"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Messages
676
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Don't agree with the not needing AF, at least if your lens does it you have an option, i use it all the time especially on live subjects that are moving around.
Exactly...try shooting live subjects in their own environment with MF!? it just aint gonna happen.
I use AF all the time too...I think i tried MF once, when i was shooting some images of an adult Common lizard, which was basking on a log...i soon went back to AF, for said lizard.
 
Messages
676
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
The 60mm Olympus is a little cracker, not owned one myself but seen enough good examples between this thread and the Olympus one. There are other options though, if you have a zoom lens anywhere between 80 - 120mm, you can get a Raynox 250 and attach it on giving you a very good macro option. Another option is to buy an old manual focus macro lens [most decent macro is done with manual focus anyway] and a cheap adapter. You still get IBIS when you adapt lenses, the only thing you lose is some cpu data, you won't get the aperture used or the focal length. ISO and shutter speed will always show though because they are on body settings.

Ive highlighted the bit in your post...see my opinion/response to woof woof/Alans post.
I just cant agree with you, that MF is best utilized for close up/macro.
For me, and my chosen (live) subjects, its AF all the way.
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Ive highlighted the bit in your post...see my opinion/response to woof woof/Alans post.
I just cant agree with you, that MF is best utilized for close up/macro.
For me, and my chosen (live) subjects, its AF all the way.
If that works for you then use AF, simple. But most macro photographers will tell you the same, for extreme close ups MF is so much better, AF often misses - say the eyes of a bug close up, it suddenly shifts position you're having to half press to try AF lock again where with MF you simply follow. I wouldn't like to be trying to AF lock onto a small flying insect at 1:1 that's for sure. With practice, you cannot beat MF IMHO, it's tricky to get the hang of but once you do I think it's far superior. I am only talking 1:1 or greater here, a little further back when more of the subject is likely to stay in focus then sure, AF is fine. I use both, I just find MF more precise the closer in you get. There is no real right or wrong just whatever works best for you. But if you can get along with MF it opens you up to many more macro options. Tonnes of budget friendly MF macro lenses out there that are excellent quality.
 
Last edited:
Messages
676
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hi

What’s the consensus on Macro with the G9? Is there a lens that’s considered the best? Oly 60? Panasonic 45? Any other options?

Cheers

Andy
What close up/macro subjects will you be shooting?

Whilst ive only just joined the MFT brigade myself, im also looking at the Oly 60mm macro lens. I think it would work well, either on its own, or with a Raynox/close up filter attached.

This last weekend, i used a panny G7, with the 12-60mm, an a Canon 250D close up filter attached. Because my subjects were very small butterflies, i had the lens at 60mm all the time.

An example image from this last Saturday. Once again, the wind played a part, in making any decent shots quite difficult.

Brown Argus Butterfly(male). 22mm-28mm wingspan! Image is not cropped. Manual. f/8. 1/320. ISO-400. 60mm. AF, Jpeg, Handeld.

With this image, the butterfly was perched on a 4 foot grass stem, in the middle of a meadow, the wind was throwing the long grasses all over the place, when the sun came out, since this specimen had freshly emerged, all he wanted to do was spread his wings out as wide as possible, in order to bask in the sun. A good chance for me to try and capture the whole of the butterfly in focus - meaning - all four wings, body, head, antennae. Not easy to do this, with such a
small butterfly, an a thin focal plain etc. I almost got this, but generally, one wing tip will not quite be like the other 3 wing tips. P1050847-copy-to-600.jpg

EDIT - perhaps i should have shot this at f/9 to f/12, but then the background would not have been so uncluttered/busy?
 
Last edited:
Messages
676
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
If that works for you then use AF, simple. But most macro photographers will tell you the same, for extreme close ups MF is so much better, AF often misses - say the eyes of a bug close up, it suddenly shifts position you're having to half press to try AF lock again where with MF you simply follow. I wouldn't like to be trying to AF lock onto a small flying insect at 1:1 that's for sure. With practice, you cannot beat MF IMHO, it's tricky to get the hang of but once you do I think it's far superior. I am only talking 1:1 or greater here, a little further back when more of the subject is likely to stay in focus then sure, AF is fine. I use both, I just find MF more precise the closer in you get. There is no real right or wrong just whatever works best for you. But if you can get along with MF it opens you up to many more macro options. Tonnes of budget friendly MF macro lenses out there that are excellent quality.
Thats the problem right there, defining macro/close up...there are so many different levels of macro...you have close up/macro/extreme macro/ultra macro!!???
Its all a bit confusing...but for me, when dealing with live subjects (that havent been cooled down in a plastic bag in a freezer) yes, that stuff goes on!!! then i cant see how you have the time to get that close up into a small bug, an faff around with MF...AF is quicker, used with burst, its easier surely.
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Thats the problem right there, defining macro/close up...there are so many different levels of macro...you have close up/macro/extreme macro/ultra macro!!???
Its all a bit confusing...but for me, when dealing with live subjects (that havent been cooled down in a plastic bag in a freezer) yes, that stuff goes on!!! then i cant see how you have the time to get that close up into a small bug, an faff around with MF...AF is quicker, used with burst, its easier surely.
Well I did say 1:1 to begin with ;) Some would say true macro = 1:1 or greater magnification, I'm not so snobby - I think anything beyond 1:2 can be considered macro, anything less than that I will call close up. Just keep it simple, it's not something worth worrying about. But when I mentioned MF to start with, it was in relation to the Oly 60mm at 1:1 - it has a specific switch to get to that magnification and AF will be slower. MF is going to be easier here. I don't find AF useful when at that kind of magnification, like I say if it does work well for you then you have no need to change your style
 
Last edited:
Messages
676
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Well I did say 1:1 to begin with ;) Some would say true macro = 1:1 or greater magnification, I'm not so snobby - I think anything beyond 1:2 can be considered macro, anything less than that I will call close up. Just keep it simple, it's not something worth worrying about. But when I mentioned MF to start with, it was in relation to the Oly 60mm at 1:1 - it has a specific switch to get to that magnification and AF will be slower. MF is going to be easier here. I don't find AF useful when at that kind of magnification, like I say if it does work well for you then you have no need to change your style
No problems mate, its all good ;)...i dont just shoot close up butterflies...I also do some macro as well.
I'll give you a couple of examples, but they are not cropped images, they are as usual, just down sized.
One other thing, they are not MFT either...but i havent had a chance to see how well the G7 will do with getting even closer to the Bugs!
One thing they are though, is all shot using AF. I guess the point im making is - you can use AF for different levels of macro/close up.
I dont ever stack images either, all my images are single/one shot.

Jumping Spider, preying on a Fly(garden photo, 1 of 4 pics) uncropped. 29th-August-2018.
by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Giant House Spider (f). garden photo. (uncropped). 28th-April-2018.
by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
Messages
1,572
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, back to MFT I come. Tried the Fuji 100-400 (lovely but heavy) and the Sony 100-400GM again... (lovely, heavy, large).... the 200-600 looks great but absolutely huge and I just preferred the more discreet size of the Pana 100-400, and there's almost nothing in the images between the A7/100-400GM cropped and the MFT 800mm equivalent for my usage. For now, a G80 as I usually try and stay a generation behind on bodies.

The Oly E-M1 v2 and the G9 both on my watch list, as is the Olympus 45/1.8 courtesy of some beautiful pics over in the Oly thread!
 
Last edited:
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
If that works for you then use AF, simple. But most macro photographers will tell you the same, for extreme close ups MF is so much better, AF often misses - say the eyes of a bug close up, it suddenly shifts position you're having to half press to try AF lock again where with MF you simply follow. I wouldn't like to be trying to AF lock onto a small flying insect at 1:1 that's for sure. With practice, you cannot beat MF IMHO, it's tricky to get the hang of but once you do I think it's far superior. I am only talking 1:1 or greater here, a little further back when more of the subject is likely to stay in focus then sure, AF is fine. I use both, I just find MF more precise the closer in you get. There is no real right or wrong just whatever works best for you. But if you can get along with MF it opens you up to many more macro options. Tonnes of budget friendly MF macro lenses out there that are excellent quality.
This is it for me although I wouldn't say that AF necessarily misses as maybe it'll focus on something but that something may not be the thing I want to be the point of focus.

I don't tend to take bug shots but for flowers and leaves and stuff like that I find AF ok unless I want to look closely and sadly I often do :D and when I do I might think that AF has hit (for example) the stamen when I wanted it to hit the centre of the flower or vice versa and with hairs and bristles and things like that which stick out and give the subject too much depth to hide any slight focus miss or wrong hit in the depth of field AF may hit the tip or may hit something with more contrast. With anything with an uneven surface, colours, textures and contrasts including hairs, ridges or anything else I prefer to choose the point of focus rather than leaving it to AF which may well lock onto something... but I may disagree with the choice :D
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Well, back to MFT I come. Tried the Fuji 100-400 (lovely but heavy) and the Sony 100-400GM again... (lovely, heavy, large).... the 200-600 looks great but absolutely huge and I just preferred the more discreet size of the Pana 100-400, and there's almost nothing in the images between the A7/100-400GM cropped and the MFT 800mm equivalent for my usage. For now, a G80 as I usually try and stay a generation behind on bodies.

The Oly E-M1 v2 and the G9 both on my watch list, as is the Olympus 45/1.8 courtesy of some beautiful pics over in the Oly thread!
The Oly 45mm f1.8 is I think a very nice lens and very compact too. I bought a used silver one for a nice price. My Oly 17, 25 and 45mm f1.8's were all bought used and are all the silver versions.
 
Messages
1,572
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks, yes there are a host of lenses that interest me. Honestly, I couldn't warm to many of the Sony lenses [I have no idea why, they're all superb optically - possibly just the price, maybe?] but the MFT 15/1.7, the 25/1.4 'Lux, the 42.5/1.7 or the 45/1.8, the 75/1.8.... just so many nice options, and none too expensive as to be prohibitively out of reach. The 'pro' tagged stuff from Oly and Pana looks wonderful, too - the f/1.2 selections render wonderfully .... but for now I bought the G80 for reach.

I'll allow myself a single prime. I shot the 35/2.8 on the Sony A7, and I like the wide angle portrait, but maybe it's time to switch it up a little. Even going beyond the standard 50, maybe the 42.5 or the 45 should be the one for now!
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking about getting the Panasonic 12mm f1.4, it's a focal length I use a lot.
Will have to shift either Oly 12-40 f2.8 or Panasonic 12-35 II f2.8 first.
Both have their strong and weak points, really struggling to decide, but daft keeping both.
Had to compare them otherwise would have always wondered about it.
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I've thought about a 12mm prime but I've always decided against it because I don't tend to use that focal length for low light shooting and when using a length like that for good light shooting I almost always stop it down and once I've done that I might as well be using my 12-35mm f2.8 or even my 14-42mm f3.5-5.6.

I can see two advantages to the 12mm f1.4, low light and DoF. But then there's the cost.
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'm thinking about getting the Panasonic 12mm f1.4, it's a focal length I use a lot.
Will have to shift either Oly 12-40 f2.8 or Panasonic 12-35 II f2.8 first.
Both have their strong and weak points, really struggling to decide, but daft keeping both.
Had to compare them otherwise would have always wondered about it.
You'll get more for the Pany selling on, they seem to go for a fair bit more than the Oly used. The 12-40 was my favorite M43 lens, not that I used a tonne, but if I was only allowed to pick one lens for the system it would be that.
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
You'll get more for the Pany selling on, they seem to go for a fair bit more than the Oly used. The 12-40 was my favorite M43 lens, not that I used a tonne, but if I was only allowed to pick one lens for the system it would be that.
I've read quite a few people saying that the Oly is the better lens so that's a bit surprising. I'm happy enough with my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 mk1. I've never had the chance to try the Oly.
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I've read quite a few people saying that the Oly is the better lens so that's a bit surprising. I'm happy enough with my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 mk1. I've never had the chance to try the Oly.
It is apparently better, it is said to be sharper and it's got better magnification for close ups. I've never used the Pany 12-35 mk1 or II but I know my copy of the 12-40 was tack sharp at all FL and apertures. Lovely lens to use. But it still goes for cheaper on the used market, maybe because the Pany mkII is newer? But where you might see the Oly go for £400 or [actually, often] less, the Pany mkII often gets over 500 used. I sold my 12-40 for €400, which is about £350, and bar not having the box it was in excellent condition
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I've thought about a 12mm prime but I've always decided against it because I don't tend to use that focal length for low light shooting and when using a length like that for good light shooting I almost always stop it down and once I've done that I might as well be using my 12-35mm f2.8 or even my 14-42mm f3.5-5.6.

I can see two advantages to the 12mm f1.4, low light and DoF. But then there's the cost.
A lot of my photos are buildings and transport in less than favourable lighting conditions
Also fancy a dabble at a bit of night sky photography, pretty free of light pollution on the RSPB reserve a ten minute wander up the road.
Been through the photos from my latest trip and quite a few are 12mm or 14mm, guess architecture is likely to be
Other option I am considering is a trade in for a 8-18 from either company, they are heavy though

It is apparently better, it is said to be sharper and it's got better magnification for close ups. I've never used the Pany 12-35 mk1 or II but I know my copy of the 12-40 was tack sharp at all FL and apertures. Lovely lens to use. But it still goes for cheaper on the used market, maybe because the Pany mkII is newer? But where you might see the Oly go for £400 or [actually, often] less, the Pany mkII often gets over 500 used. I sold my 12-40 for €400, which is about £350, and bar not having the box it was in excellent condition
Both have their pros and cons, Oly is definitely better at 12mm and Pana gets the nod at 35mm.
Not noticing the Dual IS making much difference, maybe if my camera had the newer Ver 2 it might be more significant.
The Pana is lighter and more compact, Oly is fairly front heavy so the smaller lens balances a lot better on my GX9.

Oly definitely better close up, there again I have a Pana 35-100 f2.8 so filter size of 58mm would be the same as the 12-35
Thought the 12-35 would focus quicker of the two on a compatible Pana body, but nothing in it at all

The colour and contrast is subtly different, think in my opinion the Pana is nicer, bit crisper if that makes any sense.
Really is a close call and not decided yet, got a TP meet in London coming up
Will try the newer 12-35 out then, usually a good variety of subjects so should be a fair test

No doubt daft getting the 12-35. but one of those things I had to try otherwise would have kept wondering which suited me best.
At the moment its the cheaper, heavier, bigger Oly in pole position mainly because its excellent at 12mm
I had the Oly 12mm f2 and the 12-40 is equally good, that was a surprise, but the faster 1.4 prime would be handy at times
Subject to change after a better evaluation, wish I could combine the two really

On the subject of price, I enquired at one camera shop with a number of branches for a trade in price on the Pana against a used 12mm prime
Derisory offer of £300 for an easily 4/5 condition lens, dread to think what they would value the 12-40 at?
I know they have overheads and all the other salient points, but some places are downright greedy too
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,152
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Considering a GX9 (or a Fuji X100F) as I make a return to camera ownership. Looking back through the pictures taken with a multitude of cameras/lenses, it is the range finder style body I seem to favour - or certainly the ones I owned the longest. Still got a soft spot for the GF1 & 20mm combo many years ago.

As before, it’ll be a travel type camera with a small selection of mid range primes e.g. 14mm, 20mm, 45mm etc. Nice and discrete and pocketable.

Much love for the GX bodies in here?
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Considering a GX9 (or a Fuji X100F) as I make a return to camera ownership. Looking back through the pictures taken with a multitude of cameras/lenses, it is the range finder style body I seem to favour - or certainly the ones I owned the longest. Still got a soft spot for the GF1 & 20mm combo many years ago.

As before, it’ll be a travel type camera with a small selection of mid range primes e.g. 14mm, 20mm, 45mm etc. Nice and discrete and pocketable.

Much love for the GX bodies in here?
Rich and Alan above both use GX bodies - never have myself, the only 2 M43 bodies I've owned were the original em5 and the Panasonic G80. I much prefer the mini dslr type but plenty of people do prefer the RF style.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Rich and Alan above both use GX bodies - never have myself, the only 2 M43 bodies I've owned were the original em5 and the Panasonic G80. I much prefer the mini dslr type but plenty of people do prefer the RF style.
This is true, I have a couple of GX9's and they are in the top three of my favourite ever cameras.
Had Fuji R/F style bodies too, but these have IBIS which is a massive bonus for me.
Few little gripes, but never found a perfect camera, these come pretty close though.
Total bargain and even better with the cashback, any questions just ask
One thing I would recommend is the extended eyecup, makes a big difference to using the evf
Tried the extra grip, didn't really need it plus its a crap design that blocks the battery/card door
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Quick update on the 12-40 v 12-35 II comparison

After an hour or so of exacting tests under controlled conditions or some photos of various items on my mantelpiece
Oly continues to delight at 12mm even wide open, Pana is much improved stopped down slightly.
12-35 smokes the Oly at 35mm, really is close with both having such strong points at either end of the focal range
Might just keep them both, probably cheaper than getting a high quality 12mm
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Quick update on the 12-40 v 12-35 II comparison

After an hour or so of exacting tests under controlled conditions or some photos of various items on my mantelpiece
Oly continues to delight at 12mm even wide open, Pana is much improved stopped down slightly.
12-35 smokes the Oly at 35mm, really is close with both having such strong points at either end of the focal range
Might just keep them both, probably cheaper than getting a high quality 12mm
I must have had a very good copy, as I found it very sharp at all focal lengths. But, admittedly I mostly just used either end, 12mm or 40 .. maybe 35 is a bit of a weak spot?
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I must have had a very good copy, as I found it very sharp at all focal lengths. But, admittedly I mostly just used either end, 12mm or 40 .. maybe 35 is a bit of a weak spot?
Its not exactly bad and I was more than happy with it, just that the 12-35 is really good.
You only see it when comparing the two, just looked and other reviews agree
Bit like the Pana at 12mm, more than acceptable, but the Oly is exceptional for a zoom
Bloody annoying they are polar opposites in peak performance
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Its not exactly bad and I was more than happy with it, just that the 12-35 is really good.
You only see it when comparing the two, just looked and other reviews agree
Bit like the Pana at 12mm, more than acceptable, but the Oly is exceptional for a zoom
Bloody annoying they are polar opposites in peak performance
Yeah it would be very nice to have the best of both. But you're right, I couldn't compare the two, I guess the 12-40 was 'sharp enough' for me :) I mostly used it at that FL for close ups where most of the image was OOF anyway
 
Messages
7,300
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Nice and discrete and pocketable.
Much love for the GX bodies in here?
I like discrete, I like a tilt-up screen, and I love my GX80+45-150mm combo for about town. The 25mm f/1.7 (nifty-fifty equiv) is nice too. None of it is what I'd call pocketable, but messenger-bag-able, and I love a wrist strap ... added discretion too. :cool:

I've grown used to no evf after using a canon G7X (1" sensor) with tilt-up screen. So don't bother with it when using the GX80, and I've overcome the problem of occasionally losing the focus point on the screen on a sunny day by assigning function button 1 to highlight it.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah it would be very nice to have the best of both. But you're right, I couldn't compare the two, I guess the 12-40 was 'sharp enough' for me :) I mostly used it at that FL for close ups where most of the image was OOF anyway
Sharp enough for me too and it will be the wide end that sways me, think it was a surprise more than anything else.
I have a 35-100 f2.8 and that is very good at 35 and up to about 75, falls off a bit after that.
So got the long end dealt with if needed, beginning to wish I hadn't bothered messing about
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Sharp enough for me too and it will be the wide end that sways me, think it was a surprise more than anything else.
I have a 35-100 f2.8 and that is very good at 35 and up to about 75, falls off a bit after that.
So got the long end dealt with if needed, beginning to wish I hadn't bothered messing about
I had the Samyang 12mm F2 manual lens, and the Oly was sharper than that at 2.8 I would say, though that Samyang is decent. No idea how it might stack up to the PL 12 1.4 though, that looks a fine lens but it is pricey
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I had the Samyang 12mm F2 manual lens, and the Oly was sharper than that at 2.8 I would say, though that Samyang is decent. No idea how it might stack up to the PL 12 1.4 though, that looks a fine lens but it is pricey
Not sure how much sharper ot could be, but those extra stops would come in mighty handy at times.
Decisions, decisions, think one will have to go if I get the prime, like to finance my gear by selling surplus stuff.
Got a travel pot which most of the spare cash goes in and got three further trips booked for this year.
I'm sure Eurostar know i'm weak because they keep sending me emails with tempting deals.
No point having this gear with nowhere to use it although I have cut right back on my kit.
Two cameras (need a spare when travelling) and four lenses, that's it for me now.
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Not sure how much sharper ot could be, but those extra stops would come in mighty handy at times.
Decisions, decisions, think one will have to go if I get the prime, like to finance my gear by selling surplus stuff.
Got a travel pot which most of the spare cash goes in and got three further trips booked for this year.
I'm sure Eurostar know i'm weak because they keep sending me emails with tempting deals.
No point having this gear with nowhere to use it although I have cut right back on my kit.
Two cameras (need a spare when travelling) and four lenses, that's it for me now.
I'm still buying and selling and hustling my way to the ideal kit, it'll probably never happen! :D Have a guy coming to buy a 35 F2 from me Friday, if he does then I'm looking at a 16mm 1.4 which would be similar to the 12 you're after. I'm not sure if I'll get along well with that FL in a prime [I didn't hold on to the Samy 12 F2 as it didn't do it for me] but I'd like to give it another try as it has a few things I do like in a lens. Wide aperture obviously, supposedly sharp as heck and it's got decent close focusing - much as I like a 35 [25 on M43 I guess] I do find them a little boring. Trying to broaden my style a bit
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm still buying and selling and hustling my way to the ideal kit, it'll probably never happen! :D Have a guy coming to buy a 35 F2 from me Friday, if he does then I'm looking at a 16mm 1.4 which would be similar to the 12 you're after. I'm not sure if I'll get along well with that FL but I'd like to give it a try as it has a few things I do like in a lens. Wide aperture obviously, supposedly sharp as heck and it's got decent close focusing - much as I like a 35 [25 on M43 I guess] I do find them a little boring. Trying to broaden my style a bit
I have tried all the mid range primes on Fuji and ended up only owning the 10-24
The 16mm is supposed to be excellent, must be the only one I didn't ever own
Had the 14,18, 23, 27, 35, 50 and 60 at various times, if only their cameras had ibis back then.

Hope it works out, if not they have always seem very saleable on the used market
 
Messages
13,052
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I have tried all the mid range primes on Fuji and ended up only owning the 10-24
The 16mm is supposed to be excellent, must be the only one I didn't ever own
Had the 14,18, 23, 27, 35, 50 and 60 at various times, if only their cameras had ibis back then.

Hope it works out, if not they have always seem very saleable on the used market
It was lack of IBIS had me switch to M43 at the time. The XH1 was too pricey when it did show up fr my liking, took a while for it to get where I wanted it. So far so good. It was that or the G9, I wouldn't have been sad with either. I don't fancy the 10-24 much, as I don't like crazy wide - the 16 is about as wide as I'd go and I like that it's 1.4. The other lens I fancy is the 90mm F2, a more restrictive lens perhaps but you know I would double it as a macro too :D
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Stuck a wanted ad up for a P14/P15/P20/O45 prime :wave:
I looked on Camera jungle earlier to see if they had a 12, no joy.
They did have a mint 42.5mm that with the 15% off would come in under two hundred quid.
Supposed to be very good and has OIS so would probably offer dual is with the GX9
I can recommend the 25 f1.4, very sharp and photos have a nice look to them.
 
Last edited:
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Ref GX9, I like it but I see no real difference between the 20mp GX9 and 16mp GX80, some see it but I don't which I suppose makes the GX9 better as the extre 4mp seem to be free... with no hit to image quality.

With the GX9 you also get the tilting evf and physical af mode switch plus and maybe more importantly you get exposure comp in manual exposure mode. If these things don't matter the GX80 is well worth a look and it's cheaper.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I had both and prefer the GX9, i'm one of those who can see a difference.
Might not be the extra pixels, think the jpeg algorithms were altered a bit.
The new monochrome settings are a nice addition too
 
Messages
1,200
Edit My Images
No
With the GX9 you also get the tilting evf...
I've yet to find a use for the tilting finder on the GX7 but I just know that one day it's going to be exactly what I need...

...that'll be the day on which I'll be carrying a different outfit. :sulk:
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I have two uses for the tilting evf.

The first is when holding the camera at a lower position where I can't easily look straight at the evf in its normal position and the second is when taking pictures of people or even just general stuff as I sometimes have the evf tilted so that I can easily look up at my subject and then back down at the evf. I think that sometimes it's nice especially when taking people pictures to not have the camera covering your face.

I originally thought I wouldn't bother with it much when I got my GX7 but I ended up really liking the feature and it is one thing that I miss with the GX80.
 
Top