"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[Cagey75]

Exciting times ahead with the Panasonic S1, SR1, continued support for m4/3, a new m4/3 Leica 10-25mm f1.7 and a Lumix Pro support / service offering all announced this morning by Panasonic .

The Lumix Pro service is definitely needed, and I'll sign up as soon as I can. Can't wait to see what the new S series cameras can do. Think I'd best start saving now though LOL

Cheers,

Simon.

The price is going to be crucial on all of these things. How much will this lens be? Not cheap I imagine ...

 

[srhmoto]

The price is going to be crucial on all of these things. How much will this lens be? Not cheap I imagine ...

That lens won't be cheap - the 8-18mm is only f2.8-f4 and is over £1k.

I just got an Email about Lumix Pro. It depends on the amount of kit you have as to which of the 4 levels you qualify for. The basic level looks FOC, rising to £179 per annum for the top of the line Platinum cover. I'd currently qualify for the Silver level with the camera and lenses I have, which is £35 per year.

I'd imagine that the S1 will be priced somewhere near the A7mk III, and the SR1 between the A9 and A7R mk III. Definitely won't be cheap!

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

Plenty of time to save up though!

 

[stickytape]

NOT ANOTHER BLOODY LENS MOUNT!!!!!!!! EOS R, EOS M, EOS EF, NIKON F, etc etc etc


[emoji854][emoji854][emoji854][emoji854][emoji854][emoji854]

 

[Cagey75]

NOT ANOTHER BLOODY LENS MOUNT!!!!!!!! EOS R, EOS M, EOS EF, NIKON F, etc etc etc


[emoji854][emoji854][emoji854][emoji854][emoji854][emoji854]

You only need worry about one of them though. Even if I had the money to choose I'd wait ... I'd follow Panasonic's progress, because my money is on that being the top contender so far

 

[the black fox]

Got to agree with Keith here , the Panasonic looks like the top contender in what’s on offer in the mirrorless FF line up so far? , what it actually equates to in sales and usability though depends on price and what the intended end use is .
I’m actually quite amazed myself these days as I often talk to lots of people with expensive gear when in the bird hides , I.e canon ,Nikon with 500 and 600 lenses sometimes on full frame bodies ,and when asked most shoot in j.peg and either don’t post anywhere or just to faceberk . The question being is all this move to FF needed or wanted

 

[Cagey75]

Got to agree with Keith here , the Panasonic looks like the top contender in what’s on offer in the mirrorless FF line up so far? , what it actually equates to in sales and usability though depends on price and what the intended end use is .
I’m actually quite amazed myself these days as I often talk to lots of people with expensive gear when in the bird hides , I.e canon ,Nikon with 500 and 600 lenses sometimes on full frame bodies ,and when asked most shoot in j.peg and either don’t post anywhere or just to faceberk . The question being is all this move to FF needed or wanted

I reckon a lot of people on here don't make full use of FF too tbh, they just think they need it and it looks better to their cronies. I don't need FF, not in the slightest, I am comfortable enough shooting FF but I don't do paid work anymore. I did when I had the gear to back me up, but I certainly was never a 'pro'. MFT has taught me you really don't need a huge sensor or razor thin DOF or insane DR ... the fact these things get mentioned so often in the FF threads makes me wonder at times, is anyone ruddy exposing properly out in the field? or is FF DR a crutch?

 

[the black fox]

That’s my feeling to Keith , the wife has now also changed to mft using the oly 10 and 100-300 ,sold all her canon gear as well and is doing far better. . Wish I had done this years ago

 

[Cagey75]

That’s my feeling to Keith , the wife has now also changed to mft using the oly 10 and 100-300 ,sold all her canon gear as well and is doing far better. . Wish I had done this years ago

I have no immediate plans to go back to FF, I'm glad Pany are holding off until next year, I'll see how my situation is then. For now, I'm still really liking M43, but I do feel the Fuji urge again ... still not sure if it's what I want [If you have ever owned Fuji gear, you'll know what i mean, they are a joy to use, and I kinda miss my old gripped XT1] Either way, I'm sticking to small , light and fun for now. There's a few things I want to mess about with, some AF adapters and some old MF lenses, I can do this on either system, there's no specific lenses I'm eager to get, would just like to cover a bit more range. ATM I only have the 15mm and a MF 50mm [sold off all else at this stage] I'll only need something longer when the birds start to come in more looking for feed. And I do want to get back down the river way once the Autumn colours really get going. I love this time of year!

 

[woof woof]

I reckon a lot of people on here don't make full use of FF too tbh, they just think they need it and it looks better to their cronies. I don't need FF, not in the slightest, I am comfortable enough shooting FF but I don't do paid work anymore. I did when I had the gear to back me up, but I certainly was never a 'pro'. MFT has taught me you really don't need a huge sensor or razor thin DOF or insane DR ... the fact these things get mentioned so often in the FF threads makes me wonder at times, is anyone ruddy exposing properly out in the field? or is FF DR a crutch?

To be fair though FF has a lead over MFT and APS-C when it comes to the extremes of shooting, processing and pixel peeping and as we're passionate about our little hobby what we need and what we want is up to us.

I've been with MFT since the very early days but there's no denying that FF gives better image quality and even if it's only strictly needed now and again it's wanted a lot more often just for the pleasure of it. It's a bit like cars really, I've had some nice sports cars but what's the point when my Hyundai Getz does the same job. The difference is the passion and the enjoyment.

 

[Cagey75]

To be fair though FF has a lead over MFT and APS-C when it comes to the extremes of shooting, processing and pixel peeping and as we're passionate about our little hobby what we need and what we want is up to us.

I've been with MFT since the very early days but there's no denying that FF gives better image quality and even if it's only strictly needed now and again it's wanted a lot more often just for the pleasure of it. It's a bit like cars really, I've had some nice sports cars but what's the point when my Hyundai Getz does the same job. The difference is the passion and the enjoyment.

I know all the spiel, I used to shoot FF, and I found it made me a bit lazy tbh. I could crop the bejaysis out of images, and push and pull them to extremes, but it wasn't making me much better at ... well, anything really. It is up to you, that's grand, doesn't mean you need it. All the harping on here about shallow DOF, as if that was what it takes to make a decent image nowadays. It gets real tiresome the way some talk, as if the rest of us never experienced it, or we didn't know the difference. WE DO! we just don't rely on it or care so much. I hate the snobbery too, the small sensor BS, as if the larger sensor helped them take better images, not from what I've seen! some of the better images I've seen on here over the past few years have been either APSC or MFT. I do agree you cannot beat FF for low light though, that is about all I really missed from it.

Let's not turn this into a Sony thread either way, it was just a mini rant away from all the FF crap in other threads

 

[woof woof]

I know all the spiel, I used to shoot FF, and I found it made me a bit lazy tbh. I could crop the bejaysis out of images, and push and pull them to extremes, but it wasn't making me much better at ... well, anything really. It is up to you, that's grand, doesn't mean you need it. All the harping on here about shallow DOF, as if that was what it takes to make a decent image nowadays. It gets real tiresome the way some talk, as if the rest of us never experienced it, or we didn't know the difference. WE DO! we just don't rely on it or care so much. I hate the snobbery too, the small sensor BS, as if the larger sensor helped them take better images, not from what I've seen! some of the better images I've seen on here over the past few years have been either APSC or MFT. I do agree you cannot beat FF for low light though, that is about all I really missed from it.

Let's not turn this into a Sony thread either way, it was just a mini rant away from all the FF crap in other threads

Who mentioned Sony?

I often take pictures which hit the buffers of MFT dynamic range so I have two choices, let the highlights blow or protect them and boost the shadows and no matter how much love I feel for MFT FF has a clear and real lead here which leads to better pictures. It's a fact and as simple as that. Then there's the quality and luxury of it and that is a factor for enthusiasts and if I didn't feel the love for both the pictures and the kit I'd be doing something else like knitting cardigans. The fact is that FF files are just better than MFT or APS-C files if you're into reveling in that part of it and I see no problem with people liking that aspect of it all.

I grew up with simple cameras and ISO 1600 film and pictures being blown to bits or noisy messes was par for the course but things have moved on and I don't think it's all about snobbery or shallow DoF or laziness or cropping the bejesus out of pictures. It's about getting the end result and the quality you're happy with and in this respect FF possibly represents the high point in the performance to cost stakes before you get to the digital "MF" stuff which is beyond what most are willing to pay and perhaps brings practical and performance issues. I like and use MFT but for the pictures that really matter to me give me FF as long as it's practical and the costs are acceptable.

I just printed a picture out the other day and it's gorgeous and it was taken with a FF camera, my MFT kit could have taken a similar picture but not an identical picture. I do think that MFT is good kit and even I can take decent pictures with it but lets not kid ourselves that FF has two advantages, better image quality when it's required and better image quality when we want it because we want it and I see nothing wrong with wanting it because we just want it and that doesn't take anything away from MFT just like having a Lotus Elise doesn't detract from the list of positives my Hyundai Getz offers.

Anyway, that's my last word on this issue and I've said it because just as you find al the FF talk a bit irritating I find the line that FF isn't needed and leads to laziness a little odd in the context of a photography forum populated largely by enthusiasts. I'm an enthusiast. I spend too much time and money on this and I make no apology for wanting nice prints and pictures that I can look at and think...that's nice

 

[Cagey75]

Who mentioned Sony?

I often take pictures which hit the buffers of MFT dynamic range so I have two choices, let the highlights blow or protect them and boost the shadows and no matter how much love I feel for MFT FF has a clear and real lead here which leads to better pictures. It's a fact and as simple as that. Then there's the quality and luxury of it and that is a factor for enthusiasts and if I didn't feel the love for both the pictures and the kit I'd be doing something else like knitting cardigans. The fact is that FF files are just better than MFT or APS-C files if you're into reveling in that part of it and I see no problem with people liking that aspect of it all.

I grew up with simple cameras and ISO 1600 film and pictures being blown to bits or noisy messes was par for the course but things have moved on and I don't think it's all about snobbery or shallow DoF or laziness or cropping the bejesus out of pictures. It's about getting the end result and the quality you're happy with and in this respect FF possibly represents the high point in the performance to cost stakes before you get to the digital "MF" stuff which is beyond what most are willing to pay and perhaps brings practical and performance issues. I like and use MFT but for the pictures that really matter to me give me FF as long as it's practical and the costs are acceptable.

I just printed a picture out the other day and it's gorgeous and it was taken with a FF camera, my MFT kit could have taken a similar picture but not an identical picture. I do think that MFT is good kit and even I can take decent pictures with it but lets not kid ourselves that FF has two advantages, better image quality when it's required and better image quality when we want it because we want it and I see nothing wrong with wanting it because we just want it and that doesn't take anything away from MFT just like having a Lotus Elise doesn't detract from the list of positives my Hyundai Getz offers.

Anyway, that's my last word on this issue and I've said it because just as you find al the FF talk a bit irritating I find the line that FF isn't needed and leads to laziness a little odd in the context of a photography forum populated largely by enthusiasts. I'm an enthusiast. I spend too much time and money on this and I make no apology for wanting nice prints and pictures that I can look at and think...that's nice

I just did, what are you, Ray's brother? I don't know how you're reaching any limitations, I find the DR pretty decent on the G80. Use Zebras if you're unsure about your exposing. There is snobbery, we've all seen it on here, in certain threads in particular, the Sony one being an example, and don't ask me to go trawling through for examples, I don't care enough. Seems to me it's the higher end gear shooters who spend more time arguing than shooting get more defensive about FF than anyone using other formats would. Are you defensive over FF or something? Not really seeing your point otherwise? I saw the images you printed, not being funny but there was nothing there couldn't be done using M43 gear. Nothing wrong with the images, but M43 cameras are a lot more capable than you seem to give them credit for. Post an example of an image that couldn't have been shot using M43 gear if you like, I'd be very surprised. You seem to think my FF rant was personal or something, just because you happen to have a FF camera ...

I'm an enthusiast, I don't need FF, nor do i care about the ins and outs or advantages of it, if I was that bothered I'd still be using it.

Now, read this bit again:

it was just a mini rant away from all the FF crap in other threads

You're better off to save the long winded responses for your Sony thread, they love that crap in there. It's all they do.

 

[Baloo]

Got to play with a G7 today, was so similar to the GX80 but with a better viewfinder, fully articulated screen and a bit chunkier Could not resit it, as it appears everything I wanted so it is arriving Thursday!

 

[stickytape]

Got to play with a G7 today, was so similar to the GX80 but with a better viewfinder, fully articulated screen and a bit chunkier Could not resit it, as it appears everything I wanted so it is arriving Thursday!

Thats interesting you say that! Would you rate it better than the G80?

 

[tijuana taxi]

Thats interesting you say that! Would you rate it better than the G80?

No ibis on the G7 though which is important to me and one of the main reasons I use a GX9 on my travels

 

[Cagey75]

Thats interesting you say that! Would you rate it better than the G80?

He's comparing to the GX80, that has a poor EVF. The G7 has a much better and clearer one, same as the G80 afaik. The G80 is the better camera, it's better built, weather sealed, has IBIS, shoots faster with a better buffer and has better AF [post FW updates] and has slightly better magnification through the evf. It's a G7 with boosters pretty much. They are very alike besides.

 

[stickytape]

He's comparing to the GX80, that has a poor EVF. The G7 has a much better and clearer one, same as the G80 afaik. The G80 is the better camera, it's better built, weather sealed, has IBIS, shoots faster with a better buffer and has better AF [post FW updates] and has slightly better magnification through the evf. It's a G7 with boosters pretty much. They are very alike besides.

Ahhhh my error, missed the X!

 

[Baloo]

No ibis on the G7 though which is important to me and one of the main reasons I use a GX9 on my travels

It will be interesting to see how I get on without IBIS, it has been a couple of years since I had a camera without some form of image stabilisation. Like all cameras it is which compromises we are prepared to make, I really liked my GX80 but in the end its size and lack of articulating screen got to me, I prefer a slightly larger form with a proper grip. Never even seen a GX9!

 

[woof woof]

A GX9 is very like a GX80 but with 20mp instead of 16mp, a tilting evf and an af/mf switch. I have both and they are very similar in use.

 

[stickytape]

Just noticed the Leica 100-400 is on offer at E global Central for £819... not. abad price...!

 

[tijuana taxi]

The price is going to be crucial on all of these things. How much will this lens be? Not cheap I imagine ...

My daughter is at Photokina, she saw this lens in a glass case today and said it's rather large

 

[Cagey75]

My daughter is at Photokina, she saw this lens in a glass case today and said it's rather large

I thought it might be alright, if you look at the Sigma 18-35 1.8, that's a pretty hefty lump for an APSC lens. It's not a fat lens, more long, and heavy. In the pics from PK this one didn't look huge, must have been a deceptive angle. It's also shown here on a G9, the biggest of the M43 bodies

 

[tijuana taxi]

I thought it might be alright, if you look at the Sigma 18-35 1.8, that's a pretty hefty lump for an APSC lens. It's not a fat lens, more long, and heavy. In the pics from PK this one didn't look huge, must have been a deceptive angle. It's also shown here on a G9, the biggest of the M43 bodies

I have the Fuji 10-24, not exactly small and that's only a constant f/4
The Panasonic lens has a 77mm filter size, so I reckon it will be at least the size of a Canon 24-105.
Probably OK on the G9, but it would be a bit overkill on my little GX9 or any of the smaller Olympus bodies.

It's all academic anyway because I don't want one and I suspect it will come with a rather hefty price tag

 

[Cagey75]

I miss when this thread was full of images. Couple from today with the G80 + 15mm


Chime by K G, on Flickr

Edgy by K G, on Flickr

 

[mikew]

I miss when this thread was full of images. Couple from today with the G80 + 15mm


Chime by K G, on Flickr

Edgy by K G, on Flickr

So do I

 

[the black fox]

I miss when this thread was full of images. Couple from today with the G80 + 15mm


Chime by K G, on Flickr

Edgy by K G, on Flickr

Nothing to stop you posting in both Keith , the photo thread idea was to stop the moaning about questions and answers threads getting
Thrown off track . But there’s no rules or guidelines to tell you what or where to post

 

[Cagey75]

Nothing to stop you posting in both Keith , the photo thread idea was to stop the moaning about questions and answers threads getting
Thrown off track . But there’s no rules or guidelines to tell you what or where to post

You're goddamn right nothing will stop me, whatever gave you the impression I thought that? I'm just not seeing any images here lately, this is Pany specific btw, not a pop at your general one - that's buried away too deep for me, keep forgetting about it. The gear discussions get old quick without some nice images to liven things up IMO. This is why the Fuji thread stays strong, they have discussion, but tonnes of great images too, makes me want to shoot Fuji again. And that is what a camera specific thread should be.

 

[stickytape]

Few images from the g80 I got a while back. With the 100-400 Leica! Someone tele to buy the one thats on offer!

 

[the black fox]

oh go on then . LOL one from yesterday

on the wall by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr



and another
look out post by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

 

[srhmoto]

Nothing to stop you posting in both Keith , the photo thread idea was to stop the moaning about questions and answers threads getting
Thrown off track . But there’s no rules or guidelines to tell you what or where to post

Wasn't aware that there was any moaning along those lines in the Panasonic thread.

Life is currently getting in the way of me doing much with my camera or photos at the moment. Hopefully I'll get to post a couple of photos here over the next week or so.

Simon.

 

[wellyboot]

I think I’ve missed something here, (not hard for me!) because I didn’t realise there was a second Panasonic thread just for images? Where can I find it please, and are there similar threads for all the corresponding equipment threads?
Sorry if people think I’m being lazy for not doing my own searches, but I’ve tried and obviously not using the correct wording!
Having asked this, it does seem that you can still post images on this thread, but judging by the lack of images, it would seem most people are going down the route of posting images in an image specific thread!
I personally preferred having a mix of images and equipment chat, but I suppose that’s down to my age, and the fact I don’t like change! But then again I assume it was something the majority of members requested and I need to just get on with it!
Thank you in advance for your help!

 

[stickytape]

oh go on then . LOL one from yesterday

on the wall by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr



and another
look out post by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

Wow! Those are amazing! Very envious!!

 

[Cagey75]

I think I’ve missed something here, (not hard for me!) because I didn’t realise there was a second Panasonic thread just for images? Where can I find it please, and are there similar threads for all the corresponding equipment threads?
Sorry if people think I’m being lazy for not doing my own searches, but I’ve tried and obviously not using the correct wording!
Having asked this, it does seem that you can still post images on this thread, but judging by the lack of images, it would seem most people are going down the route of posting images in an image specific thread!
I personally preferred having a mix of images and equipment chat, but I suppose that’s down to my age, and the fact I don’t like change! But then again I assume it was something the majority of members requested and I need to just get on with it!
Thank you in advance for your help!

In the photos for critic and sharing section on the main forum list page, it's down the bottom of specific image styles under photos for pleasure There's a thread for images from any M43 cameras. Which is nice, as you see more variety. But you can of course still post Panasonic images here too.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/micro-4-3-cameras-with-any-lens-fitted.684355/

 

[stickytape]

 

[the black fox]

yep just follows Keiths instructions , I thought it would be easier to link all the MFT pics together as some use pan bodies and oly lenses and vice-versa , but theres no rules do as you want really

 

[jakeblu]

........

I just printed a picture out the other day and it's gorgeous and it was taken with a FF camera, my MFT kit could have taken a similar picture but not an identical picture. I do think that MFT is good kit and even I can take decent pictures with it but lets not kid ourselves that FF has two advantages, better image quality when it's required and better image quality when we want it because we want it and I see nothing wrong with wanting it because we just want it and that doesn't take anything away from MFT just like having a Lotus Elise doesn't detract from the list of positives my Hyundai Getz offers.
..........

I posted this a few days ago in a different thread, so apologies for posting again, but I think its relevent

View: https://youtu.be/OGn3yPl59ZM


I know you shoot both, but I do feel you lean towards the FF stuff, which is fine,, but really for most things your M43 will do just as good a job.

 

[srhmoto]

G9 + PL8-18mm and a lot of patience to wait until I had the walkway all to myself!

High Level Crossing by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

Cheers,

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

G9 + PL8-18mm and a lot of patience to wait until I had the walkway all to myself!

High Level Crossing by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

Cheers,

Simon.

Lovely lighting, and great perspective too. So much detail, I can read the phone number on the van on the lower let when viewed large on Flickr. The bridge looks like it goes on to infinity! That is some combination, G9 with the 8-18!

 

[Cagey75]

High praise for the G9