"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Robintaylor said:
Updated my GX8 not tried the post focus yet, must give it go being as it there
Click to expand...
It's quite a nice feature,not sure how much I would use it though.
 
BigD said:
Indeed, Mike was asking about the GX7 and post focus, but not sure if he means the G7.

I love trying to explain the many differences to customers :/ lol.
Click to expand...

Yes it is the GX7 i was looking at.
 
Both stunning shots Simon.
 
Fantastic shots, love them both.
 
Out of interest, what are you guys that have the GX8 using for a small flash (as it doesn't come with one). When I had my Olympus EM5 MK II body was well as the GX8, I used the small FL-LM3 unit it came with on the GX8 (using the small mod), but now the EM5 II has gone, that flash had to go as well (as it was part of the camera).

Whilst it wasn't overly powerful, the bounce capability was quick nice and it was really small and no batteries to worry about. Trouble is they are quite expensive for what they are to purchase separately (around £80). I have the Olympus FL600R but that's a bit big for everyday carry around and holidays etc., so was just wondering what you guys were using please ?
 
Last edited:
Really enjoying the Monochrome L setting on the GX80

28739114535_adf74303b2_h.jpg
 
After many weeks of deliberating I've finally decided on either a GX8 or a G7, other than the different styles of these camera's what does anyone who has both advise?

Thanks
 
Swissy said:
After many weeks of deliberating I've finally decided on either a GX8 or a G7, other than the different styles of these camera's what does anyone who has both advise?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I have the GX8 and was going to add the GX7 but it will not do dual IS or post focus,in fact the 8 is a better camera all round.
 
Sootchucker said:
Out of interest, why are you guys that have the GX8 using for a small flash (as it doesn't come with one). When I had my Olympus EM5 MK II body was well as the GX8, I used the small FL-LM3 unit it came with on the GX8 (using the small mod), but now the EM5 II has gone, that flash had to go as well (as it was part of the camera).

Whilst it wasn't overly powerful, the bounce capability was quick nice and it was really small and no batteries to worry about. Trouble is they are quite expensive for what they are to purchase separately (around £80). I have the Olympus FL600R but that's a bit big for everyday carry around and holidays etc., so was just wondering what you guys were using please ?
Click to expand...

Ime considering this one to use off camera with a cable for macro.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Meike-MK-...J&clk_rvr_id=1070948687870&afsrc=1&rmvSB=true
 
mikew said:
I have the GX8 and was going to add the GX7 but it will not do dual IS or post focus,in fact the 8 is a better camera all round.
Click to expand...

Mike,

Are you using Nikon lenses on the GX8? if so, do they have an aperture ring or the newer versions? I'm just wondering if I could use my Nikon lenses (without aperture ring) on the GX80 I'm going to buy.
 
mikew said:
I have the GX8 and was going to add the GX7 but it will not do dual IS or post focus,in fact the 8 is a better camera all round.
Click to expand...

It's the G7 i was considering.

The only thing holding me back now(there's always something) is the shutter shock problem @woof woof has.
 
Swissy said:
It's the G7 i was considering.

The only thing holding me back now(there's always something) is the shutter shock problem @woof woof has.
Click to expand...

Sorry i missed that,dont know anything about the G7,i need IS and dual IS is even better,i bought the GX8 in full knowledge of the shutter shock situation but it had external controls that i liked and i figured there must be 1,000s of happy users out there.
 
Have you thought about the GX80 ? Same style as the GX7 except no tilting view finder, but has a new electronic shutter to reduce shutter shock.
 
BigD said:
Have you thought about the GX80 ? Same style as the GX7 except no tilting view finder, but has a new electronic shutter to reduce shutter shock.
Click to expand...

It's the G7 i was interested in mate, not the GX7, i want 4K video.
 
Swissy said:
It's the G7 i was interested in mate, not the GX7, i want 4K video.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry got confused with others posting about the Gx7.
 
I really think dslr is on the way out, though I loved it in many ways smaller is more practical and as the quality is getting better, bigger is becoming not such an attractive option
 
Last edited:
What makes me laugh is I slagged mirrorless off a couple of years ago, nothing could replace dslr, I must be getting old [emoji70] [emoji16]
 
Totally agree with you Robintaylor its only a matter of time when most people will be on MFT. I ended up being made disabled and I had a major op on my ankle and it went wrong just come off of crutches after four years and now have to rely on walking stick. Arthritis set into my back and shoulders so thats why I had to get rid of the DSLR but Part exchanged it for the GX8 with 14-42mm and 45-200mm lenses
 
Im physically fine but had the big lenses but not practical or convenient for many situations mft I find better in both respects and I'm seeing no difference in quality
The D500 will keep it in the game for a while but I may be wrong but think it's a matter of time
 
Last edited:
Dont count the DSLR out yet,its superior in many ways to anything else,the only reason ime using m4/3 is size and weight,if these things where no problem i would have a D500 and 150-600,the mirrorless is getting better and in some areas it can match a DSLR but matching it would not be enough to make all photographers change over.

Just look at this link,about the 10th image down and it shows the main advantage of m4/3 rds

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/...ic-leica-100-400mm-lens-review-by-bob-towery/
 
Apart from some people's preference for an OVF, the only advantage of a DSLR over mirrorless, is PDAF autofocus. And I can't see a reason for that difference to stay with us for too long.
 
ianp5a said:
Apart from some people's preference for an OVF, the only advantage of a DSLR over mirrorless, is PDAF autofocus. And I can't see a reason for that difference to stay with us for too long.
Click to expand...

Whilst I run both systems (Nikon DSLR's and M4/3), I don't' think the differences are quite that simple with respect Ian.

I still think M4/3 has quite a bit of catching up on the image quality stakes to beat or match even a mid entry DSLR (high ISO performance, DR etc). Of course one could argue that M4/3's image quality is already good enough, and it probably is for 80% of applications (it is for me at lowish ISO's), but there's still no denying I think that APS-C and especially full frame DSLR's still rule for ultimate image quality.

Battery life is also a bit of a bugbear for mirrorless, with most modern DSLR's achieving near to 1000 shots per battery change whereas most mirrorless cameras achieve around a third to a half of that typically.

Despite lens arrivals like the spectacular Olympus 300mm F4, mirrorless still isn't served (yet) with a full suite of native fast super telephone glass (400mm F2.8, 500mm F4), and with the sensor size being a limiting factor to ultimate image quality on M4/3, F2.8 or faster primes would still be essential to complete in the professional world with the Canikon suite of glass. I know that some adapters exists but they don't quite offer the performance of being a native lens.

Overall I think M4/3 is more than acceptable for a great many on here, and in the fairly short lifespan that's it's had, has come on leaps and bounds, and if the technological developments can still proceed at the same speed, then it's only a matter of time before it becomes a much more rounded and acceptable format for even working pro's. Until then, when action, low light, razor thin DOF or super telephotos are required, I think DSLR's will still be needed.

What has surprised me, is that with the relative popularity of Mirrorless (both M4/3 and Fuji / Sony with their APS-C and Full frame offerings), that both Canon and Nikon has resolutely stuck with OVF's and missed a great advantage that mirrorless can offer, namely WYSISYG though the EVF. A lot of people that have never tried mirrorless throw their hands up in horror at the prospect of losing their OVF's having never tried the amazing EVF's in cameras like the Fuji XT-1, Olympus EM1 and the Panny GX8 which are all superb, and they just keep getting better. One things for certain though, mirrorless is certainly the future and here to stay and it's the DSLR's with their pentaprsms that need to be looking over their shoulders.
 
mikew said:
Dont count the DSLR out yet,its superior in many ways to anything else,the only reason ime using m4/3 is size and weight,if these things where no problem i would have a D500 and 150-600,the mirrorless is getting better and in some areas it can match a DSLR but matching it would not be enough to make all photographers change over.

Just look at this link,about the 10th image down and it shows the main advantage of m4/3 rds

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/...ic-leica-100-400mm-lens-review-by-bob-towery/
Click to expand...
I agree dslr is still a very viable option and some will always probably prefer it but more and more are changing as mirrorless gets better and better, who knows what the future holds? But I can see dslr users becoming a small minority in the years ahead
I never thought I'd change, in fact I always argued against mirrorless but here I am with a em1 and GX8 eating many of my previous statements lol
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
Whilst I run both systems (Nikon DSLR's and M4/3), I don't' think the differences are quite that simple with respect Ian.

I still think M4/3 has quite a bit of catching up on the image quality stakes to beat or match even a mid entry DSLR (high ISO performance, DR etc). Of course one could argue that M4/3's image quality is already good enough, and it probably is for 80% of applications (it is for me at lowish ISO's), but there's still no denying I think that APS-C and especially full frame DSLR's still rule for ultimate image quality.

Battery life is also a bit of a bugbear for mirrorless, with most modern DSLR's achieving near to 1000 shots per battery change whereas most mirrorless cameras achieve around a third to a half of that typically.

Despite lens arrivals like the spectacular Olympus 300mm F4, mirrorless still isn't served (yet) with a full suite of native fast super telephone glass (400mm F2.8, 500mm F4), and with the sensor size being a limiting factor to ultimate image quality on M4/3, F2.8 or faster primes would still be essential to complete in the professional world with the Canikon suite of glass. I know that some adapters exists but they don't quite offer the performance of being a native lens.

Overall I think M4/3 is more than acceptable for a great many on here, and in the fairly short lifespan that's it's had, has come on leaps and bounds, and if the technological developments can still proceed at the same speed, then it's only a matter of time before it becomes a much more rounded and acceptable format for even working pro's. Until then, when action, low light, razor thin DOF or super telephotos are required, I think DSLR's will still be needed.

What has surprised me, is that with the relative popularity of Mirrorless (both M4/3 and Fuji / Sony with their APS-C and Full frame offerings), that both Canon and Nikon has resolutely stuck with OVF's and missed a great advantage that mirrorless can offer, namely WYSISYG though the EVF. A lot of people that have never tried mirrorless throw their hands up in horror at the prospect of losing their OVF's having never tried the amazing EVF's in cameras like the Fuji XT-1, Olympus EM1 and the Panny GX8 which are all superb, and they just keep getting better. One things for certain though, mirrorless is certainly the future and here to stay and it's the DSLR's with their pentaprsms that need to be looking over their shoulders.
Click to expand...


Hit the nail on the head - great post. For me, m4/3 suits my requirements perfectly. It's small, lightweight (both relative I know), I've yet to use a camera that is faster and more accurate in AF-S than my GX8, and there are some amazing (relatively) inexpensive prime lenses out there. The functionality packed into these cameras is amazing.

If you're mainly a sports photographer or do a lot of proper low light shooting, there are better options. But if you want a highly versatile camera system that you can carry about all day, then it really is a difficult system to beat

Cheers,

Simon
 
Yes totally agree mirrorless still has a certain amount to do before many will hang up their dslr though some us already have, but as has been said mirrorless improves in leaps and bounds where dslr improves at snail [emoji222] pace so it's more of when rather than if it matches completely
 
I find that when looking at whole images I often get a bit confused as to what kit I used and for me it's only in higher dynamic range shooting, when using higher ISO's and when pixel peeping that my A7 shows a clear lead... but look at a whole MFT image and it may look... very nice indeed :D

I think that one thing that can help particularly with higher ISO noise is thinking about the size of the final image and if you can live with some downsizing the image quality can be helped. I shot some higher ISO pictures yesterday and once downsized they are actually very good indeed, easily better than anything I ever got from film, clearly better than anything I got from my Canon 20D which I shot with for over 7 years and rivaling and possibly bettering my last DSLR, my 5D. In most situations that's easily good enough for me.
 
woof woof said:
I find that when looking at whole images I often get a bit confused as to what kit I used and for me it's only in higher dynamic range shooting, when using higher ISO's and when pixel peeping that my A7 shows a clear lead... but look at a whole MFT image and it may look... very nice indeed :D

I think that one thing that can help particularly with higher ISO noise is thinking about the size of the final image and if you can live with some downsizing the image quality can be helped. I shot some higher ISO pictures yesterday and once downsized they are actually very good indeed, easily better than anything I ever got from film, clearly better than anything I got from my Canon 20D which I shot with for over 7 years and rivaling and possibly bettering my last DSLR, my 5D. In most situations that's easily good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Dont any one think ime knocking m4/3 i think for the sensor size it can produce great images,here is one (not great) @ iso 3200 my standards could be questioned but ime totally happy with it from a small sensor.

P1050304.jpg
 
Sootchucker said:
Whilst I run both systems (Nikon DSLR's and M4/3), I don't' think the differences are quite that simple with respect Ian.
Click to expand...
Well I was comparing mirrorless, so ISO/IQ is no different. But I missed battery life and lens choice. Yes. However not every DSLR has the same range of lenses. It's not a fundamental principle of DSLRs. And changing rapidly. So that leaves us AF/OVF/Battery life. Of which, in my case, with spare batteries, only AF would make a difference. But we'll see big improvements there this year. Competition is driving change faster with mirrorless than DSLRs. With Fuji, Panasonic, Sony and Olympus throwing improvements and updates at us as fast as they can.
 
Totally agree that there seems to be more developments in the mirrorless field than there does with DSLR's, other than maybe AF. I think that DSLR sensors (D5, 1DX MKII etc) have pretty much just had incremental upgrades in sensor quality, but the AF systems (certainly in the new D5 and D500, sorry can't speak for Canon as I've never had one), has had major improvements this year.

I can't wait to see what the new OMD-EM1 II and the rumored Panasonic GH5 can offer us, and in general where Mirrorless will be in 2-3 years. I really can't see Canon and Nikon holding out much longer and wouldn't be at all surprised if a new mirrorless interchangeable lens camera that can use the respective companies existing legacy lenses (maybe with an adapter) is already been worked on by both companies.
 
Last edited:
To me MFT is very nearly a very good system. All I'd like to see is...

- Cure for shutter shock on all future bodies (and lenses?)
- Drop the sequential field EVF's and fit better ones.
And just like my Sony A7...
- Make exposure compensation available in all modes including manual.
- Make full time DoF preview available in all modes.

Maybe the last two could be enabled with a firmware update but I see the chances of that as being pretty much zero.
 
Sootchucker said:
I really can't see Canon and Nikon holding out much longer and wouldn't be at all surprised if a new mirrorless interchangeable lens camera that can use the respective companies existing legacy lenses (maybe with an adapter) is already been worked on by both companies.
Click to expand...
They've already been released to market several years ago! Nikon 1 and Canon EOS-M.

It's just that they've not had as much support thrown behind them so they haven't managed to gain as much market share as the other 3 mirrorless.
 
Llamaman said:
They've already been released to market several years ago! Nikon 1 and Canon EOS-M.

It's just that they've not had as much support thrown behind them so they haven't managed to gain as much market share as the other 3 mirrorless.
Click to expand...

If Nikon had shown more interest in the 1 series i would have a camera bag full of it now,as it is my bag is full of m4/3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top