"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Messages
4,080
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I was reading the Olympus thread about the Panny 100-400 and put this in there by mistake.

Playing with the G9 6k pre-burst and the 100-400, my main complaint is the focusing slows right down, just like someone pulling a video focus for artistic reasons.

P1006011.jpg
 
Messages
2,405
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Just curious, anyone tried starlight AF? Apparently focus on the stars?
Does it work well? As good as manual fous? On wide angles?....

Done a fair bit of northern light photography with my previous camera in the past because I live in north scotland and always used manual focus.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Think Panasonic must have listened to their users about the GX9 stiff exp comp dial
Its much easier to use on my newer model and I can actually turn it with my thumb
Or perhaps its just looser and not by design, whatever its definitely an improvement
 
Messages
3,421
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.
In the next few weeks I'm going to probably (if I've managed to save enough money. Money is quite tight at the moment) be buying a used Gx80 and kit lense.
The camera seems to fit in with what I want it for and most likely a bit more, an everyday camera that I can carry around without the bulk of my Canon dslr.
My question is, is the kit lens OK, I know it won't match up to the faster lenses or the prime lenses, but I do like the compactness of it when not in use and the focal lengths are fine. In time I'm sure I will buy better lenses, but for now funds will only be for the body and kit lens.
 
Messages
1,201
Edit My Images
No
Sidmouth's Connaught Gardens Clock Tower. GM5 with Sigma 60mm...

Panasonic GM5_black 8GB 07 _1050528.JPG
 
Messages
3,152
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Hi all.
In the next few weeks I'm going to probably (if I've managed to save enough money. Money is quite tight at the moment) be buying a used Gx80 and kit lense.
The camera seems to fit in with what I want it for and most likely a bit more, an everyday camera that I can carry around without the bulk of my Canon dslr.
My question is, is the kit lens OK, I know it won't match up to the faster lenses or the prime lenses, but I do like the compactness of it when not in use and the focal lengths are fine. In time I'm sure I will buy better lenses, but for now funds will only be for the body and kit lens.
I think the majority of m43 lenses are decent enough. You don’t suffer from the need to micro-adjust the AF like a dslr. Clearly the faster lenses and primes are going to give better results than a kit lens, but I was impressed with some of the m43 kit lenses I have had e.g. the original 14-45.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm assuming you mean the 12-32, if so it's very good for its size and is stabilised too.
I didn't like it purely from a function point of view, too small to grip and it's retracting mechanism.
 
Messages
7,301
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.
In the next few weeks I'm going to probably (if I've managed to save enough money. Money is quite tight at the moment) be buying a used Gx80 and kit lense.
The camera seems to fit in with what I want it for and most likely a bit more, an everyday camera that I can carry around without the bulk of my Canon dslr.
My question is, is the kit lens OK, I know it won't match up to the faster lenses or the prime lenses, but I do like the compactness of it when not in use and the focal lengths are fine. In time I'm sure I will buy better lenses, but for now funds will only be for the body and kit lens.
Hi Dominic ... the gx80 is a good camera. Personally, I find the kit len - 12-32 - unexciting. I'm sure it's technically a good lens and maybe I should get out and use it more, but ...

The 25mm prime at £150

The 45-150mm at £180

are two ... inexpensive ... lenses I love.
 
Messages
7,301
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm assuming you mean the 12-32, if so it's very good for its size and is stabilised too.
I didn't like it purely from a function point of view, too small to grip and it's retracting mechanism.
Yes the 12-32 is a bit small to grip ... the kit doesn't feel good, well balanced, in your hands.
 
Last edited:
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Hi all.
In the next few weeks I'm going to probably (if I've managed to save enough money. Money is quite tight at the moment) be buying a used Gx80 and kit lense.
The camera seems to fit in with what I want it for and most likely a bit more, an everyday camera that I can carry around without the bulk of my Canon dslr.
My question is, is the kit lens OK, I know it won't match up to the faster lenses or the prime lenses, but I do like the compactness of it when not in use and the focal lengths are fine. In time I'm sure I will buy better lenses, but for now funds will only be for the body and kit lens.
There seem to be a few kit lenses with similar ranges and names. I had the old 14-42mm which I thought was pretty much faultless and I now have the tiny 14-42mm which again seems faultless to me and is the size of a prime lens. I think for a 14-42mm f3.5-5.6mm it's just about perfect and makes a great good light general purpose lens. I mostly use mine wide open and despite any bench review nit picking about sharpness I find it easily good enough.

This one...

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-ii-lens-review-21563
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,959
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.
In the next few weeks I'm going to probably (if I've managed to save enough money. Money is quite tight at the moment) be buying a used Gx80 and kit lense.
The camera seems to fit in with what I want it for and most likely a bit more, an everyday camera that I can carry around without the bulk of my Canon dslr.
My question is, is the kit lens OK, I know it won't match up to the faster lenses or the prime lenses, but I do like the compactness of it when not in use and the focal lengths are fine. In time I'm sure I will buy better lenses, but for now funds will only be for the body and kit lens.
Why not try and get the 12-60 kit lens?
Its a great lens.
 
Messages
3,421
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry should have said, the 12-32 is the lens I was talking about. Because I am looking at a used camera and lens, they tend to come with that lens. It looks like the best bet will be to wait until I have a bit more dosh and buy the camera and lens separately.
 
Messages
1,201
Edit My Images
No
Sorry should have said, the 12-32 is the lens I was talking about.
I have two specimens of that lens (they came on my GM5s) and they're both very good. They're compact, sharp and reliable. I did this shot with one of them just the other day...

Panasonic GH2 8GB 10 P1310874.JPG
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
7,301
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Here's my 12-32 kit lens, comes without a hood, I like hoods and dislike lens caps, so I fitted a step up ring for a bit of added protection, can take the filter and cap shown (if required) that belongs to my 25mm prime.

 
Messages
1,201
Edit My Images
No
Here's my 12-32 kit lens, comes without a hood
I found that Amazon do at least two hoods that will fit the 12-32 nicely: one with cut-outs (for that phony rangefinder look) and one without. Neither cost me more than £8.
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Isn't that the lens that doesn't have a focus ring? If it is I wouldn't even think about it as there are small kit lenses that do have one.
 
Messages
1,201
Edit My Images
No
That's the one, has the turn it in and out mechanism too.
I just don't see the need for a focussing ring these days. Some of my lenses have them but I just don't find them of any use.
 
Messages
350
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
Isn't that the lens that doesn't have a focus ring? If it is I wouldn't even think about it as there are small kit lenses that do have one.
Small lenses that go as wide as 12mm? That's a much bigger consideration for me than the focusing ring (I barely use them these days, especially in wider lenses).
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I just don't see the need for a focussing ring these days. Some of my lenses have them but I just don't find them of any use.
I use focus rings quite a bit as sometimes the camera focuses on the wrong thing or simply fails to focus at all. I just wouldn't think about buying a lens without a focus ring even if there's a fiddly/very fiddly way to do it or sort of do it with a slider on the back screen.

Small lenses that go as wide as 12mm? That's a much bigger consideration for me than the focusing ring (I barely use them these days, especially in wider lenses).
Given a choice between a starting point of 12 for a variable aperture zoom lens without a focus ring and 14mm for one with I'd pick the 14mm every single time as I need to be able to override AF sometimes. Plus of course I have the excellent 12-35mm f2.8.

Just a few examples where AF can struggle.

When shooting through foliage, branches etc for bird and squirrel shots or just detail shots of flowers, buds etc, when shooting though fences, sometimes even glass, sometimes when shooting something with higher contrast objects in front or behind and when shooting subjects with uneven surfaces such as flowers, leaves, butterflies and the like etc when the camera can focus on the wrong detail or at the wrong depth and sometimes of course the camera can fail to lock focus at all.

I've never really bought into the idea that you don't need to focus accurately with wide angle lenses because although that may be true for whole pictures viewed normally and for pictures in which any focus inaccuracy can be effectively hidden by DoF focus errors and inaccuracies will be visible if you look closely especially if there's something nearer to the camera.

I don't have anything wider than 17mm (FF) theses days but back when I had DSLR's my Sigma 12-24mm was for a time my most used lens and even at 12mm on FF focus accuracy mattered to me. No matter what the lens there's only one plane of focus and you simply can't always get everything in the DoF.

It's a personal choice but personally I just wouldn't touch a lens without a focus ring. Even my TZ100 allows me to over ride AF and go manual with relative ease.

I think it's worth thinking about the plus and minus points of this lens and any others like it. The plus points of this one being it starts at 12mm and it's compact and the minus being you can't easily take over and MF.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,301
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
The GX80 kit has been designed with compactness in mind. And it is compact for what it is. Looks like a pocket camera in the pictures, but it's not a pocket camera, and I, for one, don't hold it like a pocket camera. I want the lens in the palm of my hand, but this 12-32 is too small.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Nothing to do with a focus ring or lack of for me, just didn't like using it.
Don't like pancake style lenses, prefer having somewhere to place my hand to support the camera.
Also find its better for getting the camera positioned properly as in level and upright

Quality was ok, what you would expect from a 100 quids worth of kit lens, just not for me.
Gone the total opposite and have an Olympus 12-40 hanging off the front of my GX9
 
Messages
1,201
Edit My Images
No
I use focus rings quite a bit as sometimes the camera focuses on the wrong thing or simply fails to focus at all.
That's only ever happened to me when shooting through glass. Flicking the power off and on again gets round the problem nicely and it only happens rarely in any case. I often take pictures through the front windscreen of a double decker bus (one of the benefits of a bus pass) and this dome was only in sight for a second or two as the bus drove past - far too short a time to focus manually...

Panasonic G9 8GB 06 P1012132.JPG
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,301
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I would only ever want/need a focus ring for macro ... a thing I rarely do. And the 12-32 is not for macro ... of course. ;)
 
Messages
21,070
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
That's only ever happened to me when shooting through glass. Flicking the power off and on again gets round the problem nicely and it only happens rarely in any case. I often take pictures through the front windscreen of a double decker bus (one of the benefits of a bus pass)...
The way this lens works may suit some but it's just not for me at any price and if someone gave me one for free I'd happily pass it on again for free. It's not as if there aren't alternatives. YMMV.
 
Messages
11,627
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
The way this lens works may suit some but it's just not for me at any price and if someone gave me one for free I'd happily pass it on again for free. It's not as if there aren't alternatives. YMMV.
I sold mine for about seventy quid with a screw on metal hood.
 
Messages
2,405
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Gosh i've spend the evening trying on1, dxo, lightroom and I don't know what to think.

Dxo seem to win for noise reduction but i find the sharpening and some other element not very simple.
On1 is good but there is so much possibility it makes me doubt between the layer, the filters, the local adjustement, the preset,... i find it a bit danding.
LR i've used for years and I might continue to do so.

Now something i had never thought before but i've been shooting in jpeg after only shooting raw for the last (forever). And I can't really see so much difference in the output. I like what the jpeg do to the skin tones it seems to get a bit of the redness out nicely. I like how it handle the noise, i can barely do it as good in LR that what the camera does. Finaly there is just a few details which seems to go to the bin when the noise reduction is apply. I'm really wondering if I should shoot jpeg only.
 
Messages
384
Edit My Images
No
I'm really wondering if I should shoot jpeg only.
I shoot RAW+JPG. There are plenty of times the out of camera JPG is useful because it's immediately available to share and the RAW is always useful.
I'd be annoyed if I only had the JPG and could see there were edits I'd like to make but because of the format I'd end up with banding in a clear sky etc.
The additional files aren't that painful to manage and the extra storage isn't really significant any more either.
 
Messages
9,959
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm really wondering if I should shoot jpeg only.
I only shoot jpeg. I get some great results and have never thought "I wish I'd used raw".
It works for me. I have tried shooting in both raw and jpeg in the past.
I try to get as much right in camera, so editing is minimal.
If a shots not right, I bin it and try again the next time.
I appreciate that everyone has different opinions on that though.
 
Last edited:
Top