« Blog Note | Main | Quote o' the Day: Mark Twain »

Friday, 17 November 2017

Comments

I shoot both digital and film. When I hear people ask why I shoot film--"It's so expensive"--I think of the prices of these cameras and lenses in yesteray's 'Lucky' post, and have to wonder which is more expensive.

I see a lot of design clues from ye old Olympus E1. Ironic huh?

K-01 Revenge, part II ;^)
http://camerasize.com/compare/#725,285

The Micro 4/3 system is nice. The cameras are usually very well engineered and built, the camera bodies and lenses are typically quite compact, and the optical quality of the lenses is, on the whole, excellent to outstanding.

That being said, I'm hoping to sell all of my M4/3 "toy chest", including my Oly OM-D E-M1 and Panny 35-100/2.8, this weekend at the Fall PhotoFair in Newark, CA.

They are wonderful toys that I just don't play with.

The EVF on the Leica SL is 4.4 MP and .8x mag, while the GX8 is 2.36 MP and .77x mag. The SL EVF doesn't tilt, and the camera is typical Leica pricey, but I haven't tried a better EVF. One reason I like Leica is that they've prioritized the viewing experience: the best EVF on the SL; the best OVF I've seen on the S007; and the fantastic new VF on the M10, with higher magnification, a bigger opening and better eye relief.

For people who can't wait that long or spend that much for the G9, I can mostly recommend the Panasonic G85. The physical ergonomics are great: better than the GH5, and it reminds of Nikon's latest DSLRs with their deep and narrower grips. Everything falls to hand easily, unlike Olympus, which tends to feel cramped, and the menus are simple and well-organized.

The EVF is fantastic, and is probably the same one used on the GX8 with perhaps less heroic optics. It has Dual IS 2, and it's very effective, though still not quite at the almost magical levels of Olympus's cameras. Battery life is also very good for a mirrorless camera.

It seems to like the Panasonic/Leica 15/1.7 and 42.5/1.7 lenses, giving a lovely rendering especially in video mode. The 25/1.7 is more pedestrian and a step down from those two lovely lenses, but it's often available for $100 off, so it's not hard to justify it.

My only reservation is its 16MP sensor in stills mode: for whatever reason, when processing RAWs in Adobe's converters, there is pretty apparent stair-stepping on straight edges, like the sides of buildings. I've seen only one other review mention this, and they blamed it on the lack of an anti-alias filter, but I've never seen this effect on any of my Nikon cameras that don't have an AA filter on their sensors (D810, D850, D500). As they say, your mileage may vary, and more organic, curvy subjects may not provoke this artifact.

Good news for Fuji and Sony shooters. This looks on paper to be good enough to spur some competition, with worthwhile improvements in usability.

I'm probably not really qualified to comment as I have never owned, or even held a m4/3 camera. As you have pointed out often, I know that they are very good cameras with a large ecosystem.
As a long time FF user, I have never been interested until now, because I am considering the purchase of a Fujifilm GFx.
Your comment about pairing the GFx with an iPhone got me thinking.
Personally , I don't think that would be enough for me, --I'll know better next week when my iPhone X arrives.
But pairing the GFx with something like the GX8 (or 9) might make a very nice combination.
But so might an xPro 2 while staying in the Fujifilm ecosystem.

I noticed you mentioned criticism of the new G9's size & weight.
There is probably something to that. m4/3 struck a chord with many people who really wanted cameras that were both Good and small & light. That is m4/3 "Unique selling proposition" They have defined themselves by sensor size and camera size. A departure from a key selling point is not usually a good Idea. But if the camera is good enough , people will buy it.

"The LUMIX G9 includes a largest-in-class Status LCD on the top, allowing users to check the settings at a glance."

Ergonomics are so personal. I recently had occasion to use a DSLR for the first time in years, for a specific project. How am I " to check the settings at a glance." when I am at the back of the camera and the LCD is on the top?

I disliked that design with my 5D. Now that I'm used to mirrorless, I really hate it. Why would I want to move my camera from shooting position to see how it's set?

Most recently, sitting on the ground or a low stool, camera on a tripod, I couldn't lower the camera or twist it up/back, nor could I see the top without getting up, now too high. Feh!

The Oly SCP provides all that info, plus the means to change any of it, right on the back LCD or in the EVF. Far superior, to me.

(Yes, I imagine the G9 has Panny's QuickMenu, which isn't even close to as useful as the SCP, but doesn't require moving self or camera to read. But then what's the top LCD for, other than adding size and weight? Lipstick on a pig.)

BTW, I'm neither for nor against Panny, overall. I used a GX7 alongside my E-M5 very happily for thousands of shots - and personally found the IBISs about equal, still use GM5 and ZS50 and my most used lenses are PLeicas.

Interesting design decisions - the G9 is actually bigger in all dimensions than my Pentax K5 according to that camera size site.

Panny not taking advantage of the lack of a mirror box and the smaller sensor with this model.

I'm sticking with my G7 which is just about perfect ergonomically for me and so light and compact I can conveniently keep it in a jacket pocket with a 70-200mm (equivalent) mounted. Can't do that with my K5, nor will the G9 which goes against the main draw of the m4/3 format. I'm sure it's a marvelous camera however and customers will love it.

I have preordered a Panasonic G9 even though I have an Olympus E-M1 MII. (One obvious advantage of Panasonic is its naming conventions.) I seem to alternate between the two manufacturers seeking the best solution for me, especially ergonomics, continuous autofocus and high ISO performance. I've gone from an E-M1 to a GH4 to my current E-M1 MII. (I still have the GX8 as my light alternative.) The E-M1 MII's ergonomics are almost as good as the GH4's, but the Oly's autofocus is the best I've experienced in a m4/3 camera. Unfortunately, it's still not where I want it to be. I realize that the G9 will not have phase detection but still want to see if the improved DFD can help the G9 at least match the Oly's continuous autofocus. In any event, I agree with Carol Teater's comment yesterday that there is still an advantage in autofocus by pairing each manufacturer's lenses with its cameras. I can see myself photographing football with the G9 and Panasonic Leica 100-400 over one shoulder and the E-M1 MII and Oly 12-100 over the other. And no monopod!

Just as I was ready to liquidate my Olympus M43 kit, you are really talking me out of it this week!

FWIW my Panasonic G80 IBIS seems roughly equivalent to the IBIS in my Olympus E-M5. I don't do tests, but I'd say that the difference is definitely less than a stop and they're probably not more than perhaps 1/3rd of a stop apart.

As I said I haven't done tests, but if there's anything that'd mess up my "findings" then it's the fact that it took me literally years to start to trust IS and really lean into it. I may not have leaned all that hard on it until now that I got my G80 after five years of E-M5.

NiCanistas get better toys than that. They do not need such songs to be happy ;-)
From my point of view there are too many choices in the world of 4/3 bodies, each with its strengths and weaknesses. But none of them is as complete a system as Canon or Nikon. Format: On large prints (prints, not screens) you see the difference (technical quality?). Yes, FF bodies are bigger and heavier, but lenses for 4/3 not that much smaller. So, as long as I am able to carry FF, I am staying. My contribution to the community of compromise: No MF.

Yikes, we all need to stop drinking the Kool Aid. When does it end these latest and greatest, more megapixels, more dynamic range, more image stabilization OMG. Most or all of these new toys have a 5 year lifespan and then what, those pricy optics we bought no longer can handle the sensor due to the increased resolution. Mike I can recall you were quite happy with that FUJI or was it OLYMPUS you purchased a few years ago. Here we go again, may the Supreme Grand Master of Photography look down upon us and save us from the Digital Camera Demons.

[Well, it's up to you how often you upgrade, but no matter how often people upgrade, there are always SOME people out there who are looking to do so, and those people are interested in the new gear. Also, many people just enjoy shopping even when they're not thinking about buying.

Personally, I'm in need of a solution with IBIS, but I've been headed in that direction for well over a year now. Still thinking about it. --Mike]

I'm certainly happy with my GX85!!!

MIke, as you need a camera with IBIS, and since you like the X-T2 as much as you do, my recommendations would be to wait for the Fuji X-T2S with IBIS to come on the market.

Cheers.

I remember back in 2001 there were maybe four cameras that seemed to have the same lens and sensor,
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7249992694/stevepanadmclc5

This isn't quite the four, but close.

So what does Leica or Zeiss or Canon mean on the lens? I don't know.

But still, there are neat cameras and lenses in M4/3. And both of these are among the tasty ones.

But lens quality on digital seems not to mean the same thing as it did on film. We can fake a lot of those effects, and the cameras fake a lot more of them as well.

It reminds me of Bob Carver saying that he could make his medium expensive solid state amp sound like any hugely expensive tube amp of the time, just by a little tweaking. He seemed to be able to do that at CIS shows back then, didn't he?

Back towards the end of my shooting film, it cost me about $20 a roll.

The D700 body I'm about to sell was an extreme stretch to buy when I did, and then it coaxed me into a very expensive lens upgrade. Those cost me about $5,200.

I have 80,000 exposures on it.

That would have been $44,000 of film and processing.

So I know which is more expensive.

Moose

I like a top LCD, though don't have one on the GX8. Back in the day film slrs generally had their speed dials up there and one had to look down to set the aperture and focus rings on the lens

"How am I " to check the settings at a glance." when I am at the back of the camera and the LCD is on the top?"

To Moose: The top LCD panel is really a concession that dates back to the manual film SLR shooters who were used to looking at settings on their dials (which are viewed while looking at top of the camera) when the camera manufacturers were transitioning to electronic AF film cameras. It's something I thought that was really stupid as well after I used the fine Minolta Dynax 9 (I'm sure Mike will have something to say about that camera) which had a huge and very useful LCD status panel on the back. You're not the only one who thinks a top LCD panel is not really a great idea.

To Mike: The GX7's IBIS is very different from the current implementations in the 8-series of cameras, as well as the GH5. They all have very nice IBIS implementations.

Oh, and kudos for being one of the rare sites to mention about the lever in front. I saw it and had to search what it really was. DPReview and the other sites didn't even mention it.

To everyone who complains the camera is too big: It's about system size. I like to have a decent grip with my main camera, thank you. I'm still carrying less weight and bulk in lenses.

On the camera itself: At that price level I kinda am wondering what it really brings to the table compared to the GH5. I hope the reviews come fast, the GH3 is getting a bit old and might need replacing in the next 12-18 months.

David Dyer-Bennet, I'll bet that if you were still shooting film you wouldn't have 80,000 exposures. My folders are full of sequences I took, so as not to miss the crucial moment and because the marginal cost was zero, and haven't bothered to prune.

I would be interested in your take on the Sony RX10 iii and iv as alternatives to m4/3 for those tired of the weight, size and price of their FF counterpart.

In response to Kenneth Wajda: the difference in cost between digital and film is hard to compute. Film has become terrifyingly expensive: 35mm Tri-X is now £7 a roll, so if you shoot 52 rolls a year (which perhaps is reasonable for a mildly serious amateur, a roll a week), this is, conveniently, £365 a year. I am not sure what the cost of chemistry for that much film is, but I will guess at £1/roll. So the total annual cost is £365 + £52 which is £417. I will assume that printing costs are a wash, and that time spent processing film and in the darkroom is free (it's a hobby for most of us: it is not right to cost time spent on a hobby). Let's add £83 a year on neg sleeves and other storage, and as an averaged cost of CLAs on kit every few years (the 3 MXs I use mostly are now all over 30 and they do need looking at by someone competent every few years). So £500 a year.

If digits people have none of these costs, then they can spend about £2000 every four years on kit for the same cost as a film person, if the film person never, ever, succumbs to the temptation of some expensive antique camera.

Of course, I have based my costs on Tri-X: I am told that other films are available and that some of them are cheaper.

(In case it's not clear: I'm a film person.)

It sure is big and heavy considering it is built around a Micro 4/3 sensor...

I was thinking about Group F/64 this morning and wondering what f-stop on M4/3 would give DOF equivalent to f/64 on an 8x10 camera. Worked it out myself, and then verified it on the webs. Would you believe f/4? Yep. I’m channeling Edward Weston at f/4!

I'm six-foot-threeish with hand and feet to match. I've never understood why all the people with small or medium hands are always complaining about too small cameras. A camera is not a wheelbarrow, and requires a different mode of holding 8-)

Ergonomically I love my Sony NEX5n, but the colors and menus suck big time.So it's my one-and-only Sony http://camerasize.com/compare/#34,725

[It's not always about sensor size. I see your CS comparison, and raise you: http://camerasize.com/compare/#718,704 --Mike]

I can tell you what big brand names like Leica and Zeiss, at least, mean on a lens. They mean that the current owners of that brand think that having their name on that lens will not harm their brand (and, ideally, will help it). Since the decision is made before the lens hits the mass audience it's to some extent a guess, and if there are big changes in the ownership or even just management structure the decision-making may change (I don't think the Board makes those decisions directly, but I do think everybody else in the company is eventually responsible to the Board).

So, with Leica and Zeiss at the moment, the lens will be optically very good (if produced in a partnership like with Panasonic) to spectacular (if sold directly by Leica or Zeiss) in every way except price/performance, which they clearly have decided they don't mind doing poorly in. There will be some small percentage of 'mistakes' -- either the lens really doesn't perform as expected, or possibly the market decides to miss-value the lens; all human activities have mistakes.

Nikon and Canon branding doesn't mean quite the same thing -- they're happy to put their brands on more ordinary consumer lenses. But they still get the big respect (and the big bucks) for their best lenses. Canon has the "L series" or some such name to formally label them; if Nikon does I haven't noticed (and I've been using Nikon since 1981). Nikon had the "E-series" for a while to label cheaper lenses -- and they became classics. But all Nikon users understand that the 18-200 DX is just not the same thing as the 70-200/2.8 VRII, somehow.

20 bucks a roll? You were getting robbed. Processing C 41 costs me less than a dollar a roll doing it at home. The film itself is about 3 to 4 dollars a roll.

Wow! That last comparison of the G9 against a Sony A7 is telling! Too big for a m4/3 camera, in my opinion. My dual system in fact consists of an Oly Pen-F (small and cheapish) and a Sony A7RII (big and expensive).

As for top LCDs, it must be taken into account that, compared to back screens, they are always 'on' because use nearly no battery. So, they are quite useful even if only to check your settings at a quick glance.

The G9 is $1,700. Crazy. For most people, it's not that much better than the $1,000 G85.

Remember back in the days of yore when M43 was supposed to be the economical alternative? When simplifying the design by removing the mirror would lead to cost reductions?

Me neither.

If I were a camera company I'd be nervous: https://jakeseliger.com/2017/09/22/if-i-were-a-camera-company-id-be-nervous

Hi Mike. I'm sure that somewhere in the world some blogger is writing that both the D850 and GFX 50S are too small for their hands. That only a Pro Body Canikon will do 8-)

David Evans, it's absolutely true I wouldn't have shot as much on film. Partly just because I couldn't afford to :-) .

(I must have somewhat fewer exposures than 80k from that body archived; I took that number from the counter in the camera rather than by counting files on my disk.)

But...it's also true that I've gotten a lot of photos I wouldn't have got on film. The ability to review what I captured in the field, plus the fact that the marginal cost of each exposure is effectively zero, have pushed me into doing some things with low probability of success but high rewards. I can just keep trying until I see, on review, that I've had a few successes, even if that's 100 shots. If I feel it's worth the time (or if it's just more interesting than what I'd be doing otherwise). I work with lower shutter speeds and throw out a lot of blurred heads at music parties -- but get some nice shots at relatively low ISOs (which today means 1600 or so today -- I still shoot places too dark a lot). I shoot hand-held macro, and lose a lot to wind and things -- but try a lot more angles than I would if I had to set up supports for each one, and sometimes find great ones that I wouldn't find if each setup took 15 minutes. I go after rushing water, shooting very high shutter speeds to freeze what it's doing and just take hundreds and sometimes pick out a few I like.

So, I feel like I'm way ahead of the game having gone digital with the first big wave. A big part of that is that at heart I'm a photojournalist / event / snapshooter -- my drive is to record things. When I shoot artsy stuff I'm still thinking that I want to be able to see that again later. (Sure, I try to get my record shots as "good" as I can, but that's secondary to getting a record at all.) People with different driving interests will likely end up making different choices, as always.

Since I have retired I have devoted myself to doing video productions and still photography for non-profits that interest me. So far this year I have made two trips down to Guatemala. My camera of choice was the Panasonic G85 with Mikes old GX7 as a backup. I could have bought a GH5 but size and weight are critical considerations. In chatting with Mr. Tuck it seems the G85 will give me 90% of what a GH5 gives for MY applications. The results speak for themselves, the 4K videos I have produced are wonderfully rich in detail, fantastic skin tones and all the dynamic range I need. Same goes for the still images. I shoot RAW + jpeg and have found for normal lighting conditions the jpegs are great as they come out of the camera. I have made 20 inch long dimension prints from some of the RAW files and they are stunning. So you can pour over specs all all you want, it comes down to using the tool that does the job at hand and using it intelligently. I have since sold my Nikon D700 to fund further M43 and video equipment purchases.

I too am wondering about the increasing size of some of the M4/3 cameras. The first reason I started using them was decent sensors in a more compact size than a dSLR. I always thought I had large hands, but I have no problems handling an Olympus EP3. But then again, I began on a small camera, the OM1, and could never see the point for a large camera in small format (35mm).

The GX7 does have rather poor IS and I suppose one stop would be about right. It was not even in the same class as the 3-4 year older Olympus Ep-3. However, mine does decently well with the (older version) 12-35 stabilized Panasonic on it. The G9 in body stabilization is surely better by now.

Since I have gotten used to in-body IS, working without it at a slow shutter speed without tripod has become a bit of an unnecessary handicap most of the time. Combine in-body IS with a good quality fast lens and you can do things you can't dream of with one of the faux-rangefinders without IS at a lower ISO* no matter the magic attributed to them. Yet another reason I pick up my one of my m4/3s versus my Fujis when I need flexibility.

I think I'll be passing on Panasonic still cameras, but it is nice to know that competition is alive and well in M4/3s. I'll always take more choices as long as the difference goes deeper than the brand.


*ISO to me means an ISO that allows equivalent shutter speeds and aperture at the same ISO. If I have a camera that requires a 1-2 stop higher ISO number to get the same shutter speed and aperture as other cameras, then it ain't an equivalent ISO no matter how well marketing explains it away.

Quick response to Film/digital cost commentary if I may (Apologies as I know you're not keen on forum style, more letter to editor approach Mike). I agree it's a complex comparison, but there is also devaluation to consider. Most Digital cameras seem to loose value pretty quickly, so the way I look at it is that I'm spending that amount on film, not that I need to justify it that way, but it helps to quantity the business cost of doing art.

So the zero cost per frame for digital is not quite that. Of course this assumes buying new I guess where the devaluation is greater , which is not something I do. My digital gear was "obsolete" when I bought it.

There is also the question of craft skill - considered technique as opposed to machine gunning the shutter. There seems to be a whole philosophical debate around that which probably has as many variables as there are stars in the galaxy. I know what works for me so my annual film costs are manageable.

I try to keep a Zen mind - it's just as important to know when not to shoot.

"The GX8 has the best EVF I know of. Better than the GX8 means way good."-Mike

You may want to reserve judgement on that until you've actually used the EVF on the Fuji GFX in actual, real-world shooting conditions. Here's an example of what the GFX had to deal with when I used it and where it performed admirably: shooting indoors, outdoors, mixed light (like that absolutely wonderful mix of tungsten & fluorescent lighting-yeah! We LOVE that!), strong backlighting, very bright, very high contrast light, very low and low contrast light, a mix of indoor/outdoor light (e.g. the garage in a motor racing paddock, etc), tracking extremely fast moving objects while panning very quickly without "tearing", etc.

Just to name a few...

Specs are all well and good, but I don't find that DPReview "battle tests" gear the way a sports photojournalist does in actual, tough, real-world shooting conditions and scenarios (boy, I sure miss Rob Galbraith).

Regardless, its great to see that EVFs have gotten REALLY good.

"Format: On large prints (prints, not screens) you see the difference" - Robert

Might I suggest that it depends on the photographer, post processor and the printers, both person and device? I have seen, close up, significant crops of 16 MP µ4/3 files printed to 20x24" in Ctein's printer room. I don't think they give a thing away to FF beyond any magnification I will ever print or have printed.

Can I do that? No. Can you: Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily mean the equipment can't.

"lenses for 4/3 not that much smaller - Robert"

Had you said that "some" or "quite a few" or "fast, expensive" lenses for 4/3 are not that much smaller, I might possibly agree.

Even using the rather small for the time FF Olympus OM lenses, the apples to apples differences are great.

OM 28/2.8 is much larger and heavier than Panny 14/2.5. Same for OM 50/1.8 vs. M.Z 25/1.8. I could go on . . . How about Leica 100-400 vs. - oh wait - there's nothing even close to comparable for FF.

Yes, the giant f/1.2 lenses may be little smaller than their FF equivalents. I wouldn't know, as those aren't my kind of lenses. But I have a full complement of OM lenses other than the super fasts, had some MF Nikon F lenses (only the lovely 200/4 left), extensively used some EF mount lenses on 5D and have way too many µ4/3 lenses. There is a large to huge difference in size and weight - apples to apples.

I don't know if you have real experience with µ4/3 gear. My opinions are based on many miles slogged with both kinds of gear.

"I took that number from the counter in the camera rather than by counting files on my disk. - D-DB"

Dubious and much different meaning counts for me than they used to be.

I now take quite a lot of in-camera focus stacks (brackets, in Oly terminology). One press of the shutter button generates 15 or 25 (my settings) exposures, that in turn become one final photograph.

As those exposures are all without mechanical shutter use, there's no shutter mechanism wear and tear.

A simple camera exposure count or a count of image files give a wildly inaccurate idea of how many "pictures" I took.

Fortunately, the LR catalog allows me to stack those multiple exposures automagically by time proximity and get a "real" photo count.

(I still don't like LR for editing, but the catalog is pretty darn useful.)

Speaking of camera-size comparisons, here's the view that's most interestng to me: the top view compared to an X-T2. The G9 is 46% thicker than the X-T2. Yikes.

With all the recent discussion about M4/3 cameras at TOP of late, my experience yesterday at the Fall Photo Fair in Newark, CA was interesting, upon reflection. I had my Olympus OM-D E-M1 and three M4/3 lenses, 2 Olympus primes and the Panny 35-100 f/2.8, along with my Fuji X-T1 and X100T, and Canon pro bodes and L glass for sale.

Interestingly, none of the mirrorless gear sold. Upon, reflection, I attribute this to the fact almost all transactions are cash, and most folks go to a photo show with only $200-$300 in cash, looking for something to pick up in that price range; most folks don't go to a photo show with more than $500 in cash in-pocket. The majority of the stuff that sold was my Canon pro gear; there are still a lot of people shooting Canon DSLRs in the U.S.

Of all the traffic I had at my table over the course of 7 hours (and I had a LOT of traffic), I sold only one M4/3 product, the Oly 45/1.8, to middle-aged guy carrying an E-M5. Only one person showed a passing interest in the OM-D E-M1. Other than that? Zip, nada, niente as far as M4/3 was concerned.

What drew the most interest and drove the most discussion BY FAR, was the Fuji X gear. I had a number of folks come by carrying their own Fuji cameras, and telling me with much passion how much they loved them. Also, interesting was most of the interest and discussion came from young adults in their early to mid-20s. The "word is out" about the Fuji X system with the generation in their 20s. The majority them told me that some of the key attributes they loved were the "Fuji colors", Fuji's rendering of skin tones for portraiture, and how well they converted to black & white. In my chatting with them, they expressed virtually no interest in Olympus, Canon, and in particular, Sony.

Which camera drew the most interest, by far? The Fuji X100T...the little X100T drew people like honey draws bees.

Interesting, very interesting.

Yes, as soon as I saw the announcement, I thought, "That's the one I want." I'll have to wait some time for the price to come down, though.

I have an E-M1 Mk 1 but I've never got to grips with the menus. It produces great quality photos, but I tend to use it as a point and shoot in Program mode. I have a couple of nice Olympus m4/3 lenses, though, so ....

I'll post one last parting comment this G9 article. For those interested (and those that may not be), I highly recommend this YouTube video by Hugh Brownstone (of Three Blind Men and an Elephant Productions) discussing the new G9 in-depth with a Panasonic rep.

https://youtu.be/cqf-fpVCaN4

Its clear from this discussion that, unlike the GH5, which is aimed at the pro videography market, the G9 is squarely aimed at the stills photography market for professionals, in particular, photojournalists and wildlife photographers, and Panny is fully taking on the Sony A9 and the Canikon "D-series" duopoly in the professional ranks.

There is a really excellent discussion of the pros and cons of the varoius forms of image stabilization, and how their requirements differ in different use-case scenarios, that may be of particular interest.

Watching this video, it's pretty clear why Panasonic chose to make the G9 the size it is: for ruggedness in real-world professional PJ world shooting scenarios. There's a reason why the Canikon pro bodies are as big and heavy as they are.

Looks like a pretty dang cool camera.

I think its important to remember that the size / weight savings of M4/3 is in the lenses not in the bodies. The Olympus e-m1 is (either version) is similar in size / weight to an XT2 or X-Pro2 but the comparable m4/3 lenses are considerably lighter. Compare, for example. the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 and 55-140 f/2.8 to the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8. Never mind the even larger / heavier full-frame equivalents. That said, the G9 is breathtakingly large compared to the e-m1 II, which would would seem to be by its primary competitor.

http://j.mp/2izwSQq

Perhaps a more telling comparison of the X-T2 and G9, both with 100-400mm lenses on them?

Bare body comparisons look dramatic, but the thickness on these Panasonics comes from the grips on them that are designed for business.

Hadn’t realised till I saw the photos in this post how well designed the FujiFilm X-T2’s screen is. My biggest gripe with the GX8 I recently bought is the need to flip out that screen to get it to tilt. In many ways, the GX80/GX85 would have suited me better (improved shutter, improved stabilisation) but I couldn’t resist the GX8’s viewfinder, grip and weather sealing, particularly with the bundled splash-resistant 12-60mm lens.

Hi Mike,
G9 seems to be designed for tele lenses, that they have only recently started to build. I mean serious lenses.
Its funny it took so many years for these guys to understand that M43 is particularly good for long lenses. Size and reach.
Panasonic 100-400 is a marvel if engineering in how small it is for such a huge range. Its really as big as Olympus 40-150 Pro. Then Olympus 300 F4 again exploits the format in being able to offer a 600/4 lens, though they have gone for a bigger size.
For Mike’s photography though, a GX9 will be much better.
On size: I think EM1.2 has a perfect size. G9 looks a bit big to me but then these cameras are supposed to support relatively big teles.

The comments to this entry are closed.