"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[Crotal Bell]

I'm not a long lens user but just snapping birds in the garden has shown me that to get a bird big in the frame even with a crop you need a long lens and to close the distance as much as possible.

I must admit that's where the FZ82 comes into it's own, even with that small sensor it can do really well in the right situation with the long zoom range.

 

[Sangoma]

It's a good question, and I think the answer is beginning to surface. A bird in flight at distance that needs a heavy crop won't be saved by 4MP.
But get the shot right with 16MP and it will look fine.....if you get it right !

I think that is about it

Putting the two cameras on a tripod, and taking pictures of a static object 6" high and 470' away (my normal test), then cropping to that object , you can see a difference quite clearly.

But the longer the lens, and the further away the subject, and the more you crop, the more effect any camera movement, shutter shock, heat haze etc has on the result, and if the subject is moving it doesn't make things any easier.
Any resolution is unlikely to save a shot " A bird in flight at distance that needs a heavy crop won't be saved by 4MP" unless everything else is right, and if it was, it probably wouldn't need saving.

I'm sure one day you will have the need (desire) to upgrade, but at the moment it won't give you the instant fix you would like.

If you do look one day, although the GX9 has some of the features of the G9, and the same sensor, it is also lacking many features of the G9, which for me many of them are what makes the G9 what it is Here's a brief comparison https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-gx9-vs-panasonic-g9

 

[d00d]

I think Keith is interested in cropping so rather than show them at the same magnification I increased the magnification from the 16mp camera to match the 20mp one.

Anyway, Keith has access to the raws and can make his own mind up.

Alan, are you saying that the M43 camera with the 16mp sensor and the M43 camera with the 20mp sensor, with the same lens mounted, don't have the same FoV?

 

[tijuana taxi]

My view and i'm sure one or two will disagree and be able to show examples to back their claim.
Anyway I think with such a specialised subject it mostly comes down to that old chestnut, money or lack of.

I faced this quandary about fifteen years ago when I wanted to get into wildlife photography.
All the usual commitments, family, mortgage and just generally lots of other things that came first.
It became apparent to get the results I wanted it would need one of the long primes such as the 500/4
Also a new camera, think at the time the best option was the 1d Mkiv with its 1.3x crop factor.
Nearest I got was a 7D and 400/5.6, didn't really work for me and I became rather disillusioned.

Still the same these days and most of the good stationary and in flight photos are taken with relatively expensive gear.
Technique can only do so much if what you desire is beyond the capabilities of the gear you own.
Small subjects ideally need to fill the frame and no amount of cropping or digital wizardry can change that.
Comes down to invest quite a bit more or get the best you can from your existing kit and available funds.

 

[d00d]

Yep, serious biffers use the 100-400. The 100-300 doesn't cut the mustard.

I'm hopeless with both.

But I feel comfortable with the Pana 45-150 for a walk around. I'm so glad I got that lens as recommended on this thread.

 

[delb0y]

I'm in Wales at the moment and just been to Elan Valley with my G9 and took the Lumix 12-35 f2.8 with me. First time I've used that lens so will be interesting to see how the pictures look. It's replaced the PL 12-60 f4 (now on my gx9).

I've just bought this lens to go on my G80. I can't believe I've had it several days and haven't taken it out yet. Won't be for a few days either - life is just getting in the way at the moment.

Regarding Birds in Flight - I've managed a couple of decent shots (composition and focus-wise, not artistic or content-wise) on the G80 / 100-300 combination. As I said elsewhere the G80 has some strange tendencies when on tracking mode but, that aside, I think the secret is probably to take several thousand shots, try different configurations, and just practice practice practice before thinking about changing gear.

 

[Stephen L]

If you do look one day, although the GX9 has some of the features of the G9, and the same sensor, it is also lacking many features of the G9, which for me many of them are what makes the G9 what it is Here's a brief comparison https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-gx9-vs-panasonic-g9

Yes. I have both. I don't think it's fair to compare the two cameras as they have different markets - I use the GX9 as a carry-round with a couple of light primes in my pocket, but if I'm out on a specific photographic intent, then I carry the G9 with whatever lenses in a backpack till I get to the destination.

 

[woof woof]

Alan, are you saying that the M43 camera with the 16mp sensor and the M43 camera with the 20mp sensor, with the same lens mounted, don't have the same FoV?

Not at all.

I took two pretty much identical pictures with the two cameras, 16 and 20mp, and the same lens but cropped one 120% and the other 100%. Maybe that's not what Keith wanted but the point was to show how the 16mp camera picture looked when matching the magnification of the 20mp one. I also supplied Keith with the raws and jpegs.

Personally I think there's little to be gained going from 16 to 20mp if you already have a 16mp camera. Others may disagree but I wouldn't bother swapping from one to the other unless other features or abilities came with the swap other than just the increase in mp.

I've said this before in this thread and others disagree and see advantages in the 20mp cameras. I just don't see anything that significant between them and I'd use either and not deliberately choose one over the other. As mentioned above by Stephen, maybe the differences would be more obvious looking at identical prints side by side but how often do we get the chance to do that as the light can change from second to second.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If you're photographing subjects far away (and which you cannot approach more closely) then more pixels = more options,
.
Otherwise, of course, the difference is less important.

 

[Crotal Bell]

If you're photographing subjects far away (and which you cannot approach more closely) then more pixels = more options,
.
Otherwise, of course, the difference is less important.

View attachment 362668

You have hit the nail on the head with this example.
I realise that many of the close up (and stunning) bird images I see are taken with lenses the size of traffic cones, and I will never own such equipment, however, my modest wildlife efforts would be a bit sharper if I had a few more pixels in the camera.

 

[Crotal Bell]

My view and i'm sure one or two will disagree and be able to show examples to back their claim.
Anyway I think with such a specialised subject it mostly comes down to that old chestnut, money or lack of.

I faced this quandary about fifteen years ago when I wanted to get into wildlife photography.
All the usual commitments, family, mortgage and just generally lots of other things that came first.
It became apparent to get the results I wanted it would need one of the long primes such as the 500/4
Also a new camera, think at the time the best option was the 1d Mkiv with its 1.3x crop factor.
Nearest I got was a 7D and 400/5.6, didn't really work for me and I became rather disillusioned.

Still the same these days and most of the good stationary and in flight photos are taken with relatively expensive gear.
Technique can only do so much if what you desire is beyond the capabilities of the gear you own.
Small subjects ideally need to fill the frame and no amount of cropping or digital wizardry can change that.
Comes down to invest quite a bit more or get the best you can from your existing kit and available funds.

Wise words and I can relate to this.

 

[woof woof]

You have hit the nail on the head with this example.
I realise that many of the close up (and stunning) bird images I see are taken with lenses the size of traffic cones, and I will never own such equipment, however, my modest wildlife efforts would be a bit sharper if I had a few more pixels in the camera.

I suppose another thing to consider for birds in flight if that's an interest is that Panasonic use Depth From Defocus and this is thought by some to be less good for focus tracking than the phase detect some Olympus MFT cameras use.

I took a quick look at the Oly range recently and found it baffling and disappointing with alphabet soup naming, shutter shock and a lack of custom modes being the issues that struck me most.

The Oly thread could be a good place to ask questions if interested.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I've just bought this lens to go on my G80. I can't believe I've had it several days and haven't taken it out yet. Won't be for a few days either - life is just getting in the way at the moment.

Regarding Birds in Flight - I've managed a couple of decent shots (composition and focus-wise, not artistic or content-wise) on the G80 / 100-300 combination. As I said elsewhere the G80 has some strange tendencies when on tracking mode but, that aside, I think the secret is probably to take several thousand shots, try different configurations, and just practice practice practice before thinking about changing gear.

Can I ask your advice please, the fixed focus wheel on the back of the camera, I usually have it in AFC.
Do you use this or do you set it on the AFS/AFF option.
Or when do you use both?

Thanks.

 

[Stephen L]

A couple from a stroll round Malham yesterday, both with the GX9 and Leica 15mm. Intended to walk up to Janet's Foss and Gordale Scar, but it was packed with visitors - couldn't get near them!

Tree and Barn by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Malham Bridge by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[delb0y]

Can I ask your advice please, the fixed focus wheel on the back of the camera, I usually have it in AFC.
Do you use this or do you set it on the AFS/AFF option.
Or when do you use both?

Thanks.

Yes, for BiF, I set that to AFC. I have the mode dial on the top left set to the second option (continuous shooting) and in the menus I have the speed of continuous shooting set to medium - this generally gives me three or four shots per button press, I have the focus set to tracking - but as per my previous message, the jury is still on this on the G80.

Overall, I'm still learning, too, regarding BiF. So take anything I suggest with a very big pinch of wariness salt!

Cheers
Derek

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

... are taken with lenses the size of traffic cones,

There are some alternatives, which are smaller, lighter and a great deal cheaper but they will challenge your skills more.

The Tamron SP 500mm lens, on a M43 body, is equivalent to a 1000mm lens on full frame. This is capable of good results if you can hold it steady and focus it accurately. Whether it will work for a bird in flight, I couldn't say, but at a price of between £60 and £150 on the open market it's a good starting point.



It's fine for birds on a branch, I don't know about birds in flight though...

 

[Snapsh0t]

A mirror lens is not something I would choose for bif due to the very narrow dof. I once tried using a Sigma 600mm mirror lens on a film camera for a grass-track event and it was not the most successful outing I've ever had.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

A mirror lens is not something I would choose for bif due to the very narrow dof.

Agreed.

On the other hand, when the alternative is nothing, anything's worth trying.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Yes, for BiF, I set that to AFC. I have the mode dial on the top left set to the second option (continuous shooting) and in the menus I have the speed of continuous shooting set to medium - this generally gives me three or four shots per button press, I have the focus set to tracking - but as per my previous message, the jury is still on this on the G80.

Overall, I'm still learning, too, regarding BiF. So take anything I suggest with a very big pinch of wariness salt!

Cheers
Derek

Thanks for that, I use very similar if not the same so I hope we're both on the right track.

 

[Crotal Bell]

There are some alternatives, which are smaller, lighter and a great deal cheaper but they will challenge your skills more.

The Tamron SP 500mm lens, on a M43 body, is equivalent to a 1000mm lens on full frame. This is capable of good results if you can hold it steady and focus it accurately. Whether it will work for a bird in flight, I couldn't say, but at a price of between £60 and £150 on the open market it's a good starting point.

View attachment 362752

It's fine for birds on a branch, I don't know about birds in flight though...

View attachment 362753

Equivalent 1000mm sounds tempting even just for still animals.

 

[Crotal Bell]

A mirror lens is not something I would choose for bif due to the very narrow dof. I once tried using a Sigma 600mm mirror lens on a film camera for a grass-track event and it was not the most successful outing I've ever had.

What's a "mirror lens" and why is it different please?

 

[woof woof]

What's a "mirror lens" and why is it different please?

Mirror lens: What is it and how does it work?

In this article we look at the mirror lens, providing a guide to what it is for and how it works

www.whatdigitalcamera.com

May not be as optically good as a conventional lens, may give you unusual characterful bokeh, probably has a fixed aperture, may give you very little DoF, but may give you looooong reach at lower cost in a small package.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Mirror lens: What is it and how does it work?

In this article we look at the mirror lens, providing a guide to what it is for and how it works

www.whatdigitalcamera.com

May not be as optically good as a conventional lens, may give you unusual characterful bokeh, probably has a fixed aperture, may give you very little DoF, but may give you looooong reach at lower cost in a small package.

Thanks Alan.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

On the other hand, it may be as good as a conventional lens, you may like the bokeh and it always has a fixed aperture.

Some people love them, some hate them, some use them when they're the right tool for the job.

 

[d00d]

A couple from BBC TV Centre, Shebu, today.

Both Pana 12-60 lens at 12mm

 

[woof woof]

"Wot You in for then?"

"Refused order to put pronouns in bio."

"Really? That must give you the needle."

 

[Stephen L]

A few with my newly-acquired 12-60 cheapo lens, on the GX9. Happy with the iq so far, and it's so light. (sorry about the photo-bombing by Mistletoe)

Yellow by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Red by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Flowerpots by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[d00d]

A few with my newly-acquired 12-60 cheapo lens, on the GX9. Happy with the iq so far, and it's so light. (sorry about the photo-bombing by Mistletoe)

Yellow by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Red by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Flowerpots by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Love the first one. It's a great lens: focusses close, sharp & fast.

 

[Stephen L]

Love the first one. It's a great lens: focusses close, sharp & fast.

Thanks. The only thing I can fault it on so far is, because it’s mainly plastic construction, the zoom action is not as smooth as the Leica version.

 

[lunar22]

A couple from a stroll round Malham yesterday, both with the GX9 and Leica 15mm. Intended to walk up to Janet's Foss and Gordale Scar, but it was packed with visitors - couldn't get near them!

Tree and Barn by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Malham Bridge by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

I really like the composition and colours in this one. The Malham area can certainly get busy -- especially Malham Cove

 

[Stephen L]

I really like the composition and colours in this one. The Malham area can certainly get busy -- especially Malham Cove

Thanks David - seems to be the same for the whole of the Dales this year

 

[justa1972]

Thanks. The only thing I can fault it on so far is, because it’s mainly plastic construction, the zoom action is not as smooth as the Leica version.

I'm enjoying the Lumix 12-60 on my EM1 mk 3 - its not quite as god as the 12-45 (too be fair not much is) and I've learnt to really appreciate the constant f4 but the 12-60 range is really noticeable and as you say its soo light !

Did you sell the 8-18 ? I really like this lens - fits perfectly on the EM1

 

[Stephen L]

I'm enjoying the Lumix 12-60 on my EM1 mk 3 - its not quite as god as the 12-45 (too be fair not much is) and I've learnt to really appreciate the constant f4 but the 12-60 range is really noticeable and as you say its soo light !

Did you sell the 8-18 ? I really like this lens - fits perfectly on the EM1

Yes, the 8-18 has gone - with some regrets - but in reality I only used the wide end, so it’s been replaced by the Laowa 7.5mm. Focusing is really easy using either peaking or zone method. No pics from it yet, however.

 

[woof woof]

A couple more I took at the park the other day with my GM5 and 20mm f1.7.

It's such a small and light combination and with a useable EVF.

 

[Stephen L]

Had a ride out this afternoon along the beautiful Kingdale to Dent village. This is Dentdale taken from the top - several 1 in 3 descents down very narrow country lanes. GX9 with 12-60 f3.5/5.6 lens

Dentdale from Kingdale by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

I think this is my favourite from my trip to the park the other day. Also posted in the pictures taken today thread.

GM5 and 20mm f1.7.

It's not a wonky shot as the fountain is leaning. I wish it had been working though.

 

[wilki]

Is that Albert Park Alan?

 

[woof woof]

Is that Albert Park Alan?

It is. Albert Park, Middlesbrough.

Mrs WW was at a class 5 minutes walk away so I managed an hour in the park.

 

[wilki]

I knew it well, I was brought up in Ormesby - left Teesside in 1978. Walked through Albert Park many a time on my way to Ayresome Park

 

[woof woof]

I knew it well, I was brought up in Ormesby - left Teesside in 1978. Walked through Albert Park many a time on my way to Ayresome Park

I might get to go there a few times over coming weeks. I prefer Stewart Park though.