"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Like the styling of it! But... don't think I will upgrade. G80 still offers a phenomenal range of features that I have barely scratched the surface on!
It's proof that the G80 is already excellent, as the updates are subtle for the most part. There wasn't a lot to improve on for a camera in this price range. Better build, ISO/WB buttons added, a control wheel D-pad, better sensor and extra video features, there's enough going on to consider the upgrade. There's also a new Live view composition mode, it's usb chargeable and the LCD is now Oled.

I can see them first only offering in a kit, which I don't need. I'll wait to see body only prices, then see how I feel.

The 'Hold that thought' guy seems enthusiastic about it

Ok, watched through the rest of the video and it seems it will be $1200 with the kit lens when released - no body only option to start. This would put it at what? $900 body only? and since we get rode over here that will = £900 putting it the same price as an XT30 with the crappy kit lens they offer. For about same you can get a G9 used, or a little more from the likes of HDEW. That's a tough decision, as the G9 has more to offer.
 
Last edited:
Messages
435
Edit My Images
No
The G90 body only price at LCE is £899 pre order. I saw at the NEC that the G9 was available for £849 body only with a free grip included. Unless there is a compelling reason for a smaller body size, the G9 makes much more sense to me than the G90 at that launch price.
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
The G90 body only price at LCE is £899 pre order. I saw at the NEC that the G9 was available for £849 body only with a free grip included. Unless there is a compelling reason for a smaller body size, the G9 makes much more sense to me than the G90 at that launch price.
That was a special on the G9 obviously, it's still over £1100 most places new. It can be had for £959 grey though. The G90 should be £699, as that's what the G80 was at launch. They're shooting themselves in the foot with pricing just to direct compete with Sony and Fuji (A6400, XT30)

At the very least 899 should bundle in a kit lens.
 
Messages
7,146
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Some G90 specs leaked, plus an update of the 14-140 lens:
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-first-leaked-panasonic-g90-specs/
Interesting lens, thanks Keith.

I'm supposed to be getting a 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/walkabout-lens-for-panasonic-gx80.693616/
but haven't done anything yet. Should I be thinking about this 14-140 instead? Hmmmm .....

Apparently the new 14-140 is also WR, which is sweet for anyone interested in that as an all-rounder lens.
I can't think what WR is !?

I probably should have checked the rumour site first ... Holy crap! there's a tonne of new videos on there :D Will watch a few and report back for anyone interested but doesn't have time to watch them ;)
Any videos/reviews on the Lens? It's difficult googling a mark 2 and not get a mark 1.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Interesting lens, thanks Keith.

I'm supposed to be getting a 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/walkabout-lens-for-panasonic-gx80.693616/
but haven't done anything yet. Should I be thinking about this 14-140 instead? Hmmmm .....


I can't think what WR is !?



Any videos/reviews on the Lens? It difficult googling a mark 2 and not get a mark 1.

Cheers.
Sorry, WR = weather resistance, I think the likes of Fuji add 'WR' to the lens title I got the habit from there maybe. No reviews on the new version of that lens yet, but I imagine apart from it being weather sealed it'll have better AF, otherwise it'll be much the same and will be around £600 - it is a neat all in one solution but tbh I'd rather have the 12-60 and get a cheap 45-150 or the Olympus 40-150 for those times you want extra reach. Much cheaper and you're not really missing out on anything.
 
Messages
8,897
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting lens, thanks Keith.

I'm supposed to be getting a 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/walkabout-lens-for-panasonic-gx80.693616/
but haven't done anything yet. Should I be thinking about this 14-140 instead? Hmmmm .....


I can't think what WR is !?



Any videos/reviews on the Lens? It's difficult googling a mark 2 and not get a mark 1.

Cheers.
I've got the 12-60 and it's a great lens but sometimes I'd like more reach. My 100-400 is also a great lens, but a bit on the big side to be a walkabout lens.
I think I'd definitely go for the 14-140 if I was you.
It's gives you all you need in a walkabout lens.
It's on my list. :)
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
If you were going to go for the all in one, there's the Olympus 12-200mm to consider too, it is about £200 more than the 14-140 will be, but it's wider and goes a fair bit longer too. In good light it might be the only lens you ever need
 
Messages
7,146
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks guys

I want something small and light ...

I've got the pana 45-150 ...nice lens, nice size with hood attached.

I've got the pana 25mm ...nice lens, nice size with hood attached, but rarely use it.

The 12-32 ... not sure what to make of it as I never use it ... too small, not enough reach for me, as a walkabout.

I've got the 100-300 ... smaller than the 100-400 but not a walkabout lens and still too big anyway.

I think I'm going to sit on it for a few months. I'd like to know more about this new 14-140 lens, see if I can pick up a used one at half price. ;)
 
Messages
11,105
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks guys

I want something small and light ...

I've got the pana 45-150 ...nice lens, nice size with hood attached.

I've got the pana 25mm ...nice lens, nice size with hood attached, but rarely use it.

The 12-32 ... not sure what to make of it as I never use it ... too small, not enough reach for me, as a walkabout.

I've got the 100-300 ... smaller than the 100-400 but not a walkabout lens and still too big anyway.

I think I'm going to sit on it for a few months. I'd like to know more about this new 14-140 lens, see if I can pick up a used one at half price. ;)

Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is a very nice lens, seems you like a bit longer focal length than a standard zoom.
Weather resistant and stabilised too, also smaller and lighter than you might expect.
Delighted with mine and if you have one of the stabilised Panasonic bodies the dual IS is a real bonus
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is a very nice lens, seems you like a bit longer focal length than a standard zoom.
Weather resistant and stabilised too, also smaller and lighter than you might expect.
Delighted with mine and if you have one of the stabilised Panasonic bodies the dual IS is a real bonus
I have almost bought that lens many times, if |I shot more in that range I would for sure. It would be a nice complement to the 12-40. The 40-150 2.8 Olympus would obviously be an even better match, but that's a lot bigger and heavier, not to mention more expensive even used. But I know I'd use 150mm more than 100 - though ... 100mm is where I like to be for macro. Slap a Raynox on there and you're going to get around the 1:1 mark. It's just too short for the garden birdies and I'd like it to focus a lot closer with better magnification too.

Just checked on B&H, wow ... it's not just lighter than the Oly 40-150, it's less than half the weight! :O
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
For anyone deciding between the PL 12-60 2.8 - 4 or the Lumix 12-35 2.8

I went in the middle with the Oly 12-40 2.8, and I love it. But I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 3.
 
Messages
1,652
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Like the styling of it! But... don't think I will upgrade. G80 still offers a phenomenal range of features that I have barely scratched the surface on!
I'm with you. Theres always cameras with nice to have features but I dont really need them. If my G80 goes anywhere it will trade against a Nikon with trap focus, which I really miss.
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I think I might actually opt for a G9 over the G90 if I'm to upgrade the G80 at any time. The G90 looks pretty good, it's got just enough to warrant the trade up apart from the price. I am not paying double the price of a G80 [going on excellent con used prices] for a few extra features and slightly better build quality. The G9 is more of a step up in every way and can be got for the same money as the G90 now. The only way I would trade up for the G90 is if there's a cracking trade in bonus deal for Panasonic gear when it is released.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,105
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I have almost bought that lens many times, if |I shot more in that range I would for sure. It would be a nice complement to the 12-40. The 40-150 2.8 Olympus would obviously be an even better match, but that's a lot bigger and heavier, not to mention more expensive even used. But I know I'd use 150mm more than 100 - though ... 100mm is where I like to be for macro. Slap a Raynox on there and you're going to get around the 1:1 mark. It's just too short for the garden birdies and I'd like it to focus a lot closer with better magnification too.

Just checked on B&H, wow ... it's not just lighter than the Oly 40-150, it's less than half the weight! :O
It is a good companion for the 12-40, thought about the 40-150, far too big and heavy also overkill for my travel photography.
Also considered the 12-35, but can't imagine it would be better than the 12-40.
Slightly smaller and lighter, but the extra reach and close up ability of the Olympus lens does come in handy

Really pleased with the 35-100, as good as my Canon 70-200L f4 IS and that was a superb lens.
Surprised it doesn't get more of a mention, so much going for it and not crazy expensive either.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
It is a good companion for the 12-40, thought about the 40-150, far too big and heavy also overkill for my travel photography.
Also considered the 12-35, but can't imagine it would be better than the 12-40.
Slightly smaller and lighter, but the extra reach and close up ability of the Olympus lens does come in handy

Really pleased with the 35-100, as good as my Canon 70-200L f4 IS and that was a superb lens.
Surprised it doesn't get more of a mention, so much going for it and not crazy expensive either.
I must have watched a hundred reviews and comparisons between the 12-35 and 12-40 when deciding on which to get. Almost every single one had the Oly down as sharper, better build quality and that close focusing is really useful, I also love the MF clutch, it's makes your close focus photography a cinch, very nice to use. What was luring me about the 12-35 was the dual IS. But many of those same reviews stated that it didn't make a tonne of difference for photos, more so for video.

This guy does a real nice video on the 35-100 for street photography, he's more a videographer but likes his photos too. He claims it's his favorite street photography lens and like you just said, he feels it's seriously under-rated - nice video too
 
Last edited:
Messages
20,229
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
The 12-32 ... not sure what to make of it as I never use it ... too small, not enough reach for me, as a walkabout.
I've never used that lens either but it not having a focus ring makes it of no interest to me. I do have the tiny 14-42mm mega ois which I think is remarkable for the size and weight it is. It is IMO sharp enough to use wide open which is how I normally use it.

I think that the 12-35mm f2.8 (and no doubt the Oly 12-40mm f2.8 too) is excellent as it allows me to get a FF look from a MFT zoom. With FF I'd probably be shooting mostly between f4 and f10 and the f2.8 zooms let me get that sort of look giving a FF equivalent look of f5.6 at its widest aperture.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I've never used that lens either but it not having a focus ring makes it of no interest to me. I do have the tiny 14-42mm mega ois which I think is remarkable for the size and weight it is. It is IMO sharp enough to use wide open which is how I normally use it.

I think that the 12-35mm f2.8 (and no doubt the Oly 12-40mm f2.8 too) is excellent as it allows me to get a FF look from a MFT zoom. With FF I'd probably be shooting mostly between f4 and f10 and the f2.8 zooms let me get that sort of look giving a FF equivalent look of f5.6 at its widest aperture.
The 12-40 is possibly the best 24-70 equiv lens I've ever used. I had the Nikon 24-70 and never really like it, I can't put a finger on why - besides the heft and size of it, but that was the norm at that time for a pro lens. I went through numerous Sigma and Tamron alternatives too. I also had the 70-200 VR and same, never really got on with it. I much preferred using primes at that time, had the 300mm F4 along with those [it was having these 3 lenses in the bag all at once really had me starting to look at smaller systems] which for the most part rendered the 70-200 redundant for me, as I bought it for wildlife, had a 1.4x TC too.

I get that you can achieve that nice shallow DOF look a hell of a lot easier with FF, but once you've taken a few thousand images with that look it can become a bit meh ... When I want that look it's easy to get it with these M43 lenses, especially the likes of the 12-40 that can focus close as you like anywhere within the range. At 40mm you're getting similar compression to an 80mm on FF, and that makes up for the equiv difference in aperture. For the likes of a portrait it can work out better, as often you'll see FF portraits where the ears are OOF because the DOF was so shallow, even at 2.8. With a 2.8 M43 lens you can still get a nice blurred backdrop but keep the ears in focus - the light gathering doesn't change so you can keep the ISO the same, but with FF if you do stop down you will be bumping the ISO. There's benefits to both, I find macro for example much easier on M43 - where we want as much DOF as we can get without going into diffraction territory. F8 for extreme close ups can get us similar DOF to F16 FF, and that is sweet, it's the side of it you don't see FF users talk about
 
Messages
986
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the 12-35 2.8... and I bloody love it (if I eve use it - I've recently fallen back in love with the M50 and 70-300 DO and the bottom grip - it feels so good when using it! Decided to defineilty list the 100-300 as I'd rather have quality over quantity for my Panasonic kit.. and stick with the top 3; 12-35 X, 35-100 X and the Leica 35mm 1.4
 
Messages
986
Edit My Images
Yes
The 12-40 is possibly the best 24-70 equiv lens I've ever used. I had the Nikon 24-70 and never really like it, I can't put a finger on why - besides the heft and size of it, but that was the norm at that time for a pro lens. I went through numerous Sigma and Tamron alternatives too. I also had the 70-200 VR and same, never really got on with it. I much preferred using primes at that time, had the 300mm F4 along with those [it was having these 3 lenses in the bag all at once really had me starting to look at smaller systems] which for the most part rendered the 70-200 redundant for me, as I bought it for wildlife, had a 1.4x TC too.

I get that you can achieve that nice shallow DOF look a hell of a lot easier with FF, but once you've taken a few thousand images with that look it can become a bit meh ... When I want that look it's easy to get it with these M43 lenses, especially the likes of the 12-40 that can focus close as you like anywhere within the range. At 40mm you're getting similar compression to an 80mm on FF, and that makes up for the equiv difference in aperture. For the likes of a portrait it can work out better, as often you'll see FF portraits where the ears are OOF because the DOF was so shallow, even at 2.8. With a 2.8 M43 lens you can still get a nice blurred backdrop but keep the ears in focus - the light gathering doesn't change so you can keep the ISO the same, but with FF if you do stop down you will be bumping the ISO. There's benefits to both, I find macro for example much easier on M43 - where we want as much DOF as we can get without going into diffraction territory. F8 for extreme close ups can get us similar DOF to F16 FF, and that is sweet, it's the side of it you don't see FF users talk about

Just on the back of that, having just acquired the Canon 6D; I haven't been blown away yet by this full frame and blurry background ness at all. Probably wildlife is not the thing, but not been bowled over yet!
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Just on the back of that, having just acquired the Canon 6D; I haven't been blown away yet by this full frame and blurry background ness at all. Probably wildlife is not the thing, but not been bowled over yet!
Nice to have both though :) I had my eye on a 6D for a bit, would have liked to have it alongside the G80, just a couple of cheap primes is all I'd need, but wouldn't completely switch to one. No tilt screen and I'm too used to having an evf now, couldn't go back to OVF only. It'll be great for low light, landscape and portraits when you do want that shallow DOF look but for everything else I'd prefer the Pany.
 
Messages
20,229
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Nice to have both though :) I had my eye on a 6D for a bit, would have liked to have it alongside the G80, just a couple of cheap primes is all I'd need, but wouldn't completely switch to one. No tilt screen and I'm too used to having an evf now, couldn't go back to OVF only. It'll be great for low light, landscape and portraits when you do want that shallow DOF look but for everything else I'd prefer the Pany.
Dunno if I'd ever go near a Canon again.

The last time I used a Canon DSLR was on my wedding day when I took a few shots with one. I later had to process my own wedding shots and it just reinforced to me that Canon are behind the curve these days. I'd honestly stick with my current MFT cameras than buy any Canon to date.
 
Messages
986
Edit My Images
Yes
Dunno if I'd ever go near a Canon again.

The last time I used a Canon DSLR was on my wedding day when I took a few shots with one. I later had to process my own wedding shots and it just reinforced to me that Canon are behind the curve these days. I'd honestly stick with my current MFT cameras than buy any Canon to date.
Nothing wrong with the Canon M50 ;)
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
There's a GX9 for sale in the classifieds. I don't know if it's a good price or not but I do think it's a good camera, relatively poor evf aside.
Not a bad price, for £100 more you could have a new one from the likes of HDEW though, then again you could put that 100 to a nice prime lens.

Didn't know Canon were so poor, I used Nikon for about a decade, both APSC and FF, just got bored with them really, but have never owned a Canon.
 
Messages
462
Edit My Images
No
I'd honestly stick with my current MFT cameras than buy any Canon to date.
Me too though I do have a Sony A65 with 16-300 as partner to my G9/100-400. I might be tempted by another G9 with a 12-150 of course... :thinking:
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
E-M1II+12-100mm I believe has the best stabilisation and IQ. I'd probably go with that even though you lose a bit of reach.
Is it though? I thought the G9 had the best IBIS available atm at 6.5 stops, and coupled with a Dual IS enabled lens that goes to 7. In real world use I have seen 10 sec+ images from the Em1II though, even if they don't claim to have better. Olympus always did have slightly more effective IBIS in general though - for still at least, I think Pany's works better for video.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,667
Edit My Images
Yes
Is it though? I thought the G9 had the best IBIS available atm at 6.5 stops, and coupled with a Dual IS enabled lens that goes to 7. In real world use I have seen 10 sec+ images from the Em1II though, even if they don't claim to have better. Olympus always did have slightly more effective IBIS in general though - for still at least, I think Pany's works better for video.
Well you answered your own question :D
 
Messages
3,597
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
That was a special on the G9 obviously, it's still over £1100 most places new. It can be had for £959 grey though. The G90 should be £699, as that's what the G80 was at launch. They're shooting themselves in the foot with pricing just to direct compete with Sony and Fuji (A6400, XT30)

At the very least 899 should bundle in a kit lens.

£999 b/o none grey with cash back for the G9.

Anyone recommend a none Panasonic battery for the G9, in the past i have used expro but can't find a G9 one on their site
 
Messages
8,897
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone use a GF7?
Looking for something that my wife can use instead of her iPhone 5.
Can't be too bulky, and if she sticks to M43 we can share lenses.
This looks like a decent wee camera.
Body only on MPB for £119/£134
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Anyone use a GF7?
Looking for something that my wife can use instead of her iPhone 5.
Can't be too bulky, and if she sticks to M43 we can share lenses.
This looks like a decent wee camera.
Body only on MPB for £119/£134
Never used it, but if I was thinking on one I'd be tempted to go the extra step to the Gx800, you get 4K, Depth from defocus [I think it's the first of the entry level models to have this feature, it is faster than the older system] more AF points and a possible 10fps Vs 5 on the Gf7. There's bugger all difference between most of the 16mp sensor offerings outside improved tech, but the later ones removed the AA filter so there will be a bump in overall sharpness. The GX800 has no AA filter, the GF7 does, this may not matter to your wife? If the faster AF, extra AF points and lack of AA filter do not matter to your wife then the GF7 does the same job besides. Both have the selfie flip up LCD and afaik both have the same touch screen. Either one will be a great throw in the handbag travel kit combined with a nice little prime
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
An ex of mine was an internet seller, she bought a batch of pink cameras and they sold out pdq :D
Very popular with the teens apparently, I know if our 15yr old was looking for a camera the first thing she'd request is probably a specific colour and then leave the rest to me. Same with my niece, same age, my sister was asking me for help choosing a camera for Christmas for her and you guessed it, the first priority was she wanted a red one ...

We do forget how unimportant actual technical specs are to the general consumer. Thing is a teen, especially girl, can get away with that kind of bling, but we might look a little odd :D
 
Last edited:
Top