Sony NEX 7 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2

Winner
Sony NEX-7

100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2

66

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 7

High true resolution
True resolution
24 MP
Great viewfinder coverage
Viewfinder coverage
100%
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
223 ms shutter lag
Really small
Size
Compact (111×59×38 mm)
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Longest exposure
Long exposures
60 seconds
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-7.

competitors

Sony NEX-7 Competitors

Sony Alpha NEX-6

Sony Alpha NEX-6

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$606 body only

Focus points More focus points
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Sony A7

Sony A7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$798 body only

$800 - $998 with 28-70mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Weather sealed Weather sealed
Startup delay More startup delay
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$444 - $548 body only

$580 - $648 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Focus points More focus points
Size Larger

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Screen type Has an OLED screen
Sensor type Has a CCD-family sensor
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$300 body only

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Lens availability Much more lenses available
Touch screen No touch screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Touch screen No touch screen

discussion

Sony NEX-7
NEX 7
Sony

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2
Lumix DMC-GH2
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments