"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

I was just reading on another site about how compromised small system cameras are.

Every time I use my GF1 I'm impressed and every time I read how poor MFT is I wonder if the people making these statements have tried one. I think that at normal screen and print sizes my GF1 is indistinguishable from my DSLR.

Here's one from each but without looking at the info who'd know? And that goes for a larger image on my screen too :)

EGC2.jpg


EGC1.jpg
 
Cheers for the IR tips Alan Clogyn (bloody hell just noticed there's a lot of Alan's in this thread!) - must give it a try at some point.

woof woof said:
I was just reading on another site about how compromised small system cameras are.

Every time I use my GF1 I'm impressed and every time I read how poor MFT is I wonder if the people making these statements have tried one. I think that at normal screen and print sizes my GF1 is indistinguishable from my DSLR.
Click to expand...

I have been using my new Canon 5D MK I a fair bit in the last few days and have some thoughts on comparisons between the two.

At lower ISOs there really isn't a huge difference in IQ at all - it's maybe easier to recover highlights on the 5D, and there does seem to possibly be more tonal range, but there's not a huge amount in it.

The AF on the 5D isn't that much better - I know it's a relatively old camera now but the 5D II has basically the same system. It is noticeably quicker in most situations but unless you are shooting fast action it's really not a big deal.

The quality of the L lenses is pretty amazing - the 17-40L and the 70-200 2.8 are fantastically sharp. They are however massive and heavy in comparison - the 70-200 in particular. The 20mm 1.7 is still an absolute peach of a lens - and the 14-45 is really pretty good.

I still think M4/3 is a really great system, and I will still be using my GF1 or G1 for a lot of more casual social occasions and hiking/biking trips. I reckon it will also stay in the bag as a backup for some paid jobs I have coming up.
 
Last edited:
grum said:
Cheers for the IR tips Alan Clogyn (bloody hell just noticed there's a lot of Alan's in this thread!) - must give it a try at some point.



I have been using my new Canon 5D MK I a fair bit in the last few days and have some thoughts on comparisons between the two.

At lower ISOs there really isn't a huge difference in IQ at all - it's maybe easier to recover highlights on the 5D, and there does seem to possibly be more tonal range, but there's not a huge amount in it.

The AF on the 5D isn't that much better - I know it's a relatively old camera now but the 5D II has basically the same system. It is noticeably quicker in most situations but unless you are shooting fast action it's really not a big deal.

The quality of the L lenses is pretty amazing - the 17-40L and the 70-200 2.8 are fantastically sharp. They are however massive and heavy in comparison - the 70-200 in particular. The 20mm 1.7 is still an absolute peach of a lens - and the 14-45 is really pretty good.

I still think M4/3 is a really great system, and I will still be using my GF1 or G1 for a lot of more casual social occasions and hiking/biking trips. I reckon it will also stay in the bag as a backup for some paid jobs I have coming up.
Click to expand...

I must admit over the years I have had a fair few cameras, the most noticeable upgrade in quality was when I bought a Nikon D50. I have gone through the range of Nikons to D70, D70s ( 3 times) D80 D200 and D300, and do you know what? I find it hard to tell much difference between images taken on any one of them.
Then I bought a GF1 and still cant tell that there is much of a difference, certainly not to my eyes and for what I want to do with the images.

Sure, the D300 had a lovely feel and shutter sound and its higher iso was pretty good, but image wise, I dont really miss the dslr's now I have my ever expanding range of M43's.
I love my G2, but still go back to the GF1 because it looks so good.

Allan
 
Anyone recommend a good quality wrist strap for the GF-1, I've got the neckstrap but don't really like it hanging around my neck.
 
I bought an LX5 today and I'm not too impressed.

At ISO 100 I think that my LX2 is sharper, the LX5 looks...mushy... and the LX2 fees more solid and better made. The only real advantages I can see for the LX5 are better higher ISO performance and being able to shoot RAW rather than the annoying RAW+JPEG that the LX2 did.

Overall I'm disappointed with the LX5 as it's not the upgrade that I expected, not at ISO 100 anyway as IQ seems to be actually not as good as the LX2.

Oh well...
 
My free photography pack from the purchase of Panny GF-1 arrived this morning, elements 9 and premiere version too. 6 weeks to arrive, nice xmas pressie.
 
Hi folks

I am a new member of the forum posting from Spain. I came across this thread last night and joined up. I have a Panasonic G1 and I am mainly interested in portrait photography. It will take a little while to get to know the forum and I'll be here from time to time as well. There looks to be a lot of back-reading for me to catch up on.

Meantime, I do have a question. I have a Metz 48AF flash which I am trying toi master before it masters me and one thing I am trying to do is to work with the flash off camera. I bought a Hahnel Combi Tf remote trigger from Amazon and started on that... I got through one session with it and the next time I tried using it ... zilch... no flash (I changed the batteries... yes). I've tested a few more times and nothing. I don't know if anyone else has had experience with Hahnel, I would be interested to know.

I would also be interested to know if anyone could recommend another remote flash trigger compatable with the G1.

OK, that's it for now

a very happy festive season to you all

Joe
 
frank said:
My free photography pack from the purchase of Panny GF-1 arrived this morning, elements 9 and premiere version too. 6 weeks to arrive, nice xmas pressie.
Click to expand...

So there is really a Father Xmas :thumbs:
 
Can anybody recommend a good place to get the 20mm 1.7 from?
 
allanm said:
It incredible how within a day, your whole camera setup can be in danger of changing!
There will be some goodies in the classified section later.........actually theres one now!

Allan
Click to expand...

I did this today.
I've got a g1 and a g10 and thought about selling both and getting a g2. But ended up selling the g10 and buying a gf1.
 
woof woof said:
I bought an LX5 today and I'm not too impressed.

At ISO 100 I think that my LX2 is sharper, the LX5 looks...mushy... and the LX2 fees more solid and better made. The only real advantages I can see for the LX5 are better higher ISO performance and being able to shoot RAW rather than the annoying RAW+JPEG that the LX2 did.

Overall I'm disappointed with the LX5 as it's not the upgrade that I expected, not at ISO 100 anyway as IQ seems to be actually not as good as the LX2.

Oh well...
Click to expand...

Bummer :thumbsdown:! Sorry to hear that.

Still, it's helped me to stop wanting one, so at least somebody has benefited :D.
 
Has anyone out there used a M4/3 for a bit of motor sport?
 
Having owned my GF1 sine Mid August I'm thinking about selling it.

I just can't seem to get to grips with it somehow. I just don't seem to get the control out of it I want. :( I've just bought a second hand Canon 40d body and it could go towards a nice lens...

Unsure as ever!
 
matt b said:
Has anyone out there used a M4/3 for a bit of motor sport?
Click to expand...

Tried it for a bit of Motorcycle racing, but they're not best suited to fast stuff. The focus isn't as good as a true dslr, slow to detect and you won't see a constant image as they don't have optical view finders.
I've had a couple of 'ok' shots, but more luck than skill.

Motorsport or wildlife are probably still best suited to dslr's... for now.
 
Danny_Two said:
Tried it for a bit of Motorcycle racing, but they're not best suited to fast stuff. The focus isn't as good as a true dslr, slow to detect and you won't see a constant image as they don't have optical view finders.
I've had a couple of 'ok' shots, but more luck than skill.

Motorsport or wildlife are probably still best suited to dslr's... for now.
Click to expand...

Thats what i was going to try and take pics off why i go down snett next time. I'll give it a go and if i end up with one good pic i'll be happy:thumbs:
 
Naboo32 said:
Bummer :thumbsdown:! Sorry to hear that.

Still, it's helped me to stop wanting one, so at least somebody has benefited :D.
Click to expand...

It just seems a bit odd to me that two generations of camera and possibly years of research and development should produce a camera with worse IQ.

Maybe the mp race should be over so that they can improve dynamic range and general image quality. The usual upgrade still seems to be a bigger screen and yet more mp. Panasonic aren't the only ones who do this as Canon seems to do exactly the same.
 
woof woof said:
It just seems a bit odd to me that two generations of camera and possibly years of research and development should produce a camera with worse IQ.

Maybe the mp race should be over so that they can improve dynamic range and general image quality. The usual upgrade still seems to be a bigger screen and yet more mp. Panasonic aren't the only ones who do this as Canon seems to do exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I think some cameras seem to produce out of the camera jpegs that look extremely sharp and detailed till you come to print them. My Dad has a Panasonic FZ100 and the images look sharper on the rear lcd and computer screen than my G2 till we come to print them. The FZ100 images are very good but my G2 images are far superior and look more natural.

That is what I would expect too as the M43 sensors are far larger than the FZ and resolution must be better.

Allan
 
I haven't used JPEG's for years apart from with my Medion and Ixus compacts.

I've had another play with the LX5 today and it's deffo not as good at low ISO as the LX2. You can of course sharpen things.... but they then look awful and unnatural IMVHO.

I'm disappointed with the LX5 and can't recommend it, although I suppose it'll be ok if coming from a compact but not if coming from anything with decent image quality. It's not an image quality upgrade from a LX2 at base ISO, it's worse.
 
Last edited:
I've just been doing a little pixel peeping with some LX5 files at 80 ISO and it looks pretty good to me. I really can't see any discernable difference between the LX5 and the LX2 but that's not at all a controlled comparison.

It may be worth checking yours against another Alan to make sure it's not a bit poorly.
 
LX2 is deffo sharper to my eyes, or the LX5 is more mushy, whatever. Stuck with it now.

I can't really compare it to another as they seem pretty rare, my local Jessops had to get this one from Ireland. I could return it but I'm off to Kazakhstan on Thursday and I wanted to take it and my LX2 is boxed up and ready to post off to it's new home once the post office opens so I can't really disappoint the buyer by pulling out.

I think I'm just mad at myself for believing the on line reviews and not trying one out myself before buying. It's not something I'm going to do again. 60D was going to be next but I'll deffo try before buying.
 
Last edited:
I know this doesnt mean you can get your LX2 back, but you could return the 5 to Jessops as unsuitable then look around for something else. Canons S95 seems to be popular and is probably a similar size to the LX5.
You might find THIS interesting. Look at the noise tests.
Allan
 
Last edited:
allanm said:
I know this doesnt mean you can get your LX2 back, but you could return the 5 to Jessops as unsuitable then look around for something else. Canons S95 seems to be popular and is probably a similar size to the LX5.
You might find THIS interesting. Look at the noise tests.
Allan
Click to expand...

Im just about to get an s95, a lot slimmer than the lx5, by about 15mm I think.
 
Santa brought me a 100-300 lens, Here's Jake in a rare quiet moment, taken at 265mm at 1/15th sec:

P1030812.jpg
 
Nice Glenn - that 100-300 looks a lot sharper than the 45-200. The IS must be working well too seeing as that's equivalent to 530mm at 1/15!!
 
grum said:
Nice Glenn - that 100-300 looks a lot sharper than the 45-200. The IS must be working well too seeing as that's equivalent to 530mm at 1/15!!
Click to expand...

Thanks Grum, the lens seems quite good but it is hard to draw meaningful comparisons with the 45-200 because the weather is so dull at the moment.
 
Oooh! this lens is so tempting me to take the plunge before the new vat rate kicks in, quite a empty gap between my 20mm pancake lens and the 100mm. I had a 100 -400L which I sold off with my dslr kit which the crop factor made about 540mm anyone know what the equivelent the 100 300 is on the GF 1 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top