Panasonic G9

[jonoslack]

There is simply no comparison here The GM5 fits in a jacket pocket with a small Panny or Olympus prime without thinking about it. The G9 just doesn't do that

That said, yes, in its class the G9 is not bad per se, but it's decidedly bigger than the GM5, GX85, GX850. And that's fine. Unfortunately that's what I want for my street work. If I was shooting weddings regularly, I would def. have pre-ordered the G9 by now

Of course, I quite realise - I've just been pleasantly surprised at how easy it is to handle the G9 and 12-60 one handed for long periods.

This is the main reason I am sitting with an X-E3 now (though I get an extra bump up in IQ and Fuji lenses are great). But ultimately I see I prefer small. The minute a GM9 is announced, I am back. Even Fuji X-E3 with the new Fuji primes feels a bit bigger than a GM5 with the m43rds primes, except with the XF27 F2.8 which makes it a bit "Ricoh GRish."



Let's add a bit more to that too - Dual true UHS-II speed ports. AFC to full f20fps. Super resolution to 80 MP. IBIS to 6.5 stops. Vastly superior video of any camera in that price range. Cheaper! Honestly I don't get it.

What you said of the UI which I whole heartedly agree with to me is reason alone (in fact a key reason I have had such a love/hate relationship with the PenF).

Not that an EM1 MKII is a bad camera per se (well I have my UI issues), but I just can't understand why the G9 didn't get their Gold.


- Ricardo

I got rid of the Pen because I couldn't be doing with the UI, and although the EM1ii wasn't so bad, finally I had been spoiled by the joystick on the SL and was fedup turning a dial to move the focus point (and somehow the touch focus with the camera to your eye was patchy at best).

I was just mentioning a couple of things off the top of my head . . also, they were so enthusiastic to start with - seems to me that 'somebody' told them to take a step back and the baseball match shoot was their tool for doing just that (I do like a good conspiracy:banghead

Best
Jono

 

[jonoslack]

I shot the X-E3 side to side with the CL, and that was not my experience. Also the X-E3 can track with AF-C, I don't think the CL will have the same luck (no phase detection). Finally most reviews of the X-E3 have pointed out how fast the autofocus is, while the CL the AF speed has been described as not slow, but not as fast as better APS-C contemporaries.

One thing to keep in mind- a new firmware upgrade has come out for the X-T2 to make its AFC better, as the X-E3 introduced the latest algorithms for Fuji cameras.

Important caveat also on the comparison you made- I have noticed telephoto lenses in general, are trickier to AF than shorter lenses. And lenses with slower apertures tend to "focus better" because you have a less thin DOF plane.

I was using the CL with the new 18 prime, so I also needed to check a couple of other lenses, but my XF 27 F2.8 / X-E3 was clearly beating it.

- Ricardo

Well, the 18 prime is certainly not the fastest to focus on the CL . . and you could be right about the firmware update which was after I had the X-T2 I think. I was using all the different lenses on the CL - some faster than others, but the zooms are quick.

Tracking and continuous focus isn't my bag, so I didn't do any comparisons - no doubt the Fuji would have been quicker (though why the CL doesn't use the DeFocus stuff on the Panasonic is beyond me!).

The lenses are so important - I also had a D500 for a few weeks - with the kit zoom (which was great - but didn't focus fast) . . but truth be told, if you want the wonderful quick focusing which it's certainly capable of, then you need to put on the pro full-frame lenses . . . in which case you might as well get a D850!

 

[iiiNelson]

I am not surprised. Leica has always come out on top and for very good reasons!

I think we all get it. You’re not happy with Leica or the relationship Mr. Slack has with them. His professionalism is going to require that he not publicly make scathing comments about their products publicly but maybe raise them as points of concern for some sorts of photographers. Different people have different agreements with different companies but that’s sort of besides the point. His words are highly likely to be true of how he feels about Leica camera’s that he uses.

I’m not a moderator and I do feel that you generally add a tremendous amount to pretty much every forum... even as a highly critical photographer... whether directed at Sony, Fuji, Leica, etc. I hope you continue to do this on the forum personally but I can see how it may rub some the wrong way too.

Take Mr. Slacks’s reviews as one opinion and self evaluate for your needs if able... it’s how I decided the M240 wasn’t for me ultimately though he took nice pics with it.

 

[Vivek]

Please do not use me as an excuse to please anyone else. I remember distinctly from a few years ago that the NEX-7 did not cut it while the TL that debuted (and used for comparisons) did well.

I bought Jono’s NEX-7. Still have it. It still is working just fine.

 

[jonoslack]

I am not surprised. Leica has always come out on top and for very good reasons!

Touché

I think we all get it. You’re not happy with Leica or the relationship Mr. Slack has with them. His professionalism is going to require that he not publicly make scathing comments about their products publicly but maybe raise them as points of concern for some sorts of photographers. Different people have different agreements with different companies but that’s sort of besides the point. His words are highly likely to be true of how he feels about Leica camera’s that he uses.

I’m not a moderator and I do feel that you generally add a tremendous amount to pretty much every forum... even as a highly critical photographer... whether directed at Sony, Fuji, Leica, etc. I hope you continue to do this on the forum personally but I can see how it may rub some the wrong way too.

Take Mr. Slacks’s reviews as one opinion and self evaluate for your needs if able... it’s how I decided the M240 wasn’t for me ultimately though he took nice pics with it.

Uhhh, Vivek has his point here - In terms of my agreement with Leica, I can make that clear - I signed an NDA contract, which means that I can't talk about cameras /lenses until the end of the embargo date (same as any reviewer). I interpret this to say that I can't criticise faults which existed before the embargo date - but I can certainly talk about faults afterwards. The CL is obviously really under-specified in comparison to most of the cameras discussed here:

No weather sealing
No IBIS
1 Card Slot
(off the top of my head - I could go on)

I do point these out in my write up - I doubt if Vivek read it (I certainly wouldn't in his position). On the other hand I do really like the CL, honestly . . . . but I still haven't decided whether I like it enough to buy one myself. I've had it, together with the TL2 and a complete set of TL lenses on loan for 9 months or so now - on Monday they all go back to Leica.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure I'll be keeping the G9.

Worth mentioning (perhaps) that Vivek and I have completely different criteria for liking a camera - he is incredibly interested in image quality and in value for money. I'm much more interested in the shooting experience (because it seems to me that, for my purposes, all the modern cameras produce good enough image quality). I think they're both valid points of view.

In that context I still prefer the T to the Nex 7 - I really tried to like the Sony cameras, I bought several of them, I didn't like the interface, and I didn't think they worked well with M lenses (and I haven't changed my mind).

What I will say is that I've never had a conversation with Leica about how I express myself online - they appear to be entirely uninterested in it, as far as they're concerned I'm a camera tester - and they don't seem to put people into two boxes.

Anyway - I quite understand Vivek's scepticism (although it does make me a bit sad).

best

 

[iiiNelson]

Please do not use me as an excuse to please anyone else. I remember distinctly from a few years ago that the NEX-7 did not cut it while the TL that debuted (and used for comparisons) did well.

I bought Jono’s NEX-7. Still have it. It still is working just fine.

I’m pleasing of anyone man. Somethings just don’t necessarily warrant constant repeating is all.

I understand your feeling and divested from Leica for many personal reasons.

 

[jonoslack]

But Hey
This thread is supposed to be about the G9
Which seems to me superficially to be a fantastic camera.

I haven't even begun to explore the possibilities and complexities, but I really like using the camera - the UI seems to me to have been very carefully thought out, and I really do appreciate having a top plate LCD together with labelled buttons which you press and dial to change things (WB, ISO, +/- etc). Having been shooting with a D500 recently it seems to me that they've taken the good parts of the modern dSLR UI and combined them with the good parts of the mirrorless camera UK.

The EVF is wonderful and the speed of operation is just fantastic . . . . combine this with what seems to be an almost perfect grip (for my small/medium hands) and a rational and well thought out menu system (even if there's 863 options I don't need / want) and it makes for a really great shooting experience.

Now all we need is a bit of weather to try it out properly (it's unremittingly grey here).

best

 

[jonoslack]

Through the glass darkly
G9 with PL 12-60 2000 ISO 60mm f4​

 

[iiiNelson]

I’ve always liked the natural color response from Panasonic cameras. Looks like this one still has “it.”

 

[Gillymaru]

I have pre ordered a G9 here in Australia shipping was supposed to be mid January but I have received an email from my supplier to say it may now not arrive till sometime in February. I can be patient but I do have a couple of events coming up that would be perfect to test the G9, hopefully Panasonic can surprise us and get them out a bit earlier.
So to those of you that have them now please keep posting your thoughts and images and any useful settings or tips that might come in handy.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Touché



Uhhh, Vivek has his point here - In terms of my agreement with Leica, I can make that clear - I signed an NDA contract, which means that I can't talk about cameras /lenses until the end of the embargo date (same as any reviewer). I interpret this to say that I can't criticise faults which existed before the embargo date - but I can certainly talk about faults afterwards. The CL is obviously really under-specified in comparison to most of the cameras discussed here:

No weather sealing
No IBIS
1 Card Slot
(off the top of my head - I could go on)

I do point these out in my write up - I doubt if Vivek read it (I certainly wouldn't in his position). On the other hand I do really like the CL, honestly . . . . but I still haven't decided whether I like it enough to buy one myself. I've had it, together with the TL2 and a complete set of TL lenses on loan for 9 months or so now - on Monday they all go back to Leica.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure I'll be keeping the G9.

Worth mentioning (perhaps) that Vivek and I have completely different criteria for liking a camera - he is incredibly interested in image quality and in value for money. I'm much more interested in the shooting experience (because it seems to me that, for my purposes, all the modern cameras produce good enough image quality). I think they're both valid points of view.

In that context I still prefer the T to the Nex 7 - I really tried to like the Sony cameras, I bought several of them, I didn't like the interface, and I didn't think they worked well with M lenses (and I haven't changed my mind).

What I will say is that I've never had a conversation with Leica about how I express myself online - they appear to be entirely uninterested in it, as far as they're concerned I'm a camera tester - and they don't seem to put people into two boxes.

Anyway - I quite understand Vivek's scepticism (although it does make me a bit sad).

best

We could have this discussion about watches, you know, about the Casio and the Seiko and the Citizen, and they are all so techically advanced and so full of perfect, little features that hardly anyone will bother to figure out all of them. Then there's the Rolex, more expensive than the others and with less features, but it shows the time too, and the mechanics inside are to die for. The owner of the Rolex is probably the happiest of the bunch, and the others will forever tell him about the features he should be missing and the money he's been wasting.

We are way past the technical perfection needed to take good photos. If I had the money easilly available, I'd probably buy the CL or another Leica, but like so many, I've become restless in this hyperactive world. I don't have the patience anymore to wait past 17 other camera releases to save enough money for the little German monster.

So I've gone for something that I can understand, the ergonomically best solution, which in my case is the Panasonic. And when Panasonic launches something like the G9, it's hard to walk past it without being tempted to pick it up and keep it. I know I should, and I probably will.

We are btw. discussing some of the same fundamentals in the D850 thread. More or less off topic too, but with many interesting, and sometimes contradictive, viewpoints.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_2lGkEU4Xs

 

[Vivek]

“Rolex ..the mecahnics inside are to die for”

Sir, at the expense of repeating myself, I ask, how do you know? There is no Rolex or Leica to die for or worth losing money over. If you do not believe me, plunk in the money and experience it yourself.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

“Rolex ..the mecahnics inside are to die for”

Sir, at the expense of repeating myself, I ask, how do you know? There is no Rolex or Leica to die for or worth losing money over. If you do not believe me, plunk in the money and experience it yourself.

That depends on what gets your puls to increase. Personally, I would never buy a Rolex. I don't like the design, and I hate the image they convey. I had a fake gold Rolex with fake "diamonds" many decades ago, just to scare people off. I do like their sister brand Tudor, though, a lot, particularly the Pelagos. I've studied it in detail. Yes, there are reasons why it's expensive. It's not worth the asking price of course, but much more than a Casio. Will I ever buy one? Probably not, the same way I'll probably never buy a Leica. These companies sell dreams, not products. The fact that the products have certain qualities that some people desire doesn't change that. When my current plastic fantastic do-it-all watch thing sucumbs to extensive abuse, I'll probably end up with something similar, something that works... for me.

 

[bensonga]

But Hey
This thread is supposed to be about the G9....

Agreed....and thank you for sharing some G9 pics with us Jono. :thumbs:

Gary

 

[biglouis]

OK, a single photograph from the my recently acquired G9 + the Lumix Leica 200/2.8.

I'm posting a resized 100% crop but you can click through and inspect the full sized 100% crop (1mb 1478x1108).

So far, I am very impressed with the G9. But I am even more impressed with the 200/2.8. I've only used it for one afternoon in very dim light but the sharpness wide open at f2.8, centre of the frame (which is what bird photographers generally only use) is quite astounding. To get the definition of the feathers on a bird at 1/80 second is outstanding, imho. Indeed, if someone had said to me a m43rds camera could do this, vs a D500 or 700dMkII I would not have believed them. m43rds as a birding rig has finally come of age, imho (even though I have been using it as such for the last 7 or so years).

Now I understand why the 200/2.8 has such a high asking price. My only negative feedback is that it is heavy (1245g), much heavier than the 100-400 (985g) - and I don't recall that when I was testing one at an in-store event a couple of months ago.

I need to do some comparison testing with the 100-400 but I'm not sure now how much use that lens will get, for birding - at least.

iso200 200mm f2.8 1/80



This is the original frame - I estimate I was about 30-40 feet from the bird.

 

[biglouis]

Another example of a cropped frame using the G9+200/2.8. You can click through to the full sized crop. iso200 f2.8 1/160

The feather detail at f2.8 is outstanding. The 100-400 would turn in a good result but a lot of the surface would be indistinct. The fact that this lens can do this wide open and at 1/160 is excellent. I'm thinking equivalent to the best Canon glass for birding, given the samples I have seen of the 300mm and 400mm pro Canon lenses.



The original uncropped frame:

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Louis for the images.
The question in my mind is, how Olympus 300/4 Pro without or with MC-14 images under similar circumstances would compare?

 

[jonoslack]

They’re great Louis
I guess the real question is whether the extra reach of the 100-400 makes up for the quality of the 200?

 

[ptomsu]

Great results from the G9 2.8/200 combo.

Would also be interested in a direct comparison to the Olympus 4/300 Pro and TC1.4 ....

Not sure if anybody has access to both lenses?

Also how would the Only 4/300 work on a G9 body - I know there is no dual IS the but .... ?

 

[biglouis]

Thanks Louis for the images.
The question in my mind is, how Olympus 300/4 Pro without or with MC-14 images under similar circumstances would compare?

Great results from the G9 2.8/200 combo.

Would also be interested in a direct comparison to the Olympus 4/300 Pro and TC1.4 ....

Not sure if anybody has access to both lenses?

Also how would the Only 4/300 work on a G9 body - I know there is no dual IS the but .... ?

Both good points and I was torn between the 300/4 and the 200/2.8. The decision I made is influenced by the fact I am a Panasonic shooter. If I was an Olympus shooter I would have gone with the 300/4. It is great that m43rds is shared by two (or more?) manufacturers but my advice is that for something very specialist - in my case a top-flight birding lens - then stick with the lenses made by the body manufacturer. If on the other hand you are willing to put up with some incompatibilities then both makers create great lenses and as I've stated elsewhere I am not giving up my Oly 7-14/2.8 Pro any time soon - even if there is now a Panasonic competitor.

They’re great Louis
I guess the real question is whether the extra reach of the 100-400 makes up for the quality of the 200?

The simple answer for a birder is, no. Although someone like Daniel Cox (Natural Exposures) would disagree with me as he maintains the flexibility of a zoom outweighs the loss of IQ. Even though I believe the 200/2.8 to be a superior piece of glass - the 100-400 is a phenomenal lens and well worth every penny (especially as it now has cash back in the UK). You only have to look at the Birds album in my Flickr stream to see some impressive (even if I do say it myself) bird captures with the 100-400. I'm fortunate to be able to afford both (just!) and I do not make investment decisions like this lightly - this is probably the only time in my life that I will buy such an expensive lens but then I also expect it to provide me photographs for a minimum of five years.

Incidentally, my GH2 body with the 100-300 lasted me just as long and it was only a foolish decision on my part to sell it to pay for Sony kit (which did not last long) that had me selling it in the first place. Otherwise, I could still be photographing birds with it now (and again there are some excellent results with that combination in my Flickr stream).

Thanks for the feedback.

LouisB