"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread
- Thread starter hillwalkinggirl
- Start date
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Looks like my G80 isn't going to shift any time soon, so pondering on some new lenses. One thing I've wanted to try for a while is a Viltrox adapter [not focal reducer] and some Canon EF-S lenses, like the 55-250. Has anyone ever used Lensadapter4u?
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you know I've got both the Viltrox and am happy with them on the occasion that I use them; Incidentally, the moon was pretty good and clear late last nights; I had a few moments spare, so I grabbed the Canon 6D, Canon 100-400 plus Panasonic G80 and Sigma 170-500 and viltrx; I grabbed two shots with the 6D with either lens, plus one shot with the G80 and Sigma; totaling around 1000mm. Shot RAW, aperture was around F8 for maximum quality and then RAW developed in Photoshop with minor sharpness and noise reduction and clarity adjustments; Dragged into Photos and cropped roughly to make the moon almost fill. Have to have - the G80 seemed to hold its own here; Dare I say it seems better!
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry I forgot to quote you in my reply - I’d just advise Ebay? They’re on there for very reasonable price and you can return if not happy etc
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I remember you having one yeah but thought you'd sold up your m43 gear for some reason, I've found the efm1 on a site for £80 but need to check the site out a bit more
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,645
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Just a quick picture taken with my GX80 and 45-150mm at 45mm and f4.
We'd put some food out for the birds and I was sat waiting to take some pictures of them but they all must have been full as none showed up... So I took this instead
Careful! You'll stick like that!...
I think it's fair to say that the 45-150mm is more of a budget lens than anything special but IMO it's sharp enough from wide open and it's very fast to focus. The eye AF worked well with not one picture out of focus
We'd put some food out for the birds and I was sat waiting to take some pictures of them but they all must have been full as none showed up... So I took this instead
Careful! You'll stick like that!...
I think it's fair to say that the 45-150mm is more of a budget lens than anything special but IMO it's sharp enough from wide open and it's very fast to focus. The eye AF worked well with not one picture out of focus
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Just a quick picture taken with my GX80 and 45-150mm at 45mm and f4.
We'd put some food out for the birds and I was sat waiting to take some pictures of them but they all must have been full as none showed up... So I took this instead
Careful! You'll stick like that!...
I think it's fair to say that the 45-150mm is more of a budget lens than anything special but IMO it's sharp enough from wide open and it's very fast to focus. The eye AF worked well with not one picture out of focus
It's a nice little lens that, I had one for a bit but it was just a tad short for what I wanted, which was birds in the garden. Been using an old Vivitar 200mm instead. Which is ok but really needs stopping down.
This is why I've been looking to the Canon 55-250mm, the combination of that and adapter are almost half the price of the 100-300 mkII, so if AF is even reasonable it's a steal for me.
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope I'm terrible I'm tripping over equipment now; got the G80 and the various lens still, but now got a 6D the other day; I like it, probably will do me til I can afford the EOR RP or Panasonic depending which direction I end up in. micro 4/3 not going anywhere - if anything maybe the body as that will continue to drop like a stone, but lens I like to hang on to.
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
interesting thought actually - maybe evens some of the Canon 70-300 lens would be good? I know there were some dodgy ones but I'm sure must be some that are alright. Perhaps even the SigmaTamron variants of whichever was good? In terms of the adapter - you wouldn't be disappointed - All lens I've tried it, it performs great. In single AF mode.
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Was a time I had more gear than I could use, any time I was heading out with the intention of taking photos, I wanted to make use of all of it and just end up frustrated. Nowadays I prefer to keep it simple, but of course I still lust after other gear, lenses mostly. I've also looked at the likes of a 6D just to have on side for portratis/low light situations - maybe even just with a 50mm 1.8 glued on there. The good thing about that is they can be had for cheap and the prices are dropping with all the new shiney mirrorless FF cameras coming out.
The G80 prices are falling fast aye, which is crappy for me as I'd like to upgrade it but I'm not forking out for a new camera without selling that first. When I pick it up I can't help thinking 'this camera is worth so much more' - It really is a solid bit of gear, really well made and it's not lacking much either. This makes it hard to sell off cheap. I'd like to up to the G9, the better stabilization alone might be worth it, that extra bit of res is never a bad thing either.
I'm searching about on used sites atm, the only trouble is with adapting AF lenses you never know how it'll perform until you physically try it. I have to go by what i read online. Didn't you have some issues with the ef-m1?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, It was rubbish initially; But after reading round I realized I must have a dodgy version; I sent back and bought another and it was nigh on perfect; Put it this way, using the M50 (I bought one again!) and the adapter for is the same as suing the Panasonic adapter an canon lens; No difference at all, but best in Single AF over continuous, definitely.
I agree with you about the G80 - there is literally nothing it does badly; The sheer features one it, buried in the menus are second to none, and it is a fantastic piece of equipment in the hand. I think that paired with the X 12-35 and X 35-10 are an ideal small combo - I'm looking froward to doing a wedding later on next month with this kit.
For me - I've got a terrible itch to scatch with gear!
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, it's done now, just ordered the EF-M1 and a Canon 55-250. Will see how it goes with that for a start
Nice! Looking forward to seeing your results! given me something to think about too with one of the 70-300 models, to maybe replace my mk 1 Panasonic 100-300 !
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
That's what I'll be comparing to, the 100-300 mk1, I had one a while back. If I'm right, the 55-250 will be a tad sharper at 250mm - not that the Pany was soft or anything, but it was sharper on the shorter end. It's also pretty sluggish when trying to focus on tiny birds, they move about so quick - I don't expect the Canon to be amazing in that regard either but will be interesting to compare. If it doesn't work out it should be easy to sell on with out much loss anyway, cheap as chips lens.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
been checking out my extended iso range on the G5...up to 12800..the card i am using is 95Mb/s
on using the higher iso's there is a lag before the screen comes back on...
is this normal or am i doing something wrong
in the menu there is a max iso setting...is this to be set right at the top of the scale..ie 12800?
thanks in advance
geof
on using the higher iso's there is a lag before the screen comes back on...
is this normal or am i doing something wrong
in the menu there is a max iso setting...is this to be set right at the top of the scale..ie 12800?
thanks in advance
geof
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Can't help you I'm afraid, as I've never used that camera. Just wondering what specific card you have? I have 2 32GB Sandisk cards, both claim to do 95mb/s but one is much better than the other, never lags or locks up, even for 4K video - where the other does experience some of these issues. The difference is one is U-1, the other is U-3. 95mb/s may be written on the card but they never actually write at this speed, the U-3 cards will get closer to that than the U-1. This might not be the issue for your situation, but it might have something to do with it.
Max ISO is just a setting that you can customize if you prefer not to go above a certain level, I set mine to 3200 for the odd time I use Auto ISO. I would rather the cameras slow the shutter up a couple stops than boost the ISO - but I have IBIS on my G80, you don't have this on the G5.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks...i think you have covered it well..i can assume nothing is wrong with the camera and when it occurs i wont panic again!!
as for the card specification...not a worry..it must be working ok...not envisaging taking videos..my wife has a slot in card video machine as it is..
much obliged for that comprehensive run down...
i may actually limit the iso now as i am not a high iso advocate and prefer 100/200 if i can get away with it....hold camera steady/tripod etc...
cheers and many thanks again
geof
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just a quick picture taken with my GX80 and 45-150mm at 45mm and f4.
We'd put some food out for the birds and I was sat waiting to take some pictures of them but they all must have been full as none showed up... So I took this instead
Careful! You'll stick like that!...
I think it's fair to say that the 45-150mm is more of a budget lens than anything special but IMO it's sharp enough from wide open and it's very fast to focus. The eye AF worked well with not one picture out of focus
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
DOn't be afraid to at least push to ISO 800, images are still very clean up to that point with only minor tweaking ever required in post. Often none at all, as a little grain is fine in many images, gives them a more film-like quality. The noise from M43 sensors is finer with less artifacting than many other systems.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
cheers...i will take that on board with grateful thanks...not quite feeling secure yet with the G5...moved up from the G1 and kept the kit 12-45 kit zoom...
800 it is!!
thanks
geof
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,645
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've always fancied a loooong lens but I've always been too tight to buy an expensive modern one but a legacy lens would be cheap and ok for moon shots, pictures of birds in the garden and for the odd use outside for some long lens scenic shots but I've no idea what's ok and what's not worth bothering with. I do have a Tokina 70-210mm zoom but I'd put that in the not worth bothering with category, I'd deffo want something better than that.
I've seen some 400mm f5.6's primes on evil bay for under £100 so a few questions for the MFT gang...
- Is there any specific lens I should be looking for or conversely is there something I should avoid in the £100 or less or so price range?
- Is there anything longer I should be looking at?
- Has anyone got an example of a moon shot taken with MFT and a 400mm lens? Just so I can get an idea of what 400mm gets moon shot wise.
At the moment I have MFT adapters in Minolta Rokkor and Olymus Zuiko mounts but I also have Canon FD and Nikon lenses which I use on my Sony camera so I wouldn't mind buying a MFT adapter in one of those mounts so my preferred mounts are Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko, Canon FD and Nikon but if there's something else that's good I could always buy another adapter.
So, recommendations please!
but a legacy lens would be cheap and ok for moon shots, pictures of birds in the garden and for the odd use outside for some long lens scenic shots but I've no idea what's ok and what's not worth bothering with. I do have a Tokina 70-210mm zoom but I'd put that in the not worth bothering with category, I'd deffo want something better than that.I've seen some 400mm f5.6's primes on evil bay for under £100 so a few questions for the MFT gang...
- Is there any specific lens I should be looking for or conversely is there something I should avoid in the £100 or less or so price range?
- Is there anything longer I should be looking at?
- Has anyone got an example of a moon shot taken with MFT and a 400mm lens? Just so I can get an idea of what 400mm gets moon shot wise.
At the moment I have MFT adapters in Minolta Rokkor and Olymus Zuiko mounts but I also have Canon FD and Nikon lenses which I use on my Sony camera so I wouldn't mind buying a MFT adapter in one of those mounts so my preferred mounts are Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko, Canon FD and Nikon but if there's something else that's good I could always buy another adapter.
So, recommendations please!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I've always fancied a loooong lens but I've always been too tight to buy an expensive modern one
I've seen some 400mm f5.6's primes on evil bay for under £100 so a few questions for the MFT gang...
- Is there any specific lens I should be looking for or conversely is there something I should avoid in the £100 or less or so price range?
- Is there anything longer I should be looking at?
- Has anyone got an example of a moon shot taken with MFT and a 400mm lens? Just so I can get an idea of what 400mm gets moon shot wise.
At the moment I have MFT adapters in Minolta Rokkor and Olymus Zuiko mounts but I also have Canon FD and Nikon lenses which I use on my Sony camera so I wouldn't mind buying a MFT adapter in one of those mounts so my preferred mounts are Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko, Canon FD and Nikon but if there's something else that's good I could always buy another adapter.
So, recommendations please!
200-300mm seems to be about the sweet spot for longer MF lenses, not used any above that myself. It can be hard find reviews on them, even across the handful of still regular adapted lens forums out there. If you're willing to up the budget a little chance buying from Japan there's a lot more options. Like a Canon nFD 400mm 4.5 - seeing them on the bay between £140 - £200, - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-Ne...238410?hash=item23b5941dca:g:74YAAOSwUmtbKK~P
I don't have any unedited moon images, even with the 100-300mm at full stretch I remember having to crop in a fair amount - of course it's just all black you're cropping out so no real major loss of detail
Last one I took using the 100-300 @300mm: [probably a 50% crop
July 2018 Moon by K G, on FlickrHad a look around, seems 400mm MF lenses are tricky to find good reviews on
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,374
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
one from the wife today , she is now using my old g80 and leica 100-400 combo this is her first time using it properly . she is feeling quite chuffed with the results to
cut across shortie by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
cut across shortie by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
one from the wife today , she is now using my old g80 and leica 100-400 combo this is her first time using it properly . she is feeling quite chuffed with the results to
Great shot, she's a natural!
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,645
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks.
I can't get anywhere near that with the 45-150mm and also didn't with the 45-200mm so I definitely need a longer lens.
I see how stingy I feel. I could always weaken and go for a modern lens
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks.
I can't get anywhere near that with the 45-150mm and also didn't with the 45-200mm so I definitely need a longer lens.
I see how stingy I feel. I could always weaken and go for a modern lens
I found the 45-150 too short too, which is one thing that worries me about ever going back FF, if I wanted a tele lens it would have to be a 400mm+. Maybe M43 has spoiled us in that way - I know you can crop more with FF but I believe you end up throwing away more than being a bit more careful with the smaller sensor. I was going to buy another 100-300 the mkII this time, but I had a niggling to try out the Viltrox EF adapters so I'm awaiting that and a Canon 55-250. I don't expect to be amazed but it leaves more options open to try out some EF primes too. 250 should suffice for the birdies.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,645
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The 45-150mm is very probably too short for things like birds and the moon even with 100% crops but for more general longer lens stuff like filling the frame more with whatever scenic thing catches your eye or for walkabout stuff like squirrels in trees it's probably perfectly ok and the main points in its favour are that it's relatively cheap, very compact and good enough from wide open. Back when I had DSLR's I had a Canon 70-300mm and that was significantly bigger.
I'll have to have a think. I don't really want to spend £1k on a Panasonic 100-400mm but a much cheaper 100-300mm is possible but I'd always know I'd bought the lesser lens. A very cheap legacy 400mm f5.6 may be good enough and will have the advantages of being (very) cheap and being portable as I can take it off my MFT camera and put it on my A7 if I feel the need. I'll have think and read up on the 100-300mm and whatever I can find on legacy 400mm's.
I'll have to have a think. I don't really want to spend £1k on a Panasonic 100-400mm but a much cheaper 100-300mm is possible but I'd always know I'd bought the lesser lens. A very cheap legacy 400mm f5.6 may be good enough and will have the advantages of being (very) cheap and being portable as I can take it off my MFT camera and put it on my A7 if I feel the need. I'll have think and read up on the 100-300mm and whatever I can find on legacy 400mm's.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
The 45-150 is a little cracker for general purpose certainly, I was impressed with how sharp it was. If the 45-200 was as good I'd probably own one, the mkII of that is WR on top which is nice but there's too many complaints about it being soft at 200 - where I would want it most. I found the 100-300 good enough, there's similar complaints about that being soft from 250 on but I mostly used it at 300mm 5.6 and found it plenty sharp enough. Maybe I just got a real good copy? The mkII was tempting, as it has WR, dual IS and apparently much better AF - it would want to, because if there's one fail about the mk1 it's AF speed, very sluggish when trying to track anything even an overhead plane. If the mkII can cope much better in those scenarios it's a bit of a steal for £429 on HDEW. When you consider the price of similar lenses for FF
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,645
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a shame the 45-200mm is so relatively poor. In all other respects, apart from optical quality which is after all a pretty basic requirement in a lens, it's a nice lens.
However, 200mm is still too short for what I want.
However, 200mm is still too short for what I want.
- Messages
- 9,214
- Edit My Images
- No
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,645
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Impressive and the moon is quite obviously bigger in the frame than I can get with the 45-150mm.
Just for comparison, the following whole pictures.
Canon 20D (x1.6 APS-C) at 300mm = 480mm equiv.
MFT, 200mm = 400mm equiv.
MFT 150mm = 300mm equiv.
Just for comparison, the following whole pictures.
Canon 20D (x1.6 APS-C) at 300mm = 480mm equiv.
MFT, 200mm = 400mm equiv.
MFT 150mm = 300mm equiv.
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Impressive and the moon is quite obviously bigger in the frame than I can get with the 45-150mm.
Just for comparison, the following whole pictures.
Canon 20D (x1.6 APS-C) at 300mm = 480mm equiv.
MFT, 200mm = 400mm equiv.
MFT 150mm = 300mm equiv.
impressive! Did you see mine further up with the sigma 170-500? I was impressed with the sharpness from these even after heavy crop!
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hmm yes I think so - I just used the Viltrox adapter.. M1 I think it is.
- Messages
- 2,156
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll keep an eye out for this!
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
The problem with most of the older long primes is that they tend to need some stopping down to overcome CA, and they're not the brightest to begin with. Many of them need to be at F8 for peak performance. This is fine for moon shots and bright days but if the light isn't great and you're shooting birds or wildlife, say in a wooded area, you have to pump the ISO or use slow shutter speeds [not ideal for anything moving]
When looking up info on lenses the Pentax forums are a good indicator I find, if it's been reviewed on there [you'll see it in google searches if the lens has been user-reviewed] - I won't touch anything that gets less than an 8 on there tbh
When looking up info on lenses the Pentax forums are a good indicator I find, if it's been reviewed on there [you'll see it in google searches if the lens has been user-reviewed] - I won't touch anything that gets less than an 8 on there tbh
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just bought a Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8, its the Mki version.
It came without the later firmware installed that provides dual is with more recent model cameras.
Thought it would be interesting to do a quick series of before and after photos.
I can say without fear of contradiction, its definitely worth having the dual is
It came without the later firmware installed that provides dual is with more recent model cameras.
Thought it would be interesting to do a quick series of before and after photos.
I can say without fear of contradiction, its definitely worth having the dual is
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I believe dualIS adds about half a stop, which could be significant at very slow shutter speeds. The FW may have fixed other minor things that helped improve it too.
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Certainly makes a difference, I agree that firmware often fixes other things, some publicised, others not.