Panasonic G9

[jonoslack]

Another grey day!
No time for playing with a new camera. Still, I did go out for a couple of hours this afternoon, and although I didn't really get any good shots, I was really impressed by the AF and IS on the 100-400 lens. I'm pretty impressed by the IQ - even at 400mm and ISO 3200. Carrying the camera with the lens in one hand for two hours presented no problems, the grip shape is really good.

Thanks for the information on the 200 Louis - I think it's not for me (at least, not for the time being). I have the excellent 90-280 on the SL, and the extra reach matters to me more than the absolute image quality.

Here are two shots - both at ISO 3200

Matty​

Caspar​

All the best
Jono

 

[k-hawinkler]

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.




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

By far the best images I have seen, taken with the PL 100-400, are by Tony Markle alias Imagemaster on FM. Lately Tony has switched from m4/3 to Nikon gear, D500 and 200-500 mm lens.

Having myself never used it, but looking at Tony’s images, my sense is that PL lens performs best at relatively short distances.

 

[raist3d]

@Jono - hey, grey days (overcast) are great for photography! Portraits and soft nice light. And your camera is weather sealed! Get out!

- Ricardo

 

[Knorp]

By far the best images I have seen, taken with the PL 100-400, are by Tony Markle alias Imagemaster on FM. Lately Tony has switched from m4/3 to Nikon gear, D500 and 200-500 mm lens.

Having myself never used it, but looking at Tony’s images, my sense is that PL lens performs best at relatively short distances.

+1 I can confirm this. Up to 300mm all is pretty well, beyond 300mm only at shorter distances I had decent results.
Especially details in feathers were lost. Well, at least with my copy of the PL 100-400.

 

[jonoslack]

By far the best images I have seen, taken with the PL 100-400, are by Tony Markle alias Imagemaster on FM. Lately Tony has switched from m4/3 to Nikon gear, D500 and 200-500 mm lens.

Having myself never used it, but looking at Tony’s images, my sense is that PL lens performs best at relatively short distances.

Funny that - I had a d500 for a month, shooting with the 200-500 and the 80-400 . . . And I just switched it over to PL stuff. I guess the Nikon is better for tracking BIF . . . But for most of my stuff I’m using single AF, and I reckon the G9 is much better for this.

 

[jonoslack]

+1 I can confirm this. Up to 300mm all is pretty well, beyond 300mm only at shorter distances I had decent results.
Especially details in feathers were lost. Well, at least with my copy of the PL 100-400.

Ah! That would explain why I’ve been surprised at how good 400 is . . Because all the shots have been taken relatively close (misty and grey here).

 

[jonoslack]

@Jono - hey, grey days (overcast) are great for photography! Portraits and soft nice light. And your camera is weather sealed! Get out!

- Ricardo

Ah Ricardo - I do get out every day (2 hours today), but there’s no portraits (except the dogs) around here - it’s path photography, not street! The wildlife is mostly sleeping and the world is drab . . I usually do best shooting black and white with the M10 and 75 ‘cron...... But I did have fun today.

How good is the PL weathersealing? It looks good, but I’ve not seen anyone write about it (Olympus was just stellar). It rains a lot here!

 

[ptomsu]

+1 I can confirm this. Up to 300mm all is pretty well, beyond 300mm only at shorter distances I had decent results.
Especially details in feathers were lost. Well, at least with my copy of the PL 100-400.

Did you ever consider that at 400mm and longer distances we talk about lot of air between lens and subject - that usually does not improve sharpness! You would get a similar effect with any lens - also Nikon and Canon glass ...

 

[k-hawinkler]

Did you ever consider that at 400mm and longer distances we talk about lot of air between lens and subject - that usually does not improve sharpness! You would get a similar effect with any lens - also Nikon and Canon glass ...

That’s a different scenario. I had in mind fairly short as compared to just a bit longer, not really very far though. For large distances turbulent air flow indeed creates horrible viewing conditions, no doubt.

 

[Knorp]

That’s a different scenario. I had in mind fairly short as compared to just a bit longer, not really very far though. For large distances turbulent air flow indeed creates horrible viewing conditions, no doubt.

+1 really, turbulent air flow was not my major concern. I'm talking 8 to 12 mtr distance shooting tiny birds like wrens, robins, finches, starlings or sparrows.
Up to 3 or 5 mtr it was alright. But you know, perhaps I underestimated the challenge of controlling 800mm focal length ...

 

[k-hawinkler]

+1 really, turbulent air flow was not my major concern. I'm talking 8 to 12 mtr distance shooting tiny birds like wrens, robins, finches, starlings or sparrows.
Up tot 3 or 5 mtr it was alright. But you know, perhaps I underestimated the challenge of controlling 800mm focal length ...

Bart thanks, I share your observations. :shocked:
In contrast, the Olympus 300/4 Pro doesn't exhibit these deficiencies. :thumbup:

 

[gandolfi]

I had in mind fairly short as compared to just a bit longer, not really very far though.

You couldn't be just a touch more precise with that statement could you K-H?:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[Knorp]

On another more serious note: I found my RW2 files are not recognised by C1.
Now I'm stuck to the JPEGs till the next release ... :banghead:

 

[k-hawinkler]

You couldn't be just a touch more precise with that statement could you K-H?:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

:grin: :grin: :grin:

 

[k-hawinkler]

On another more serious note: I found my RW2 files are not recognised by C1.
Now I'm stuck to the JPEGs till the next release ... :banghead:

Have you tried Iridient? Or rename the extension? :facesmack:

 

[jonoslack]

On another more serious note: I found my RW2 files are not recognised by C1.
Now I'm stuck to the JPEGs till the next release ... :banghead:

Lightroom seems to work okay (sorry, you probably don’t want to deal with the devil!)

. . . Erm . . . Are we to understand that you just bought a G9 Bart?

 

[fotoism]

Capture One supports RW2 files from some cameras and not others, but how they decide which one to support seems random. I can understand they don't support GFX since it might be a competitor to their P1 cameras, but files from some P&S Lumix camera such as ZS50 are also not supported whilst ZS60 is supported.

 

[SrMphoto]

As an owner of Olympus M1mII, I am on the fence regarding G9. I like the better ergonomics of the Lumix. It took me at least two weeks to understand and set up Olympus M1mII to my expectations (and that as an owner of M5m1 & M5m2). There are many other things to like on G9: top LCD, USB charging, EVF, magnification when selecting AF focus point, etc.

However, I like Olympus lenses better. From what I have read so far about Panasonic Leica 100-400, it may not be able to meet my image quality criteria. Panasonic Leica 200mm seems great, but I could probably be also happy with the lighter Olympus 40-150/f2.8 (and 1.4TC). For longer reach there is the Olympus 300/f4 (also with 1.4 TC). The Panasonic 12-60 looks great but even more fascinating is the Olympus 12-100/f4. Sure, I could use Olympus lenses with G9, but then I would loose focusing speed and Dual-IS.

On the other hand, I really care about ergonomics.

Penny for your thoughts.

- Srdjan

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

As an owner of Olympus M1mII, I am on the fence regarding G9. I like the better ergonomics of the Lumix. It took me at least two weeks to understand and set up Olympus M1mII to my expectations (and that as an owner of M5m1 & M5m2). There are many other things to like on G9: top LCD, USB charging, EVF, magnification when selecting AF focus point, etc.

However, I like Olympus lenses better. From what I have read so far about Panasonic Leica 100-400, it may not be able to meet my image quality criteria. Panasonic Leica 200mm seems great, but I could probably be also happy with the lighter Olympus 40-150/f2.8 (and 1.4TC). For longer reach there is the Olympus 300/f4 (also with 1.4 TC). The Panasonic 12-60 looks great but even more fascinating is the Olympus 12-100/f4. Sure, I could use Olympus lenses with G9, but then I would loose focusing speed and Dual-IS.

On the other hand, I really care about ergonomics.

Penny for your thoughts.

- Srdjan

Ummm... there are only two Olympus lenses that offer dual IS with the E-M1 II and other Olympus bodies, and you've mentioned both of them. Not that much to lose if you ask me, at least not from that point of view

 

[biglouis]

Just a couple of additional photographs from today using the G9+200/2.8. This time with the 1.4x teleconverter - which gives it a boost to 280mm (or 560mm equivalent) at f4.

The weather in the UK (and across Europe I suspect) totally sucks at present with very poor light levels. Next week there are supposed to be a couple of days with strong sunlight and I will head to the Chilterns to photograph birds for a real test of the lens.

One thing I will say is - I really like photographing with this camera. When I got my GX8, it was 'wow, this is such a comfortable camera to shoot with' - not the same with my GH5 which is a great camera but not my first choice to pick up. I'm seriously thinking now that I don't need my GX8 (and if you follow my posts you know how much I like that camera), that is how much I like the G9.

Both these photos are shot at ridiculously low speeds for wildlife. Even if the IBIS stabilises the lens with wildlife they are always moving. For birds, optimally I want 1/1000 minimum and 1/2000 if I can get it. Obviously, m43rds has an issue with noise but so far I think the G9 has maybe 1-stop better noise control than the GH5/GX8. Even so there is noise in these captures (which are RAW converted to jpeg in LR) but I know that it is at a level I can filter most of that out in pp.

I also mention the speed/noise issue because I wouldn't want to mislead you about how easy it is to capture wildlife with this camera/lens. These are the best two out of 450 images. The 20fps is a double edged sword - if you keep your finger on the button too long you can get through 40-60 captures without thinking.

As per my last post you can click through to full sized images.

iso1000 280mm f4 1/80


iso1000 280mm f4 1/60


Incidentally, even though I live in what might be classed as 'central' London - about 1 mile from the BT Tower - we have three urban foxes that visit us. More mouths to feed as my wife cannot resist them when they beg!