Panasonic G9 mk2

[MrSMW]

Agreed. I am not that techy but would have thought…if it’s even possible, that it would need sending in to be done physically. But as I said, not that techy!

Folks waited years for the GH6 but I guess you knew what you were buying so can’t be that affronted something else came along with PDAF because that was inevitable if Lumix were going to continue to exist as a camera brand.

I have zero evidence to support that, but outside of some diehard Lumix users, their image was ‘great video specs but utter trash AF so it’s a pass’.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again but I am surprised a company does not exist who will retro-mod older bodies with newer tech.

The body is just a shell and providing it is large enough, why not?

They take older cars and put modern bits in them.

We take old buildings and modernise them.

Why not older camera bodies with new tech?

Veering slightly off topic I know…

[mkabi]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Agreed. I am not that techy but would have thought…if it’s even possible, that it would need sending in to be done physically. But as I said, not that techy!

Folks waited years for the GH6 but I guess you knew what you were buying so can’t be that affronted something else came along with PDAF because that was inevitable if Lumix were going to continue to exist as a camera brand.

I have zero evidence to support that, but outside of some diehard Lumix users, their image was ‘great video specs but utter trash AF so it’s a pass’.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again but I am surprised a company does not exist who will retro-mod older bodies with newer tech.

The body is just a shell and providing it is large enough, why not?

They take older cars and put modern bits in them.

We take old buildings and modernise them.

Why not older camera bodies with new tech?

Veering slightly off topic I know…

I’ve always had that idea… had it back in 2014 in fact… I said… why not take the innards of a GoPro and put it in a canon??? 
 

I think I said it in the Magic Lantern forum at which point they said that I was trolling (TF?).

 

[BTM_Pix]

PDAF and CDAF are not mutually exclusive and Panasonic's Hybrid AF in the G9Mkii and the S5ii does use both, as do other manufacturer's systems, depending on circumstances.

If the camera can choose from either internally then it also means that what is offered to the user can also be offered or not depending on Panasonic's choice.

They have a well established background in offering paid upgrades (usually v-log but latterly ProResRaw/BRAW on the S5ii) that are activated in camera so if the GH6 is indeed the exact same sensor as the G9Mkii then it would give Panasonic the option to do the same using one of their upgrade licenses to activate Hybrid AF.

However, it does hinge on it being exactly the same sensor and not a variant of it like I have seen reported.

If it isn't exactly the same then its over to our correspondent Harry Callaghan.

[Davide DB]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

However, it does hinge on it being exactly the same sensor and not a variant of it like I have seen reported.

It's simply not possible thay are the same sensor. A modern PDAF sensor ha specialized pixels on it. It's not something you are adding later. Only old real DSRL had the space to implement PDAF out of the sensor.

If G9II and GH6 have the same image It means that the G9II sensor is a derivation of the GH6 sensor but it's a completely different one.

So I think I'll pass the mic to Harry Callaghan

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/124306/confusion-about-the-principle-of-on-sensor-pdaf-technique

 

 

 

[BTM_Pix]

16 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

It's simply not possible thay are the same sensor. A modern PDAF sensor ha specialized pixels on it.

That is precisely the point I'm making though.

If the GH6 is the same as the G9mkii then it too will also have them but they are not being used by the AF system at this time but it doesn't preclude them being used in the future.

As unlikely as it may seem for them to release a camera (GH6) that has the capability that everyone wanted but not enable it immediately and then release a new camera with the same sensor but enable it in that one is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Adding it as a €200 upgrade to the GH6 further down the line (and when they'e had more time to perfect it than when the GH6 was launched), why not ?

Its completely possible and would make sense for them and the customer.

If it is the same sensor, meaning that it was in the GH6 first.

Which, as I said, from what I've read it isn't.

[Davide DB]

29 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

As unlikely as it may seem for them to release a camera (GH6) that has the capability that everyone wanted but not enable it immediately and then release a new camera with the same sensor but enable it in that one is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

It seems to me a suicide decision.

It is bad enough that cameras receive fw updates, let alone hw. It would be the first time in history.

I simply believe that the sensor is a derivative of that of the GH6 and the marketing sells itself that they are identical. But the devil is in the details.

I've read too that they have the same sensor but who is the source? I guess it's just a PR statement. Nobody disassembled it.

[ac6000cw]

IIRC, around the time of the GH6 release (18 months ago), there was live stream/press discussion with some senior Panasonic people, where one of them basically said that including PDAF hardware on the sensor would have delayed the sensor development too much (for the GH6 timescale). 

So my take on it is the sensor in the G9ii is effectively the 'fully developed' version of it, and the GH6 has an intermediate version without the PDAF hardware capability. I think it would have been commercially crazy to not launch the GH6 with PDAF if they could have - they'd have sold more in the intervening months at higher street prices.

We'll have to wait and see, but I think there just has to be a GH6ii or GH7 soon.

[Andrew Reid]

My thoughts on it.

I am pretty sure this is the end of Micro Four Thirds.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/hannibal-lumix-why-panasonic-have-lost-the-plot-over-micro-four-thirds/

[Davide DB]

7 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

My thoughts on it.

I am pretty sure this is the end of Micro Four Thirds.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/hannibal-lumix-why-panasonic-have-lost-the-plot-over-micro-four-thirds/

R.I.P. then

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

That is precisely the point I'm making though.

If the GH6 is the same as the G9mkii then it too will also have them but they are not being used by the AF system at this time but it doesn't preclude them being used in the future.

As unlikely as it may seem for them to release a camera (GH6) that has the capability that everyone wanted but not enable it immediately and then release a new camera with the same sensor but enable it in that one is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Adding it as a €200 upgrade to the GH6 further down the line (and when they'e had more time to perfect it than when the GH6 was launched), why not ?

Its completely possible and would make sense for them and the customer.

If it is the same sensor, meaning that it was in the GH6 first.

Which, as I said, from what I've read it isn't.

From what I've read, it is the same underlying sensor, but tweaked - the values for the Dual Output Gain were changed (which I think that involves changing the circuitry), and with PDAF (with masked pixels). Hence, no PDAF with firmware upgrade.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

My thoughts on it.

I am pretty sure this is the end of Micro Four Thirds.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/hannibal-lumix-why-panasonic-have-lost-the-plot-over-micro-four-thirds/

I agree with most of your thoughts Andrew except possibly two…

The ‘chonky’ S5ii is fractionally smaller and lighter than the GH6, thought a tiny bit more than the old G9. 

Leading on from that, maybe…just maybe, they went with the S5 architecture because by doing so, it allowed them to develop the G9ii at a lower cost than with its own unique body? And they may even have not developed a G9ii otherwise and the GH6 might have been their last ever 4/3 body?

But otherwise yes, totally agree. I would also liked to have seen 4/3 be a ‘micro’ sized camera, especially when some of the larger sensor stuff is getting smaller. Lenses aside, just look at a GFX 100S or Hassie X2D next to a GH6. The Fuji is only marginally bigger and heavier but the Hass is smaller and lighter! OK, different beasts I know, but anything bigger than the OM-1 is too big IMO for a 4/3 sensor camera.

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I agree with most of your thoughts Andrew except possibly two…

The ‘chonky’ S5ii is fractionally smaller and lighter than the GH6, thought a tiny bit more than the old G9. 

Leading on from that, maybe…just maybe, they went with the S5 architecture because by doing so, it allowed them to develop the G9ii at a lower cost than with its own unique body? And they may even have not developed a G9ii otherwise and the GH6 might have been their last ever 4/3 body?

Possibly was a cost cutting thing, but this doesn't make the situation any better, especially given the $1899 G9 II vs $1999 full frame S5 II has not resulted in much of the cost saving being passed onto Micro Four Thirds users.

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

But otherwise yes, totally agree. I would also liked to have seen 4/3 be a ‘micro’ sized camera, especially when some of the larger sensor stuff is getting smaller. Lenses aside, just look at a GFX 100S or Hassie X2D next to a GH6. The Fuji is only marginally bigger and heavier but the Hass is smaller and lighter! OK, different beasts I know, but anything bigger than the OM-1 is too big IMO for a 4/3 sensor camera.

It has to be different.

If they need to charge $2k for a camera body then the micro Leica M style idea would do it for me because it's different.

When full frame has cannibalised your purpose, you have to try harder to be unique, rather than throwing in the towel and being the same but with a smaller sensor.

[kye]

8 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

That is precisely the point I'm making though.

If the GH6 is the same as the G9mkii then it too will also have them but they are not being used by the AF system at this time but it doesn't preclude them being used in the future.

As unlikely as it may seem for them to release a camera (GH6) that has the capability that everyone wanted but not enable it immediately and then release a new camera with the same sensor but enable it in that one is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Adding it as a €200 upgrade to the GH6 further down the line (and when they'e had more time to perfect it than when the GH6 was launched), why not ?

Its completely possible and would make sense for them and the customer.

If it is the same sensor, meaning that it was in the GH6 first.

Which, as I said, from what I've read it isn't.

It makes sense to me that it would be from the same family.  I can see them releasing the GH6, then keeping on going with the sensor to make it have PDAF and then releasing that in a subsequent camera that was better (PDAF!) but not the step change that they would want to make it the GH7.

7 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

IIRC, around the time of the GH6 release (18 months ago), there was live stream/press discussion with some senior Panasonic people, where one of them basically said that including PDAF hardware on the sensor would have delayed the sensor development too much (for the GH6 timescale). 

So my take on it is the sensor in the G9ii is effectively the 'fully developed' version of it, and the GH6 has an intermediate version without the PDAF hardware capability. I think it would have been commercially crazy to not launch the GH6 with PDAF if they could have - they'd have sold more in the intervening months at higher street prices.

We'll have to wait and see, but I think there just has to be a GH6ii or GH7 soon.

I agree, if the GH6 sensor has PDAF and they released it without that enabled, even badly, it would have been a completely moronic move.

All the criticism was of the AF, and PDAF is such an upgrade that their half-optimised PDAF implementation would still have been better than having a CDAF implementation (and all the negative press that goes with that).

[kye]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

My thoughts on it.

I am pretty sure this is the end of Micro Four Thirds.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/hannibal-lumix-why-panasonic-have-lost-the-plot-over-micro-four-thirds/

Respectfully, if you are a fan of the format, you wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops that it's dead.

I understand that tough love is a pillar of journalism (and one that is sadly lacking at the moment) but there's a point where it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your blog likely has more influence than you think, and if so, you're adding nails to the coffin instead of making it stronger.

[Emanuel]

I understand the criticism of Andrew but rather true, kye : ) your voice, Andrew, is more prominent than any of us can estimate. And as you wrote, this format is much more important than people tend to see. Well observed. So, I don't exactly see it as a negative remark.

I guess Andrew is more disappointed with this specific camera release sorta glass half empty throughout their camera line and the way the management pursued by them along these years since the GH3 introduction, as exclusive responsibility of those who launched it, than anything else as far as this format concerns though. Or am I wrong on this idea of mine?

[Davide DB]

I completely agree with Andrew. On the appropriateness of firing on the ambulance given its influence, I do not comment.

If Panasonic's policy is focused on saving money, what will be the next camera? 

A GH7 with the body of an S1H?

An S1HII eith the same S1H ?

Finally a GX80II ?

I can't believe they decided to rationalize camera bodies in this way. Maybe they fired everyone in the industrial design department?

Of course with this speed, when they complete the cycle we will have a Sony A7SV a Sony A2 a Nikon Z11.

Let's be clear, the speed with which Sony churns out new machines is evil but Panasonic's business policy is truly a mystery. 

 

[MrSMW]

3 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

An S1HII eith the same S1H ?

Yes please. It’s just some tech improvements I’d like, but the body is 👌

5 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Panasonic's business policy is truly a mystery. 

Can’t disagree with that! But then it is with so many Japanese companies!

I’m all for 4/3 re-adopting the ‘micro’ tag…and maybe, just maybe, it will happen with OM System, but I think it would take a small miracle now with old Panny Boy. I think they have probably gone too far down the road now in 2 areas.

1. More focused on FF, ie, less focused on 4/3.

2. The market has to be shrinking for the format (4/3) surely so why would you invest?

GH6 took sooooo long to arrive, it was not quite DOA, but the camera marketplace had moved along quite a bit.

The G9ii has been largely praised by The Usual Suspects, but unless you needed a smaller system, honestly, next to an S5ii, would you?

Maybe for someone with the lenses, but most I am pretty sure would pick up the full frame system for basically the same money.

My favourite filming combo right now is the S5ii with Smallrig cage, side handle, Rode Micro or WG, Sigma 28-70mm f2.8

As someone who shoots mostly 4K 50p, it’s a relatively lightweight *cinematic* 42-105mm FF equivalent beast shooting log for the kind of run & gun event work I do. Right now, nothing I’d rather be using.

Stills, now that is another matter. I don’t quite hate it for stills, just quietly despise it to the point I use my S1H for photography instead.

[BTM_Pix]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

If they need to charge $2k for a camera body then the micro Leica M style idea would do it for me because it's different.

Nikon have just announced the $2K full frame Zf which is in that vein for compact full frame.

Ironically, the Z mount is so adaptable that it is able to take MFT lenses too ! (Albeit dumbly)

 

[Emanuel]

Retro love is always welcome I guess, here for sure, unfortunately more than elsewhere. Fortunate ones we can consider ourselves. The difference of this place here to others is unveiling an invisible business set of decisions on camera manufacturing nobody seems or shows to care about out there.

[sanveer]

45 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Nikon have just announced the $2K full frame Zf which is in that vein for compact full frame.

Ironically, the Z mount is so adaptable that it is able to take MFT lenses too ! (Albeit dumbly)

 

Which has strange design choices, including 1 card slot that is "(UHS-I) Micro SD". I had to read that Many Times to believe it.