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

bensonga

Well-known member
I'm sure they'll be happy to trade your G85 for a shiny new G9. C'mon, Gary - you know you want one ... :grin:
Yes, they would, but I'm happy with the performance of the G85 for the less demanding type of photos I typically take. The closest I ever come to needing high FPS and AF tracking etc is on the rare times when I get to shoot motorsports. I'm confident the G85 will do a better job at this than my GH3, which already performed better than I expected.

However, I did LOVE the view thru that G9 EVF! :grin:

Gary
 

jonoslack

Active member

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
HI Jorgen

The charger which comes with the camera is tiny . . and charges from USB, and of course you can use a battery bank either to charge the battery via the charger . . or else power the camera directly (as I understand it).

best
Ah... of course Jono, i forgot about that. So the device I lonked to is better suited for GH5 owners then. I don't think the GH5 has a USB charger.

The charger I linked to does charge two batteries though. Usful for those who use the camera for events etc.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I still can't get over how damn good the G9 is. This may sound like heresy but I sold my Leica Q to afford to buy both the G9 and the Lumix 200/2.8. With results like these I think I made the right choice. Here are three portraits of our cat 'Victor' (who turned up at our back door one day determined we should adopt him and after several weeks of trying to return him to his owner and failing, we gave in and he stayed!).

I still don't get it. Should a sensor this small give results this good? I think some of it is down to the lens themselves.

iso200 25mm f1.4 1/125 (Lumix Leica 25/1.4 Summilux)


iso200 20mm f1.7 1/80 (Lumix G 20/1.7 - to my mind a Summicron by another name)


iso800 80mm f2.8 1/80 (Lumix G Varion 35-100/2.8 - a seriously good lens)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
For moment there, I thought I saw some cat photos :shocked:
No no no no no no no... that can't be true. After all I've read about the G9, I refuse to believe that it takes cat photos :loco:
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
I still can't get over how damn good the G9 is. This may sound like heresy but I sold my Leica Q to afford to buy both the G9 and the Lumix 200/2.8. With results like these I think I made the right choice. Here are three portraits of our cat 'Victor' (who turned up at our back door one day determined we should adopt him and after several weeks of trying to return him to his owner and failing, we gave in and he stayed!).

I still don't get it. Should a sensor this small give results this good? I think some of it is down to the lens themselves.

<snip>
Very funny to think that you have adopted Victor, where it is actually the other way around :).
Lumix G 20/1.7 is quite nice, though it does not work with AF-C and focuses a tad slow.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I still can't get over how damn good the G9 is. This may sound like heresy but I sold my Leica Q to afford to buy both the G9 and the Lumix 200/2.8. With results like these I think I made the right choice. Here are three portraits of our cat 'Victor' (who turned up at our back door one day determined we should adopt him and after several weeks of trying to return him to his owner and failing, we gave in and he stayed!).

I still don't get it. Should a sensor this small give results this good? I think some of it is down to the lens themselves.
I think a lot is due to the lenses used - as well as the color the G9 draws. Both is very favourable to my mind and while I really like Olympus colours, I think the PanaLeica combos with the G9 are even better and more natural. Maybe also a result to the micro contrast recorded. I more than like what I see, which makes it very hard to resist switching :banghead:

Just my 5c!
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Very funny to think that you have adopted Victor, where it is actually the other way around :).
Lumix G 20/1.7 is quite nice, though it does not work with AF-C and focuses a tad slow.
Yes, it is a drawback but I like the lens so much I am willing to use it for portrait and landscape work where speed is not essential. For the price they go for secondhand they are an absolute steal, imho.

I owned the 15/1.7 for a couple of weeks but I thought it inferior to the 20/1.7 and sold it!

LouisB
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Yes, it is a drawback but I like the lens so much I am willing to use it for portrait and landscape work where speed is not essential. For the price they go for secondhand they are an absolute steal, imho.

I owned the 15/1.7 for a couple of weeks but I thought it inferior to the 20/1.7 and sold it!

LouisB
Huh!? Inferior!? I beg to differ !
On center it is perhaps not as 'good' as the 20/1.7, according to Lenstip that is, but certainly not inferior.
Although the people from DxO (fwiw) think it does pretty well (see list below, sorted by sharpness on the EM1-II).
Anyway, I know I'm pretty pleased with my copy of the PL 15/1.7, something I couldn't say of my copy of the PL 100-400.
QA/QC is IMO Panasonic's Achilles' heel ... :lecture:

:OT: @Jono: see that lens on top of the list ?
 

Attachments

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Yes, it is a drawback but I like the lens so much I am willing to use it for portrait and landscape work where speed is not essential. For the price they go for secondhand they are an absolute steal, imho.

I owned the 15/1.7 for a couple of weeks but I thought it inferior to the 20/1.7 and sold it!

LouisB
The most interesting aspect when looking at the two first photos of your orange friend is how much better the 25mm is than the 20mm. Not that it was a secret to start with, but it's nice to have it confirmed once again.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Huh!? Inferior!? I beg to differ !
On center it is perhaps not as 'good' as the 20/1.7, according to Lenstip that is, but certainly not inferior.
Could be me. I shot with it a lot trying to like it but the colours and sharpness seemed a bit 'thin', is the only way I can describe it. A bit washed out. I kept expecting great things but it never delivered.

Does that make me a bad person (he-he)?

The most interesting aspect when looking at the two first photos of your orange friend is how much better the 25mm is than the 20mm. Not that it was a secret to start with, but it's nice to have it confirmed once again.
I completely agree. The 25mm is so sharp even wide open. Unbelievable. And nice and constrasty, if you like that. These are from 2011 with my now dear departed GH2.

Panasonic GH2, 25mm iso160 f1.4 1/2500


100% crop of sunglasses - wide frickin' open!!!
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Could be me. I shot with it a lot trying to like it but the colours and sharpness seemed a bit 'thin', is the only way I can describe it. A bit washed out. I kept expecting great things but it never delivered.

Does that make me a bad person (he-he)?
Nah - of course not, Louis. I just refuse to believe the 15/1.7 feels 'inferior' to the 20/1.7

As I'm still waiting for PhaseOne to support the G9 and therefore can't edit the G9 RAWs, so I only have more or less SooC JPEGs to show for.
I've posted a few shots in the regular 4/3rds thread a while back and just added a couple more.

Kind regards.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Nah - of course not, Louis. I just refuse to believe the 15/1.7 feels 'inferior' to the 20/1.7

As I'm still waiting for PhaseOne to support the G9 and therefore can't edit the G9 RAWs, so I only have more or less SooC JPEGs to show for.
I've posted a few shots in the regular 4/3rds thread a while back and just added a couple more.

Kind regards.
Hi Bart, why not try Iridient Developer 3.2.1 for the basic conversion of the raw files?
I don't have a G9, so have not tried its files.
However Iridient Developer typically is among the first to support a new camera.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Hi Bart, why not try Iridient Developer 3.2.1 for the basic conversion of the raw files?
I don't have a G9, so have not tried its files.
However Iridient Developer typically is among the first to support a new camera.
They do support the G9, but hey - being Dutch - that's another 87 euries ... :shocked:
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
They do support the G9, but hey - being Dutch - that's another 87 euries ... :shocked:
Well Bart, myself not being Dutch, I have no comment on that part.

I got into Iridient before they added Developer to its name for the OM-D E-M5 Mark II when no one else supported its high resolution raw files. I found Iridient to be a superb tool for processing raw files, on par with C1.

Iridient Developer is also well integrated with CS6 and Nik that I use to finish the .tif files from Iridient or C1. Although C1 is my primary developing tool, I still use Iridient Developer now and then. Its UI is fairly straight forward and easy to master.

Nik seems best to remove noise in the smooth and featureless part of an image. It’s also great for B&W conversions. YMMV. :grin:
 
Last edited:

drofnad

Member
Could be me. I shot with it a lot trying to like it but the colours and sharpness seemed a bit 'thin', is the only way I can describe it.
The most interesting aspect when looking at the two first photos of your orange friend is how much better the 25mm is than the 20mm. Not that it was a secret to start with, but it's nice to have it confirmed once again.
I completely agree. The 25mm is so sharp even wide open. Unbelievable. And nice and constrasty, if you like that.
Heck, now I've bounced back'n'forth over these images --with occasional stop at the 35-100/2.8's-- and wonder what is "much better" ?! I can see how one might favor the more blurred background of the 25; the rest looks pretty equal to me (but the cat moved). The 20 does have more light in the frame ... .

:confused:
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Heck, now I've bounced back'n'forth over these images --with occasional stop at the 35-100/2.8's-- and wonder what is "much better" ?! I can see how one might favor the more blurred background of the 25; the rest looks pretty equal to me (but the cat moved). The 20 does have more light in the frame ... .

:confused:
:p what was it about beauty and the beholder ?
 

drofnad

Member
:p what was it about beauty and the beholder ?
Oh, that I think was about "the 15/1.7 [is] inferior to the 20/1.7" & "I beg to differ!". :grin:

Or maybe it's another sense:
while we can behold two images,
only the (physical) lens is something someone be holdin' on to,
and the brand something one may be beholden to.

YMMV,
(-;
 
Top