The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Panasonic G9

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I wish I was young enough to be able to comfortably hoist both the D500 and the 200-500 up to my eye. Combined they weight 3.16Kg.

For now I'm sticking with a GH5/G9 and the 100-400 which weighs in at 1.6/1.7Kg.

My excuse is that my back is at the beginning of its seventh decade of service.

LouisB
Louis, you are far too young to succumb to failing health. Go to the gym, get a personal trainer, tell him or her that you need to get in shape good enough to lift your cameras. I started that process around 10 years ago. I'm now more fit than I've been since I was in my twenties. If you don't, it will only get worse, if you do, it will mostly get better.

Sorry if I'm too direct about this and if I step on your toes, but that's the way I am :)
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Louis, you are far too young to succumb to failing health. Go to the gym, get a personal trainer, tell him or her that you need to get in shape good enough to lift your cameras. I started that process around 10 years ago. I'm now more fit than I've been since I was in my twenties. If you don't, it will only get worse, if you do, it will mostly get better.

Sorry if I'm too direct about this and if I step on your toes, but that's the way I am :)
No problem and in fact the good news Jorgen is I am now on a fitness regime. I've lost 11lbs and am on track to lose another 13lbs. Next, I want to start a strenth regime to build muscle.

That said, what's not to like about toting 1.3Kg versus 3.1Kg? It means you can take other lenses as well when tramping across the English countryside.

Thanks again for the advice.

LouisB
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
No problem and in fact the good news Jorgen is I am now on a fitness regime. I've lost 11lbs and am on track to lose another 13lbs. Next, I want to start a strenth regime to build muscle.

That said, what's not to like about toting 1.3Kg versus 3.1Kg? It means you can take other lenses as well when tramping across the English countryside.

Thanks again for the advice.

LouisB
1.3 kg vs 3.1 is great, and there are good reasons why I mostly use m4/3 rather than the D810 that I had. Good luck with your muscle vs. fat project. It's a very satisfying process although there are some steep hills now and then, and you will occasionally be looking for excuses not to go through the routines :)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I am training and running since I can think back and I still prefer lighter cameras and lenses!

??????????
 

jonoslack

Active member
D500 with Nikkor 200-500 is hard to beat for wildlife (do not like the 80-400). From reading forums and reviews 100-400 may not be that sharp, 200/2.8 should be much better.
I still own M1m2 but no m43 long lenses for wildlife, as I do not trust mirrorless for wildlife ... yet. The 300/f4 is tempting, but so is G9 and 200/f2.8.
DPReviews has some early evaluation of G9's AF-C system and it does not look good. On the other hand, it's dpreview ;-).
Hi There
I bought the 200-500 to go with the D500 first, and although it focused faster than the 80-400, it wasn't that quick, and as Jörgen points out - it's huge. (I carry kit around in one hand, and 2kg seems to be about my comfortable maximum for the day).

But the real problem is that the workhorse 16-80 f2.8 lens was also slow focusing, so it seemed to me that the only real solution was to get the proper FF professional lenses to go with it (that I used to have), and if I was going to do that, then I might as well go the whole hog and get the D850. . . but for me, wildlife is not my full time game, and the G9 with the 100-400 looks like a good option. I can see that it might not be good for basketball (dPreview), but I would have thought it would do well for birds - whatever!

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
I wish I was young enough to be able to comfortably hoist both the D500 and the 200-500 up to my eye. Combined they weigh 3.16Kg.

For now I'm sticking with a GH5/G9 and the 100-400 which weighs in at 1.6/1.7Kg.

My excuse is that my back is at the beginning of its seventh decade of service.

LouisB
I'm with you on this one Louis - even the SL with the 90-280 is okay (about 2.5 kg) but the 200-500 with the D500 was just too much. . . good luck with the gymn - I last went when I was 16 (but I do some exercisey things in the morning!)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Louis, you are far too young to succumb to failing health. Go to the gym, get a personal trainer, tell him or her that you need to get in shape good enough to lift your cameras. I started that process around 10 years ago. I'm now more fit than I've been since I was in my twenties. If you don't, it will only get worse, if you do, it will mostly get better.

Sorry if I'm too direct about this and if I step on your toes, but that's the way I am :)
Good on you Jörgen - I do my exercises at home, and then a lot of walking, but I'm probably fitter than I was in my 20s as well. . . but it doesn't mean that I want to tote 3.16 KG around all day!
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
Good on you Jörgen - I do my exercises at home, and then a lot of walking, but I'm probably fitter than I was in my 20s as well. . . but it doesn't mean that I want to tote 3.16 KG around all day!
I cannot imagine better exercise than schlepping 30lb of gear through beautiful South Georgia or Falklands :). I have seen many professionals using 200-500 very successfully (using back-button-focus ;-), and I am quite OK with its focus speed. It does not compare to the 500/f4 of course. Another, lightweight, alternative is the great and light 300/f4, which I use mostly for landscapes. Also not that fast to focus, but with proper technique quite manageable.

Back to topic. I really like the m43 system and plan to try shooting wildlife with it (Svalbard and Emperor Penguins await in 2018). Do I buy G9 and Panasonic's long lenses or do I stay with M1m2 and invest in 300/f4?

I tried G9 very briefly and was not too impressed with the EVF, don't know why, will try it again later. Top-LCD is very useful for wildlife shooting, IMO. The big question is how good is G9's AF-C really.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I'm with you on this one Louis - even the SL with the 90-280 is okay (about 2.5 kg) but the 200-500 with the D500 was just too much. . . good luck with the gymn - I last went when I was 16 (but I do some exercisey things in the morning!)
Jono, I did seriously consider the SL - I love that sensor - one of the best on the market and I think the decision to go mirrorless by Leica is sheer brilliance.

So, I go down to Leica Mayfair and play with one. I was thinking of the SL and M lenses. However, I thought I'd try it with the 24-90 which (apart from wildlife) would actually be the entire range I ever use - so an all in one solution, for me. They slap one on the camera.

The reason I am sensitive to weight is that in my late thirties I busted my L5 disc and although it has recovered I am forever weak in that area.

As soon as I try to pick up the SL+24-90 my back spontaneously goes into spasm :facesmack:

One point I will also make about the G9 is that if you want to save a few pounds, I would not discount the 100-300 as an alterantive to the 100-400. Both are great lenses and for many years (until the 100-400 was announced) I used the 100-300 on my GH2 and got some fantastic wildlife captures. The 100-400 is actually best at 300mm and I tend to shoot at that and then if I get a bird which is at rest long enough - I zoom further to the full 400mm. Fully retracted it is just amazing how small both lenses are which is a major benefit, imho.

Anyway, just my two cents.

LouisB
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One point I will also make about the G9 is that if you want to save a few pounds, I would not discount the 100-300 as an alterantive to the 100-400. Both are great lenses and for many years (until the 100-400 was announced) I used the 100-300 on my GH2 and got some fantastic wildlife captures. The 100-400 is actually best at 300mm and I tend to shoot at that and then if I get a bird which is at rest long enough - I zoom further to the full 400mm. Fully retracted it is just amazing how small both lenses are which is a major benefit, imho.

Anyway, just my two cents.

LouisB
The 100-300mm is the pragmatic choice for a telephoto zoom and terrific value. It's something I consider, but I would like to see what the upcoming (today?) 50-200mm has to offer first. Price may be the deciding factor for me, also for a used GH5 vs. the G9.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, I did seriously consider the SL - I love that sensor - one of the best on the market and I think the decision to go mirrorless by Leica is sheer brilliance.

So, I go down to Leica Mayfair and play with one. I was thinking of the SL and M lenses. However, I thought I'd try it with the 24-90 which (apart from wildlife) would actually be the entire range I ever use - so an all in one solution, for me. They slap one on the camera.

The reason I am sensitive to weight is that in my late thirties I busted my L5 disc and although it has recovered I am forever weak in that area.

As soon as I try to pick up the SL+24-90 my back spontaneously goes into spasm :facesmack:

One point I will also make about the G9 is that if you want to save a few pounds, I would not discount the 100-300 as an alterantive to the 100-400. Both are great lenses and for many years (until the 100-400 was announced) I used the 100-300 on my GH2 and got some fantastic wildlife captures. The 100-400 is actually best at 300mm and I tend to shoot at that and then if I get a bird which is at rest long enough - I zoom further to the full 400mm. Fully retracted it is just amazing how small both lenses are which is a major benefit, imho.

Anyway, just my two cents.

LouisB
Hi there Louis
I’m sorry about your back!
I’ve been considering the 100-300, but when I owned it some years ago I wasn’t that big a fan - so I’m going to go for the 100-400, after all, I have 30 days to change my mind!
In particular the IS appeals to me for longer focal lengths.

I just got my email from WEX, and I’ll be picking up the camera with the 12-60 2.8-f4 and the 100-400. I’ll be really interested to see how they compare with the CL lenses (also made in japan).

I’m rather excited!

Best
 

jonoslack

Active member
The 100-300mm is the pragmatic choice for a telephoto zoom and terrific value. It's something I consider, but I would like to see what the upcoming (today?) 50-200mm has to offer first. Price may be the deciding factor for me, also for a used GH5 vs. the G9.
Hi There Jorgen
I would also like to see the 50-200, but it isn’t quite the same thing.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hi There Jorgen
I would also like to see the 50-200, but it isn’t quite the same thing.
Agree. The 50-200 would in my case replace the 35-100mm. The question for me is if I need anything longer than 200mm at all.

Now they've launched the GH5s, multi aspect sensor and all. I have some reading to do :D
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Especially the G9 paired with the 12-60 and 100-400 is kind of a killer combo for me.

I would not waste a second on the 100-300 or any 12-35 and or 35-100, but that's maybe only me ...
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hi there Louis
I just got my email from WEX, and I’ll be picking up the camera with the 12-60 2.8-f4 and the 100-400. I’ll be really interested to see how they compare with the CL lenses (also made in japan).

I’m rather excited!

Best
I really hope you enjoy the 100-400. I've used it for other projects than just wildlife. I had to photograph some statues in London for a book I was involved with last year and the fantastic compression and bokeh you can get with a handheld 400mm (equiv 800mm) lens is awesome.

I do not agree with ptomsu about the 12-35 and 35-100 lenses. I have never liked zooms until I got these two lenses. I recently tested my 12-35 against the Lumix Leica 15/1.7 and at f4 I couldn't tell the difference between the zoom an the prime. The 12-35 is my absolute workhorse.

Panasonic have learned a great deal from Leica and it shows in the quality of their lenses.

Enjoy your kit: my G9 arrives today and the weather improves later this week so I'll be out trying it with my 100-400.

LouisB
 

Elderly

Well-known member
75mm f/1.8!
Jørgen - I'm older than, I'm less fit than you and I am only capable of carrying two lenses :grin:.

(Jørgen wonders how I'm going to cope in the climate of M******, and then he thinks I ought to take a Macro lens too, in order to photograph the mosquitos enjoying my blood :bugeyes:).
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jørgen - I'm older than, I'm less fit than you and I am only capable of carrying two lenses :grin:.

(Jørgen wonders how I'm going to cope in the climate of M******, and then he thinks I ought to take a Macro lens too, in order to photograph the mosquitos enjoying my blood :bugeyes:).
Ah... but the 75mm is not a macro lens, it's a medium telephoto, an exceptional lens. It's only 300g. Not bad for 150mm eqv. reach :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Ah... but the 75mm is not a macro lens, it's a medium telephoto, an exceptional lens. It's only 300g. Not bad for 150mm eqv. reach :)
I’m with Jorgen - wonderful lens . . (Why the hell did I sell it). At least now, when I get another one, it’ll be black.


. . More cheerfully - just back from WEX - battery charging. G9 does not seem too big, but is a lovely piece of kit - as are the 12-60 and the 100-400 I think it’s my first ever actual Panasonic body. I’m impressed!
 
Top