Panasonic G9

[ptomsu]

@ Louis,

so there are some AF issues when using the 2.8/200 with or without TC on the G9?

Hope they will get fifed asap by Panasonic!

I would have expected that this combo was better tested and optimised before release - at least at this price level. But unfortunately it seems to get common practice that companies leave the final testing and optimisation to customers nowadays :banghead:

 

[Knorp]

I am having trouble with AF on birds in flight with the 200/2.8. Using it with the 1.4x teleconverter and my usual strategy (successful with the 100-400) I got no keepers yesterday. Using it native with the 200/2.8 the success increased but was still not perfect. It could actually be the camera itself, rather than the lens and I must test both lenses out in this respect.

What seems to be your AF trouble, Louis ?

 

[Knorp]

Review: Panasonic LEICA DG ELMARIT 200mm F2.8 POWER O.I.S. | Photography BLOG

Had no idea there is a 2x teleconverter as well ... :bugeyes:

 

[k-hawinkler]

Review: Panasonic LEICA DG ELMARIT 200mm F2.8 POWER O.I.S. | Photography BLOG

Had no idea there is a 2x teleconverter as well ... :bugeyes:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1524018/1#14330064 Quote:"
The review at Lenstip is quite interesting comparing the 300f4 and 200f2.8.
The 200 goes from 91to 80 in the center adding the 1.4x.
The edge of the 200 goes from 74-67 with the 1.4x.
The 300 goes from 69 to 56 in the center adding the 1.4x.
The edges on the 300 go from 63-46 with the 1.4x.


So the 200 performs better than the 300, even with the 1.4x on it. I'd like to see how the 2x on the 200 delivers.
"

Which camera did they use? Dunno!

 

[biglouis]

@ Louis,

so there are some AF issues when using the 2.8/200 with or without TC on the G9?

Hope they will get fifed asap by Panasonic!

I would have expected that this combo was better tested and optimised before release - at least at this price level. But unfortunately it seems to get common practice that companies leave the final testing and optimisation to customers nowadays :banghead:

What seems to be your AF trouble, Louis ?

I don't mean to start a rumour. I am having trouble with BIF with the 1.4x teleconverter but that is probably me and not the camera/lens. That is what I will assume until I can properly field test the system later this week. Just mucking about in the back garden is not really a test.

LouisB

 

[drofnad]

PL 200/2.8 Review & Test Images - FM Forums Quote:"
The review at Lenstip is quite interesting comparing the 300f4 and 200f2.8.
The 200 goes from 91to 80 in the center adding the 1.4x.
The edge of the 200 goes from 74-67 with the 1.4x.
The 300 goes from 69 to 56 in the center adding the 1.4x.
The edges on the 300 go from 63-46 with the 1.4x.


So the 200 performs better than the 300, even with the 1.4x on it. I'd like to see how the 2x on the 200 delivers.
"

Which camera did they use? Dunno!

Didn't l:toocool:k ?!

Okay, I'll go.

For many years we tested Micro 4/3 optics with the help of the Olympus E-PL1 camera [12.3mpx]. Some time ago we’ve also started to test lenses using the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II [16mpx] as we felt the time has come for changes. That’s how we found out that between sensors of those two bodies there is a very small difference, amounting to 3-5 lpmm at most to the advantage of the newer one with a higher pixel count. Mind you that difference is possible to notice only in the wide area of the maximum relative aperture and it decreases when you employ apertures limited strongly by diffraction.
So, in the case of OM-D E-M5 Mark II – based tests the best fixed focal length lenses are able to reach 80-85 lpmm and the decency level we set near 47-49 lpmm. Of course these values can change as our tests database is enlarged but even now they allow you to assess a performance in a reliable, repeatable way.
...
The performance of the tested lens in the frame centre is simply sensational, with three exquisite features. First, we officially get a new resolution record, amounting to 91.2 lpmm. Second, that value was recorded at the maximum relative aperture. Third, the shape of the resolution curve shows that near the maximum relative aperture the Panasonic is very close to working in diffraction limit. It would be the case if the linear trend observed in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/22 was extrapolated to f/4.0 and to f/2.8. Real measurements, though, show a slight slump with values dropping below that line but it was really close to the ideal. It means the majority of optical aberrations the lens corrects perfectly well.

The performance on the edge of the frame can be described in similar words. Only the maximum relative aperture lags behind but even there the results reach an excellent level of 73 lpmm. From f/4.0 onwards it would be difficult to find any difference between the performance on the edge of the frame and that in the frame centre, and by BigLouis apertures, it's all mush. As a result the edge of images produced by the Panasonic 2.8/200 is better than the centre of the frame of photos generated by many other Micro 4/3 lenses .

The results are weaker than in case of the lens alone but they remain very good. [At] f/4.0-5.6 the MTFs reach almost 80 lpmm so are worth the best system primes. Also after attaching the teleconverter the differences between the centre of the frame and its edge become more pronounced but that effect is completely understandable. Fortunately even on the edge of the frame the images are of good quality already from the maximum relative aperture.

I'll guesstimate precise values for the 300/4 vs. 200x1.4(280/4); the Pana does great.

Olympus 300/4 ,
Panasonic 200/2.8x1.4

at - - f/4.0 - - - 5.6 - - - 8.0 - - - 11 - - - 16
Oly : 69-63 .. 73-68 .. 66-60 .. 53-50 .. 40-37
Pan : 80-67 .. 79-67 .. 68-56 .. 54-48 .. 43-42

!

-d.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Didn't l:toocool:k ?!

Okay, I'll go.



I'll guesstimate precise values for the 300/4 vs. 200x1.4(280/4); the Pana does great.

Olympus 300/4 ,
Panasonic 200/2.8x1.4

at - - f/4.0 - - - 5.6 - - - 8.0 - - - 11 - - - 16
Oly : 69-63 .. 73-68 .. 66-60 .. 53-50 .. 40-37
Pan : 80-67 .. 79-67 .. 68-56 .. 54-48 .. 43-42

!

-d.

Many thanks. I mostly try to shoot around f/5.6. :thumbs: :grin: :salute:

 

[Knorp]

I don't mean to start a rumour. I am having trouble with BIF with the 1.4x teleconverter but that is probably me and not the camera/lens. That is what I will assume until I can properly field test the system later this week. Just mucking about in the back garden is not really a test.

LouisB

The Lenstip review found a slight tendency to hunting.
Perhaps and hopefully it’s a firmware thingy.

 

[biglouis]

I would add that looking at the photos at 100% from the 200/2.8 all my envy for those lovely Canon birding lenses, like the 300mm and 400mm 2.8 has completely evaporated

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

I would add that looking at the photos at 100% from the 200/2.8 all my envy for those lovely Canon birding lenses, like the 300mm and 400mm 2.8 has completely evaporated

LouisB

Louis,

this is excellent news! I am sure that the Panasonic combo is just better in all areas!

Having said that - for me the EM1.2 and Pro 2.8/40-150 and Pro 4/300 is similarly good!

All the best

Peter

 

[jonoslack]

Something I'm really enjoying about the G9 is that, because of the LCD top plate and the press/turn changes for WB etc. I mostly turn the rear LCD against the body and leave it there.

I'm also really enjoying the 100-400 - I appreciate the 200 is going to be better, but I like having the zoom, and it's flexibility.

These are not okay . . but then I was only walking the dogs in high wind this morning and I was astonished that I got anything! The owl was really a long way off, I was on single shot and single AF - I only managed 4 snaps before he zoomed off into the woods

 

[iiiNelson]

I was looking at some of my old G1/GF1 shots since we got on the discussion of Panasonic color a few days back. I'm happy to see that some of those 12 megapixel images still hold up well after 8+ years and the Panasonic color can still really special to me even if these all have some PP done to them. My only hesitation with returning to the Panasonic G9 is the lowlight AF performance where PDAF can be really important.

Alcatraz by Tre Nelson, on Flickr

P1010062 by Tre Nelson, on Flickr

Choppers by Tre Nelson, on Flickr

 

[iiiNelson]

Something I'm really enjoying about the G9 is that, because of the LCD top plate and the press/turn changes for WB etc. I mostly turn the rear LCD against the body and leave it there.

I'm also really enjoying the 100-400 - I appreciate the 200 is going to be better, but I like having the zoom, and it's flexibility.

These are not okay . . but then I was only walking the dogs in high wind this morning and I was astonished that I got anything! The owl was really a long way off, I was on single shot and single AF - I only managed 4 snaps before he zoomed off into the woods

There used to be a lot of owls near one of my old jobs that did their part to the skunk overpopulation issues we had in our area one year. Amazing birds and excellent hunters... it's the circle of life I guess.

 

[SrMphoto]

Got the G9, but had to return the 12-60 (decentered, very blurry right side corners).

First observations and questions:
- If shooting RAW, must record fine JPG as well in order to assess sharpness on LCD (similar to Fuji, Sony).
- No EVF extended mode (as in Leica CL), where EVF is for taking pictures and LCD is for review and menu.
- What is the difference between shutter delay and self-timer?
- In Auto-ISO the shutter speed changes with the focal length. Is that somewhere adjustable (1/f, 1/2f,...)?
- MF-clutch on Olympus lenses is recognized.

Look forward to using it.

 

[raist3d]

Just a comment on Panasonic JPEG colors -

Traditionally Panasonic is one of the manufacturers that has had a problematic JPEG color engine. Hence why lots of praise for Olympus, which learned a lot from the get go from Kodak (Kodak was an original 4/3rds launch partner), and their more Koda-eske colors. Fuji obviously has their vast fuji film knowledge.

What I found is under good soft light, Panasonic JPEG engine used to behave nice with some smooth nice tones, but it was a narrow range of operation. Over time Panasonic continued to improve their color response, camera by camera, and on the G9 they specifically improved again (over GH5) as they have stated so explicitly.

dpreview has commented on this a bit and in particular- better blue in skies, yellows that don't go into greenish as easily.

The G9 has the best JPEG engine that Panasonic has done so far colorwise.

B&W JPEGS have been pretty good from Panasonic for a while.

Panasonic traditional JPEG engine problems tend to be those yellows that aren't that warm, blues that are a bit "video digital" color and reds that usually run into magenta (amazing the number of companies that for a while couldn't get red well). These of course are issues with a lot of evolution from them since back then.

I have noticed that RAW files seem to be baked from different manufacturers with a signature also (besides the influence a particular RAW converter may have calibrated to them).

Anyhow, I am glad that Panasonic has focused on addressing these issues.

One more step forward which is shared with the GH5, is that the JPEG engine when demosaicing the Bayer pattern takes into account several more surrounding pixels to come out with the final data. This is supposed to improve detail, color nuance, blah blah, etc. etc.

- Ricardo

 

[biglouis]

Can't resist posting one more in the thread here: G9+200/2.8+1.4x tc. The colour draw of the lens is fantastic, imho. Worthy of having the Leica name applied.

280mm f4 iso1250 1/2500

 

[Elderly]

I've just noticed that this review has been posted:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/22/review-the-2018-panasonic-lumix-g9/#more-16849\

I've not read it yet.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I've just noticed that this review has been posted:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/22/review-the-2018-panasonic-lumix-g9/#more-16849\

I've not read it yet.

Neither have I.

Robin Wong G9 Review - Thoughts?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4247666

 

[jonoslack]

Neither have I.

Robin Wong G9 Review - Thoughts?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4247666

I read it!
. . And it was probably fair enough - he doesn’t like the colour. I thought he worked for Olympus? Whatever, decent review. . . Except the EVF doesn’t have the same resoluton as the SL . . And I think the colour is just fine (different from Olympus though),

I like the G9, it wears it’s complexity lightly, and it’s easy to shoot without accessing the menus - good sense ergonomics, great EVF, almost miraculous IS, nice looking, decently priced, cracking AF . . I could probably go on!

 

[iiiNelson]

I read it!
. . And it was probably fair enough - he doesn’t like the colour. I thought he worked for Olympus? Whatever, decent review. . . Except the EVF doesn’t have the same resoluton as the SL . . And I think the colour is just fine (different from Olympus though),

I like the G9, it wears it’s complexity lightly, and it’s easy to shoot without accessing the menus - good sense ergonomics, great EVF, almost miraculous IS, nice looking, decently priced, cracking AF . . I could probably go on!

I mostly had the same thoughts. It’s a fair review but highly subjective. I happen to prefer the Panasonic color (which most videographers deem the 2nd best color after Arri generally) over the Olympus color but again that’s my own subjective bias. The key here, like most things, is to take away from any review the empirical data that can be tested and measure it against the subjective data.

I find Sony color be be extremely accurate but accurate doesn’t always equal aesthetically pleasing to everyone. Sometime I hear people complain that skin tones are off but I usually find they are accurate and maybe the model has flaws we don’t notice at capture. To some extent I believe the human brain likes to remember a scene in a more aesthetically pleasing way than from the flat reality of real life hence why we boost color adjustments, frame shots certain ways, flip memories to black and white, etc. I find Fujifilm color very pleasing for documentary style and portraits but there’s an obvious yellow bias in the green tones and a clear magenta bias in the red tones. For Canon cameras after the 6Dmk1 they boosted the red channel to make the still cameras more like their EOS Cinema Cameras color profiles that are more aesthetically pleasing. Leica also profiles their M cameras to look a bit like slide film with the M8, M9, and IMO the M10 as well. I only tested the M240 in the early days and the colors looked quite a bit like the 5Dmk2 to me but that’s neither here nor there. I hear they changed the look over time but I was out of the Leica game by that point. I can’t speak much for Nikon because I haven’t worked with any on an extensive level.

I know this when shooting RAW, can adjust the image where needed, but it is something to be aware of how companies profile. To me not enough reviewers touch on this part when working with RAW images. I realize it’s a subjective topic and gets into workflow efficiency where maybe a Fuji, Leica, or Canon can cut your PP time by half on large jobs because there’s less correction to make the look more aesthetically pleasing... maybe that same camera will add time to the workflow of an art reproduction photographer because it’s “coloring” the image whereas a Phase One may not.