"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

I've just received a used Panasonic 14mm f2.5 I bought for a reasonable price on evil bay. I had one years ago but didn't use it much so sold it but recently I just fancied another. I'd forgotten what a tiny lens it is. You can hear it working in a silent room but if there's anything else happening the noises it makes should be pretty much unnoticeable. I've got a 20mm f1.7 coming too. I have the Oly 17mm f1.8 which I personally think is a better lens but the 20mm is very compact and I thought it and the 14mm f2.5 might make a nice pairing for the GM5 I have coming.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I have 2 x GM5s. One has its 12~32mm on and the other a 35~150. They're a great compact system and ideal when I want to travel light; after all, I never know when I might want to run away from something... :naughty: :exit:
Click to expand...

I can't see that one anywhere Andrew, is that the 35-100mm or the 45-150mm? Or have I just missed a 35-150mm?
 
Ah, so it's the 45-150mm. I had the old 45-200mm but it constantly disappointed me and I could hardly ever get a sharp picture out of it. I thought it was me or maybe a poor copy but searching the net told me they're just not very good. The 45-150mm is imo a much more reliable lens.

Anyway. The 45-150mm has been replaced with the 14mm on my GX80 for today. The GX80 is imo a much underrated camera perhaps in the shadow of the GX9 and that is a batter camera but the GX80 is a bit smaller and cheaper and appeals to me for those reasons. My GX9 has a Oly 17mm f1.8 on it. There was last time I looked a GX80 in the for sale section, they are imo good cameras especially when I consider how they compare to the old Canon 5D I had.

Just one of my first shots with the GX80 and 14mm f2.5 to see if it works. Just a snap shot using the back screen, eye detect, f2.5 and an eye watering ISO 16,000. That's 16,000 not 1,600. A straight "Modern" mono conversion in Nik Filters of Mrs WW sat on the bed watching TV. Eye detect and ISO 16,000. Try that with a 5D.

goJ4kr5.jpg
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Ah, so it's the 45-150mm. I had the old 45-200mm but it constantly disappointed me and I could hardly ever get a sharp picture out of it. I thought it was me or maybe a poor copy but searching the net told me they're just not very good. The 45-150mm is imo a much more reliable lens.

Anyway. The 45-150mm has been replaced with the 14mm on my GX80 for today. The GX80 is imo a much underrated camera perhaps in the shadow of the GX9 and that is a batter camera but the GX80 is a bit smaller and cheaper and appeals to me for those reasons. My GX9 has a Oly 17mm f1.8 on it. There was last time I looked a GX80 in the for sale section, they are imo good cameras especially when I consider how they compare to the old Canon 5D I had.

Just one of my first shots with the GX80 and 14mm f2.5 to see if it works. Just a snap shot using the back screen, eye detect, f2.5 and an eye watering ISO 16,000. That's 16,000 not 1,600. A straight "Modern" mono conversion in Nik Filters of Mrs WW sat on the bed watching TV. Eye detect and ISO 16,000. Try that with a 5D.

goJ4kr5.jpg
Click to expand...
Thats pretty impressive for such a massive ISO.
 
The IQ, not to mention the range of physically smaller excellent lenses (not saying the Sony's aren't impressive, just that because of the physics of FF they are larger and heavier) is why I've just swapped from the A7C to the GX9 and am in the process of building up a lens arsenal.
 
Stephen L said:
The IQ, not to mention the range of physically smaller excellent lenses (not saying the Sony's aren't impressive, just that because of the physics of FF they are larger and heavier) is why I've just swapped from the A7C to the GX9 and am in the process of building up a lens arsenal.
Click to expand...
Crikey. Didn’t see that coming.
 
trevorbray said:
Crikey. Didn’t see that coming.
Click to expand...
Ah well, it's mainly down to the size and weight of the lenses. Even if I'd gone back to the A6500, the choice of zoom lenses for that format is limited and in my opinion the FF versions just aren't suited to neither the camera nor my shoulders. I was in at the start of m4/3, and re-processing some of my original files in modern software, especially DxO PureRaw, showed me that m4/3 was more than adequate for my needs.
 
Stephen L said:
Ah well, it's mainly down to the size and weight of the lenses. Even if I'd gone back to the A6500, the choice of zoom lenses for that format is limited and in my opinion the FF versions just aren't suited to neither the camera nor my shoulders. I was in at the start of m4/3, and re-processing some of my original files in modern software, especially DxO PureRaw, showed me that m4/3 was more than adequate for my needs.
Click to expand...

This is IMO one big advantage of shooting raw as as processing software improves over the years you can revisit any problem pictures and have another go at them.

I was gutted today as I wanted a GM5 and managed to get one but there's an issue with it so if I get my money back I think I'll give up and try and be happy with what I have.
 
Cockney said:
Thats pretty impressive for such a massive ISO.
Click to expand...

There is noise which is clearly visible in the colour picture if you go looking for it but I doubt any normal person would comment on it and even us nit picking geeks would very possibly be perfectly happy looking at a whole picture on screen and I'm sure it'd make a nice print too.
 
Yup they are nice and have some nice touches but I actually use my GX80 more.

What lenses are you looking at?

If only the A7c was a FF GX9 :D
 
Can anyone recommend anyone for Panasonic camera repairs?
 
woof woof said:
Yup they are nice and have some nice touches but I actually use my GX80 more.

What lenses are you looking at?

If only the A7c was a FF GX9 :D
Click to expand...
If it were FF we would be back on the merry-go-round of larger and heavier lenses. ;)

Should be getting the Oly 12-45 Pro in a few days, along with a Panny 25mm. Probably also grab an Oly 40-150 (not pro) and maybe a Laowa 10mm.
 
Stephen L said:
Another from yesterday. I think I like this camera. Can't wait to get some more lenses.

From the High Way by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I agree Stephen, think its actually my favourite camera ever.
Did you get the eyecup I recommended in an earlier post?
Makes a big difference when using the evf, bit bulky in the bag so I turn mine back on itself.
Going out today with it and the 12-45, stays on there most of the time now.
Bought and returned the additional grip, didn't like it in use and it was annoying with no cut out for the battery / card compartment.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
I agree Stephen, think its actually my favourite camera ever.
Did you get the eyecup I recommended in an earlier post?
Makes a big difference when using the evf, bit bulky in the bag so I turn mine back on itself.
Going out today with it and the 12-45, stays on there most of the time now.
Bought and returned the additional grip, didn't like it in use and it was annoying with no cut out for the battery / card compartment.
Click to expand...
Yes, I got the eyecup (had difficulty finding one). It’s useful but with the camera on its strap over my shoulder the EVF keeps flipping up. Might tape it down. I’ve considered a 3rd party grip but I’m still on the fence.
 
I always recommend the JJC grip. I think the actual grip may be a bit smaller than the OEM version but it does have an opening for the battery.
 
Stephen L said:
If it were FF we would be back on the merry-go-round of larger and heavier lenses. ;)

Should be getting the Oly 12-45 Pro in a few days, along with a Panny 25mm. Probably also grab an Oly 40-150 (not pro) and maybe a Laowa 10mm.
Click to expand...

Luckily for me I generally like shorter length primes so the size and weight of my A7+ any of the modern AF lenses I have isn't usually a problem for me. It'd only be an issue for me if I went for a long zoom or one of the new wave of top end f1.2/f1.4 primes. This is why when thinking about bulk and weight I generally only use MFT with my 45-150 and 100-400mm lenses as with anything else mostly I might as well use my A7 as there just isn't enough saving with MFT. Longer and heavier FF lenses just aren't for me either so MFT still has a place, also when I want to shoot silently.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Longer and heavier FF lenses just aren't for me either so MFT still has a place, also when I want to shoot silently.
Click to expand...
The GM5 is the ideal M43 camera, so far as I'm concerned. Two of them fit into a titchy bag and no-one seems to notice them - not even the red one!

Cameras Panasonic GM5 white background SL300 DSCF3760.JPG
 
CSB said:
Looks cool. What are they?
Click to expand...
High-pressure air connectors. Some years ago one brand of airgun used a valved version of the male on the gun and the female on the hose from the HPA supply. It then became the de-facto connector for making quick connects for other makes of airgun that use different connectors.
adapters2.jpg

Oh, and high pressure means up to 300bar/4500psi.
 
Nipping over the border tomorrow to Clitheroe to the importers of Laowa lenses. Take a look at the 10mm and maybe even buy one. :banana:
 
I just popped in from the Olympus thread to say hello.

Just bought a GX9 mainly for street photos and am loving it so far, tilt screen rather than the rotatable one, and far less stand out than my black and silver Pen-F.

Almost bought an all black Pen-F but they are far more money, used, than a new GX9, and why not try something different.

Got the 20mm mk1, and the amazingly small 12-32 and 35-100 zooms and 2 spare batterys. that means my whole kit fits in 2 coat pockets.

My biggest annoyance atm is the screen focus. On both my Olys, when I touch the screen somewhere they will focus and take a shot. The GX only seems to focus. A bit annoying when I want to grab a fast shot.

And here's one I took on my first outing, but with my Oly 45mm
Arm in arm by Pete Banks, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cockney said:
Maybe. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Well, made it over the border and back (luckily Lancashire is in the green zone). Lo and behold I bought the Laowa 10mm. Tiny wee thing. They took pity on me, being a native Lancastrian on missionary work in Yorkshire, and gave me a small discount. They had a vast array of both Panasonic and Olympus kit. I was sorely tempted. I may be back.
 
Stephen L said:
Well, made it over the border and back (luckily Lancashire is in the green zone). Lo and behold I bought the Laowa 10mm. Tiny wee thing. They took pity on me, being a native Lancastrian on missionary work in Yorkshire, and gave me a small discount. They had a vast array of both Panasonic and Olympus kit. I was sorely tempted. I may be back.
Click to expand...
Well done, we need people like you to push those boundaries. Enjoy the lens.
 
A great season this year with the Adonis Blues, ive shot quite a lot at f/16 too!.....Panasonic G80/Panny 45-150mm/500D close up filter. f/16 1/250 ISO640 103mm. Single image.

A "wild" 2nd brood male Adonis Blue Butterfly, basking in late August. Image is not cropped, handheld, jpeg, tweaked the levels some, but not far from the original jpeg.
The reason for using f/16, is im always trying to capture as much of the butterfly in focus as possible, not easy to do this close to the subject, without cropping the image.

Male Adonis Blue Butterfly. No Cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr
 
f16 though? FF equiv of f32?

With MFT I apply the crop factor to aperture and generally shoot wide open to f5.6 with very occasional forays to f8-10. Do you see any real advantage going to f16?
 
woof woof said:
f16 though? FF equiv of f32?

With MFT I apply the crop factor to aperture and generally shoot wide open to f5.6 with very occasional forays to f8-10. Do you see any real advantage going to f16?
Click to expand...
You will not capture everything in focus using f/5.6, f/8, f/10 etc. Not with all my variables taken into account, such as - always using a close up filter attached to lens, subject approx 30cms distance, filling the frame without the need to crop etc. etc. Closed wings shots are much easier, so i do drop down to f/8 to f/11. But when it comes to a basking open winged butterfly, its extremely difficult to capture all four wings, body/head, antennae etc. all in focus/on the same focal plane. Ive tried for years, using various camera setups...an failed for the most part!
 
I'm familiar with the 45-150mm and close up filters but even so f16 seems a little extreme as you're camped well into diffraction territory. I'd have thought an open wing shot like that would require less dof than a closed wing shot as the subject is relatively flat, but you were there and I wasn't.
 
The trouble with the subject of diffraction is that, though the theory shows that blurring will occur, in practice how much of that you can get away with varies according to other variables, such as the use of supplementary lenses, subject, angle, etc. If it were a hard and fast problem then surely makers would not want their lenses to exhibit it and thus restrict the maximum aperture available.
 
woof woof said:
I'm familiar with the 45-150mm and close up filters but even so f16 seems a little extreme as you're camped well into diffraction territory. I'd have thought an open wing shot like that would require less dof than a closed wing shot as the subject is relatively flat, but you were there and I wasn't.
Click to expand...
As youve said - "subject was relatively flat", but in this case (an most cases of butterflies basking/open winged) the butterfly is not really flat at all. The 4 wing tips will almost be on the same focal plane, then everything else will be on different focal planes, the rest of the wings, the body/head/antennea will be some depth/distance from wingtips, hence the need to go f/16, if i wanted everything in focus, with this subject posing in this manor.
On ocassion, butterflies will bask really opened winged, flattened right out(generally early mornings) if you are lucky enough to see this, perhaps with my same set up, you could get away with less than f/16?

An example of a male Adonis with wings closed, shot on the same day, with the same set up, but shot at - f/10 1/250 ISO500 103mm.
Note just how flat this butterfly is, but even at f/10, i couldnt get the furthest distance end of the antenna in focus!

Male Adonis Blue Butterfly. No Cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Either way, they’re lovely photos displayed in context with little or no distractions.
 
Stephen L said:
The trouble with the subject of diffraction is that, though the theory shows that blurring will occur, in practice how much of that you can get away with varies according to other variables, such as the use of supplementary lenses, subject, angle, etc. If it were a hard and fast problem then surely makers would not want their lenses to exhibit it and thus restrict the maximum aperture available.
Click to expand...
You make some good points.
The Panny 45-150mm is not a "serious lens", i guess its a basic performer. By attaching a canon 500D close up filter(with a +2 dioptres) its changed the behaviour of that lens (especially at 103mm). The butterfly is very much alive, its contantly moving, im holding the camera in one hand, for this shot to work for me, for me to capture this much of the butterfly in focus, i need to go to somewhere in the region of f/16...ive tried to make these kinds of shots many many times (with less than f/16) but ive failed to get as much of the butterfly in focus.
No doubt, in a controlled environment, with a flat/dead subject, on a tripod/rail (with all the time in the world) then with my exact camera set up, using less then f/16, to obtain the same kinda results...would be a breeze/easy peasy.;)
 
Last edited:
Testudo Man said:
You make some good points.
The Panny 45-150mm is not a "serious lens",
Click to expand...
It seems like a serious lens to me, so much so that I have two. Paired with the little GM5 it's an excellent walk about lens and I'm happy with the results,,,

Tornado fighter-bomber at Yorkshire Air Museum GM5 _1040748.JPG

Chihuahua in Window of Sidwell Street hairdressers Exeter GM5 _1050473.JPG

Hijab GM5 _1040151.jpg

Three wheel JZR car in Exmouth GM5 _1040192.jpg
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It seems like a serious lens to me, so much so that I have two. Paired with the little GM5 it's an excellent walk about lens and I'm happy with the results,,,

View attachment 331904

View attachment 331905

View attachment 331907

View attachment 331908
Click to expand...
Yeah, i meant in the grand scheme of things, i mean, theres plenty of "high end" lenses out there (which i dont own!). I wasnt knocking the lens, just saying it might have some limitations, if you choose to shoot around f/16???...I quite like using it myself. ;)

A wild male Adder, same camera/lens/close up filter used. Shot this at - 150mm!!...f/7.1 1/500 ISO200
As usual - handheld, jpeg, single image, no cropping, minimal PP.

PS, always show caution when getting this close to/shooting venomous snakes like our Vipera berus...Ive been observing Adders in the wild for over a decade, so i have some insight into their behaviour.

Male Adder (Vipera berus). by Tort Man, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top