"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Does the quality of this photo look ok enough to people? I feel its a bit soft. Image was straight from camera, Panasonic G7 with 25mm f1.7 lens. focus was on the Lego figures face. Don't know if I am being harsh on the quality for no reason.

How hard cant it be by Ian Diplock, on Flickr
 
Hi and thanks. No honeymoon yet, possibly after September so this is just a few yards from home.
 
ian-83 said:
Still trying to get used to the focusing system on the G7, definitely different to the set focus points of the D7000 I had before.
Click to expand...
I think this is much better as you can put the focus point anywhere.
 
woof woof said:
I think this is much better as you can put the focus point anywhere.
Click to expand...

I like the fact I can touch on the screen where I want to focus on, not having to use the nearest focus point and recompose slightly if it doesn't lay over the point of focus.
 
Just a little snap shot with my GX7 and 12-35mm f2.8, the joy of spot metering and a silent shutter :D

P1100332.jpg
 
A few more recent videos taken with the GH5 and a mix of 100-300 mk2, 14-140 power o.i.s and Canon 100-400 mk2 attached using the Metabones Ultra.
Slowly getting to grips with the strengths and weaknesses of the GH5 and it's IS system.

View: https://youtu.be/JmJ0MQS_AL0


View: https://youtu.be/T_95x3AauMI

Any stills in the vids were taken with a Canon 5Dmk4.

Cheers

Gary
 
Last edited:
A couple of shots of my dogs playing chase in the garden! Light wasn't great, and I'm only slowly getting the hang of very fast moving targets, but I was quite pleased with them!! Unfortunately they don't look as sharp on here but that's often the case uploading from Flickr to this forum!





Also the pair of them playing a tugging game!


 
Anyone on here use the GX80 ? Seems to be a lot of camera for the money ?

Is the EVF as bad as some reviews say ?

thanks
 
I have one.

The EVF isn't actually bad... and it's a lot better than what we had years ago but it certainly isn't up there with the best. I had a G7 and the EVF on that was excellent. Some people report a rainbow or tearing effect with the field sequential EVF's but I don't think I see that. I do wish they'd fit a better EVF to the small RF style cameras but even though it isn't great it is useable.

PS.
Yes, I think it's a lot of camera for the money but ideally I'd have liked a better EVF :D a tilting EVF and a manual / AF switch like the one on the GX7.
 
Last edited:
Maybe. I have the GX7 and GX80 and had a G7 for a while and imo they all give identical image quality.
 
I used my 45-200mm today and I think I'll have to give up on it. I bought this used years ago and I've not used it much but when I have I've usually been frustrated at not being able to get sharp shots from it but on other days I can. Today I tried to pin things down a bit and for the first time I used it on my GX80 and again got poor results at 200mm when focusing on distant subjects at f5.6. I have had good sharp results but thinking back I'm pretty sure it was only at closer distances so for whatever reason I think this lens has a problem with further distances.

So, I wonder if anyone else has had one of these and if so what results did you get at close, middle and long distance? And if this is as good as it gets, frankly poor at 200mm when focusing on distant subjects, is there anything better? I noticed there's a 45-200mm f4-5.6II, anyone used one?
 
woof woof said:
I used my 45-200mm today and I think I'll have to give up on it. I bought this used years ago and I've not used it much but when I have I've usually been frustrated at not being able to get sharp shots from it but on other days I can. Today I tried to pin things down a bit and for the first time I used it on my GX80 and again got poor results at 200mm when focusing on distant subjects at f5.6. I have had good sharp results but thinking back I'm pretty sure it was only at closer distances so for whatever reason I think this lens has a problem with further distances.

So, I wonder if anyone else has had one of these and if so what results did you get at close, middle and long distance? And if this is as good as it gets, frankly poor at 200mm when focusing on distant subjects, is there anything better? I noticed there's a 45-200mm f4-5.6II, anyone used one?
Click to expand...

I hate my 45-200! I mean the size is great, but I have exactly the same problem as good. Distant subjects at f5.6 (or even f8) are not sharp at all.. except maybe 1 in 10? Basically useless at 200mm. I've had it since we got a G3 and it's been used on a G3, G6, G7, G85 and E-m5ii. Poor results on them all :-(

Not got any idea on the 45-200mm II unfortunately.
 
Oh dear.

It looks like maybe this is just how they are then :(

Hopefully someone will be along to recommend something else. It's a shame the lens seems to be well made and the size and weight aren't too bad but the optical performance does seem to be disappointing, yours and mine at least :(
 
I may be able to get chance to see how the mk2 45-200 perfoms in a couple of weeks, if it's available and I have time I shall have a play with one. Heard nothing about it otherwise, my dad has the original one like you, never used it much myself and neither has he really. Will have to take a look at some point and see what it's like.

edit, just spoke to my dad he doesn't have his anymore, it wasn't very good at the long end he said. It went in px for the 100-400.
 
Last edited:
I used to blame myself for the poor results but I've had no problems with the other long lenses I had in my DSLR days so I've come to accept that my lens is the problem and as dclutter has the same issue maybe they're all like that... based on a sample of two :D I did try looking for reviews and one of the two or three I looked at did report good results up to 100mm and mixed results thereafter so maybe it's just not a good lens at the longer lengths but getting good results at near distance is a bit of a mystery. I might try again later but I'm pretty sure I've used this lens for portraits and been happy so I'll have to search my pc or shoot some more as that'll probably be easier than searching my pc.

I'll be interested in anything you have to report Michael and any feedback from anyone on the other longer options.
 
I had the 45-200mm some years ago and had the same experience as you Alan. I now have the 100-300mm Mk2 and it is much better than the original. Given that, it may be that the Mk2 version of the 45-200mm has also improved. Mind you it's a lot of money just to see if it is! I like to hear real world user opinions, but to be fair I've not seen any having checked the forums.
As I said Alan, the Mk2 100-300mm is very sharp, but may be too long for you. I thought I read that Panasonic were bringing out a 50-200 pro lens but when it will be, who knows! Also it's likely to cost an arm and a leg!
 
woof woof said:
Oh dear.

It looks like maybe this is just how they are then :(

Hopefully someone will be along to recommend something else. It's a shame the lens seems to be well made and the size and weight aren't too bad but the optical performance does seem to be disappointing, yours and mine at least :(
Click to expand...

I had the 45-200 and my experience like others on here was that it was pretty disappointing on the long end.

The Panasonic 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS I have is great though. Plus it's very affordable, light and compact. Not match for Olympus PRO glass but not very far off.
 
wellyboot said:
I had the 45-200mm some years ago and had the same experience as you Alan. I now have the 100-300mm Mk2 and it is much better than the original. Given that, it may be that the Mk2 version of the 45-200mm has also improved. Mind you it's a lot of money just to see if it is! I like to hear real world user opinions, but to be fair I've not seen any having checked the forums.
As I said Alan, the Mk2 100-300mm is very sharp, but may be too long for you. I thought I read that Panasonic were bringing out a 50-200 pro lens but when it will be, who knows! Also it's likely to cost an arm and a leg!
Click to expand...

maarten.dhaese said:
I had the 45-200 and my experience like others on here was that it was pretty disappointing on the long end.

The Panasonic 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS I have is great though. Plus it's very affordable, light and compact. Not match for Olympus PRO glass but not very far off.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys.

I don't think that a 100-300mm would be too long as maybe the longer the better :D I never had a long lens when I had SLR's but in my digital days I've had a couple of lenses that went to 300mm and that on APS-C meant 480mm so matching that would be nice :D and that's something I've not done since I sold my 20D. A long lens would come at the cost of more money and more bulk though. Basically I just like a longer lens available now and again for taking pictures of far away stuff and a really nice shot of the moon is something that I've never had the length to get. Other than that the different shooting distance and perspective using a longer lens is nice now and again too. Maybe 150mm will be good enough and maybe I'll give a 45-150mm a try :D
 
maarten.dhaese said:
I had the 45-200 and my experience like others on here was that it was pretty disappointing on the long end.

The Panasonic 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS I have is great though. Plus it's very affordable, light and compact. Not match for Olympus PRO glass but not very far off.
Click to expand...

Ohh I long for the Oly Pro 40-150 w/ TC. But i'm also stingy and not so keen on the size of it.
 
Just in case anyone wants a 45-200mm I've advertised mine for sale.

It may not be a great lens but it's cheap :D
 
My 45-200mm sold and I've ordered a 45-150mm, I'll report back when I've had a chance to road test it.
 
woof woof said:
Thanks guys.

I don't think that a 100-300mm would be too long as maybe the longer the better :D I never had a long lens when I had SLR's but in my digital days I've had a couple of lenses that went to 300mm and that on APS-C meant 480mm so matching that would be nice :D and that's something I've not done since I sold my 20D. A long lens would come at the cost of more money and more bulk though. Basically I just like a longer lens available now and again for taking pictures of far away stuff and a really nice shot of the moon is something that I've never had the length to get. Other than that the different shooting distance and perspective using a longer lens is nice now and again too. Maybe 150mm will be good enough and maybe I'll give a 45-150mm a try :D
Click to expand...

Of all the lenses I've owned for m4/3, this is the only one I've ever suspected (but NEVER definitively proved) suffered from shutter shock on my GX8. Hopefully, you won't have an issue.....
 
It shouldn't be a problem on my GX80 as it has the new shutter and my definitely shutter shock affected 14-42mm Mega OIS works perfectly on that camera. If the 45-150mm is affected there would no doubt be an issue on my GX7 but as you do with your GX8 I now use my GX7 in electronic shutter mode most of the time so that too shouldn't be an issue.

Rolling shutter isn't really a worry for me so the only time there could be a problem for me would be when using the GX7 under artificial lighting as the electronic shutter could give banding and the mechanical shutter could give shutter shock and the double hit would make the GX7 and a shutter shock affected lens pretty much unusable in that scenario but as we're talking about an f4-5.6 lens here the ISO would be stratospheric and I wouldn't be using the lens, I'd use an f1.8 instead. So although shutter shock is a PITA and I heap disgrace and shame on Panasonic for it in the case of this lens it's something I'm not going to worry too much about.
 
My brand new second hand 45-150mm arrived today :D and after running off a few test shots around the house and through the windows and door (it's raining heavily outside so I'm not going out) I'm very pleased with it. It seems to be as sharp at 150mm as it is at 45 and my only real whinge is that the minimum focus distance at 45mm is a bit disappointing. Other than that the aperture range of f4-5.6 means high ISO's on a grey rainy day like today but to balance that out it's a very compact lens and cheap :D and at the moment I don't think I could ask much more of it and I'm sure I'll get more use out of it than I did from the 45-200mm. Actually after selling that lens I did think that I maybe should have only used it from 45 to 100mm or so as it was only at the longer end that things fell apart. Still, I made the decision to sell it so that's what I did.

Boring test shots...

P1100500.jpg

P1100502.jpg

This was cropped from a landscape orientation shot, ISO 25,600 with next to no processing.

P1100485-C.jpg
 
Last edited:
Could anybody advise on the best square filter size for Lumix cameras?

My understanding is that it would be either 'A' or 'P' size.
 
Googling tells me that A=62 and P=82 and that A is for compact cameras and camcorders. So Googling tells me.

I have P. I bought mine in my Canon DSLR days when I had some relatively quite large diameter lenses. I think it's best to check the diameter of the lenses you have or are interested in and if in doubt maybe go for the bigger size. Maybe P.

If you're new to filters... you need a ring to connect the holder to your lens and as these tend to cost more than ordinary step up rings buy a ring to fit your largest diameter lens and then buy (cheaper) step up rings for your smaller diameter lenses. If you knew that... forget I said it :D
 
Depends entirely on which lenses are being used or might be used in the future. I personally went with P size filters which are 100mm x 100mm. Size A are 67mm x 67mm, which would preclude certain lenses. A list of lenses and filters sizes, where these can be fitted, is at the following link:

https://www.jdhodges.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-lens-filters-size-list/

Scroll down for the full list.
 
Last edited:
I haven't had time to go out for a day recently and test my 45-150mm but it looks ok :D

100% shot of this chap on next doors roof.

P1100630-1.jpg

Whole pictures.

P1100602.jpg

P1100627.JPG

A heavy crop.

P1100614-C.jpg

I've only had a few longer lenses before, the longest being a 70-300mm I had for my Canon DSLR's, this little Panny on my GX7 seems to be sharper and gives all round better results than any of the longer lenses I've had and I think I'll be happy with it for days out and walks especially for photographing flowers and butterflies and the like when out walking.
 
Last edited:
Great Shots..
I've just brought a GX80, 12-60mm & 45-150mm bundle (2nd hand) so am hoping the lenses are good copies and that the autofocus is as fast as it claims to be..
I have an energetic English Springer Spaniel and 3 young children to follow about!
 
@woof woof Have you tried turning on EX Tele Conv on your GX7?

It works especially well with long zoom lenses, it's better than digital zoom, because it crops the sensor giving you a bit more reach but importantly it doesn't up-sample resulting in a better IQ, it works well in my experience.
 
Swissy said:
@woof woof Have you tried turning on EX Tele Conv on your GX7?

It works especially well with long zoom lenses, it's better than digital zoom, because it crops the sensor giving you a bit more reach but importantly it doesn't up-sample resulting in a better IQ, it works well in my experience.
Click to expand...

eh? Wot? :D

I've never heard of it... so I'll take a look, thanks :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top