"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Panasonic are strange with their naming. But it seems you're right, K is for black models, at least they use it for both cameras and lenses or it would only get more confusing. My G80 [which is a G85 in the US and G81 in Asia ... ] has G80M on the box to make it more confusing, because it was a kit pack with the 12-60 lens [where they get 'M' with that I have no idea!] , I wanted body only so they just took the lens out making it a simple G80 again.
 
I am guessing they use K for black as it is used in CMYK colour offset printing....
 
Not that it matters, but as I having a coffee I was reading an article on line. This particular article was an online review of the new Fuji H-X1 vs the Panasonic G9. What interested me is the Micro 4/3 always seems to be bashed for it's smaller sensor size.

One thing that struck me in the above review was that the author said that even though the Fuji had an APS-C sensor and was therefore bigger than the G9's, that due to the fact it was running 24mp on that sensor compared to 20mp for the Panny, that the actual photo site sizes were very similar. It got me thinking so I had a look and this is what I found.



So according to that, the Fuji APS-C camera (X-H1, X-T2 etc.), have very similar pixel sizes to the latest 20 mp Micro Four thirds cameras (OK a little larger but not massive), and it takes a step up to full frame to really see big differences in pixel size and thus light gathering. I was wondering if this was why when I had my X-T2 some months back, I was sorta expecting it to blow by Olympus EM1 MK II into the weeds on dynamic range and high ISO ability, but I just wasn't seeing that. Sure it was better but only a little bit. Is this why ?
 
Last edited:
I tend to ignore numbers, they never truly show in real world images. I found nothing in it between my old X-T1 and the em5 or G80 in terms of overall quality, DR etc. and the X-T1 is not all that far behind the X-T2, the improvements were more in terms of performance in that line. Do you think you would notice much difference between images shot with identical settings on the 5D MK IV and the D5? There's an even bigger gap in pixel pitch between those than the G9 and 2 APSC sensors. But unless you were told, it would be a wild guess.

Low light ISO performance is the only way to really tell the difference between M43 and APSC, besides image ratio 4:3 vs 3:2. And while APSC does indeed pull ahead in that respect, I find M43 images easier to clean up, the noise is different, it doesn't 'smudge' or soften like APSC sensor noise can when pushed. And M43 is generally sharper at similar apertures, I find also that I don't need to add sharpening in post as much and this in turn helps with any noise clean up.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree Keith, it was just that when I actually saw the figures, I hadn't realised that M4/3 (20mp) and Fuji APS-C w(24mp) ere as close as they were in pixel sizes.
 
Sootchucker said:
I tend to agree Keith, it was just that when I actually saw the figures, I hadn't realised that M4/3 (20mp) and Fuji APS-C w(24mp) ere as close as they were in pixel sizes.
Click to expand...


Reckon it's one of the reasons APSC users don't get into the whole 'equivalency' debates, because they are a fair ways off FF too.

Wanted thread for a 12-32 [black] in classified, if anyone's got one going spare.
 
Last edited:
This might interest you lot, David Thorpe on equivalence, f1.2 lenses and big v small...

http://m43blog.dthorpe.net/2018/06/14/big-and-bad-little-and-good/

I can see where he's going and to a large extent I agree.

Personally I do tend to use my MFT kit so that it gives a similar look to what I'd get with FF. With MFT I tend to take pictures from wide open to f4 or f5.6 or so and with FF I tend to use f4 or 5 to f8 or 10 or so, give or take, and take fewer pictures at f1.x to 4 or smaller than f10 to 22. So, mostly I can get about the same look I'd get from FF from MFT by applying the crop factor to the aperture and this gives advantages such as helping to keep the shutter speed up and/or the ISO down and hopefully keeping the image quality up too. Thankfully all of my MFT are useable from wide open whereas some FF lenses are relatively poor wide open and need stopping down a bit.

I doubt I'll be buying a f1.2 lens partly because of the cost and partly because of the bulk and weight too and partly because I'm happy enough with the smaller and lighter f1.8 primes and I'm not chasing thinner depth. I can see the appeal of these f1.2 lenses though and although mounting one on a MFT camera may take you nearer FF bulk and weight the option to use the smaller f1.8 lenses is still there. There's room for all, choice is good etc.

Anyway, it's there if anyone wants to read it.
 
woof woof said:
This might interest you lot, David Thorpe on equivalence, f1.2 lenses and big v small...

http://m43blog.dthorpe.net/2018/06/14/big-and-bad-little-and-good/

I can see where he's going and to a large extent I agree.

Personally I do tend to use my MFT kit so that it gives a similar look to what I'd get with FF. With MFT I tend to take pictures from wide open to f4 or f5.6 or so and with FF I tend to use f4 or 5 to f8 or 10 or so, give or take, and take fewer pictures at f1.x to 4 or smaller than f10 to 22. So, mostly I can get about the same look I'd get from FF from MFT by applying the crop factor to the aperture and this gives advantages such as helping to keep the shutter speed up and/or the ISO down and hopefully keeping the image quality up too. Thankfully all of my MFT are useable from wide open whereas some FF lenses are relatively poor wide open and need stopping down a bit.

I doubt I'll be buying a f1.2 lens partly because of the cost and partly because of the bulk and weight too and partly because I'm happy enough with the smaller and lighter f1.8 primes and I'm not chasing thinner depth. I can see the appeal of these f1.2 lenses though and although mounting one on a MFT camera may take you nearer FF bulk and weight the option to use the smaller f1.8 lenses is still there. There's room for all, choice is good etc.

Anyway, it's there if anyone wants to read it.
Click to expand...


Cheers, will have a read of that now over me tea :) I like David, it was his videos helped sway me to M43 to begin with
 
woof woof said:
This might interest you lot, David Thorpe on equivalence, f1.2 lenses and big v small...

http://m43blog.dthorpe.net/2018/06/14/big-and-bad-little-and-good/

I can see where he's going and to a large extent I agree.

Personally I do tend to use my MFT kit so that it gives a similar look to what I'd get with FF. With MFT I tend to take pictures from wide open to f4 or f5.6 or so and with FF I tend to use f4 or 5 to f8 or 10 or so, give or take, and take fewer pictures at f1.x to 4 or smaller than f10 to 22. So, mostly I can get about the same look I'd get from FF from MFT by applying the crop factor to the aperture and this gives advantages such as helping to keep the shutter speed up and/or the ISO down and hopefully keeping the image quality up too. Thankfully all of my MFT are useable from wide open whereas some FF lenses are relatively poor wide open and need stopping down a bit.

I doubt I'll be buying a f1.2 lens partly because of the cost and partly because of the bulk and weight too and partly because I'm happy enough with the smaller and lighter f1.8 primes and I'm not chasing thinner depth. I can see the appeal of these f1.2 lenses though and although mounting one on a MFT camera may take you nearer FF bulk and weight the option to use the smaller f1.8 lenses is still there. There's room for all, choice is good etc.

Anyway, it's there if anyone wants to read it.
Click to expand...

Good read that. However, I’m with David over the whole equivalence thing when he’s says ‘so what?’. I just tend to glaze over when the discussions start, as I find it utterly irrelevant. I shoot m4/3 and choose lenses that allow me to achieve what I want on that format. Couldn’t really care less what the equivalent would be on a full frame camera :)
 
srhmoto said:
Good read that. However, I’m with David over the whole equivalence thing when he’s says ‘so what?’. I just tend to glaze over when the discussions start, as I find it utterly irrelevant. I shoot m4/3 and choose lenses that allow me to achieve what I want on that format. Couldn’t really care less what the equivalent would be on a full frame camera :)
Click to expand...


Same here! I don't stress over numbers. If the image I just shot satisfies me, I don't care if it was shot using a potato! :LOL:

I did enjoy the read though, I like his quirky, dry sense of humour.
 
Cagey75 said:
Same here! I don't stress over numbers. If the image I just shot satisfies me, I don't care if it was shot using a potato! :LOL:

I did enjoy the read though, I like his quirky, dry sense of humour.
Click to expand...

I like his videos for that very same reason!
 
I think it's more than not stressing over numbers, I do think equivalance is important as without realising what's going on and why someone coming from FF or someone just starting out and looking at settings on line could dial in f8 or some other aperture that would be more appropriate with FF and not realise the implications such as the possibility that diffraction could degrade image quality when f4 could get them the FF f8 look whilst doing good things for the image quality / shutter speed / ISO.

I've seen this on forums, especially dpr, people using apertures that wouldn't look out of place when used with a FF camera and a specific lens but which could with MFT or APS-C and a different lens lead to unnecessary diffraction, shutter speed or ISO issues.
 
Oh I understand it completely, after coming from FF and APSC on to M43, I've done all the research and drilled enough info into my tiny brain that I can safely say I get it ... I just don't personally care. If newer shooters ask me, or want advice, I'm happy to share my knowledge and experience if they are genuinely interested. But it's not something I feel the need to worry about anymore. I pick up a camera, any camera that I have used for more than a wet week, and I know what to do with it, I know it's limits, I know where that lens is sharp and how far to push the combination, or not. So it is very much about not stressing over numbers for me. Each to their own though. If I was only getting into photography now, I would make it my business to know the differences though, I agree on that.

There's the other side to this too, the 'elitism' that mostly comes from Full frame shooters, how they tend to sneer a bit at M43 and say stupid things like "Meh, it's oook, would never be good enough for "pro" work" - and you'll find a lot of these guys are not even doing "pro" work, they spent a hell of a lot more on their gear than they will ever make back. Some, not all.

Take this very rough example that just popped into my head ... Say you're checking though Flickr, hitting that left arrow until you come across an image that really catches your eye - You might wodner 'what lens was used here, I love this look' - so you hit the exif data and see if was shot at 12mm, f/3.5 .... AH! "It's only a kit lens, must have been processed to death!" some might be inclined to think, but, if that same image had been shot at F4, no other info on the lens provided, just 12mm F4, they might pause to consider, maybe it's he 12-100 pro that was used? definitely a good lens, had to be! You could take it further and say there was no exif data, a lot of Flickr users hide it, but some just can't rest until they know what gear and what settings were used. I know I like to check this data too, but for different reasons. I like to try guess first, then check and I love being surprised when it's like a bridge cam or an old 20D with a kit lens or whatever.

Like I say, very rough example, but I've seen it happen over and over, snobbishness towards smaller formats or 'kit' lenses or cheaper bodies etc ... A good photographer should not stress over numbers.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Like I say, very rough example, but I've seen it happen over and over, snobbishness towards smaller formats or 'kit' lenses or cheaper bodies etc
Click to expand...
Yes. If you get the picture you want then how you got it is irrelevant. The statement "X is a better camera than Y" must be backed up with full explanations of what you're comparing under which conditions. Without such qualification it's pure twaddle.
 
just back today from a week away at bempton cliffs ,heres a taster of a fulmar in flight ,overall extremely pleased with the g80 and 100-400 with I estimate a 75% keeper rate including lots of b.i.f ,so more to follow

dora the soarer by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
michael23 said:
Thanks Keith, not as high as my 7d2. Would want it to go higher.

This has probably been covered many a time, is it better than the G7 in terms of overall sensor performance.
Click to expand...


For video it's very hard beat Panasonic tbh, but if you need better ISO it might not be your best option.

the black fox said:
just back today from a week away at bempton cliffs ,heres a taster of a fulmar in flight ,overall extremely pleased with the g80 and 100-400 with I estimate a 75% keeper rate including lots of b.i.f ,so more to follow

dora the soarer by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Gorgeous, love it! Can almost smell the salty sea air :)
 
and another a pair of kissing gannets ,looking at the screen while away I thought I was going to be dissapointed with the results ,but wow I am very very pleased with this rig
give us a kiss by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
the black fox said:
and another a pair of kissing gannets ,looking at the screen while away I thought I was going to be dissapointed with the results ,but wow I am very very pleased with this rig
give us a kiss by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Lovely photo, i find when I am out taking photo's (not amazing as yours) I tend to find when I look on the screen I always feel a bit disappointed but if I zoom into 4x zoom I am more happy as the images seem sharper than the initial preview.
 
Last edited:
Recently bought the Pan/Leica 100-400 and getting to grips with it on my GX8 out and about in the woods. The pictures of birds are highly cropped from the original image, so reasonably please with the quality handheld, but hopefully as I get used to the combination things will improve!
P1000724c by Paul Williams
P1000720c by Paul Williams
P1000688c by Paul Williams
 
I find that despite the i.s you really do need a higher shutter speed or support of some kind with this lens Paul ,I invested in a sirui monopod to help with that side of things .remember at full extension its equal to 800mm on a full frame
 
the black fox said:
I find that despite the i.s you really do need a higher shutter speed or support of some kind with this lens Paul ,I invested in a sirui monopod to help with that side of things .remember at full extension its equal to 800mm on a full frame
Click to expand...

Early days yet, I was reasonable happy with those results given they were taken in a darkish wooded area, but always room for improvement. Loath to start carrying more gear, I usually just carry a camera with the one lens fitted and a spare battery, though I have got several tripods and monopods, so not out of the question, but at the moment just getting used to the kit and I've got to get to terms with all the other lenses I've recently bought when I committed to M43, plus the move from Olympus M5 to the GX8 as my main camera!
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm always suspicious when I look up an M43 lens only to find he hasn't reviewed it! :D
Click to expand...
Keith what was the outcome when you took your g80 back to the shop ??
 
great spotted woodpecker and chick today ,very pleased with this as it was heavily shaded and despite medium iso values they came out good ( with n/r in P/P )

feed me mum by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
It's the same in CS5.

Oly and Pany are listed but all that comes up when you select them is a list of Samyangs and the like with no Oly or Pany lenses listed at all.
 
cardiff_gareth said:
Just a quickie! Noticed earlier there are no LR presets for the lens. In fact when I went to look Panasonic or Olympus up in the list of lens manufactures they both were not listed ?!
Click to expand...
my lightroom c.c ,you have the choice of either lightrooms own presets or the Panasonic ones not totally sure if it’s for the camera or lens will check in a bit and update ,definitely not as well covered as can/Nikon/ sigma though . Up to now though I haven’t come across any real problems

yep just checked the pre-sets are for the camera g80 .. if you enter it in the lenses pre-sets it just comes up with a leica generic so your right .but as I said it's its not really revelant unless its causing a problem which as far as I can see its not .
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed that some film era lenses I have are in the pre sets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top