Panasonic G9 mk2

[Davide DB]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

A competitor like Panasonic on 4-5% market share vs Canon at 45% needs those unique selling points. They can't just copy Canon and Sony.

On the contrary, I smell the marketing department here.

"If 40 percent choose Canon it means what they offer is good so let's copy them!"

And now we find ourselves with M43 sensors in the body of a 1DX.

This is where Panasonic stopped dreaming and being innovative by betraying what were the peculiarities of the M43.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They will probably have to do a GH6 II with PDAF now to keep it selling.

They will be forced to launch a GH7 as soon as possible otherwise the timing chosen is simply suicidal.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

What about a X-E4?

Fun little camera and in some ways, better than the X100V.

I'd still rather have a V for the purity of the thing, but get some kind of grip on an XE4 and stick the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (or any small fast prime) and you'd have something half the price of the stupidly over-inflated prices people are asking for X100V's today.

Worthy of the hype? Maybe...

Worth the stupid money? Nope.

The XE4 isn't quite 'pro' enough for my needs but a couple of the other Fujis are. I'm just not going that route.

[PannySVHS]

Stabilization with Ibis plus extra Eis gives gimbal like stabilization and eliminates wobble on some native wide angle lenses.

Auto focus is spiffy but absent at 300fps. 4K 120p is offering Pdaf but no face detection, just center box AF. I must say this guy makes me appreciate the beauty of filming oneself in 300fps. Well, kinda. But kinda almost enough.:) Would love to see AF and wobble compensation with the 14 and 20mm pancakes, especially the latter. Color palette looks like another area of progression. We'll see. Waiting for slashcam and its "creamy resolution" and latitude tests. Latitude was one of the strenghts of the GH6, putting it up there with the best due to its Dual Gain sensor.

 

[kye]

 

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I have acute Main Character Syndrome.

Its always about me.

😂😂😂

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I pride myself on my Morrissey levels of unhappy-go-pesimistic and deep seated lifelong grudges so I doubt its that.

I just accept that people talk a lot of shit on the internet.

And that a lot of people are hysterical Marys.

Hence, my ignore list is extensive.

Fair enough.

The issue, I think, is that while you have perspective and are ignoring these sorts of over-reactions, I don't think the rest of the world, or the manufacturers marketing departments are, thus by repeating this BS over and over I think it makes it come true.

It certainly doesn't push things in the right direction.

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Well, to be fair, its right there on the front page of their organisation that does have the power to decide that.

"Micro Four Thirds is a versatile and highly mobile system that meets all kinds of photographers' needs and chases an optimal balance of high image quality, compactness and lightweight in cameras with interchangeable lenses."

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/

The semantics can be argued regarding the relativity of the elements of the balance but there is no doubt that the thrust of it is in the direction of smaller.

I suppose it really depends on what happens in the next year or so.

Scenario 1:

Panasonic releases an updated GX camera, which satisfies those who want a smaller body, and an updated GH camera, which has the things that this G9 doesn't have.  

If this is the case then the G9ii will be part of a sensible line-up of cameras, will offer good value for money, and will allow users to not have to span multiple mounts.

This release might have been pushed up because of the failure of the GH6.

Scenario 2:

There aren't updates to the GX or GH line for a while, and this G9 will represent Panasonic putting their sensor in a body that is unnecessarily large, but is shared with another model, and it will have been a cost cutting measure.

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

My understanding was that one of your primary desires was for a camera that had the discretion necessary for you not to be ejected from museums and galleries.

Which is why I would advocate for and made the point for the more demanding internals of the GX80 to be housed in something faintly approaching but not matching the Fp but with its heat management system.

Indeed, a museum camera is my main priority.  

However, I'd prefer to have a museum camera and a larger more powerful camera with the same lens mount, rather than having the museum camera be MFT and there being no powerful MFT camera.

The FP is a great example of what is possible, of course.  I wonder if we took that form factor and put an IBIS mechanism in it, and a chip that encoded a large range of compressed codecs, how large it would be then.  I'd also be happy if it had a slight bump forwards as a grip if they used that space to make the battery larger.

Perhaps the point of disagreement is over these two statements:

1. Small MFT cameras should exist because this is an advantage of the sensor size
   OR
2. ONLY small MFT cameras should exist because this is an advantage of the sensor size

I believe it's the first one.  The advantages I've outlined previously (and others I didn't comment on) apply to MFT regardless of what size the body is.

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its actually 9 in 7.

It does APS-C coverage and is a bit faster too so it is to be expected.

Ah, I thought it was the 16mm, my bad.

But, going back to the point about lens size, I still maintain that the pursuit of optical perfection is what made the lenses larger, and that by constantly wanting sharper lenses and higher resolution systems that everyone drove the lenses to get larger.

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

There is a specific lens type that can be calibrated called "LINK"

It is similar in terms of connection to the "FIZ" option in that it uses the MMX multi mode expander option but only uses two motors.

Unlike "FIZ" where the AFX gives you independent control of each motor, the two motors in "LINK" mode are as the name suggests linked.

During calibration, you adjust the focus of the anamorphic lens with one motor and the focus of the taking lens with the other motor until the image is in focus.

Once calibrated, the motors then automatically move the two lenses to their respective focus points based on the distance to the subject detected.

Nice!

You should be less shy about talking about the work this company has done to advance the technology...  

I tell people all the time that if the problem is people who don't know anything constantly doing self-promotion, the answer isn't for people who do know things to sit quietly and say nothing.

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm very surprised - pleasantly so - by how good it is on the S5ii.

But all of that goodness is relative to within the context of how you view IBIS anyway.

The irretrievably destructive nature of it in terms of the distortion of the image (not just in the "that doesn't look steady") is what puts me off it far more than the "is it actually looking stable" or the perceived "oh it looks too floaty for me" aspect.

The double whammy with this is that it not always easy to see what it has done when you are looking on a small monitor/EVF so you tend not to find out until its too late.

Tripods and balanced shoulder rigs still remain by far the better and safest option but its not always practical of course so its all just part of those compromises when you aren't in control of the environment.

I do have a way of testing IBIS systems that involves putting a 1/4 20 mounting point on something that has repeatable and controllable degrees of small lateral movements but I suspect that using the item that I have in mind would mean that the results would only be available on OnlyFans.

LOL about your testing setup.

I do think that manufacturers are missing a trick with IBIS.  The GoPro does EIS, which involves moving the sensor crop around on the captured image, which results in the same wide-angle wobble that that IBIS exhibits, but they compensate for the lens and so the results are buttery smooth.  This is the same compensation mechanism that is used in 360 cameras too.  

All Panasonic or others would have to do is to stretch the image in accordance with the current position of the IBIS mechanism and the FOV of the lens, and it would be completely eliminated.

This is up there with RS compensation too, where the camera would be able to compensate for the motion of the camera and the IBIS mechanism that occurred while the shutter was moving, at least for short shutter speeds where RS is visible.

I looked for software that would do stabilisation that accounted for lens FOV and the only option I found cost several thousand dollars, when it could just be built into the camera, like it is with GoPro and smartphones already.

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The thing is they are right about PDAF though aren't they?

Who is going to want a GH6 now, with crap AF and $300 more than the G9 II?

In the same price range as an S5 II?

It's toast.

They will probably have to do a GH6 II with PDAF now to keep it selling.

Which begs the question, why did they bring it out last year at all, better they had waited and got a strategy together that makes sense.

There is nothing about the S5 II, GH6 and G9 II that makes sense.

One is too cheap, one is dead, and the other is a full frame camera with the wrong sensor in it!!

Yeah, the GH6 was a bit of a lemon.

I suspect that them releasing the G9ii is to try and recover from it by releasing a powerful full-size bodied camera.

The thing I don't understand is why when Panasonic releases an MFT camera people don't like (or releases a FF camera) everyone jumps up and down declaring that MFT has been abandoned or ruined, but when Sony released the FX30 no-one said that they were abandoning or ruining FF.

 

It's very strange to me.

5 hours ago, Davide DB said:

And now we find ourselves with M43 sensors in the body of a 1DX.

@BTM_Pix remember I said that people get dramatic?

[IronFilm]

On 9/13/2023 at 12:35 PM, sanveer said:

Wish there were Anamorphic Lenses with autofocus 😁

Are there any for M Mount? (I don't think so?)

If so, you could then use the Techart autofocus adapter. 

[Davide DB]

7 hours ago, kye said:

 

@BTM_Pix remember I said that people get dramatic?

 

Yes I was too dramatic and I know you like to play devil's advocate 😉 but the substance of the argument does not change:

what is the point of having an M43 sensor inside a full frame body?

Certainly a huge saving in design and production costs (which unfortunately will not be passed on to the end customer). But what many are saying is that the route taken so far takes away a lot of the appeal of the M43 system.

 

 

[BTM_Pix]

9 hours ago, kye said:

However, I'd prefer to have a museum camera and a larger more powerful camera with the same lens mount, rather than having the museum camera be MFT and there being no powerful MFT camera.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a size relationship with the additional power though - and certainly not the disproportional one that we are seeing with Panasonic's latter cameras.

9 hours ago, kye said:

The FP is a great example of what is possible, of course.  I wonder if we took that form factor and put an IBIS mechanism in it, and a chip that encoded a large range of compressed codecs, how large it would be then.

To add some real world perspective to both of your points, this is what is possible if the will is there and would mean you could have your cake and eat it too if they had a different policy..

The a7Cii on the right is full frame, 10 bit 4:2:2, IBIS,  AI PDAF, Slog3, S-cinetone etc etc etc and is only marginally bigger than the GX80.

That was a route they could've gone down but their idea on how to bring comparable features to a smaller sensor camera was this :

So for you to have discretion while you are inside the museum and all the power boost in features for when you aren't whilst keeping the same lens mount, that is the setup you are forced to have to have in MFT now.

Its faintly ridiculous when you look at the a7Cii in particular as you only need the one camera as you have all the power you need in either scenario and staff are unlikely to kick you out of the museum when they see you using such a discreet camera.

Unless, of course, they think you are from the British Museum and are trying to steal the exhibits.

10 hours ago, kye said:

I looked for software that would do stabilisation that accounted for lens FOV and the only option I found cost several thousand dollars, when it could just be built into the camera, like it is with GoPro and smartphones already.

I think AI will sort this problem in the very near future.

BM have had the gyros in the camera from day 1 but never activated them until recently whilst they made the data operable so I'd expect to see rapid growth in that area.

The lens data is obviously also recorded in the metadata of your video files.

You never know, there might be something funky in that new camera they are supposed to be launching later today 🙂

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Yes I was too dramatic and I know you like to play devil's advocate 😉 but the substance of the argument does not change:

what is the point of having an M43 sensor inside a full frame body?

What's the point of having a FF sensor inside a full frame body?

What's the point of having ANY camera the size of a full frame body?

I can think of a great many reasons why having a slightly larger bodied camera would be advantageous beyond being able to stick a bigger sensor in it.  Almost all of those advantages also apply if the sensor was an MFT one.

21 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

There doesn't necessarily have to be a size relationship with the additional power though - and certainly not the disproportional one that we are seeing with Panasonic's latter cameras.

To add some real world perspective to both of your points, this is what is possible if the will is there and would mean you could have your cake and eat it too if they had a different policy..

The a7Cii on the right is full frame, 10 bit 4:2:2, IBIS,  AI PDAF, Slog3, S-cinetone etc etc etc and is only marginally bigger than the GX80.

That was a route they could've gone down but their idea on how to bring comparable features to a smaller sensor camera was this :

So for you to have discretion while you are inside the museum and all the power boost in features for when you aren't whilst keeping the same lens mount, that is the setup you are forced to have to have in MFT now.

Its faintly ridiculous when you look at the a7Cii in particular as you only need the one camera as you have all the power you need in either scenario and staff are unlikely to kick you out of the museum when they see you using such a discreet camera.

Unless, of course, they think you are from the British Museum and are trying to steal the exhibits.

I think AI will sort this problem in the very near future.

BM have had the gyros in the camera from day 1 but never activated them until recently whilst they made the data operable so I'd expect to see rapid growth in that area.

The lens data is obviously also recorded in the metadata of your video files.

You never know, there might be something funky in that new camera they are supposed to be launching later today 🙂

The size differences between camera bodies do make you question what the things are that take up space.  

I was looking only this morning at the size differences between the GX85 and the GM1, and was stunned at how much smaller it is again....

Of course, no camera is the Tardis and things like cooling for processing and compression, IBIS, batteries, EVFs, etc do all take up some space.

One thing that makes me seriously question the whole thing is smartphone cameras.  Think about it, they're smaller than an SD card, and obviously the sensor in them is very small, but all the image processing and compression etc is done in there too, and once the data has been read off the sensor then data is data.  If I placed the camera module from a smartphone on my desk, then put next to it a "proper" sized sensor, battery, lens, SD card, and screen, I'm still absolutely nowhere near the size of the GX85 even, let alone a 1DX!

I can't fault Panasonic for putting an MFT sensor in a larger body, the thing that will be sad is if they ONLY put it in a larger body, and don't refresh the smaller form-factors.  I love my GX85 but there's no doubt that the ergonomics and array of buttons on the GH5 or XC10 are a superior user experience.  If Panasonic released an updated GX line camera, and also released an updated GM line camera that had similar performance as the GX85, I'd be very tempted by the smaller GM size, but it's almost too small to be able to hold steady and by the time you put a lens on it other than the 12-32mm or 14mm or 15mm pancake lenses then the difference from a GX sized body would almost be irrelevant.

[BTM_Pix]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

I can't fault Panasonic for putting an MFT sensor in a larger body, the thing that will be sad is if they ONLY put it in a larger body, and don't refresh the smaller form-factors.

Unfortunately, I think that is what is going to happen and we won't see any more of the compact ranges.

19 minutes ago, kye said:

The size differences between camera bodies do make you question what the things are that take up space.

In this case my question was if they were going to go big what else could they have fitted in there.

Specifically, ND filters.

Unfortunately for Panasonic - and the rest of us - the 0.75mm difference in flange focal distance between MFT and L mount is in the wrong direction for them to offer an adapter, because that would justify the transition in at least providing an option for current MFT users to move up.

As we know from the LS-300, the majority of MFT lenses cover APS-C (and those that don't can use a 10-12% additional crop) so they could have made a very attractive APS-C L mount camera with appeal to both sides of the fence.

 

[kye]

4 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Specifically, ND filters.

I did note this from a few weeks ago:

https://ymcinema.com/2023/08/24/panasonic-develops-a-variable-built-in-electronic-nd-filter/

Who knows what camera that's destined for, but at least they're thinking about it.

The more I think about it, the more I think the G9 looks like an "Oh shit, the GH6 is tanking...  what can we super quickly get out there to keep MFT folks in the system?"

[BTM_Pix]

43 minutes ago, kye said:

"Oh shit, the GH6 is tanking...  what can we super quickly get out there to keep MFT folks in the system?"

Or maybe "Oh shit, who added the two extra zeroes to that order for the S5ii body shells ?"

[MrSMW]

As a user of the S5ii, I don’t mind the size & weight with a 4/3 sensor as I think bodies can sometimes be too small and less good as lens platforms.

I think if I could build a business case for a pair of G9ii’s it would be one with the pairing of 10-25mm and the 25-50mm f1.7’s, bolted on.

Keep the S1H for long static duty which with the battery grip, is a long time, and keep hold of the 70-200mm f4 for the longer stuff.

Ticks all my boxes really though the G9 units would come in a tad over my 1.5kg self-imposed new max weight limit…

But being able to shoot 20mm, 50mm and 100mm FF equivalent focal lengths would be pretty bang on for me.

Got me thinking now…

These things also shoot 6k 50p in 10 bit don’t they?

Must go read the specs and watch some reviews…

[Yannick Willox]

In defense to the size of the body :

It has no fan.

It does not overheat.

The IBIS is stellar, so you could often get by without the gimbal. This alone makes it actually a lot more compact.

Anyway, I tend to put everything on sticks, or walk around with it, and I need a new MFT photo camera - this means I am actually happy they release this. Except for the price.

[newfoundmass]

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't a very good camera, I think people just feel like the system is moving away from what it's potential is/could be.

It's a radically different time than 2017 and the years before spent developing a the GH5. You could overlook the larger size, compared to previous M43 bodies, because it was so much more advanced than anything else out there. 4K 60, 10-bit, IBIS, etc. were all groundbreaking features for the mirrorless market. 

Now though, releasing a camera that is the size of a full frame camera but with a smaller sensor and features that are not significantly better than what is already out there is a harder sell.

Like I said in a previous post, Panasonic probably has the marketing information to back up their decision making, and I absolutely understand that in many ways they are in a no win situation, but I just don't think they are able to compete when it comes to specs, at least not in a significant way. But size and affordability? Those are two things they absolutely could embrace and win some people over. An updated GH5 in a small, compact body at a very competitive price is a more compelling option for a lot of us vs. something like this. But again, it just might not be a feasible thing for them to do.

[sanveer]

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

To add some real world perspective to both of your points, this is what is possible if the will is there and would mean you could have your cake and eat it too if they had a different policy..

The a7Cii on the right is full frame, 10 bit 4:2:2, IBIS,  AI PDAF, Slog3, S-cinetone etc etc etc and is only marginally bigger than the GX80.

This comparison is slightly unfair in my opinion, solely based on the fact that the Sony had a lot more depth. Plus its an overheats. Like many Sony cameras 😁

 

 

 

Though I completely agree, that Panasonic absolutely NEEDS to  make Another GX Camera or even GM Series camera, with this sensor (I wonder if dual gain sensors are more battery hungry?). 

[sanveer]

5 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

Except for the price.

Agreed. $1499 would be perfect. 

 

 

 

[BTM_Pix]

12 minutes ago, sanveer said:

This comparison is slightly unfair in my opinion, solely based on the fact that the Sony had a lot more depth.

It is and it isn't really as It was going to the point of what is possible without having to put it in the size of body that the G9ii is in.

A7cii is under 50% of overall additional volume of the camera body and a 19% increase in weight for an additional 290% in the sensor surface area with its associated IBIS mechanism and processing.

Versus the 220% of overall additional volume of the camera body and a 54% increase in weight for an additional 0% in the sensor surface area that they Panasonic have given us with the G9ii 🙂

 In terms of the discretion aspect, I'd always maintain that it is the width and particularly the height of the camera body that attracts the attention rather than the depth so the much of a muchness in the height and width means the A7cii will fly  under the same radar as the GX80.

31 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Plus its an overheats.

Well, yeah, its all equal in the discretion in museums department for the A7cii until it bursts into flames and sets fire to the Bayeux Tapestry 🙂

 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

20 hours ago, kye said:

Scenario 2:

There aren't updates to the GX or GH line for a while, and this G9 will represent Panasonic putting their sensor in a body that is unnecessarily large, but is shared with another model, and it will have been a cost cutting measure.

This. Is clear that Panasonic will cut the costs to the max in their M43 line.

Newer lenses? Reash of the older ones.

Newer camera? Use the S5II body.

That's why I think that will never be another GX camera. They think it is not worth it - "smartphones killed it", and maybe they are right.

A new GX would need a serious investiment in a new body. A bigger battery (since all the new cameras have big batteries - is a problem that Fuifilm have too, and their solution probably will never pair the old small battery with a camera with IBIS), 10-bit video, no record limit (for me a camera of this size could easily keep the 30 min record limit for thermal reasons, but since the others are not limiting...), a better evf...can't see they doing that.

They even did not made a newer LX100 with all that demand for X100Vs.

[PannySVHS]

Richard Wong tested better lowlight capabilities than R7 and XH2. No big treat? Like anything else on this camera? I think it is, just like the ne Ibis, AF, Dual Gain and heck what not, possibly even a creamier image for video. Richard Wong did a 2hour+ review!

I like the body of the G9II. The S5, S5II bodies are the best looking FF cameras to my eye. Now, you have been, are and will keep being entitled to your opinions and underlining them from different angles. I understand what you mean but I prefer Richard Wongs input compared to the repeated statements regarding body too big, etc. I think it's perfect size. I see it as a cinema and cinema verité camera par exellence. Whereas the Sony A6xxx series is not a pretty sight to look at and the A7C has just the same kinda body. Scandalous, isn't it!

I am astonished about the G9 II, this new video beast. The unconvinced ones among us, they can repeat their complaints again just like been done before. It will leave me shaking my head due to that lack of appreciation. This thread surely needs some more overheated love for Sony brick cams. Some fresh Sahara winds from freshly fried  brick cam sensors. Some ever searching future Sony camera buyers with the same psalms and unwillingnes of purchase need to chim in more! Big time! Feels good to adapt to the overly cheek in tongue tone of this thread. We all sound like the mighty 30 to 60 year old dudes ruling this world, universe, cultures and greatest of manners, with an appetite and naughtiest of greatest plaisir of judgement. Seen that, done that, been there and all that tasty confidence. Gee, I need a break from some of the lesser intriguing "insights". I'll give you a longer one. I read the word wankers in one thread. Gimme a break. Missing @mercer and many more of the friends of the past. I am sure you do too. The tone in this forum has been lacking for quiete a while now. I'll give myself a break in the sight of overconfidential antics of the latest weeks on Eoshd. I think it's a great last word of this post. I appreciate this new camera and our lovely and dear Eoshd.

[sanveer]

On 9/13/2023 at 4:40 PM, sanveer said:

Great thorough review. This seems like one of the best ones. Hopefully someone tests the G9ii's video quality with the GH6 (I suspect it may have slightly cleaner video and thus slightly better dynamic range).

P.S.: That streaking issue has been fixed in the G9ii. 

 

 

 

 

I really feel Panasonic needs to Re-Brand and Re-Market their M43 lineup. A huge reason for not selling enough G7, GX85, and the GM5 cameras may have been poor marketing IMHO. The G9ii is a video monster, and Panasonic should leave no stone unturned to shout this to anyone and everyone.

 

"Richard Wong tested better lowlight capabilities than R7 and XH2."

 

It better than some/many APS-C cameras apparently, as mentioned in the video and above.

The original G7 had slightly better photo and video quality than the GH5. I suspect the G9ii does better than the GH6 too. Plus the substantially lowering and auto triggering of dynamic range boost seems like a good step. Okus the streaking has been fixed. So now looking forward to some dynamic range tests 😁