"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

The small improvements in the GX8 do seem to make it a much better camera, irrespective of any sensor/mpx differences.
Personally I think they should have kept the older sensor...
 
In the market place mp counts matter and I'm pretty sure that if they'd stuck with 16mp plenty of commentators would have made a point of criticising Panny and mentioning entry level DSLR's being 24mp... or whatever they are.

I keep thinking that I'll make an effort to use m GX7 and try to learn to love it but my A7 is lovely and fits in a small bag and is no more hassle to take out than the GX7 and the quality of the images is just outstanding and my G1 is lovely for walk about and flower shots and for taking into dodgy and hazardous areas so my GX7 sits unused and unloved and every time I use it... I don't like it. I think it's mainly the VF though.
 
Last edited:
I have a gallery of motorsports shots here. It seems to work very well for that, especially with the 35-100mm f/2.8, but is let down by the 100-300mm (which focuses and shoots too slowly to track cars well).
 
Flower, G1, ISO 200, 1/400 with Old and cheap Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro...



100%...


I can't have enough flower shots. I love the colours and the shapes and just sitting there and marvelling from different angles and waiting for the light to be as good as it's going to get :D And all with kit that's worth about 2p :D
 
Last edited:
Just received my Olympus 9-18mm.

This is the first time I've had a wide angle since my Canon DSLR days when I had a Sigma 12-24mm (a fantastic lens) and a Canon 20-35mm ( a ho-hum lens.)

The Oly 9-18mm shows some barrel distortion but nothing to really worry too much about. Distortion wise it's not as good as the fantastic Sigma but probably a bit (or a lot) better than the ho-hum Canon. All in all I'm very happy with the 9-18mm :D
 
woof woof said:
Just received my Olympus 9-18mm.

This is the first time I've had a wide angle since my Canon DSLR days when I had a Sigma 12-24mm (a fantastic lens) and a Canon 20-35mm ( a ho-hum lens.)

The Oly 9-18mm shows some barrel distortion but nothing to really worry too much about. Distortion wise it's not as good as the fantastic Sigma but probably a bit (or a lot) better than the ho-hum Canon. All in all I'm very happy with the 9-18mm :D
Click to expand...

I look forward to seeing what it can do Alan

Cheers,

Simon.
 
I have the bigger 4/3rds 9-18mm and its really good. I mean. I forget fast apertures and edge sharpness and stuff, but the sheer niceness of a wide view and decent focus speed is great.
I find its best on the 16 mpx sensors, although also good on my e-pL1.
 
The rumour site reports that DXO says that the GX8 is the highest ranked MFT camera...

http://www.43rumors.com/the-pansoni...the-best-mft-performing-camera/#disqus_thread

I think I've decided not to buy any more MFT cameras until they include auto ISO in manual mode with the ability to dial in exposure compensation and the ability to have full time exposure and DoF preview in all modes as per Sony.

These are IMO great features and if it wasn't for the MFT lenses I'd probably ditch MFT and buy into Sony A6xxx for those features but I have problems with the Sony lens line up.
 
Just picked up a Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7, and all I can say is wow! The focusing speed on my GX8 is damn near instantaneous, which is perfect for my (very) active 3 year old son who is constantly on the go. The IQ and sharpness from wide open is also beyond reproach . This type of lens is what the m4/3 format is all about IMHO.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
Yes, the primes are nice. I went for the 45mm f1.8 Oly myself but have secretly lusted after the Panny lens :D As I mentioned, the lenses are what's kept me loyal to the system.
 
woof woof said:
Yes, the primes are nice. I went for the 45mm f1.8 Oly myself but have secretly lusted after the Panny lens :D As I mentioned, the lenses are what's kept me loyal to the system.
Click to expand...

The compatibility with the DFD focusing system my GX8 has and closer focusing distance of the Panny version were what made me go with it over the Oly version.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
Is anyone using the Panasonic 12-35?

What are your thoughts on it and is it worth the crazy price tag?
 
Hi I would be interested in more shots with the new 42.5mm if possible please. I am going back to MFT with a GX7 and have a clean slate with lenses.
 
CSB said:
Is anyone using the Panasonic 12-35?

What are your thoughts on it and is it worth the crazy price tag?
Click to expand...

I thought about this but the effective aperture is 5.6 which makes the lens very expensive IMO and apparently it's a fair size.
 
Bond6 said:
I thought about this but the effective aperture is 5.6 which makes the lens very expensive IMO and apparently it's a fair size.
Click to expand...

The aperture is f2.8 and for exposure f2.8 is what you get. It's only f5.6 if you're talking equivalent DoF and I do hope you aren't...
 
Well I bought the lens and I've used it a fair bit over the weekend but not had chance to get the pictures onto the computer yet. Focus is definitely faster than the 14-42 and the lens it still much smaller and lighter than my Canon 17-55.
 
Bond6 said:
I thought about this but the effective aperture is 5.6 which makes the lens very expensive IMO and apparently it's a fair size.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
The aperture is f2.8 and for exposure f2.8 is what you get. It's only f5.6 if you're talking equivalent DoF and I do hope you aren't...
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if @Bond6 you're considering that the M4/3 f/2.8 lens (because of the 2x crop) has a working aperture of f/5.6, which isn't the case.
It's just the equivalence when it comes to the background blur as @woof woof says.
it's still a f/2.8 lens if wide open, a f/2.8 lens is a f/2.8 lens is a f/2.8 lens when it comes to the "speed" or brightness of the lens. it lets a lot more light in...in fact about 4x more light than f/5.6.
only if I've misunderstood the statement, of course
 
Interesting subject. I was comparing to full frame. As I see it a 1.4 MFT lens wide open would have the same bokeh as a 2.8 FF lens or am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Bond6 said:
Interesting subject. I was comparing to full frame. As I see it a 1.4 MFT lens wide open would have the same bokeh as a 2.8 FF lens or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's only for DoF equivalence to 35mm "FF" however that's only half the story... or in fact only a fraction of the story. The lens you're looking at is a quality bit of kit in both build and image quality not a kit lens and it's a constant f2.8 and both of those things (constant f2.8 and quality of build and image) cost money.

I'm a bit of a shallow DoF lover myself but even so I personally think it is over rated and often done to death. For example how often do you/I/we really want a picture with next to nothing sharp? Rarely maybe, hopefully, and for most of my photographic life I've been fighting for more DoF not less. If specifically going for shallow DoF you can get if from MFT by using longer lenses, reducing the camera to subject distance and perhaps moving your subject forward of the background if possible etc...

Taking head and shoulders to half body people shots as an example... when shooting with "FF" and a 50, 85 or 135mm lens I'd want to stop the lens down to get the face sharp going back as far as the ears and maybe then drifting out or I'd maybe stop down further to get the whole head in the DoF and once you start stopping FF down to f2.8 MFT can match it with f1.4 primes and once you stop FF down past f5.6 which I'd very possibly be doing if shooting FF MFT can match it with a f2.8 zoom. Actually, looking at some recent pictures taken with a FF camera and 35mm lens f5 to f8 just about does it (I'll get crucified if I post shots of my GF so you'll have to take my word for it) and that's easily within the reach of a MFT 17mm prime and although I'm mostly a prime guy I'm sure you can do the math and see that a f2.8 zoom covering the 35mm equivalent length would have done the job too.

It's up to each of us to decide but I personally don't see DoF as too much of an issue with MFT and if fact it could potentially offer an advantage for hand held shooting. Anyone interested in MFT but concerned about the shallow DoF thing should take a look at FF or APS-C shots and do the math. Personally, for me it's pretty much a non issue. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Bond6 said:
Hi I would be interested in more shots with the new 42.5mm if possible please. I am going back to MFT with a GX7 and have a clean slate with lenses.
Click to expand...

I have the Panny 42.5mm and it is an absolute cracker. Focus is as near instantaneous on my GX8 as makes no difference, it is sharp wide open and the IQ is superb. I don't have many examples I can share, as I mainly photograph my family with it and I won't post photos on them on the internet, but here's an example from Saturday taken on a Haloween Trial down at Rievaulx Terraces in North Yorkshire.

Halloween by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

Cheers,

Simon.
 
woof woof said:
Yes, it's only for DoF equivalence to 35mm "FF" however that's only half the story... or in fact only a fraction of the story. The lens you're looking at is a quality bit of kit in both build and image quality not a kit lens and it's a constant f2.8 and both of those things (constant f2.8 and quality of build and image) cost money.

I'm a bit of a shallow DoF lover myself but even so I personally think it is over rated and often done to death. For example how often do you/I/we really want a picture with next to nothing sharp? Rarely maybe, hopefully, and for most of my photographic life I've been fighting for more DoF not less. If specifically going for shallow DoF you can get if from MFT by using longer lenses, reducing the camera to subject distance and perhaps moving your subject forward of the background if possible etc...

Taking head and shoulders to half body people shots as an example... when shooting with "FF" and a 50, 85 or 135mm lens I'd want to stop the lens down to get the face sharp going back as far as the ears and maybe then drifting out or I'd maybe stop down further to get the whole head in the DoF and once you start stopping FF down to f2.8 MFT can match it with f1.4 primes and once you stop FF down past f5.6 which I'd very possibly be doing if shooting FF MFT can match it with a f2.8 zoom. Actually, looking at some recent pictures taken with a FF camera and 35mm lens f5 to f8 just about does it (I'll get crucified if I post shots of my GF so you'll have to take my word for it) and that's easily within the reach of a MFT 17mm prime and although I'm mostly a prime guy I'm sure you can do the math and see that a f2.8 zoom covering the 35mm equivalent length would have done the job too.

It's up to each of us to decide but I personally don't see DoF as too much of an issue with MFT and if fact it could potentially offer an advantage for hand held shooting. Anyone interested in MFT but concerned about the shallow DoF thing should take a look at FF or APS-C shots and do the math. Personally, for me it's pretty much a non issue. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Great post Alan.

Simon.
 
Picked up a GX7 and 20mm myself last week, lovely bit of kit. Aside from lacking a configurable minimum shutter speed in Auto ISO it's pretty much the perfect 'take everywhere' camera for me.

Stourhead by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

I want to stick with just that, but the Olympus 60mm Macro looks like a bargain with £75 cashback at the moment...
 
That's a nice shot as is Simon's above :D

I have a bit of a love hate relationship with my GX7. I just can't get used to the EVF and I do wish it had auto ISO with compensation in all modes and of course the GX8's reversing screen would be nice. TBH if the GX8 had auto ISO+compo in all modes I'd probably have one as I think it'd cure pretty much all of my MFT gripes and make it a love thing rather than a love / hate thing :D
 
Thinking about pulling the trigger on the G7 today as a family camera with the kit lens and leave the DSLR for serious work. Anyone got the G7 and care to comment on how they are finding it?

The Leica 25 still worth getting in addition to the kit lens? I previously had the G3 and 20mm and found the 20mm a tad slow and the motor in video mode annoying. Any other lenses to consider for family type snaps.

I don't want to get too carried away but for the price I was going to pay for an RX100 M4 I can build a great second system.
 
twist said:
Only let down with the G7 is no IBIS.
Click to expand...

The Olympus are good in this regard. I would have loved it for the video side of things but for photos want to get some fast primes.

I miss my G3 and 20mm even though it did't tick all the boxes.
 
redlion said:
The Olympus are good in this regard. I would have loved it for the video side of things but for photos want to get some fast primes.

I miss my G3 and 20mm even though it did't tick all the boxes.
Click to expand...

GX7/8 have IBIS for stills. The G7 is still a massive bargain, theyre going to sell loads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top