Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 added to studio scene comparison

Is the review coming?

3 weeks agopermalink

aerorail

better images than the rx100 vi but slightly larger camera

3 weeks agopermalink

jl123

I would really like to see a detailed comparison between a cam like this GX9 with the new Lumix 50-200 2.8 and the Fuji with its 55-200mm lens. I think the results would be very close but with the Lumix offering a longer range. Look forward to seeing the actual comparison. j

4 weeks agopermalink

Such an improvement over 2013s M43 cameras:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcgx9&attr13_1=panasonic_dmcgm5&attr13_2=panasonic_dcgx9&attr13_3=panasonic_dmcgx7&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=print&widget=625&x=-0.36306677658697445&y=0.2641187840449833

NOT

4 weeks agopermalink

TheClueless

Cherry pick your comparison area much? Throw an APS-C sensor in there and you'll see barely different results, what a surprise. Now other areas do show more differences.

I do somewhat agree with the point that sensors could improve faster, but you're getting 4 more megapixels with generally *less* noise throughout.

4 weeks ago*permalink

BIOGONS

A fair comparison between 4/3" and APS would be facing up sensors with the same resolution, design and age. More resolution implies smaller pixel area and more noise; 24Mp vs. 20Mp.

4 weeks agopermalink

Didn't the GX7 & GM5 still have the AA filter? I know the GM1 did... The jump in res isn't really bringing much to the table either way, readout speeds have definitely gotten better tho.

4 weeks agopermalink

Sam808

Do you expect a miracle from a M4/3 sensor in low light at ISO 6400?

Only FF sensors can perform good in that conditions.

4 weeks agopermalink

@OP - you miss the improvements this sensor has in overall DR, overall color sensitivity.

3 weeks agopermalink

BinHereBe4

Five years ago scenario: GX7 with no AA filter, studio shots taken with 42.5 f1.2, imagine!
GX9 is zero improvement after five years image quality wise. It's worse, not better.

3 weeks ago*permalink

GX9 is indeed better than GX7. You really need to see images from both and in high contrast/etc. to see the benefit.

Everyone just looking at these studio shots misses the point. Worse- they aren not resizing down to make an equivalent 16 MP comparison.

3 weeks agopermalink

The comparison tool is resized

3 weeks agopermalink

if thats so - it still doesn't explain DR and other color situarions. Also worth checking what are they using to resize. Not all resizing is the same.

3 weeks agopermalink

BinHereBe4

Are you saying DR is better in GX9 than in GX7? If so please have your eyes examined.

3 weeks agopermalink

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2017/01/a-little-secret.html

I am saying the DR seems to be better than GX7, yes. The GX7 uses the old 16 MP sensor, the GX9 uses the new Sony 20 MP sensor. Either the DR is better or it fits better to cover highlights better while the shadows don't see that bad (which means higher DR).

As for my eyes examined, I have Panasonic cameras and Olympus that use the old sensor and I have experience with the PenF and GX9. So, my own working experience tells me it's better. What's your working experience?

Oh, btw, I am not the only one who has noticed.

3 weeks agopermalink

What he writes and what you see are two different things. The kitchen example has terrible banding/ horizontal noise and that AFTER being downscaled to 800x600p. The large version of the file has to look quite bad.
And this is the DR at normal ISO. After this you wonder if there is much DR left at ISO 1600/3200

3 weeks agopermalink

Read what he says carefully. As for his article I think it proves the point. But moreover, I have the camera and I can say the tones of this sensor (PenF, GX8, GX9, EM1 MKII/ G9 ) gets better tones than the older 16 MP sensor of m43.

3 weeks agopermalink

Ben O Connor

Such a capable amateur friendly 4K video recorder, yet lacking mic input!!! Panasonic, get real, it is year 2018 A.D.

4 weeks agopermalink

ChrisFB

Agreed! In fact, I was planning to upgrade my GX80 to a GX9, but after my last video project (syncing separately recorded audio on a lot of clips between 5-20 seconds)...NO MORE. I am happy with the GX80, happy with the IQ, amazing IBIS and excellent 4K, but the mic input turns out to be more important than the 4K feature. So..next stop..M50 or X-T100, both of which I do not think to be superior to the GX9. Tough Luck Panasonic. The lack of that 20ct mic jack is driving away more potential customers than you realize...

4 weeks agopermalink

Ben O Connor

Exactly. I got great footage of my grandma&pa. Fantastic stabiized 50p full hd image. But sound is below avarage. While 100€ cellphones has mic input, gx80 also gx9 lacks!

4 weeks agopermalink

thx1138

IQ falls off a cliff at ISO 3200, trailing even the E-M1 II by a clear margin and stop or more worse than APS-C. It's unusable at ISO6400. In 2018 being limited to ISO1600 is quite poor, that's circa 2010 APS-C performance. Note I'm only talking RAW, couldn't care less about SOOC jpg,

4 weeks agopermalink

TheClueless

> trailing even the E-M1 II by a clear margin

Where?

4 weeks agopermalink

stevevelvia50

Who needs to shoot at iso 3200 when using a 4/3 camera. If your full frame camera is set to 3200, then to get identical results with my OMD EM 1 mark ll, I only have to set my iso to 800.... the math is simple so don't struggle with it too much! The superior quality of my 12-100 f4 pro makes up for the rest.

4 weeks ago*permalink

NZ Scott

Stevevelvia50:

You are wrong.

Full-frame cameras have a two-stop advantage over M43 cameras, not the other way round.

3 weeks ago*permalink

@OP - m43rds has usually always trailed APS-C by ~1 stop (best of each sensor).

3 weeks agopermalink

Ultan

Looking at the drawing and etching, the preservation of detail, particularly at ISO 800, is impressive compared to the other cameras, even with the low/incandescent light and JPEG.

4 weeks agopermalink

BIOGONS

The 4/3" format is favored over the APS-c in the ISO comparative test facing up a current 20 Mp wo LP filter to an APS-C sensor of 24 Mp more than 4 years old from the A6000.
In any case, good results over the Olympus 20 Mp cameras, the AF speed that's another question...

4 weeks agopermalink

BostonC

Panasonic's jpeg engines still produce very jagged edges, after several iterations. If switch to RAW in the comparison tool, the edges become smooth.

4 weeks agopermalink

photofan1986

Oh, Panasonic has got many more serious problems with their jpeg engine. My gx85 is much worse than my previous gm1 and gx7.

3 weeks agopermalink

RMGoodLight

Looking at sharpness and detail the GX9 looks very good on par with the A6300 (minus 1 stop as all mFT sensor cameras). I think that the PL42.5 F1.2 plays a role. It is sharper then the old test lens the Oly 45mm F1.8. The A6300 is used with the amazing Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8. The GX9 uses the fantastic Nocticron. The Pen-F and OMD EM1 II look soft in comparison. With that mix a fair comparison is limited.

4 weeks agopermalink

cosinaphile

i would like this camera better the evf were not field seq.

but iq wise it looks lik an excellent camera

dpr please use the very best lens possible

4 weeks agopermalink

They used the PL42.5...

4 weeks agopermalink

cosinaphile

the 1.2 I hope .... the 1.7 isn't of the same quality ....but close

4 weeks agopermalink

PL - as in Pana Leica, so yes the f1.2, the 42.5 isn't usually mentioned with a preceding PL because it's not a PL (just forum short hand)... It's specified on the 'i' button within the comparison tool.

4 weeks agopermalink

cosinaphile

thanks .....thought they were both pl[ pan leica ] i own a few for my pen f

4 weeks ago*permalink

Nah, the PL primes are the 12/1.4, 15/1.7, 25/1.4, 42.5/1.2, 45/2.8 macro, and the 200/2.8... Plus the three f2.8-4 zooms and the 100-400mm. I think that's the lot, might've forgotten something...

Looking at that list it just dawned on me that actually have more premium PL primes than regular Lumix G primes now: 20/1.7, 25/1.7, 30/2.8 macro, 42.5/1.7 (unless you count the fisheye). The 14/2.5 seems to be discontinued, leaves a bit of a hole on the wide end.

Pana has a strong lineup but I don't think they've ever been accused of thinking it through and planning it out well from the start, it's obvious their strategy (and aesthetic) has shifted if you space em out my release date. Oly's does complement it in some cases.

4 weeks agopermalink

rebel650

Is it me or does the Sony kill the panasonic in the above image? The Olympus is not too bad.

4 weeks agopermalink

JPEG or RAW? In the low light mode or regular? Oly's JPEG processing still has the edge over Pana in some cases IMO but that can be very subjective.

4 weeks agopermalink

ekaton

Yes, the Sony is in a different league. I also added the Oly EM1 Mark II to the comparison and am surprised how much better it is compared to the GX9.

4 weeks agopermalink

mlieber507

Hopefully the Sony is better, it's got an APS-C sensor which is quite a bit larger than an MFT sensor. The trade-off between MFT and APS-C is in the size and weight of lenses.

4 weeks agopermalink

SkiHound

I know it's kind of subjective and one might scrutinize different part of the image. And I think the use of different lenses can have quite a bit of impact as well. With respect to the jpegs the default processing of cameras can have substantial impacts. Default noise suppression can really impact detail, etc. And default ACR files may be more friendly to certain bodies than others. That said, I too added the E-M1ii to the comparison, and I think the G9 generally retained far more detail in things like the brushes, clarity of detail on playing cards, etc.

4 weeks agopermalink

MrALLCAPS

@ekaton Better in what? Because I did the same comparison, and the GX9 is Sharper than the EM1 MkII in the Raw comparison.

4 weeks agopermalink

Ultan

No, under low/incandescent light the GX9 has much better color balance and slightly edges out the Sony in detail contrast in low light at ~800 ISO.

4 weeks agopermalink

ChrisFB

@ekaton, have to agree with MrALLCAPS. The GX9 shows a much more detailed image than the EM1 II? Might be the lens (haven't checked whether they are the same) or the focussing, as I would not expect that much of a difference between the 2 20Mp M4/3 sensors. But to me it is a significant difference and not in favor of the EM1 II.

4 weeks agopermalink

SkiHound

Glad to see others are seeing the same things I am. I've always liked the real world images from the E-M1ii. I'm not sure tests like don't do more harm than good. Any difference in the optical set up other than sensor is a confound. Default jpeg processing can be too aggressive with noise suppression, over sharpen, under sharpen, etc. And even if ACR is always on the same default settings, which I guess is "fair" the default settings may be better matched to certain bodies than others. I think it's very hard to isolate just sensor performance. That said, I see the GX9 as producing more detail than the E-M1ii in these test images. I'm less sure that translates to anything meaningful in the real world.

4 weeks agopermalink

Does the Olympus E-p5 still look pretty good compared to these cameras at bast ISO up to about ISO 1600?

Tedolph

4 weeks agopermalink

BG28

YES.

4 weeks agopermalink

mcleanwalt

YOUR REVIEWS TAKE WAY TOO LONG -- Your reviews take so long to complete that by the time they are out the camera is almost out of date.

4 weeks agopermalink

FuhTeng

Aww, isn't it a shame they do such a thorough and complete job of testing cameras that it takes a while and costs you not one penny? Be sure to complain to their manager that they're not living up to your expectations!

4 weeks agopermalink

gaul

Both of you are correct

Yes, DPreview is free so one cannot complain

Yes, reviews take too long to be published

4 weeks agopermalink

Richard Butler

You're welcome to complain. We don't think we get everything right.

We've worked very hard to reduce the average time to review but there will occasionally be a camera that takes longer than we'd like to get to the front of the review queue.

4 weeks ago*permalink

gaul

Yes, having a reply from the site admins is a good sign about the care and passion brought by the team!!
Thx Richard, appreciated

4 weeks agopermalink

telefunk

Is it really asking too much to have DPR shoot the studio scene with the standard kitzoom, like all major european sites? This gives a much more realistic image of the combo performance, knowing full well most people (myself included) never need more than the 24-70 range...
C'mon DPR you can do it, one half hour more!

4 weeks agopermalink

lunic

It is not easy to get distortion-free images of a chart (or test board) within the 24-70 range. That is why DPR uses 80~90mm (equiv.) mid-telephoto to photograph their chart.
From the chart test, color rendering and noise pattern of each camera become comparable, so it has to be standardized. It neither focusing on sharpness of each lens or real performance. AFAIK, sample images from the outside of the lab gives more 'realistic' results from the 'combo',

4 weeks ago*permalink

Richard Butler

"One half hour more" - if only.

The test scene is primarily designed to show how the camera performs. Kit lenses are highly variable, between focal lengths and between copies. It would take a huge time commitment to find the optimal focal length to shoot at, only to immediately be told "my copy is better than that."

The article linked at the top of this page explains the logic behind the way we shoot the scene.

4 weeks ago*permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

Why buys an IC camera and only uses the kit lens?

4 weeks agopermalink

Yes it is. Anybody who is looking at these scene comparisons cares about image quality. Anybody who cares about image quality is not going to be shooting with the kit zoom. This test is valuable the way it is now, getting the best IQ out of the sensor.

4 weeks agopermalink

Osa25

Actually the market data says that a frightingly large percentage of camera buyers stick to the lens that tcame bundled with the camera, a "kit lens".

4 weeks agopermalink

donkom

and that percentage of camera buyers have no interest in the DPReview test charts. :)

4 weeks agopermalink

"Because everyone does it" has never been the most sound argument for anything... Regardless, putting a lens that can hold back the body when what you want to test is the latter seems to defy all standard scientific testing logic.

4 weeks agopermalink

PhilDunn

Yep, for that test the point is to test the sensor in the camera with as sharp a lens as possible. Lens tests should always be done separately.

That said, dpreview should consider coming up with a test scene designed specifically to show lens quality, like distortion, detail, and other len qualities, for all lenses tested and of course for the kit lenses that typically come with cameras. The results would also include the different aperture ranges and for zooms the different focal lengths.

4 weeks agopermalink

h2k

"Anybody who is looking at these scene comparisons cares about image quality. Anybody who cares about image quality is not going to be shooting with the kit zoom. This test is valuable the way it is now, getting the best IQ out of the sensor."
---
Fully agreed. The kit-lens could be an additional option though, capacity permitting.

4 weeks agopermalink

telefunk

Seems like my comment has not been fully understood. Some European test sites allow you to change lens on the test scene.
So I was asking DPR to also include the kitzoom in the test scene, as I won't be using some boring focal length super prime on my camera. The 24-70 range is good for me.
Why buy an ILC and never change lens? Because it may be better than a small fixed zoom camera, that's why.

4 weeks agopermalink

h2k

"Seems like my comment has not been fully understood."
--
And why? Because the readers lack brains of course. Can't think of any other reason.

4 weeks agopermalink

telefunk

Richard and others have not eagerly endorsed the idea of offering more lens options on the studio scene. Ie one super unusable prime for the IQ. And another shot with the normal lens. What do you not understand?

4 weeks agopermalink

@Telefunk,

We understood it, we just think you are wrong. If you want a lens test, go to SLRGear.com or whatever it is called now.

They have lots of them.

Why should DPR reinvent the wheel?

Tedolph

4 weeks agopermalink

Stefan Hundhammer

If they just used the kit zoom with every camera, for one thing in many cases there are several kit zooms to choose from (and also some kits that come with a prime), and for another, it makes comparisons across cameras even more unfair.

Even now it's that Panasonic Leica 42.5 f/1.2 against the Olympus 45 f/1.8 (for several other MFT cameras) which adds another variable to the equation.

Having said that, I like the way dpreview does this. They do as fair a comparison as can reasonably be expected. I don't blame them for not reshooting that scene with the better lens for all those older cameras; that would be asking a little too much. ;-)

4 weeks agopermalink

kungpaogao

What lens do you use for this test?

4 weeks agopermalink

Wu Jiaqiu

i'm guessing it's the Panasonic Leica DG 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH OIS shot at f/5.6 with the self timer with manual WB

4 weeks agopermalink

Richard Butler

No need to guess: that information is listed under the [ i ] button (or is it a cog button these days?) next to every image.

The article linked at the top of this page also makes this clear.

4 weeks agopermalink

Still an i on mobile view, and it's a mix of the PL42.5 and the Oly 45/1.8 according to that.

4 weeks agopermalink

goblin

DPR, thank you for using a good lens this time. And please make this your new standard lens.

The two other m43 cameras in the comparison being tested with a different lens, how pertinent is the comparison of the sharpness results for example ?

4 weeks agopermalink

BlueBomberTurbo

These tests are more for judging noise and JPG color than anything.

4 weeks agopermalink

They are all good lenses.

tEdolph

4 weeks agopermalink

I imagine it's more pertinent in the center and less pertinent at the edges... The 45/1.8 does have some prominent field curvature.

4 weeks agopermalink

TonyPM

Very nice image quality. I think that with this image quality you can probably tackle any type assignment. It's up there with the G9 and the OmD EM1 mkii. Detail is a lot better than that of the 16mpc sensors.

Let's wait until the full review, but I bet it's dynamic range and low iso noise is close to the best m4/3 cameras.

4 weeks agopermalink

junk1

At ISO 200 and 3200, I don't see much difference from my GF7, am very surprised how similar they are.

4 weeks agopermalink

Vignes

the difference between the top cameras like EM1 II and G9, would be the AF system, more action oriented functions. static shot itself is not enough.

4 weeks agopermalink

generikku

Impressive detail at base ISO. Can punch well above it's weight. Try comparing to Sony A7 and you'll see what I mean.

4 weeks agopermalink

Well, this test is not really designed to test detail, since detail heavily depends on the lens used on it. Just compare the original A7 with the A7 III and strangely while having a much stronger AA Filter the old A7 shows more detail at base ISO than the A7 III (they switched lenses)

That said yes detail with the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 at base ISO is great. But would you really expect otherwise?

More interestingly the G-X9 get's really really close in low light ability to the original A7, which just shows how far we have come in sensor technology (of course that could also be said for other new cameras)

4 weeks agopermalink

Mostly it says a lot about how badly the A7 sensor sucked relative to other FF bodies... :P

4 weeks agopermalink

generikku

Hmm, the first sentence above says: "Our test scene is designed to simulate a variety of textures, colors and detail types you'll encounter in the real world." Detail, details. ;)

4 weeks agopermalink

PhilDunn

"Well, this test is not really designed to test detail, since detail heavily depends on the lens used on it."

Wrong. The studio scene is designed to test the quality of the sensor. The best way to do that is with the sharpest lens possible, which is why they chose the sharpest lenses they can for the studio scene tests.

The studio scene is also not a a proper lens testing scene. For example, there's no easy way to test for distortion in such a scene. Again, the studio scene is for testing the sensor.

4 weeks agopermalink

mandophoto

A more relevant comparison, in which the GX9 fares quite well:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcgx9&attr13_1=sony_a6300&attr13_2=olympus_penf&attr13_3=fujifilm_xh1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=625&x=-0.2142503827582146&y=-0.6069407836935512

4 weeks agopermalink

kewlguy

Seems to lack contrast

4 weeks agopermalink

PhilDunn

Then simply raise contrast to your liking in your favorite editor. I always do that for all my RAWs from my RX100V since the Adobe default output is lacking in contrast.

4 weeks agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcgx9&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=panasonic_dcgx9&attr13_3=fujifilm_xh1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=625&x=-0.10359203862913675&y=-0.7208047794763662

It's time that M43 get's some new sensor tech. BSI, ISOCELL, ... I don't expect M43 to get APS-C or FF performance. But at least the sensor should have the same performance per area of other manufacturers

4 weeks ago*permalink

ozturert

m43 sensors are about 1 stop behind state-of-the-art APSC sensors, but modern M43 sensors have the same or better than full frame sensors of some generations back. If you cannot make a good photo with, say EM1 II, then it is probably your technique which is deficient or you have very specific needs (like ISO6400 and above all the time).

4 weeks agopermalink

kpaddler

I'm devotee GX series user, but I can assure you my nikon D700(10 yrs old technology) can leave my gx8 in dust when lighting gets challenging, but not too far behind....

4 weeks agopermalink