"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Sangoma said:
Yes, I'm sure they do, but then you can find reviews for just about anything saying whatever you like to hear, so I was hoping to hear what you thought was not good :)

For a general carry around, 14 is OK for me, usually if I want wider, then the whole day is usually wide, so I would use the 7-14. On Canon I used to use the 10-18, and then the 18-135 0r 18-200.

Is the Olympus 12-100 fully compatible in all aspects with Panasonic?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t utilise dual IS. I sold mine when I moved from an E-M1ii to the G9. Weight was also an issue.
 
Sangoma said:
Yes, I'm sure they do, but then you can find reviews for just about anything saying whatever you like to hear, so I was hoping to hear what you thought was not good :)

For a general carry around, 14 is OK for me, usually if I want wider, then the whole day is usually wide, so I would use the 7-14. On Canon I used to use the 10-18, and then the 18-135 0r 18-200.

Is the Olympus 12-100 fully compatible in all aspects with Panasonic?
Click to expand...
Sorry, never owned it, but when I briefly looked into it there were some performance cons.

The 12-100 is fully compatible apart from the IBIS, it relies on the lens stabilisation which is excellent.
I'm not the steadiest of people, but can get decent photos at 100mm hand held.
Probably as good as the G9 IBIS so more than happy with it, more importantly sharp from 12mm to 100mm wide open.
I can stick it on my G9 and go all day with just the one lens, anything from architecture, transport, people to landscapes.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Sorry, never owned it, but when I briefly looked into it there were some performance cons.

The 12-100 is fully compatible apart from the IBIS, it relies on the lens stabilisation which is excellent.
I'm not the steadiest of people, but can get decent photos at 100mm hand held.
Probably as good as the G9 IBIS so more than happy with it, more importantly sharp from 12mm to 100mm wide open.
I can stick it on my G9 and go all day with just the one lens, anything from architecture, transport, people to landscapes.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen those performance cons, I have seen that people consider it to be sharp, which I have found, and I find it can do all aspects too :)
14mm is 28mm on 35, and that used to be considered wide, and I enjoy the 280mm eq long end as well.

I for some reason have the feeling there are more dull days than bright days, so I find as much stabilisation as I can get increases options and opportunities.

The important part is that some features suit your ways best, and other features suit my ways best, and that of course does not just apply to "your" and "my", but to anyone making a choice.
 
Sangoma said:
I haven't seen those performance cons, I have seen that people consider it to be sharp, which I have found, and I find it can do all aspects too :)
14mm is 28mm on 35, and that used to be considered wide, and I enjoy the 280mm eq long end as well.

I for some reason have the feeling there are more dull days than bright days, so I find as much stabilisation as I can get increases options and opportunities.

The important part is that some features suit your ways best, and other features suit my ways best, and that of course does not just apply to "your" and "my", but to anyone making a choice.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I always considered wide as 24mm and below.
I do have the 8-18, but rarely use it especially now the 9mm/1.7 is another option.
Not overly convinced about dual is, sometimes think one is fighting the other and yes I had the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 versions.
You can't select just camera or lens, its like the 12-100 in a way which is lens or nothing.
 
Last edited:
I personally prefer a 24mm start too to my zoom lenses but I can live with a 28mm start if it has other benefits to doing so.
 
Had an hour to kill so I stuck the 100-300 on the G80 and cycled down to the canal. I saw a few beautiful birds - there was the kingfisher that was perched on the bridge motionless, right until I got my camera to my eye and then he flew away, and there was the buzzard that I followed along a farm track and he was always just too far away and flying away from me, and then when I got back on the road and was free-wheeling downhill there was the kestrel that flew right across the road in front of me, landed on a fence pole, waited until I stopped, turned around, got my camera out, and then he was gone... They know.

BIF 3.jpg
Damn!.jpg
 
The pic was used to promote the 12mm f/1.4

But what is that camera body: it looks awesome!


ske8xD6LULxRkjJj2LkkpE-1200-80.jpg.webp
 
d00d said:
The pic was used to promote the 12mm f/1.4

But what is that camera body: it looks awesome!


ske8xD6LULxRkjJj2LkkpE-1200-80.jpg.webp
Click to expand...
That is a GX8
Larger than the GX9, 1st gen 20mp with anti aliasing filter and mediocre IBIS.
Also had a reputation for shutter shock, never owned one so cannot confirm or deny that.
Some people love it, others less than keen, sold badly when launched, but made bit of a comeback.
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
Going back to all-in-one travel zooms, has anyone tried the Olympus 14-150mm? On paper it looks quite attractive, and not expensive.
Click to expand...
my wife still has that lens and occasionally I'll take a shot with it. It's softish by contemporary standards and not particularly high contrast but a pleasant rendering. When it first came out it was rated reasonably well among superzooms though that's perhaps not saying much. Probably the Panny 14-140 was better from memory.
 
Stephen L said:
Going back to all-in-one travel zooms, has anyone tried the Olympus 14-150mm? On paper it looks quite attractive, and not expensive.
Click to expand...
Make sure you get the newer 'II' version. It's maybe slightly worse than the Panasonic 14-140mm but there's not much in it. I've decided the keep the 14-140mm as it gives dual IS with my GX9 so I can put the 14-150mm II in the sales section if you're interested.
 
tijuana taxi said:
That is a GX8
Larger than the GX9, 1st gen 20mp with anti aliasing filter and mediocre IBIS.
Also had a reputation for shutter shock, never owned one so cannot confirm or deny that.
Some people love it, others less than keen, sold badly when launched, but made bit of a comeback.
Click to expand...
Thanks mate ... it looks nice. And with those water droplets. But yesterdays camera.
 
Snapsh0t said:
Make sure you get the newer 'II' version. It's maybe slightly worse than the Panasonic 14-140mm but there's not much in it. I've decided the keep the 14-140mm as it gives dual IS with my GX9 so I can put the 14-150mm II in the sales section if you're interested.
Click to expand...
I’ve decided to stay scared of super-zooms, and bought a Panasonic 45-150 for those few occasions I need something longer than 60mm. Initial tests do not disappoint.
 
Stephen L said:
I’ve decided to stay scared of super-zooms, and bought a Panasonic 45-150 for those few occasions I need something longer than 60mm. Initial tests do not disappoint.
Click to expand...
I am thinking along same lines too.
I have the 60mm macro so I'm thinking if I'm better off with a 100-300mm but that's a fair bit larger....
 
d00d said:
Thanks mate ... it looks nice. And with those water droplets. But yesterdays camera.
Click to expand...
It may not be the most up to date, but it is the GX I would like.
I don't like the grip shape and shutter position on the GX9
 
nandbytes said:
I am thinking along same lines too.
I have the 60mm macro so I'm thinking if I'm better off with a 100-300mm but that's a fair bit larger....
Click to expand...
It is quite small really for what it is, only 145mm long (with caps on) that's only about 20mm longer than the 45-200.

Very light on the camera too, I have found it does not like a UV filter on the front (and that might mean any filter) and it does like the lens hood on all the time.

Probably one of the more useful lenses all things considered.

The earlier Mega OIS ones are fairly inexpensive too :)
 
Sangoma said:
It may not be the most up to date, but it is the GX I would like.
I don't like the grip shape and shutter position on the GX9
Click to expand...
Yes, I really like the look of that bigger grip on the GX8.

And it kind of makes sense to position the shutter button on top of it.
 
nandbytes said:
So what is the difference between old and new versions?
Click to expand...
I don't know how many versions of each there are but the biggest difference it the older ones have Mega OIS and the newer ones have Power OIS, which meand with a body that has IBIS and supports dual system, you have dual stabilisation.
 
d00d said:
I find that pana 100-300 unwieldy. It's not so much its size & weight, but the long focal length ... best on a tripod when settling down for a days wildlife shooting, I imagine.

The 45-150 is a fab walkabout lens.

photos.app.goo.gl

Rebellion 10.10.19 · Oct 10 – 12, 2019

Shared album · Tap to view!
photos.app.goo.gl photos.app.goo.gl
Click to expand...
I find the 100-300 is fine. I found the 100-400 a bit tricky to start with, but OK once I got used to it. Hardly ever use a tripod.

I have a 45-150, which is amazingly light, often use it for close ups with a filter fitting close up lens, but I miss the wider end for a walk about and use the 14-140 for that.
 
d00d said:
I find that pana 100-300 unwieldy. It's not so much its size & weight, but the long focal length ... best on a tripod when settling down for a days wildlife shooting, I imagine.

The 45-150 is a fab walkabout lens.

photos.app.goo.gl

Rebellion 10.10.19 · Oct 10 – 12, 2019

Shared album · Tap to view!
photos.app.goo.gl photos.app.goo.gl
Click to expand...
I also found I hardly used my 100-300 because it was so big compared to my other lenses. I ended up selling it and sticking with the 45-150.
 
d00d said:
I'm thinking of getting one!
Click to expand...
Again, if you have a camera that offers dual stabilisation, you need the Power OIS.
The older Mega OIS is quite a bilt bigger and heavier too, the newer one is better all round. (there was a post explaining the differences in detail a couple of days ago)

It is not much bigger than the 12-60!
 
There's 2 or 3 lenses I fancy, but resisted because I've been thinking about a Fuji X100 or a Ricoh GR, something like that with a fixed lens.

In limbo :runaway:

I'd keep the Pana gear I've got.
 
d00d said:
There's 2 or 3 lenses I fancy, but resisted because I've been thinking about a Fuji X100 or a Ricoh GR, something like that with a fixed lens.

In limbo :runaway:

I'd keep the Pana gear I've got.
Click to expand...
there's a couple Leica Q2s in sales on this forum :ROFLMAO:
 
Sangoma said:
I find the 100-300 is fine. I found the 100-400 a bit tricky to start with, but OK once I got used to it. Hardly ever use a tripod.

I have a 45-150, which is amazingly light, often use it for close ups with a filter fitting close up lens, but I miss the wider end for a walk about and use the 14-140 for that.
Click to expand...
I think I can probably make do with the 8-18 and 45-200 for most instances and forgo the intermediate lengths. Although weight-wise it's not much of a saving to leave the 12-60 f4-5.6 at home. Saves on bulk though.

EDIT I mean the 45-150
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
I think I can probably make do with the 8-18 and 45-200 for most instances and forgo the intermediate lengths. Although weight-wise it's not much of a saving to leave the 12-60 f4-5.6 at home. Saves on bulk though.
Click to expand...
the 45-200mm doesn't seem to get good reviews though :(
 
d00d said:
I'd get mugged with one of those!

and I've just compared the Q2 with my GX80 ... so big & heavy.

leica-q2-vs-panasonic-gx80-front-a.jpg
Click to expand...

They're very different cameras at different price points but I do see the appeal of both.

I do like the build quality of the GX9 and the cheaper GX80 too, they do IMO feel really well made. As I may have said quite a few times :D Part of the appeal of the GX80 for me is that it's the cheaper and arguably less loved 16mp Cinderella camera and that all appeals to my inverse snobbery :D
 
Stephen L said:
I think I can probably make do with the 8-18 and 45-200 for most instances and forgo the intermediate lengths. Although weight-wise it's not much of a saving to leave the 12-60 f4-5.6 at home. Saves on bulk though.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would work, getting to 200 is not so easy to have complete coverage.
The 7-14, 14-140 gives an unbroken range, then the 100-400 take it to the top.
The 7-14 and 14-140 give a useful range, but I would like to get 200, but without gaps.
 
nandbytes said:
the 45-200mm doesn't seem to get good reviews though :(
Click to expand...
The reviews I have read do give it good reports though. Anyway, I don’t place a lot of value on most reviewers - there are only one or two who talk sense in my view. Initial tests in the back garden seem good to me. Especially if you stop down one stop.
 
Stephen L said:
The reviews I have read do give it good reports though. Anyway, I don’t place a lot of value on most reviewers - there are only one or two who talk sense in my view. Initial tests in the back garden seem good to me. Especially if you stop down one stop.
Click to expand...

I had a 45-200mm and was constantly disappointed by it. I did think that I just had a duff one but I have read others saying the same and I don't think I've personally seen a glowing review of it anywhere. The 45-150mm by comparison is an absolute revelation, sharp enough from wide open and consistently so.
 
Stephen L said:
The reviews I have read do give it good reports though. Anyway, I don’t place a lot of value on most reviewers - there are only one or two who talk sense in my view. Initial tests in the back garden seem good to me. Especially if you stop down one stop.
Click to expand...
I find it quite good, never seen any signs of it not being sharp, and contrast is good, quite a useful lens when the length is right.
 
Stephen L said:
The reviews I have read do give it good reports though. Anyway, I don’t place a lot of value on most reviewers - there are only one or two who talk sense in my view. Initial tests in the back garden seem good to me. Especially if you stop down one stop.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misread your post. I was referring to the 45-150 lens, which is the one I purchased! teach me to speed-read!!
 
d00d said:
I find that pana 100-300 unwieldy. It's not so much its size & weight, but the long focal length
Click to expand...
I find the 100~400mm quite good ergonomically. On the other hand, I wouldn't use it on anything smaller than the G9.
 
I'm debating getting a GX9...I like the rangefinder shape, and it seems a good model from what I can tell. Why am I getting it? Well, mostly as I'm bored of my Fuji system - I've used it a lot and it makes great pictures, and even writing this I'm still partially wondering why I'm doing it. There's no technical reason, mostly just want a change! There is the appeal of tiny telephoto lenses that you get with MFT, like the 35-100. I was taking pictures at my kid's football match and my 50-230mm fuji is fine but slow aperture, the 50-140 would be great but it's 1kg and big. I want to be more discrete and I usually have the younger kids with me, so I can't be managing a big setup and chasing after them and carrying them etc.

I know it has a smaller sensor and the technical physical differences, but I doubt I'll notice them. The size is what appeals to me. Not sure what I asking...people to tell me I'm stupid/buy it? General feedback from those that have the GX9 would be good, plus if you've used Fuji what you've noticed. thanks.
 
Ahhyes said:
I'm debating getting a GX9...I like the rangefinder shape, and it seems a good model from what I can tell. Why am I getting it? Well, mostly as I'm bored of my Fuji system - I've used it a lot and it makes great pictures, and even writing this I'm still partially wondering why I'm doing it. There's no technical reason, mostly just want a change! There is the appeal of tiny telephoto lenses that you get with MFT, like the 35-100. I was taking pictures at my kid's football match and my 50-230mm fuji is fine but slow aperture, the 50-140 would be great but it's 1kg and big. I want to be more discrete and I usually have the younger kids with me, so I can't be managing a big setup and chasing after them and carrying them etc.

I know it has a smaller sensor and the technical physical differences, but I doubt I'll notice them. The size is what appeals to me. Not sure what I asking...people to tell me I'm stupid/buy it? General feedback from those that have the GX9 would be good, plus if you've used Fuji what you've noticed. thanks.
Click to expand...

I have a GX9 but I tend to use the cheaper and microscopically smaller and lighter GX80.

The GX9 does have just about every physical control you could need whereas the GX80 lacks some buttons and switches plus the GX9 has the tilting EVF which can be nice. I know it annoys some forumers but personally I like it as you can tilt it up and look into it and it's then less of a barrier between you and the world and your face is less obscured.
 
Ahhyes said:
I'm debating getting a GX9...I like the rangefinder shape, and it seems a good model from what I can tell. Why am I getting it? Well, mostly as I'm bored of my Fuji system - I've used it a lot and it makes great pictures, and even writing this I'm still partially wondering why I'm doing it. There's no technical reason, mostly just want a change! There is the appeal of tiny telephoto lenses that you get with MFT, like the 35-100. I was taking pictures at my kid's football match and my 50-230mm fuji is fine but slow aperture, the 50-140 would be great but it's 1kg and big. I want to be more discrete and I usually have the younger kids with me, so I can't be managing a big setup and chasing after them and carrying them etc.

I know it has a smaller sensor and the technical physical differences, but I doubt I'll notice them. The size is what appeals to me. Not sure what I asking...people to tell me I'm stupid/buy it? General feedback from those that have the GX9 would be good, plus if you've used Fuji what you've noticed. thanks.
Click to expand...
I had the GX9, and it’s a good enough camera, but it’s no X-Pro2. Like the X-Pro, I found it better suited to primes. I’m (probably) the one person who was annoyed by the tilting viewfinder. It caught on clothing, bags, straps etc and was forever tilting up. Personally I don’t see any issue of having one’s face either covered or exposed, so no doubt I will get slated for that. ;) Picture quality is excellent - having run Fujis in the past I think that modern m4/3 cameras actually give better IQ than the X-Trans sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top