"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[Crotal Bell]

Two new, near completed, buildings in Shepherds Bush. Builders were busy during lockdown.

Offices: Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger. And The Hoxton, a 240 room hotel.

GX80 + Pana 12-60

Nice quality pictures, and as a G80+Pana12-60 user I would appreciate your settings choices for these kind of shots.

 

[woof woof]

Eston cemetery. GX80 and 14mm f2.5.

Wild flowers growing at the fence.

Growing out of a tree.

Mrs WW. Seated by the war graves. The nuts are for the squirrels. We fed quite a few

War graves.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Eston cemetery. GX80 and 14mm f2.5.

Wild flowers growing at the fence.

Growing out of a tree.

Mrs WW. Seated by the war graves. The nuts are for the squirrels. We fed quite a few

War graves.

Nice photos mate, particularly like the plant growing out the tree.

 

[woof woof]

Yup. Quite unusual.

 

[Jono1]

Anyone here use either of the 12-60 lenses ? Thinking of adding one to go alongside my 8-18 which I rather like !

Its for use on my EM1 mk iii but think I’m still allowed on this thread ?

I use the Lumix lens occasionally and have been happy enough with the results. I got some nice results in the Lake District last year with it. I have been tempted by the 12-35 f2.8 or Oly 12-40 f2.8, but I tend to use primes over zoom lenses anyway. Given what I’ve achieved with the Lumix, I wouldn’t bother stretching my budget that much further just for the Leica. I’m sure it’s great, but so is the Lumix and, looking at secondhand prices, it’s less than half the cost. The Leica may have better build quality and slightly faster apertures, but the Lumix is still splash proof which is great for the price. I wish there were more splash proof lenses at this price point for mft.

 

[Jono1]

I've been thinking about something like a Fuji 24mp apsc for those really random street shots where 100% crop might be needed.

There's a tidy looking XA5+15-45mm for less than £300. Hmmm might be fun, tilty screen too.

Are we to assume sensor sizes, ie M43 vs APSC and number of MPs mean what I think they mean? Or are there other things to look out for?

I’ve had Fuji equipment in the past and still got lenses I can’t seem to sell. The main draw to Fuji for me has been the small prime lenses which are great. However, I always get drawn back to mft and the difference between apsc (for me at least) is barely noticeable. There’s also plenty of small prime lenses for mft which are great. Although I do wish mft had more small, weather sealed primes. It might not make a huge difference, but weather sealing gives me more confidence to shoot in the rain. If you’re looking at the £300 price range though, I’d consider a gx80 over an x-a5. You get the viewfinder and IBIS and I’ve seen them go on eBay for that price with the 12-32mm zoom (I’m not a fan of power zooms like the xc 15-45)

 

[d00d]

I’ve had Fuji equipment in the past and still got lenses I can’t seem to sell. The main draw to Fuji for me has been the small prime lenses which are great. However, I always get drawn back to mft and the difference between apsc (for me at least) is barely noticeable. There’s also plenty of small prime lenses for mft which are great. Although I do wish mft had more small, weather sealed primes. It might not make a huge difference, but weather sealing gives me more confidence to shoot in the rain. If you’re looking at the £300 price range though, I’d consider a gx80 over an x-a5. You get the viewfinder and IBIS and I’ve seen them go on eBay for that price with the 12-32mm zoom (I’m not a fan of power zooms like the xc 15-45)

Thanks Jono .... so I didn't miss much! (the Fuji went pretty quickly).

A GX80 is what I've been using for years, and I am happy with it, reassured by what you say.

 

[d00d]

Nice quality pictures, and as a G80+Pana12-60 user I would appreciate your settings choices for these kind of shots.

Thanks mate. I was wandering around with camera in A mode with architecture in mind but prepared for anything really.

The first is interesting because the facade is curved, just wanted to keep it simple, abstracty, geometrical. 12mm f/9, iso 200, 1/640 sec.

A very different approach to the red bricks, WA distortion, dutch tilt, but very similar settings: 12mm f/8, iso 200, 1/500 sec.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I like the idea of small primes, but in reality don't use them very often at all.
Currently looking for a new home for my 15/1.7 and very likely the 25/1.4 too.

These days I mainly use an Olympus 12-45 or the relatively new Panasonic 9/1.7.
The latter is a much more versatile lens than I ever imagined it would be.
Weather sealed, small and light, its great for close up work as well as the wider uses I initially bought it for.
Sharp in the centre wide open and for me has made the 15mm virtually redundant.

 

[Stephen L]

I like the idea of small primes, but in reality don't use them very often at all.
Currently looking for a new home for my 15/1.7 and very likely the 25/1.4 too.

These days I mainly use an Olympus 12-45 or the relatively new Panasonic 9/1.7.
The latter is a much more versatile lens than I ever imagined it would be.
Weather sealed, small and light, its great for close up work as well as the wider uses I initially bought it for.
Sharp in the centre wide open and for me has made the 15mm virtually redundant.

Yes, I would have liked the 9mm, but they just weren't/aren't available. You were lucky to get yours! So I've settled on the Laowa 7.5mm. Even wider, but can produce great results. MF is easy on the G9, but because of the smaller viewfinder less so on the GX9. And despite all the guff about not bothering to focus ultra-wides, I've found that relatively good focus, especially on closer subjects, is essential for the best results.

Upper Settle from Watery Lane by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

I like the idea of small primes, but in reality don't use them very often at all.
Currently looking for a new home for my 15/1.7 and very likely the 25/1.4 too.

These days I mainly use an Olympus 12-45 or the relatively new Panasonic 9/1.7.
The latter is a much more versatile lens than I ever imagined it would be.
Weather sealed, small and light, its great for close up work as well as the wider uses I initially bought it for.
Sharp in the centre wide open and for me has made the 15mm virtually redundant.

Primes are very mostly what I use. I have the 20mm f1.7 on my GM5 and it stays there and for a while I've had the 14mm f2.5 on my GX80, 17mm f1.8 on the G100. I usually have a longer zoom on the GX9 usually the 45-150mm but at the mo it's the 12-35mm f2.8. 35mm f1.8 on my A7 but that's massive in comparison

 

[Crotal Bell]

Thanks mate. I was wandering around with camera in A mode with architecture in mind but prepared for anything really.

The first is interesting because the facade is curved, just wanted to keep it simple, abstracty, geometrical. 12mm f/9, iso 200, 1/640 sec.

A very different approach to the red bricks, WA distortion, dutch tilt, but very similar settings: 12mm f/8, iso 200, 1/500 sec.

Interesting, I'm assuming F8 - F9 to help with DOF ?

 

[d00d]

Interesting, I'm assuming F8 - F9 to help with DOF ?

That's the idea. Perhaps such a small aperture is not necessary. But why not play safe ...... when at base iso and plenty high enough shutter speed.

I understand lens performance peaks at around those f/ numbers.

 

[Snapsh0t]

I understand lens performance peaks at around those f/ numbers.

Yup, that's the point at which diffraction sets in with µ43 lenses.

 

[woof woof]

I rarely go to f8/9 with MFT but other things to consider are the focal length, the distance to the object being photographed and the final image size. DoF tables are useful until you get near enough the hang of it.

I can't remember where I found these on line but years ago I found them and copied various focal length ones to my pc. Keep in mind that these tables assume a specific image size and viewing distance.

Here we can see that even at f2.8 with a 14mm (what I had when I went out yesterday) everything from under 8ft in front of the camera to infinity will be acceptably sharp at the expected image size and viewing distance. 8ft in front of you may sound a lot but if you are stood up the chances are that nothing is going to be in front of you for further than that. When kneeling down or otherwise nearer to something you need to think more.

 

[Crotal Bell]

That's the idea. Perhaps such a small aperture is not necessary. But why not play safe ...... when at base iso and plenty high enough shutter speed.

I understand lens performance peaks at around those f/ numbers.

That's very helpful, especially in regards diffraction as @Snapsh0t also refers to. I made a rookie error on my walk Tuesday, in Aperture Priority and didn't check it. I ended up shooting a bunch of scenic shots in F22 and they looked dull and unsharp.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I rarely go to f8/9 with MFT but other things to consider are the focal length, the distance to the object being photographed and the final image size. DoF tables are useful until you get near enough the hang of it.

I can't remember where I found these on line but years ago I found them and copied various focal length ones to my pc. Keep in mind that these tables assume a specific image size and viewing distance.

Here we can see that even at f2.8 with a 14mm (what I had when I went out yesterday) everything from under 8ft in front of the camera to infinity will be acceptably sharp at the expected image size and viewing distance. 8ft in front of you may sound a lot but if you are stood up the chances are that nothing is going to be in front of you for further than that. When kneeling down or otherwise nearer to something you need to think more.

I think I'm guilty of narrowing my apertures when I don't need to, and I'm learning more on this. So basically if you're shooting a farmhouse thats 100mtrs in the distance with trees and hills away in the background, everything is past the point of needing to worry about DOF and a wide open aperture will serve best for sharpness?

 

[woof woof]

I think I'm guilty of narrowing my apertures when I don't need to, and I'm learning more on this. So basically if you're shooting a farmhouse thats 100mtrs in the distance with trees and hills away in the background, everything is past the point of needing to worry about DOF and a wide open aperture will serve best for sharpness?

It depends as some lenses are not at their best wide open and need to be stopped down a bit. That's the theory but I'm happy with all my MFT lenses from wide open. I tend to use them from wide open to f4 and occasionally stop down to f5/f5.6 and very rarely go any further.

I might have said this before but I'm stuck in 35mm film land and I still convert everything to "FF" so f8 in FF or f4 for MFT for general stuff with wider aperture for lower light and creative uses is pretty much the norm for me with only occasional stopping down past f4 or f5.6 if it's a zoom wide open at the long end.

Here's two pictures from yesterday taken with a 14mm f2.5, The first at f2.5 and the second at f4.

Here you may be able to see that the war graves in the background in the first are a little soft but in the second the picture is sharp enough all over.

100% crop from that f4 one.

Here we can see that even when focusing on something quite close, Mrs WW, the DoF is massive even at 100% and even at only f4.

One last thing. These picture were saved as 1,000 pixel on the long side at quality 8 and I think they look softer here than the originals do at quality 12 on my screen.

 

[Snapsh0t]

As Alan says, many lenses improve when stopped down a bit. I'm a zoom, rather than prime, user and my lenses have a maximum aperture of f4 or f5.6 so I tend to set f5.6 and forget about DOF unless I'm doing something specific like the little chaps in my avatar.

 

[woof woof]

As Alan says, many lenses improve when stopped down a bit. I'm a zoom, rather than prime, user and my lenses have a maximum aperture of f4 or f5.6 so I tend to set f5.6 and forget about DOF unless I'm doing something specific like the little chaps in my avatar.

Yup, I use my MFT zooms wide open and only stop down when making a deliberate and thought about decision as mostly there's just no need to sacrifice shutter speed or ISO even if we forget about diffraction.

 

[Sangoma]

That's very helpful, especially in regards diffraction as @Snapsh0t also refers to. I made a rookie error on my walk Tuesday, in Aperture Priority and didn't check it. I ended up shooting a bunch of scenic shots in F22 and they looked dull and unsharp.

This gives a nice explanation. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
M43 is affected more by diffraction, but then it has more depth of field.
The reason it is affected more is because of the small pixel size, the reason it has more depth of field is because of the small sensor size.
The two will up to a point partially negate each other, as you won't need to stop down the M43 to get the depth of field required (if that is what you require)

However, like many things, it is a balancing act, if you need to use f22 to get the shot, take it, it may well work, but no shot certainly won't work

 

[Adamcski]

A couple from my walk with the family at the local (not normal local but holiday local) beach.

 

[Crotal Bell]

It depends as some lenses are not at their best wide open and need to be stopped down a bit. That's the theory but I'm happy with all my MFT lenses from wide open. I tend to use them from wide open to f4 and occasionally stop down to f5/f5.6 and very rarely go any further.

I might have said this before but I'm stick in 35mm film land and I still convert everything to "FF" so f8 in FF or f4 for MFT for general stuff with wider aperture for lower light and creative uses is pretty much the norm for me with only occasional stopping down past f4 or f5.6 if it's a zoom wide open at the long end.

Here's two pictures from yesterday taken with a 14mm f2.5, The first at f2.5 and the second at f4.

Here you may be able to see that the war graves in the background in the first are a little soft but in the second the picture is sharp enough all over.

100% crop from that f4 one.

Here we can see that even when focusing on something quite close, Mrs WW, the DoF is massive even at 100% and even at only f4.

One last thing. These picture were saved as 1,000 pixel on the long side at quality 8 and I think they look softer here than the originals do at quality 12 on my screen.

Yes, this confirms my deduction that I use too narrow apertures that are not necessary and cause other issues.
I find all my images on here look better on my desktop and on social media such as Facebook.

 

[Crotal Bell]

This gives a nice explanation. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
M43 is affected more by diffraction, but then it has more depth of field.
The reason it is affected more is because of the small pixel size, the reason it has more depth of field is because of the small sensor size.
The two will up to a point partially negate each other, as you won't need to stop down the M43 to get the depth of field required (if that is what you require)

However, like many things, it is a balancing act, if you need to use f22 to get the shot, take it, it may well work, but no shot certainly won't work

Interesting and educational Steve, thanks.
There's no doubt I use higher apertures than I should, or indeed need to for a lot of my pictures.

 

[woof woof]

A GX80 and 14mm f2.5 snap at f4.

Knife Angel At Kirkleatham Old Hall Museum.

Amazing, moving and very sad. The write up said there's over 100,000 knives there.

Some knives have names. the write up didn't say why but someone did say they were the names of victims.

 

[Stephen L]

A GX80 and 14mm f2.5 snap at f4.

Knife Angel At Kirkleatham Old Hall Museum.

Amazing, moving and very sad. The write up said there's over 100,000 knives there.

Some knives have names. the write up didn't say why but someone did say they were the names of victims.

I’m sure I read somewhere that the knives were the result of a knives amnesty by the police. Nice shot, BTW, showing up the array of colours.

 

[Adamcski]

A GX80 and 14mm f2.5 snap at f4.

Knife Angel At Kirkleatham Old Hall Museum.

Amazing, moving and very sad. The write up said there's over 100,000 knives there.

Some knives have names. the write up didn't say why but someone did say they were the names of victims.

Love that, great picture

 

[Stephen L]

I’m sure I read somewhere that the knives were the result of a knives amnesty by the police. Nice shot, BTW, showing up the array of colours.

PS from my long-forgotten “preservation of forensic evidence” course (which was really supposed to be about computer crime) any item used in a serious crime where charges were or could be made would be preserved ad-infinitum as evidence in police archives.

 

[woof woof]

I’m sure I read somewhere that the knives were the result of a knives amnesty by the police. Nice shot, BTW, showing up the array of colours.

Yes. Googling tells us that several regional forces were involved with a hand it in and no questions asked policy. These are the knives which were handed in.

 

[Stephen L]

GX9 with Oly 45mm. Shadows deliberately deepened in LR. Love this lens - great IQ and dirt cheap.

Peepin Through by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[Stephen L]

And, using the same lens, our old JRT, Mistletoe

On the bench by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

Berries, colours and bokeh. G100 an Oly 17mm f1.8.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...and to think that in June we had skies like this (GM5) ...

 

[d00d]

GX80+100-300 @ 246mm, f/9, 1/2500sec, 1600iso

 

[Crotal Bell]

Just been out with my Bro In Law and he had his G3 with him. He struggled to get focus on shots of berries on trees, the camera seemed to struggle and the images were blurred. He said it happens a lot. I moved in and the G80 nailed the berries without any issue.
Was the G3 a bit tricky to use or do you think he's got an internal fault?

 

[Sangoma]

Just been out with my Bro In Law and he had his G3 with him. He struggled to get focus on shots of berries on trees, the camera seemed to struggle and the images were blurred. He said it happens a lot. I moved in and the G80 nailed the berries without any issue.
Was the G3 a bit tricky to use or do you think he's got an internal fault?

I have a few G3s and have had no problem with focussing.
Did he have it on spot focus?

I don't notice much difference in actual use between the G3 and G80, obviously there are differences, but nothing that shouts at you.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I have a few G3s and have had no problem with focussing.
Did he have it on spot focus?

I don't notice much difference in actual use between the G3 and G80, obviously there are differences, but nothing that shouts at you.

I think he did have it on spot focus.

 

[delb0y]

I started with a G3 - really liked it as a first digital camera. The EVF was pretty basic (but we didn't know that back then). It was pretty robust, too,

 

[woof woof]

Just been out with my Bro In Law and he had his G3 with him. He struggled to get focus on shots of berries on trees, the camera seemed to struggle and the images were blurred. He said it happens a lot. I moved in and the G80 nailed the berries without any issue.
Was the G3 a bit tricky to use or do you think he's got an internal fault?

I think he did have it on spot focus.

Assuming he wasn't on area focus or some other auto focus selecting system it's possible that whatever he was focusing on was a poor choice, perhaps dark or lacking contrast, or something like that. The camera shouldn't have any issues, my older G1 and GF1 had no issues.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Assuming he wasn't on area focus or some other auto focus selecting system it's possible that whatever he was focusing on was a poor choice, perhaps dark or lacking contrast, or something like that. The camera shouldn't have any issues, my older G1 and GF1 had no issues.

He's had the same issue on multiple subjects, and the images repeatedly come out blurred.
He's a very experienced photographer, switched from his Nikon when his eyes got too bad to use the diopter range and wanted the flippy screen.