"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Adamcski said:
There is also the Sigma 16mm F1.4 which is cheaper than the PL 15 F1.7? I seem to recall the 16mm being massive
Click to expand...

I like compact lenses so I've kept away from the larger primes. I'm loving the 14mm f2.5 at the moment as it's really small and the bokeh is very smooth.
 
Adamcski said:
Just watched a video comparing the two and the sigma 16 is massive lol
Click to expand...

As I have MFT and FF larger lenses on MFT just don't make sense to me as I might as well use my Sony A7 which when used with the tiny Sony 35mm f2.8 gives results similar to what I'd get with MFT and a f1.4 but with the Sony I also get more DR. So, for me MFT is for keeping the kit small and silent shooting which my A7 doesn't do.
 
Last edited:
Adamcski said:
Just watched a video comparing the two and the sigma 16 is massive lol
Click to expand...
It was designed for aps-c cameras hence the size.

If you want a nice walkabout zoom for the GX9 look no further than the Olympus 12-45
Use those two most of the time together although I do also carry the 15/1.7 for those low light occasions
 
Last edited:
I usually like 28/35/50mm equiv lenses but even though they were longer than I'd normally like for a while I really liked using 50mm lenses on my MFT camera giving 100mm equiv FoV. I used film era primes like the Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.7 and f1.4 and Olympus 50mm f1.8. If you have the time to focus manually these lenses can give you some of the subject separation and shallow DoF that some are looking for.
 
Adamcski said:
Read good things about these lenses but the 56 would give me 112 fixed wouldn't it? The 16mm would be good for me walk about wise as it would give me 32 (if my understanding is correct) but it's a chonky lens for sure lol.
Click to expand...
Not what you are looking for, it's just I was thinking of getting a 56mm or similar prime to kinda replace my Pana 45-150. And as the man in the video says, it's so sharp you can do a massive crop to zoom.
 
Well, I’ve just placed my order for the new Pana Leica 9mm lens. My 8-18 is off to MPB; they currently have no stock so I got a good price.
 
Those are examples of pictures I'd use manual focus for. I'd probably use AF to get me near enough there and then use MF to make sure that the point of focus was exactly where I wanted it to be. With the 12-32mm lacking a focus ring I gather you need to focus with a sliding scale on the back screen? That'd be too much faff on for me.
 
woof woof said:
Those are examples of pictures I'd use manual focus for. I'd probably use AF to get me near enough there and then use MF to make sure that the point of focus was exactly where I wanted it to be. With the 12-32mm lacking a focus ring I gather you need to focus with a sliding scale on the back screen? That'd be too much faff on for me.
Click to expand...
Yes this was using area autofocus and I just altered the size of the square. Looking at them, I don't think they look out of focus though.
 
Last edited:
Adamcski said:
Yes this was using area autofocus and I just altered the size of the square. Looking at them, I don't think they look out of focus though.
Click to expand...

I don't mean they'll be out of focus but with subjects like flowers where there is quite a relative depth to the subject the point of focus when using AF could be on the stamen or some point along it or on the petal behind it.

That might not matter to many or even most people but when I'm taking a shot of or including a flower, leaf or some other 3D detail the chances are that I'll want the point of focus to be on a particular thing or detail and with AF that's often a lottery, in my experience, so I normally use AF to get me close and then manually turn the focus ring to get the point of focus where I want it.
 
That makes sense. I was quite impressed with it (camera and lens) if I am honest. I do however believe I need my eyes tested (haven't done so for years) as I am 40 and thus far the only one in my family without glasses / contacts lol. I am also backing up all my photos to a second external sd currently - 45 minutes it said its going to take :(
 
Last edited:
Adamcski said:
That makes sense. I was quite impressed with it (camera and lens) if I am honest. I do however believe I need my eyes tested (haven't done so for years) as I am 40 and thus far the only one in my family without glasses / contacts lol. I am also backing up all my photos to a second external sd card currently - 45 minutes it said its going to take :(
Click to expand...

I'm 61 now but I can still MF very accurately. I'm dreading my eyesight going and not being able to MF but I suppose it might not happen and if it does I might not even notice if my pictures aren't as bang on as they might be on my best days :D
 
woof woof said:
I'm 61 now but I can still MF very accurately. I'm dreading my eyesight going and not being able to MF but I suppose it might not happen and if it does I might not even notice if my pictures aren't as bang on as they might be on my best days :D
Click to expand...
Why not use spot focus?
 
Cockney said:
Why not use spot focus?
Click to expand...

I personally don't find it accurate enough as the same issue remains, will it hit the exact detail at the exact point that I want it to hit?

When taking a picture of a flower or any other 3D object there's depth and when aiming at a stamen or a particular detail on a petal or any surface it'll be impossible to see if the AF has hit what I want it to without calling up the magnified view so rather than risk the point of focus being off I'll often fine tune with MF and when doing that I can pick the exact detail I want to be the point of focus.

I accept that many people and maybe most wont care where the point of focus is but I'm highly likely to pixel peep and say "Ah Ha!" There's also the possibility that AF will hit something in front of or behind the main subject when blades of grass, twigs, fencing or any other clutter may be present.
 
woof woof said:
I personally don't find it accurate enough as the same issue remains, will it hit the exact detail at the exact point that I want it to hit?

When taking a picture of a flower or any other 3D object there's depth and when aiming at a stamen or a particular detail on a petal or any surface it'll be impossible to see if the AF has hit what I want it to without calling up the magnified view so rather than risk the point of focus being off I'll often fine tune with MF and when doing that I can pick the exact detail I want to be the point of focus.

I accept that many people and maybe most wont care where the point of focus is but I'm highly likely to pixel peep and say "Ah Ha!" There's also the possibility that AF will hit something in front of or behind the main subject when blades of grass, twigs, fencing or any other clutter may be present.
Click to expand...
I've never had those issues with spot focus. I do use focus lock and re compose though.
 
Sooooo choices for my trip to Disney with the family....PL15 1.7 or the 12-35 F2.8. it's my 40 th bday soon so money won't be a problem for this purchase. From what I've read the PL15 1.7 is a lovely lens and very well made and may be better IQ than the 12-35. But the 12-35 offers more flexibility in focal range when walking around. I will take my 40-175 also as we are stopping in Animal Kingdom so there is like a mini safari around the hotel. Or, do I buy nothing and just take the 12-60 PL. The 12-35 is £250 off at the moment also, which is quite a saving.
 
Adamcski said:
Sooooo choices for my trip to Disney with the family....PL15 1.7 or the 12-35 F2.8. it's my 40 th bday soon so money won't be a problem for this purchase. From what I've read the PL15 1.7 is a lovely lens and very well made and may be better IQ than the 12-35. But the 12-35 offers more flexibility in focal range when walking around. I will take my 40-175 also as we are stopping in Animal Kingdom so there is like a mini safari around the hotel. Or, do I buy nothing and just take the 12-60 PL. The 12-35 is £250 off at the moment also, which is quite a saving.
Click to expand...
12-60 and the 40-175 or even a 45-150 (very light and easy)
The 12-60 covers most things in a small package and is not bulky or heavy, with good quality, and better suited to your trip.
 
Adamcski said:
Sooooo choices for my trip to Disney with the family....PL15 1.7 or the 12-35 F2.8. it's my 40 th bday soon so money won't be a problem for this purchase. From what I've read the PL15 1.7 is a lovely lens and very well made and may be better IQ than the 12-35. But the 12-35 offers more flexibility in focal range when walking around. I will take my 40-175 also as we are stopping in Animal Kingdom so there is like a mini safari around the hotel. Or, do I buy nothing and just take the 12-60 PL. The 12-35 is £250 off at the moment also, which is quite a saving.
Click to expand...
It's important to have what feels good, what's comfortable in your hands, well balanced. A lens you know well and love.

Regarding length, you need to know your own style: the whole street, or a little decorative detail on top of one building? The latter for me. I also love a bit of real close up wide angle: you can get it with the 12-60 on 12mm with the front of the lens an inch away from the subject.

Don't get robbed, keep it simple, wrist strap and low slung messenger bag.
 
Cockney said:
I've never had those issues with spot focus. I do use focus lock and re compose though.
Click to expand...

With spot focus the magnified display isn't as big as the usual magnified view so although it's more accurate than focusing with a box you're still relying on the camera to pick the point of focus and it's not going to be as accurate as manual focus with the magnified view simply because with MF and the magnified view the magnified area is larger and you can see more and you can focus on an individual detail.

Relying on AF / spot focus may well be perfectly good enough for many people but I like to select a detail and focus on it and none of these auto features allow the degree of accuracy that you can get with manual focus and the magnified view. Focus and recompose is ok for scenes and if you're not going to look closely but a much less good choice for close up pseudo macro if you want accuracy because you're moving the camera after you've focused and at close distances even movement of a couple of mm will throw your point of focus off.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I did look at extreme pros but maybe got a bit confused as the ones I bought state a transfer speed of up to 120mb/s whereas the cheaper extreme pros, but still more expensive than the ones I bought, quote much lower speeds. The pros I saw quoting similar or faster transfer speeds were £20 or more more expensive. Maybe the pros have faster write speeds and that makes a difference, but I didn't do any research or try and understand and I just went with buying identical cards to the one I already had which proved significantly faster than my old class 4 cards in use.

Faster cards are no doubt available but the ones I've bought do pretty much transformed the cameras I have so I can imagine how much of an improvement even better cards might be but in defence of my choice... they're cheap :D I didn't have to think about it and they're good enough for me as I'm very mostly just a single shooter. I may take several pictures quite quickly, but almost never or continuous.
Click to expand...
I too very rarely use other than single shot but I've had a couple of instances recently. One where I went to a motocross meeting and used continuous on the start of a few races. Then earlier this year I went to the Hawk Conservancy Trust near Andover and tried to capture some of the hawks in flight. This was with my RX10 IV rather than anything M43 and the longest burst was 87 shots, each about 13MB. The RX10 has a big buffer so I may not have troubled the card too much but I know I've got the fastest available, just in case.
 
Snapsh0t said:
I too very rarely use other than single shot but I've had a couple of instances recently. One where I went to a motocross meeting and used continuous on the start of a few races. Then earlier this year I went to the Hawk Conservancy Trust near Andover and tried to capture some of the hawks in flight. This was with my RX10 IV rather than anything M43 and the longest burst was 87 shots, each about 13MB. The RX10 has a big buffer so I may not have troubled the card too much but I know I've got the fastest available, just in case.
Click to expand...

I have had to change a battery when out but I've never run out of storage space not even on a two week holiday so I'm more than happy with my cards at the moment as although they're the same size as the old ones they are a lot faster in use and I do have the old cards as spares now. At some point in the future I may be asking someone here for advice on what to buy :D
 
Well I am back after a few days with family and really enjoyed using the GX9. I took the PL 12-60 lens and think this will be my go to holiday walk about set up. I took 597 pictures (just jpeg) and used about half a battery, so the battery life looks good. Also left the image stabilisation on the lens, so can't be too bad.

Might go for a fixed length prime next (although those 10-25 and 25-50 Leica lenses look lovely lol). Think the PL 15 mm might be the one next.
 
Adamcski said:
Well I am back after a few days with family and really enjoyed using the GX9. I took the PL 12-60 lens and think this will be my go to holiday walk about set up. I took 597 pictures (just jpeg) and used about half a battery, so the battery life looks good. Also left the image stabilisation on the lens, so can't be too bad.

Might go for a fixed length prime next (although those 10-25 and 25-50 Leica lenses look lovely lol). Think the PL 15 mm might be the one next.
Click to expand...

Primes have a few advantages over zooms. The can often have wider apertures for limited DoF and for low light use, they can sometimes offer better image quality or nicer bokeh and they can sometimes be smaller and lighter.

If any of that interests you a prime might be nice but with zooms you do get the extra flexibility, because they zoom :D
 
d00d said:
Humph ... wonder what that means.
Click to expand...

My guess is more Leica badges on Panasonic made cameras and lenses and more Panasonic made cameras rebadged and sold as Leica's with a x3 price increase.

Does that sound possible? :D
 
woof woof said:
My guess is more Leica badges on Panasonic made cameras and lenses and more Panasonic made cameras rebadged and sold as Leica's with a x3 price increase.

Does that sound possible? :D
Click to expand...
Hmmm ... I was thinking the opposite "Leica" becoming more overpriced, luxury goods, niche market. Panasonic remaining affordable with their best products labelled L2.
 
d00d said:
Hmmm ... I was thinking the opposite "Leica" becoming more overpriced, luxury goods, niche market. Panasonic remaining affordable with their best products labelled L2.
Click to expand...

My comment on x3 prices is aimed at Leica as they have a history of rebadging and selling at best mildly disguised Panasonic cameras at inflated prices. I can never understand why anyone would buy a Leica which is in reality a disguised or maybe even not disguised Panasonic. Just buy the much cheaper Panasonic :D I'm not criticising Panasonic, just guessing what could happen more.
 
woof woof said:
My comment on x3 prices is aimed at Leica as they have a history of rebadging and selling at best mildly disguised Panasonic cameras at inflated prices. I can never understand why anyone would buy a Leica which is in reality a disguised or maybe even not disguised Panasonic. Just buy the much cheaper Panasonic :D I'm not criticising Panasonic, just guessing what could happen more.
Click to expand...
Yeah so sorry not the opposite.

But what about the L2 name? Do you expect Panasonic to use that as a badge? Leica could go on to market all sort of luxury goods with the Leica red dot. Just a thought.
 
d00d said:
Yeah so sorry not the opposite.

But what about the L2 name? Do you expect Panasonic to use that as a badge? Leica could go on to market all sort of luxury goods with the Leica red dot. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe it'll be just another badge on the kit somewhere.

I've had and have Panasonic cameras and if they all died tomorrow I'd probably buy another no matter what the badge so I suppose for me whatever happens wont change me, unless Panasonic put their prices up to near Leica levels but if they do that for MFT it'd surprise me. I wouldn't be surprised to see more Panasonic kit badged as and sold by Leica even though buying it makes no sense to me :D

I really don't know what's going on with his new announcement as as far as I know Leica and Panasonic have been co operating for years. So what's new? I don't know. But I'd still buy a Panasonic :D
 
d00d said:
Do you expect Panasonic to use that as a badge?
Click to expand...
Panasonic have been using the Leica brand on various cameras for several years...

Camera Panasonic TZ70 HX90 DSC00050.JPG
 
d00d said:
My question: do you expect Panasonic to use L2 instead of Leica in the future?
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no idea. :thinking:
 
d00d said:
My question: do you expect Panasonic to use L2 instead of Leica in the future?
Click to expand...

I think we could see it on something or maybe it'll just be in gthe marketing blurb.

I can see why Panasonic would want an association with Leica, Sony did the same thing in the early days with Zeiss. I don't really care and I think they should drop the Lumix name and just be proud of being Panasonic :D

I think products can get a bit crowded with names and badges. Are Panasonic cameras and lenses going to carry Panasonic, Lumix, L for Leica and l2? Who knows and that's why the marketing people get paid the big bucks :D

This reminds me of a story once told to me by a guy who's sister worked for a big brand. They had multiple departments and each had to change something on the product. That seems pointless to me but I suppose it keeps people employed :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top