"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[woof woof]

Hold onto that gx80!

It's a shame that Panasonic don't seem to make a RF style cameras any more.

I have the GX80, GX9 and GM5. I was thinking of selling the GM5 but as MFT RF style cameras seem to have disappeared from the shops I hang on to them all in case one goes faulty.

 

[Petey]

It's a shame that Panasonic don't seem to make a RF style cameras any more.

I have the GX80, GX9 and GM5. I was thinking of selling the GM5 but as MFT RF style cameras seem to have disappeared from the shops I hang on to them all in case one goes faulty.

Yeah. They seem to have grown popular after they were discontinued. I’ve been outbid on eBay for it now and the current bid is £330 with the 12-32mm. I bought it brand new for less than £400. It looks in pretty mint condition, but after selling one for £200 I’m not prepared to fork out too much more for another one. I also made the mistake of selling a mint Olympus pen f for £450 several years ago

 

[woof woof]

On RF styling, Sony make the A6xxx series which is APS-C and the A7c range which is FF. Fuji make some too. Overall I do like the MFT ones as the overall package can be very compact and they're so responsive, like little sports cars.

I've always thought that the Pen F was a little expensive compared to the Panasonic cameras but they are nice and I do see the appeal of them.

I've had the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 on my GX80 for a long time. The Panasonic 20mm f1.7 is on my GM5 and I use the GX9 with different lenses.

 

[Cockney]

Yeah. They seem to have grown popular after they were discontinued. I’ve been outbid on eBay for it now and the current bid is £330 with the 12-32mm. I bought it brand new for less than £400. It looks in pretty mint condition, but after selling one for £200 I’m not prepared to fork out too much more for another one. I also made the mistake of selling a mint Olympus pen f for £450 several years ago

I've always fancied a Pen f. I've picked one up a put it down many times.
It's inevitable one will come home with me one day.

 

[woof woof]

I've always fancied a Pen f. I've picked one up a put it down many times.
It's inevitable one will come home with me one day.

So expensive though. I've just Googled and I was a bit shocked. But, you can't take it with you.

I see Amazon have them but I can't see them for sale anywhere else. Are they still in production? I don't know.

 

[Petey]

So expensive though. I've just Googled and I was a bit shocked. But, you can't take it with you.

I see Amazon have them but I can't see them for sale anywhere else. Are they still in production? I don't know.

Nope. No longer in production. Discontinued a few years ago now I think

 

[woof woof]

Nope. No longer in production. Discontinued a few years ago now I think

Ah. I went back and had a closer look at the one on Amazon and it is used.

Seems odd that both Olympus and Panasonic have stopped making this style of camera especially as both Fuji and Sony have had success with them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I've always fancied a Pen f. I've picked one up a put it down many times.
It's inevitable one will come home with me one day.

I had a real Pen F camera at the end of the 1960s.

It was a nice camera but half frame was a nightmare. A shot you could get away with on a full frame 35mm film negative would tend not to impress customers in half frame. Now, M43 images are as good as full frame images for most purposes, in my opinion.

 

[Snapsh0t]

I had a real Pen F camera at the end of the 1960s.

It was a nice camera but half frame was a nightmare. A shot you could get away with on a full frame 35mm film negative would tend not to impress customers in half frame. Now, M43 images are as good as full frame images for most purposes, in my opinion.

I had an F and an FT in the early '70s but I was purely an amateur. Kept them until a friend at Poly offered me a Canon FTb and 50mm f1.4 at a very good price.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Long story short, something prompted me to go out at 8:30pm this evening and set low ISO on the G80, and see how low I could shoot the shutter speed and get nice, steady sharp shots in fading light. The lens was the 100-300mm Mega IOS and all shots were full zoom at F5.6.

I set ISO at the lowest of 200 for starters. SS 1/60 was pushing it a bit, I think with more weight in the lens I could have cracked it. Interesting how lighter rigs are good for carrying, but weight helps with a steady hand at very low SS.

I found SS 1/125 manageable, I don't usually go below 250 so this was a learning curve in regards what I can achieve, and with ISO's of 200 and 400 I shot some nice images in poor fading light that were pretty clean and could be adjusted in post without adding noise.

There were limitations of course, good images in the garden was impossible, but with so little light in the yard that was expected. But out on the roofs where there was more light I was impressed with what I managed. My images always degrade a little on here, please bear that in mind when you view the following.....

SS1/60 F5.6 ISO200


SS1/125 F5.6 ISO400 This was my happy place in the darkening light. ISO 400 more than acceptable on the G80


Also SS1/125 F5.6 ISO400 The blurry darkness at the bottom is the edge of the fence in my garden.


SS1/60 F5.6 ISO800 Not easy getting a pigeon that twitches it's head with low SS. By now the light was bad and this was a bridge too far.

 

[MK1 Photography]

So here's an image from my Panasonic GX80 with the 12-32 lens
It's Happisburgh Norfolk

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Messing about with the 7-14mm on my GX7.,,

 

[woof woof]

So here's an image from my Panasonic GX80 with the 12-32 lens
It's Happisburgh Norfolk

I like the composition Mark but it doesn't look sharp on my screen. Now and again a picture which looks fine on my screen looks soft on this forum so I'm just wondering does your picture look sharp on your screen?

Well spotted and composed Mark

 

[MK1 Photography]

I like the composition Mark but it doesn't look sharp on my screen. Now and again a picture which looks fine on my screen looks soft on this forum so I'm just wondering does your picture look sharp on your screen?

Well spotted and composed Mark

It's very low resolution as the forum won't allow the size to show true sharpness, on here it looks very sharp

 

[woof woof]

It's very low resolution as the forum won't allow the size to show true sharpness, on here it looks very sharp

Ah. I see. Good

I think for here you have to be under 500kb. I post 1,000 pixels on the long side and keep it under 500kb.

 

[Cockney]

I see from a picture in the mail today.
The Princess of Wales is a Lumix user.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Looking through the old files to see how happy I am with the 100~400mm Leica lens. I think it pairs well with a G9. A touch of contre jour at the Sidmouth Air Show ...

 

[Sangoma]

I see from a picture in the mail today.
The Princess of Wales is a Lumix user.

I thought she used a Canon for the mothers day picture?

 

[Cockney]

I thought she used a Canon for the mothers day picture?

Dunno. Shes holding a Lumix in the pic today.

 

[MK1 Photography]

A little montage from my GX80 tonight

 

[woof woof]

I especially like he bramble picture. Well done for them all Mark

 

[realspeed]

got back on Monday from a holiday in portugal on the River Douro. there I used my camcorder but the G9 on trips out even into Spain. I was really happy with the indoor videos of dancers with that camera and sound

youtube degrade vidoes too much

View: https://youtu.be/UHvxGWodK3I

 

[Crotal Bell]

Had an end of year bonus and considering the 1.4 teleconverter for the G9 and 100-400 Lieca.
I think this would give me 1130mm on the long end.
I've seen them around for about £250 but a couple of questions......
Do you lose any functions with the teleconverter?
Does the image quality suffer?

 

[MK1 Photography]

I especially like he bramble picture. Well done for them all Mark

Many thanks

 

[MK1 Photography]

This was a recent portrait from the GX80

 

[Sangoma]

Had an end of year bonus and considering the 1.4 teleconverter for the G9 and 100-400 Lieca.
I think this would give me 1130mm on the long end.
I've seen them around for about £250 but a couple of questions......
Do you lose any functions with the teleconverter?
Does the image quality suffer?

I have an idea it will not work with the 100-400 or the 100-300, the Olympus combination works but not the Panasonic.

I looked at it a couple of years ago, and would welcome being shown to be wrong, then I could look again

 

[Sangoma]

got back on Mondat from a holiday in portugal on the River Douro. there I used my camcorder but the G9 on trips out even into Spain. I was really happy with the indoor videos of dancers with that camera and sound

youtube degrade vidoes too much

View: https://youtu.be/UHvxGWodK3I

They do do a good job, in fact I thing all the Panasonic m43 cameras I've tried take good videos.

Does look like the artificial horizon on your G9 could do with calibrating though

I have a Rode mic for the G9s, but find in most environments I prefer the G9's mic.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I have an idea it will not work with the 100-400 or the 100-300, the Olympus combination works but not the Panasonic.

I looked at it a couple of years ago, and would welcome being shown to be wrong, then I could look again

Thanks buddy

 

[realspeed]

left to right Nikon Sb900 flashgun with a Godox X1(n) receiver under
middle Godox V860iii flash gun
Right A panasonic G9 camera
Have on order a Godox TTL HSS 2.4G Wireless Bluetooth X2T-O Transmitter Trigger for the top of the camera should be here tomorrow or next day.
When that comes having already synced the two flashguns all I need to do is the same with the transmitter. Also may be handy when using the 10-300mm lens

OK why all this? so I can do things like this. with 2 guns fired they can stay out of shot easier

with a flash gun on a camera it is only a direct flash not always desirable, hence 1 or 2 flashguns fired remotely for different lighting effects

Did this with my Nikon gear some years ago and now Pixel King I have put up for sale in the selling section

 

[Crotal Bell]

What ain't I getting here?
Tried the high res mode on the G9 and chose to also save a standard shot for comparison.
I zoomed in on a mega crop on both and can't tell the difference?
I know the High res worked because the first image has a file size over 130,000KB whereas the standard is only just over 32,000KB
Here's the High res saved as JPeg


And here's the standard

 

[woof woof]

What are the dimensions?

I suppose if the big file allows a much bigger print that's a win for you?

 

[Crotal Bell]

What are the dimensions?

I suppose if the big file allows a much bigger print that's a win for you?

Well......yes Alan mate, that's the idea................but
I'm going for a local comp and wanted something to enlarge to A2
So I thought the 80MP high res would be perfect.
Thing is Alan, on You Tube people crop 100% into the images and can see the sharper detail on the High res, but when I crop and stretch a smaller segment 100%, I can't see any improvement over the standard 20MP shot ?

 

[realspeed]

I did read high Res photos would not show up the difference much if posted on a forum or YouTube

 

[woof woof]

Well......yes Alan mate, that's the idea................but
I'm going for a local comp and wanted something to enlarge to A2
So I thought the 80MP high res would be perfect.
Thing is Alan, on You Tube people crop 100% into the images and can see the sharper detail on the High res, but when I crop and stretch a smaller segment 100%, I can't see any improvement over the standard 20MP shot ?

I obviously can't really tell without seeing the results and I have to be honest and say that I don't know what the camera is doing when you select high res mode. I'd guess that one advantage is that the "bigger" pictures advantage is that it's bigger and will allow you to have a bigger end result.

For example I took a picture today which is 11.2mb, 4592x3448. Another picture from another camera is 22.5mb, 6000x4000. Assuming they're both the same quality that means that the bigger picture retains the smaller pictures quality but at a much bigger size. That has to be worthwhile for some people.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I obviously can't really tell without seeing the results and I have to be honest and say that I don't know what the camera is doing when you select high res mode. I'd guess that one advantage is that the "bigger" pictures advantage is that it's bigger and will allow you to have a bigger end result.

For example I took a picture today which is 11.2mb, 4592x3448. Another picture from another camera is 22.5mb, 6000x4000. Assuming they're both the same quality that means that the bigger picture retains the smaller pictures quality but at a much bigger size. That has to be worthwhile for some people.

Yea I guess it's doing what it's supposed to and the file must be able to enlarge to A2
Interesting comment from @realspeed maybe it's harder than I think to see it on my laptop.

 

[vintageman]

I think (and I may be wrong) but the proper way to compare the difference would be to have both images sized to fill an A2 "canvas" by setting the appropriate pixels per inch then cropping to show the same part of the image for comparison.

 

[Sangoma]

If you are not cropping, the standard 20MP image would give you about 9 pixels per mm or about 225 DPI.
The high resolution image would give about double. (all approx, as it would depend a bit on whether you printed to the long side or short side)

Unless you looked very closely or with a magnifying glass, you probably wouldn't see much difference.

The difference may not even show depending on things like the lens, atmospherics, how rock solid the camera was mounted, printer etc.

With perfect conditions, the high res mode would allow you to print 1/4 of the area of the original to the same standard as the whole frame of a 20MP shot.

On the screen it would only be obvious if you enlarged a particular portion until you started to lose detail, then looked at the same portion at the same screen size on the hi res shot.
Alternatively choose a section of a 100% crop on the hi res version, then make the same section the same size on the screen from the 20MP shot, and theoretically you should see a difference.

Whether it will improve an A2 print, viewed from a distance where you can see the whole image is probably questionable, even if every stage and component of the operation is perfect.

And even if it did, it won't make a poor shot look good, the photographers skills and talent will have a far greater effect on the "look" of the print

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Looking through my old files: a Buccaneer shipborn bomber at the Yorkshire Aircraft Museum (G9 / Leica 100~400mm)...

 

[realspeed]

Panasonic Lumix DC-G9: contains a 20.3 Mpixel sensor. The High Resolution Mode takes a sequence of 8 shots in quick succession between which the sensor is shifted by 0.5 pixel for each image. These are subsequently merged into an 80 Mpixel image.

 

[Crotal Bell]

If you are not cropping, the standard 20MP image would give you about 9 pixels per mm or about 225 DPI.
The high resolution image would give about double. (all approx, as it would depend a bit on whether you printed to the long side or short side)

Unless you looked very closely or with a magnifying glass, you probably wouldn't see much difference.

The difference may not even show depending on things like the lens, atmospherics, how rock solid the camera was mounted, printer etc.

With perfect conditions, the high res mode would allow you to print 1/4 of the area of the original to the same standard as the whole frame of a 20MP shot.

On the screen it would only be obvious if you enlarged a particular portion until you started to lose detail, then looked at the same portion at the same screen size on the hi res shot.
Alternatively choose a section of a 100% crop on the hi res version, then make the same section the same size on the screen from the 20MP shot, and theoretically you should see a difference.

Whether it will improve an A2 print, viewed from a distance where you can see the whole image is probably questionable, even if every stage and component of the operation is perfect.

And even if it did, it won't make a poor shot look good, the photographers skills and talent will have a far greater effect on the "look" of the print

Yes I understand that a poor shot is a poor shot and I am not trying to make something bad look good by using the high resolution. There is a local private hospital that want images from people in the area to use in A2 size as part of their redecoration for the hallways and rooms.

I figured if I took some local scenic shots it would make more sense to use high resolution mode and then if I size them to the dimensions of A2 on my laptop, they will have enough detail to be enlarged to full A2 by whoever is going to do the printing and framing?