- Messages
- 2,154
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Like the styling of it! But... don't think I will upgrade. G80 still offers a phenomenal range of features that I have barely scratched the surface on!
Like the styling of it! But... don't think I will upgrade. G80 still offers a phenomenal range of features that I have barely scratched the surface on!
The G90 body only price at LCE is £899 pre order. I saw at the NEC that the G9 was available for £849 body only with a free grip included. Unless there is a compelling reason for a smaller body size, the G9 makes much more sense to me than the G90 at that launch price.
Interesting lens, thanks Keith.Some G90 specs leaked, plus an update of the 14-140 lens:
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-first-leaked-panasonic-g90-specs/
I can't think what WR is !?Apparently the new 14-140 is also WR, which is sweet for anyone interested in that as an all-rounder lens.
I probably should have checked the rumour site first ... Holy crap! there's a tonne of new videos on there Will watch a few and report back for anyone interested but doesn't have time to watch them
Interesting lens, thanks Keith.
I'm supposed to be getting a 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/walkabout-lens-for-panasonic-gx80.693616/
but haven't done anything yet. Should I be thinking about this 14-140 instead? Hmmmm .....
I can't think what WR is !?
Any videos/reviews on the Lens? It difficult googling a mark 2 and not get a mark 1.
Cheers.
I've got the 12-60 and it's a great lens but sometimes I'd like more reach. My 100-400 is also a great lens, but a bit on the big side to be a walkabout lens.Interesting lens, thanks Keith.
I'm supposed to be getting a 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/walkabout-lens-for-panasonic-gx80.693616/
but haven't done anything yet. Should I be thinking about this 14-140 instead? Hmmmm .....
I can't think what WR is !?
Any videos/reviews on the Lens? It's difficult googling a mark 2 and not get a mark 1.
Cheers.
Thanks guys
I want something small and light ...
I've got the pana 45-150 ...nice lens, nice size with hood attached.
I've got the pana 25mm ...nice lens, nice size with hood attached, but rarely use it.
The 12-32 ... not sure what to make of it as I never use it ... too small, not enough reach for me, as a walkabout.
I've got the 100-300 ... smaller than the 100-400 but not a walkabout lens and still too big anyway.
I think I'm going to sit on it for a few months. I'd like to know more about this new 14-140 lens, see if I can pick up a used one at half price.
Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is a very nice lens, seems you like a bit longer focal length than a standard zoom.
Weather resistant and stabilised too, also smaller and lighter than you might expect.
Delighted with mine and if you have one of the stabilised Panasonic bodies the dual IS is a real bonus
I'm with you. Theres always cameras with nice to have features but I dont really need them. If my G80 goes anywhere it will trade against a Nikon with trap focus, which I really miss.Like the styling of it! But... don't think I will upgrade. G80 still offers a phenomenal range of features that I have barely scratched the surface on!
I have almost bought that lens many times, if |I shot more in that range I would for sure. It would be a nice complement to the 12-40. The 40-150 2.8 Olympus would obviously be an even better match, but that's a lot bigger and heavier, not to mention more expensive even used. But I know I'd use 150mm more than 100 - though ... 100mm is where I like to be for macro. Slap a Raynox on there and you're going to get around the 1:1 mark. It's just too short for the garden birdies and I'd like it to focus a lot closer with better magnification too.
Just checked on B&H, wow ... it's not just lighter than the Oly 40-150, it's less than half the weight! :O
It is a good companion for the 12-40, thought about the 40-150, far too big and heavy also overkill for my travel photography.
Also considered the 12-35, but can't imagine it would be better than the 12-40.
Slightly smaller and lighter, but the extra reach and close up ability of the Olympus lens does come in handy
Really pleased with the 35-100, as good as my Canon 70-200L f4 IS and that was a superb lens.
Surprised it doesn't get more of a mention, so much going for it and not crazy expensive either.
The 12-32 ... not sure what to make of it as I never use it ... too small, not enough reach for me, as a walkabout.
I've never used that lens either but it not having a focus ring makes it of no interest to me. I do have the tiny 14-42mm mega ois which I think is remarkable for the size and weight it is. It is IMO sharp enough to use wide open which is how I normally use it.
I think that the 12-35mm f2.8 (and no doubt the Oly 12-40mm f2.8 too) is excellent as it allows me to get a FF look from a MFT zoom. With FF I'd probably be shooting mostly between f4 and f10 and the f2.8 zooms let me get that sort of look giving a FF equivalent look of f5.6 at its widest aperture.
The 12-40 is possibly the best 24-70 equiv lens I've ever used. I had the Nikon 24-70 and never really like it, I can't put a finger on why - besides the heft and size of it, but that was the norm at that time for a pro lens. I went through numerous Sigma and Tamron alternatives too. I also had the 70-200 VR and same, never really got on with it. I much preferred using primes at that time, had the 300mm F4 along with those [it was having these 3 lenses in the bag all at once really had me starting to look at smaller systems] which for the most part rendered the 70-200 redundant for me, as I bought it for wildlife, had a 1.4x TC too.
I get that you can achieve that nice shallow DOF look a hell of a lot easier with FF, but once you've taken a few thousand images with that look it can become a bit meh ... When I want that look it's easy to get it with these M43 lenses, especially the likes of the 12-40 that can focus close as you like anywhere within the range. At 40mm you're getting similar compression to an 80mm on FF, and that makes up for the equiv difference in aperture. For the likes of a portrait it can work out better, as often you'll see FF portraits where the ears are OOF because the DOF was so shallow, even at 2.8. With a 2.8 M43 lens you can still get a nice blurred backdrop but keep the ears in focus - the light gathering doesn't change so you can keep the ISO the same, but with FF if you do stop down you will be bumping the ISO. There's benefits to both, I find macro for example much easier on M43 - where we want as much DOF as we can get without going into diffraction territory. F8 for extreme close ups can get us similar DOF to F16 FF, and that is sweet, it's the side of it you don't see FF users talk about
Just on the back of that, having just acquired the Canon 6D; I haven't been blown away yet by this full frame and blurry background ness at all. Probably wildlife is not the thing, but not been bowled over yet!
Dunno if I'd ever go near a Canon again.Nice to have both though I had my eye on a 6D for a bit, would have liked to have it alongside the G80, just a couple of cheap primes is all I'd need, but wouldn't completely switch to one. No tilt screen and I'm too used to having an evf now, couldn't go back to OVF only. It'll be great for low light, landscape and portraits when you do want that shallow DOF look but for everything else I'd prefer the Pany.
Dunno if I'd ever go near a Canon again.
The last time I used a Canon DSLR was on my wedding day when I took a few shots with one. I later had to process my own wedding shots and it just reinforced to me that Canon are behind the curve these days. I'd honestly stick with my current MFT cameras than buy any Canon to date.
There's a GX9 for sale in the classifieds. I don't know if it's a good price or not but I do think it's a good camera, relatively poor evf aside.
Me too though I do have a Sony A65 with 16-300 as partner to my G9/100-400. I might be tempted by another G9 with a 12-150 of course...I'd honestly stick with my current MFT cameras than buy any Canon to date.
E-M1II+12-100mm I believe has the best stabilisation and IQ. I'd probably go with that even though you lose a bit of reach.Me too though I do have a Sony A65 with 16-300 as partner to my G9/100-400. I might be tempted by another G9 with a 12-150 of course...
E-M1II+12-100mm I believe has the best stabilisation and IQ. I'd probably go with that even though you lose a bit of reach.
Is it though? I thought the G9 had the best IBIS available atm at 6.5 stops, and coupled with a Dual IS enabled lens that goes to 7. In real world use I have seen 10 sec+ images from the Em1II though, even if they don't claim to have better. Olympus always did have slightly more effective IBIS in general though - for still at least, I think Pany's works better for video.
Well you answered your own question
That was a special on the G9 obviously, it's still over £1100 most places new. It can be had for £959 grey though. The G90 should be £699, as that's what the G80 was at launch. They're shooting themselves in the foot with pricing just to direct compete with Sony and Fuji (A6400, XT30)
At the very least 899 should bundle in a kit lens.
Anyone use a GF7?
Looking for something that my wife can use instead of her iPhone 5.
Can't be too bulky, and if she sticks to M43 we can share lenses.
This looks like a decent wee camera.
Body only on MPB for £119/£134
Yes, splash out on something new, shiny, colourful ...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=60TF0Ptr2kg
They come in pink too ...
An ex of mine was an internet seller, she bought a batch of pink cameras and they sold out pdq