"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[Lost_Manc]

if you keep the GX9

No doubt I will be. I’m really enjoying the little thing. Has met my intended use perfectly and allowing me to play around will subjects such as those above which I’d other not do because I just wouldn’t have had a camera with me due to the X-T4s size.

Just need to decide on lens choices going forward.
I’m still leaning towards the 20mm but lack of AFF/C support is putting me off slightly so need to consider options to compare. In reality it may be a non issue.
Then the 42.5mm as a longer compliment.
I’m in no rush though so have time to keep weighing up options.

Realistically I only got the kit with 12-32 as I had a set of circumstances that meant it made more sense financially than getting a used body and the 20 1.7 as in cheaper and that’s what matters!
It has though given me a chance to get used to the body without getting put off with a potential wrong focal length choice.

 

[Sangoma]

The zoom is stiff, on one occasion I thought it was at 400mm but it wasn't, it had just hit a slight sticky point and then I realised I had not turned it all the way through. But I am not worried about this, just need to get used to being a bit firmer with this lens compared to the 100-300mm Mega OIS.

Silly question, you did have the lock ring released?

Probably hasn't been used much

 

[Crotal Bell]

Silly question, you did have the lock ring released?

Probably hasn't been used much

Yeah lock ring released.
It's pretty much what I expected really, most reviewers call it a stiff lens, so I just need to adapt to it needing a firmer turn that the 100-300mm
Certainly feels a solid lump of glass, can't wait to get out tomorrow and give it a whirl !

I have heard it's best set at F8 but others say it makes little or no real difference.

 

[delb0y]

I think I will do a similar test. It will give me more confidence to go slower.

 

[delb0y]

Yeah lock ring released.
It's pretty much what I expected really, most reviewers call it a stiff lens, so I just need to adapt to it needing a firmer turn that the 100-300mm
Certainly feels a solid lump of glass, can't wait to get out tomorrow and give it a whirl !

I have heard it's best set at F8 but others say it makes little or no real difference.

Did you trade in the 100-300? I quite fancy the 400, but can't really justify both. There again, I can't really justify more expenditure at the mo'.

 

[woof woof]

Yeah lock ring released.
It's pretty much what I expected really, most reviewers call it a stiff lens, so I just need to adapt to it needing a firmer turn that the 100-300mm
Certainly feels a solid lump of glass, can't wait to get out tomorrow and give it a whirl !

I have heard it's best set at F8 but others say it makes little or no real difference.

One thing which helps me is having my left hand on top of the lens rather than underneath. It may sound awkward but I still seem to be able to hold the kit level and seem to be able to move it more smoothly with my hand on top.

I use mine from wide open.

 

[woof woof]

Just need to decide on lens choices going forward.
I’m still leaning towards the 20mm but lack of AFF/C support is putting me off slightly so need to consider options to compare. In reality it may be a non issue.
Then the 42.5mm as a longer compliment....

I can recommend the Oly 17mm f1.8. It's made very nicely out of metal and with it's pull/push action and markings and good handling you can even use it like an old style manual prime and it's fast to focus too.

 

[delb0y]

Okay, had a quick play with Dual IS on the G9 and the 12-35 this evening and, yep, I eat my words - makes a lot of difference. Tried it at various intervals from 1 second to 1/20th, and in all cases it's clearly improves the hand-held-only shot a lot. Obviously the difference between the hand-held-only and the IS assisted shot lessens as the shutter speed decreases, but I could get a usable shot at a quarter of a second with IS. Even the 1/2 second shot was remarkable.

All of which means my lack of sharp results recently must be down to something else...

 

[Crotal Bell]

Did you trade in the 100-300? I quite fancy the 400, but can't really justify both. There again, I can't really justify more expenditure at the mo'.

No mate I kept the 100-300mm. I can't really afford it but done it anyway, but if I honestly have any regrets I could return it or sell it on and return to the 100-300mm
I'll be posting an early comparison in a minute which could be interesting for you, and we'll see what people have to say.
The extra reach isn't big, but I think the sharpness is (my 100-300 is Mega OIS)

 

[Crotal Bell]

Ok so here goes....
Both taken at full zoom in Aperture priority at F8 about 4pm today in a cloudy dull garden. Approx 8 yards to the feeder.
Aside from the obvious zoom difference, please read my thoughts after the images as I would like peoples feedback.

Pana 100-300mm Mega OIS


Pana 100-400mm Power OIS


Both images went to ISO 3200 on auto, however, the 100-300 shot went to 1/100 sec whereas the 100-400 went to 1/50 sec.

Despite the slower shutter speed, the 100-400 seems sharper. Both images were hand held looking at the screen.
I presume from this that while the added zoom is helpful, but may not be huge, the stability and overall quality is possibly more significant?
I presume this is a result of the combined camera + lens stabilisation and the quality of the glass?

 

[Sangoma]

Ok so here goes....
Both taken at full zoom in Aperture priority at F8 about 4pm today in a cloudy dull garden. Approx 8 yards to the feeder.
Aside from the obvious zoom difference, please read my thoughts after the images as I would like peoples feedback.

Pana 100-300mm Mega OIS
View attachment 379768

Pana 100-400mm Power OIS
View attachment 379769

Both images went to ISO 3200 on auto, however, the 100-300 shot went to 1/100 sec whereas the 100-400 went to 1/50 sec.

Despite the slower shutter speed, the 100-400 seems sharper. Both images were hand held looking at the screen.
I presume from this that while the added zoom is helpful, but may not be huge, the stability and overall quality is possibly more significant?
I presume this is a result of the combined camera + lens stabilisation and the quality of the glass?

I've done hundreds of similar comparison shots, and I have mentioned before the 100-400 is sharper.
Agree fully with what you have found.

The primary reason is better optics, but the OIS certainly comes into it as well.

I try to use something further away, as the differences show up more, and it is more in line with what I use them for.

If you want to see a more direct comparison, find a top right point and a bottom left point visible on both shots, and crop to those points, then view them the same size on the screen, as that will show the difference it would make to a bird that you wanted to crop to the same view.

I have found they both seem to be sharper around 7.1, but they are both good though out the range.

But the 100-300 is still a very good lens, I would not get rid of mine, there are many times when I prefer the weight and size of it to carry.

Do you have a UV filter on the 100-300?



EDIT:

Just tried cropping your photos to show the same area at the same size, and there is a bigger difference than I have found.
There is also a bigger colour difference than I would have expected, almost as if they were taken a couple of minutes apart and the cloud cover changed slightly.
They were also taken from slightly different angles, though I doubt that would make much difference to the results.

 

[Cockney]

I've done hundreds of similar comparison shots, and I have mentioned before the 100-400 is sharper.
Agree fully with what you have found.

The primary reason is better optics, but the OIS certainly comes into it as well.

I try to use something further away, as the differences show up more, and it is more in line with what I use them for.

If you want to see a more direct comparison, find a top right point and a bottom left point visible on both shots, and crop to those points, then view them the same size on the screen, as that will show the difference it would make to a bird that you wanted to crop to the same view.

I have found they both seem to be sharper around 7.1, but they are both good though out the range.

But the 100-300 is still a very good lens, I would not get rid of mine, there are many times when I prefer the weight and size of it to carry.

Do you have a UV filter on the 100-300?



EDIT:

Just tried cropping your photos to show the same area at the same size, and there is a bigger difference than I have found.
There is also a bigger colour difference than I would have expected, almost as if they were taken a couple of minutes apart and the cloud cover changed slightly.
They were also taken from slightly different angles, though I doubt that would make much difference to the results.

I don't think a single, hand held shot tells us anything really.

 

[gjhill]

Just about to list the G9 in the for sale area

a heads up to @Testudo Man as promised earlier in this thread

 

[Sangoma]

Just about to list the G9 in the for sale area

a heads up to @Testudo Man as promised earlier in this thread

That's a very good price, it will fly away

 

[Crotal Bell]

I've done hundreds of similar comparison shots, and I have mentioned before the 100-400 is sharper.
Agree fully with what you have found.

The primary reason is better optics, but the OIS certainly comes into it as well.

I try to use something further away, as the differences show up more, and it is more in line with what I use them for.

If you want to see a more direct comparison, find a top right point and a bottom left point visible on both shots, and crop to those points, then view them the same size on the screen, as that will show the difference it would make to a bird that you wanted to crop to the same view.

I have found they both seem to be sharper around 7.1, but they are both good though out the range.

But the 100-300 is still a very good lens, I would not get rid of mine, there are many times when I prefer the weight and size of it to carry.

Do you have a UV filter on the 100-300?



EDIT:

Just tried cropping your photos to show the same area at the same size, and there is a bigger difference than I have found.
There is also a bigger colour difference than I would have expected, almost as if they were taken a couple of minutes apart and the cloud cover changed slightly.
They were also taken from slightly different angles, though I doubt that would make much difference to the results.

No filters on either mate. I'm out with the 100-400mm this afternoon for a couple of hours.
Photos were taken as fast as I could swap the lenses.

 

[Adamcski]

That's a very good price, it will fly away

That did fly off the shelf lol.

I haven't used my G9 in a while. May have to get it out for a play soon.

 

[woof woof]

I've been reprocessing pictures lately and it was the turn of some Panasonic pictures today. I recently went from Adobe CS5 to PS2023 and I'm finding it's much easier to get results I'm more happy with. I've been pretty happy with all of the software I've had until I moved on to the next which I've always found to be better So, I can recommend using the best software you can get your hands on as IMO it really does make a difference.

 

[delb0y]

Following on from talk elsewhere about snap focus on the Ricoh GRiii and how this is useful for shooting from the hip in street photography, I thought I'd try setting up the GX80 and the 20mm prime with manual focus, a small aperture (f/9) a high shutter speed (1/500), and auto ISO. I preset that manual focus for a point about 10 metres away. Then I went for a walk and randomly took shots from the hip, from the hand, from the camera swinging round my neck, etc, to see what happened.

To be honest there wasn't much of interest to shoot, as I was just walking along the towpath, but the outcome actually proved a point. Almost all the photos were in focus at whatever subject I'd casually aimed at. There was a lot of noise (the auto ISO ramped up to 6400 for the image below). The 20mm requires subjects to be close up - but then it doesn't give a lot of room for cropping to make up for the fact the photos have been taken "blind", I think a wider lens would help with the latter, but would require one to be even closer to the subject. Overall, I think this will warrant some more experimentation. What's amazing - and a bit naughty - is that one can take photos so surreptitiously this way that it feels a bit creepy and evil.

The only shot of any merit at all, and very little at that, was the one below:

 

[Crotal Bell]

Following on from talk elsewhere about snap focus on the Ricoh GRiii and how this is useful for shooting from the hip in street photography, I thought I'd try setting up the GX80 and the 20mm prime with manual focus, a small aperture (f/9) a high shutter speed (1/500), and auto ISO. I preset that manual focus for a point about 10 metres away. Then I went for a walk and randomly took shots from the hip, from the hand, from the camera swinging round my neck, etc, to see what happened.

To be honest there wasn't much of interest to shoot, as I was just walking along the towpath, but the outcome actually proved a point. Almost all the photos were in focus at whatever subject I'd casually aimed at. There was a lot of noise (the auto ISO ramped up to 6400 for the image below). The 20mm requires subjects to be close up - but then it doesn't give a lot of room for cropping to make up for the fact the photos have been taken "blind", I think a wider lens would help with the latter, but would require one to be even closer to the subject. Overall, I think this will warrant some more experimentation. What's amazing - and a bit naughty - is that one can take photos so surreptitiously this way that it feels a bit creepy and evil.

The only shot of any merit at all, and very little at that, was the one below:

View attachment 379908

The doggy sussed you out, "oi....what you up to with that camera"

 

[woof woof]

Following on from talk elsewhere about snap focus on the Ricoh GRiii and how this is useful for shooting from the hip in street photography, I thought I'd try setting up the GX80 and the 20mm prime with manual focus, a small aperture (f/9) a high shutter speed (1/500), and auto ISO. I preset that manual focus for a point about 10 metres away. Then I went for a walk and randomly took shots from the hip, from the hand, from the camera swinging round my neck, etc, to see what happened.

To be honest there wasn't much of interest to shoot, as I was just walking along the towpath, but the outcome actually proved a point. Almost all the photos were in focus at whatever subject I'd casually aimed at. There was a lot of noise (the auto ISO ramped up to 6400 for the image below). The 20mm requires subjects to be close up - but then it doesn't give a lot of room for cropping to make up for the fact the photos have been taken "blind", I think a wider lens would help with the latter, but would require one to be even closer to the subject. Overall, I think this will warrant some more experimentation. What's amazing - and a bit naughty - is that one can take photos so surreptitiously this way that it feels a bit creepy and evil.

The only shot of any merit at all, and very little at that, was the one below:...

Cute dog

I think there are a few ways of doing this. You can let the camera select the point of focus with something like wide area focusing or whatever the camera calls it or you can go manual a couple of different ways. You can select a distance and an aperture for the depth you want keeping in mind the focal length of the lens or you can shoot hyperfocal or Merkinger method. Focus at a distance could result in something like 3m at f2.5 or 4 to be safer. Hyperfocal wise I like Merklinger because it's easy to work out as it's just the focal length divided by the size of the thing you want to resolve = the aperture and as I always do things in FF speak and then convert for MFT or APS-C (because my brain thinks this is the easy way to do it) for me with a MFT camera and a Panasonic 20mm lens that would be 40 (focal length) over 4 (4mm object to be reasonably sharp) = f10 or rather f5 for MFT so that's f4 and set the lens to infinity or there abouts or if you want to be on the safe side go for f5.

I don't normally do this with MFT but with FF I do as that's what I usually use manual lenses on.

I used to watch David Thorpe's reviews (he used MFT,) he had some good things to say on this and he said that news photographers still use zone focus for stuff like riots to this day. I think he liked 35mm, between 3 and 5m and f5.6 so that would be 17mm at f2.8 for MFT.

 

[Testudo Man]

Just about to list the G9 in the for sale area

a heads up to @Testudo Man as promised earlier in this thread

Typical!!!...out all day helping my Brotherinlaw buy/deliver a car for his youngest son.............oh well - "Ya Snooze, ya Lose".
Cheers anyway...i'll keep on lookin

 

[gjhill]

Typical!!!...out all day helping my Brotherinlaw buy/deliver a car for his youngest son.............oh well - "Ya Snooze, ya Lose".
Cheers anyway...i'll keep on lookin

Sorry , in all honesty I didn’t think it would sell so quickly

 

[woof woof]

Just for fun I looked up my various cameras dynamic range. Rather than use different sites I looked for one which had them all as different people might measure things differently. These are the numbers I came up with.

My first digital camera was a Fuji S602 Pro Zoom but I couldn't find DR figures for that.

Canon.
10D=10.9
300D=10.8
20D=11
5D=11.1

Panasonic.
GF1/G1=10.3
GM5=11.7
GX80=12.6
GX9=12.8
G100=13.2

Fuji.
X100f=13.2

Sony.
A7=14.2

That's what the numbers said. In use I did think that my GF1 and G1 challenged the FF Canon 5D for DR and overall IQ as I could protect the highlights and then boost the shadows without the rampant noise that often came when boosting Canon files. After the GF1 and G1 I think all my Panasonic cameras show more DR than the 5D in real world use. That's really good for such a tiny camera as the GM5. When I got the G100 I thought it might be giving the best IQ I've seen from MFT and the DR score seems to back that up but in reality decimal point differences may be nothing but variabilities in testing or samples, I don't know, but my impression is that the IQ is good in MFT terms and it may be the best MFT camera I've had IQ wise. From reading I see that it has a Live Mos sensor which I gather isn't the norm.

The Fuji X100f should show a lead over MFT as it's APS-C and so has a bigger sensor but in use I think there's little if any difference between it and the newer MFT cameras I have. Maybe these decimal point differences are indeed hard to see or variable one way or the other.

The FF Sony A7 IMO shows a clear lead when IQ is being pushed to the limits and that maybe shouldn't surprise us as it's a bigger chip again. I think this shows when conditions are at their worst and if DR or ISO or any other testing measure isn't been pushed to the limit shots from the other cameras can be easily lost in a slideshow containing A7 files.

Other than all that and as I mentioned above software seems to help a lot or at least make it possible to get good results a little easier.

I know that IQ and DR aren't everything, but it's just interesting to compare cameras and see the numbers and a nice file is nice

 

[CSB]

Just for fun I looked up my various cameras dynamic range. Rather than use different sites I looked for one which had them all as different people might measure things differently. These are the numbers I came up with.

My first digital camera was a Fuji S602 Pro Zoom but I couldn't find DR figures for that.

Canon.
10D=10.9
300D=10.8
20D=11
5D=11.1

Panasonic.
GF1/G1=10.3
GM5=11.7
GX80=12.6
GX9=12.8
G100=13.2

Fuji.
X100f=13.2

Sony.
A7=14.2

That's what the numbers said. In use I did think that my GF1 and G1 challenged the FF Canon 5D for DR and overall IQ as I could protect the highlights and then boost the shadows without the rampant noise that often came when boosting Canon files. After the GF1 and G1 I think all my Panasonic cameras show more DR than the 5D in real world use. That's really good for such a tiny camera as the GM5. When I got the G100 I thought it might be giving the best IQ I've seen from MFT and the DR score seems to back that up but in reality decimal point differences may be nothing but variabilities in testing or samples, I don't know, but my impression is that the IQ is good in MFT terms and it may be the best MFT camera I've had IQ wise. From reading I see that it has a Live Mos sensor which I gather isn't the norm.

The Fuji X100f should show a lead over MFT as it's APS-C and so has a bigger sensor but in use I think there's little if any difference between it and the newer MFT cameras I have. Maybe these decimal point differences are indeed hard to see or variable one way or the other.

The FF Sony A7 IMO shows a clear lead when IQ is being pushed to the limits and that maybe shouldn't surprise us as it's a bigger chip again. I think this shows when conditions are at their worst and if DR or ISO or any other testing measure isn't been pushed to the limit shots from the other cameras can be easily lost in a slideshow containing A7 files.

Other than all that and as I mentioned above software seems to help a lot or at least make it possible to get good results a little easier.

That's an interesting comparison. Which site did you use for the information on DR?

I've been processing files from the last year and noticed a huge amount of difference in the latitude of raw files between the GH5 and S5. It's not a surprise that the S5 is better, but how much better is night and day. I certainly can't push the shadows on GH5 raw files as much as I do with the S5 before noise becomes an issue. It's made me more aware of getting the exposure right in camera.

 

[woof woof]

That's an interesting comparison. Which site did you use for the information on DR?

I've been processing files from the last year and noticed a huge amount of difference in the latitude of raw files between the GH5 and S5. It's not a surprise that the S5 is better, but how much better is night and day. I certainly can't push the shadows on GH5 raw files as much as I do with the S5 before noise becomes an issue. It's made me more aware of getting the exposure right in camera.

This one...

Panasonic GX9: how much Dynamic Range?

The Panasonic GX9 is equipped with a Four Thirds sensor that provides 12.8 EV of DR. Click through to learn more about this sensor's performance.

www.apotelyt.com

Looking at various camera review DR seems to be inching forward. I think I read that the latest Sony's have 14.7 but if this will be noticeable over cameras like the original A7 with 14 I don't know. I think later cameras have "better" colours according to some but how this compares to altering the older camera pictures WB and/or other things in your software of choice I just don't know.

I think I get hung up on DR because when the sun is low in the sky DR can be challenging and up here in NE England that's often the case.

 

[Stephen L]

Just for fun I looked up my various cameras dynamic range. Rather than use different sites I looked for one which had them all as different people might measure things differently. These are the numbers I came up with.

My first digital camera was a Fuji S602 Pro Zoom but I couldn't find DR figures for that.

Canon.
10D=10.9
300D=10.8
20D=11
5D=11.1

Panasonic.
GF1/G1=10.3
GM5=11.7
GX80=12.6
GX9=12.8
G100=13.2

Fuji.
X100f=13.2

Sony.
A7=14.2

That's what the numbers said. In use I did think that my GF1 and G1 challenged the FF Canon 5D for DR and overall IQ as I could protect the highlights and then boost the shadows without the rampant noise that often came when boosting Canon files. After the GF1 and G1 I think all my Panasonic cameras show more DR than the 5D in real world use. That's really good for such a tiny camera as the GM5. When I got the G100 I thought it might be giving the best IQ I've seen from MFT and the DR score seems to back that up but in reality decimal point differences may be nothing but variabilities in testing or samples, I don't know, but my impression is that the IQ is good in MFT terms and it may be the best MFT camera I've had IQ wise. From reading I see that it has a Live Mos sensor which I gather isn't the norm.

The Fuji X100f should show a lead over MFT as it's APS-C and so has a bigger sensor but in use I think there's little if any difference between it and the newer MFT cameras I have. Maybe these decimal point differences are indeed hard to see or variable one way or the other.

The FF Sony A7 IMO shows a clear lead when IQ is being pushed to the limits and that maybe shouldn't surprise us as it's a bigger chip again. I think this shows when conditions are at their worst and if DR or ISO or any other testing measure isn't been pushed to the limit shots from the other cameras can be easily lost in a slideshow containing A7 files.

Other than all that and as I mentioned above software seems to help a lot or at least make it possible to get good results a little easier.

I know that IQ and DR aren't everything, but it's just interesting to compare cameras and see the numbers and a nice file is nice

Be interesting to know how many percentage points it takes for an average person to notice a difference. Also, how these figures compare with film, both current emulsions and those “of the time”.

 

[woof woof]

G100 and Oly 17mm f1.8.

This place is usually a torture test with bushes and tress each side of the path and often glare above. At the mo it's not quite so bad as the council have cut a lot of the foliage back.

The scene.

Turning round and shooting into the sun... The camera seems to have tried to protect the highlights but they're still blown.

After minimal processing including an exposure boost of +1.5 to bring the shadows up and some shadow boost dialling in some highlight reduction shows that the highlights are no longer blown.

Whilst this can't match the FF Sony A7's performance it is IMO good for MFT and quite possibly the best IQ I've seen from my MFT cameras. Other people with different models may see better performance.

PS.
When pulling highlights down and boosting shadows false colours can be introduced but in that example above it was actually difficult to look into the sun and the final picture probably shows more than I could see by eye and I can't really say it looks false colour wise. Good Show here for the G100

 

[woof woof]

Be interesting to know how many percentage points it takes for an average person to notice a difference. Also, how these figures compare with film, both current emulsions and those “of the time”.

From what I've read in the past digital didn't match film for highlight retention but was better for shadow recovery. If that's changed with the very latest cameras, I don't know.

I think every digital camera I've had (excluding compacts) has been better for me than anything I got from film.

 

[jamin100]

Just listed my GX80 if anyone’s interested in a travel camera, sadly I can’t afford to keep both that and the G9.

 

[woof woof]

Just listed my GX80 if anyone’s interested in a travel camera, sadly I can’t afford to keep both that and the G9.

Not keeping the lens? You sure? I would because it's tiny but quite capable.

GLWTS.

 

[Stephen L]

Not keeping the lens? You sure? I would because it's tiny but quite capable.

GLWTS.

True. I’m a convert to this lens.

 

[jamin100]

I already have the 15mm f1.7 so whilst this lens is fab, I just don’t think it makes sense to keep it on the G9.

 

[AMcUK]

Just need to decide on lens choices going forward.
I’m still leaning towards the 20mm but lack of AFF/C support is putting me off slightly so need to consider options to compare. In reality it may be a non issue.

FWIW - I have the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and the Olympus 17mm f1.8
They're both excellent lenses and close to the 20mm you're considering.
The 17mm was my favourite lens for a very long time, used in preference to the 14-14mm Oly EZ pancake zoom until I bought the 12-40mm Oly PRO lens.
If the 17mm manual focus clutch works on Panasonic bodies that would clinch it for me assuming you're happy going fractionally wider than the 20mm and I think the lens is a little longer - though not by much,

(As a side note I used to have the Olympus f2.8 17mm which is also tiny and I really enjoyed - I "upgraded" to the f1.8 on a whim)

 

[woof woof]

If the 17mm manual focus clutch works on Panasonic bodies that would clinch it for me assuming you're happy going fractionally wider than the 20mm and I think the lens is a little longer - though not by much,

The Oly 17mm f1.8 manual focus clutch does indeed work on Panasonic cameras.

 

[Lost_Manc]

FWIW - I have the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and the Olympus 17mm f1.8
They're both excellent lenses and close to the 20mm you're considering.
The 17mm was my favourite lens for a very long time, used in preference to the 14-14mm Oly EZ pancake zoom until I bought the 12-40mm Oly PRO lens.
If the 17mm manual focus clutch works on Panasonic bodies that would clinch it for me assuming you're happy going fractionally wider than the 20mm and I think the lens is a little longer - though not by much,

(As a side note I used to have the Olympus f2.8 17mm which is also tiny and I really enjoyed - I "upgraded" to the f1.8 on a whim)

Thanks. Useful bit of info.
Will look into them when I’m ready to purchase.

The Oly 17mm f1.8 manual focus clutch does indeed work on Panasonic cameras.

Good to know and thanks for clarifying.

 

[Lost_Manc]

Random one now and of no real importance(!) beyond curiosity.

I was of the understanding that MFT was a x2 crop factor vs FF/35mm equiv.

Is it not quite as clear cut as that such as Fuji APSc being 1.52x and Nikon APSc/DX (iirc) being 1.56x

I have noticed that Lightroom is reporting the 35mm equiv as being a little more than 2x
My most recent few shots are a 17mm showing as 40mm, a 27mm showing as 63mm and a 32mm showing as 75mm equiv.
So roughly 2.3x at any given focal length.

DxO Photolab doesn't offer 35mm equivalence but matches up with the actual length and as such agrees that the shot was 17,27 and 32mm.

Like I say. Just idle musings trying to understand properly the system for when I do start to consider alternative lens. Obviously, we are only talking small differences here, a step forward or backwards.

End of the day, it could just be LRc being silly.

 

[Lost_Manc]

it could just be LRc being silly

It is indeed Lightroom being silly!

Checked some other pictures and I have a 20mm being reported as 47mm equiv but a 22mm showing as 45mm equiv, so in that particular instance almost right at 2x but completely at odds with the 20mm being shown as longer in 35mm equivalent terms.

Anyway some more digging leads me to suspect it is possibly just the 12-32 that LRc gets all confused about.

The 20mm 1.7 shots @woof woof supplied me with and some 8-18mm shots I found on the web are showing as exactly x2 equivalent.

All in all obviously not important(!) just something I noticed that made me wonder.

 

[Testudo Man]

Sorry , in all honesty I didn’t think it would sell so quickly

No hard feelings mate, it all worked out for the best for me anyway
Yesterday, i picked up a real good deal...As in - A minty fresh G9 (with just 400 clicks) 3 extra batteries, double battery charger, a battery grip, an two 128 GB memory cards, all for the same price as you sold your G9 for, so i really cannot complain at all. Whilst i was collecting the camera bundle, the guy was also selling the "famous" Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro lens, which is a lens that has really appealed to me, so i bought that lens from him at the same time too!...well, it would have been rude not to ...Sometimes things happen for a reason, so im well pleased how it all panned out in the end. Cheers Paul.

 

[d00d]

Random one now and of no real importance(!) beyond curiosity.

I was of the understanding that MFT was a x2 crop factor vs FF/35mm equiv.

Is it not quite as clear cut as that such as Fuji APSc being 1.52x and Nikon APSc/DX (iirc) being 1.56x

I have noticed that Lightroom is reporting the 35mm equiv as being a little more than 2x
My most recent few shots are a 17mm showing as 40mm, a 27mm showing as 63mm and a 32mm showing as 75mm equiv.
So roughly 2.3x at any given focal length.

DxO Photolab doesn't offer 35mm equivalence but matches up with the actual length and as such agrees that the shot was 17,27 and 32mm.

Like I say. Just idle musings trying to understand properly the system for when I do start to consider alternative lens. Obviously, we are only talking small differences here, a step forward or backwards.

End of the day, it could just be LRc being silly.

On the face of it, Cameras are Mathematic with mm widths and lengths ISO numbers vs seconds, equilateral triangles in the mind. But there's no consistency, nothing adds up, ever.

And I'm pleased because this confirms photography is an art not a science. So all we can do is think rough equivalents. Or avoid that altogether and just get to know the camera & enjoy.

 

[Lost_Manc]

And I'm pleased because this confirms photography is an art not a science. So all we can do is think rough equivalents. Or avoid that altogether and just get to know the camera & enjoy.

Totally agree. Like I say curiosity with something being different to expected.