include a multi-flex screen which adds so much extra when working outdoors or with children. Refine and improve in this area and someone will make a truly great and practical modern camera.

Trawet00 9 April 2012

Good: Size

Comment: What about the flash? Has it been improved so that if doesn't have shadows like the GF3 did? I tried two (2) GF3's and had to send both back due to the shadows when using the flash.