Reading mode: Light Dark

Just got my Panasonic G5!! Loving it so far :)

Go to last post
A

Alexandrite

Well-known member
Messages
132
Solutions
1
Reaction score
20
Location
AU
Finally got my much-researched and long-awaited G5 today!
(Was going to go get it yesterday, but the car wouldn't start, so part of my camera money had to go toward a new car battery instead of an extra camera battery.)

As a long-time Panasonic FZ50 user, this little camera felt right in my hands as soon as I picked it up in store. I had tried the Olympus OM-D as well, but I'm just so accustomed to Panasonic... and the Olympus felt too small without a grip. The G5 really feels like a smaller, lighter FZ50. I got the twin lens kit, unfortunately they didn't have the 100-300mm lens that I am going to use for wildlife photography, but they have ordered it in for me. So far, the camera just feels RIGHT. :)


Have yet to install Silkypix or the DNG converter software to look at the RAW files, but I'm VERY pleased with the images so far! And amazed at being able to shoot at ISO1600 and not get pixel soup. FZ50 gave me worse noise at ISO200. The little G5 is an amazing little camera, and I haven't even put it on manual settings yet.


Of course, the very first picture after charging the battery and turning the camera on, was of my dog... the only shot I got of him looking at the camera, too - every time he sees me coming with a camera he turns away. :) This is not any kind of technically good photo - just the FIRST photo from a camera I know I am going to love!





a4175e7d76ab449f9a9cf08abf012094.jpg








--

Wildlife Art and Photography by Nadya Neklioudova

Online portfolio of Nadya Neklioudova, wildlife artist and photographer. Paintings, photographs, and prints.
www.undreamed.ca
 
Good luck with your new camera. I have a G3 and just love it. By the way, I love your self-portrait!
 
Congratulations!
I'm sure this was the first of a lot of exciting photography moments.

I just think you made a "little" mistake (if you did buy the 45-200mm). If you are really going to buy the 100-300mm, the 45-200mm brings little added value. Some members will surely disagree but my personal opinion is that beyond 120mm that lens is pretty much useless.

The 42-100mm gap you can cover 90% of the times with your feet.
 
duartix said:
duartix wrote:

Congratulations!
I'm sure this was the first of a lot of exciting photography moments.

I just think you made a "little" mistake (if you did buy the 45-200mm). If you are really going to buy the 100-300mm, the 45-200mm brings little added value. Some members will surely disagree but my personal opinion is that beyond 120mm that lens is pretty much useless.

The 42-100mm gap you can cover 90% of the times with your feet.
Click to expand...
 
Bought a G5 a few weeks back. It was a toss up between this or the OMD and like the OP the Oly just didn't feel right in my hands.

Been too busy to give it a really thorough workout yet but so far, I'm a little disappointed. Images feel a little "flat" to me (JPEG only so far) and using the Pana 14mm and the Sigma 30mm images don't seem as sharp as I was expecting? Am I expecting too much after using SLR's?
 
…which all my research suggests is much under-rated. i had a G1 and loved it ex cept for the JPEG color (I work in JPEG all the time) then switched to an E-PL3 for the Oly color and smaller size.

I'm thinking of a G5 as a second camera for specific purposes. Panny's color seems to have improved enough to do the job for me now (and my handling of color has improved a lot too!).

Cheers, geoff
 
As a FZ50 --> G5+100-300 for birding, I think you're gonna love it. I know I do - just posted my first pictures of birds this week, and the combo of G5 + 100-300 is whole lot easier to handle than the FZ50+TC17ED to get 600mm effective. And the crops of the G5 are very usable at 800 ISO.
 
duartix said:
duartix wrote:

Congratulations!
I'm sure this was the first of a lot of exciting photography moments.

I just think you made a "little" mistake (if you did buy the 45-200mm). If you are really going to buy the 100-300mm, the 45-200mm brings little added value. Some members will surely disagree but my personal opinion is that beyond 120mm that lens is pretty much useless.

The 42-100mm gap you can cover 90% of the times with your feet.
Click to expand...
 
That's good to know :)

The 45-200 was a lens I was considering (as in, kit lens 14-42, then 45-200, then 100-300) but went with the 2nd kit lens in the end, 45-150. I think I will be using the 45-150 for general photography, and of course the 100-300 for wildlife.
 
I have been using the 45-200 panny on my G3 and love it....I think it's a great lens for the price. If needing more reach, I use my Sony HX200V. Yes, smaller sensor yadda yadda yadda but the bridge-zooms (especially the Sonys and Panasonics) are pretty special IMHO.

For my G3, I go the route of Oly 9-18mm, Panny 20mm, Oly 45mm, the 14-42 kit (which I primarily keep on my GF3) and the already mentioned 45-200. Love the glass that's available for the m43 system. Hope to pick up a Rokonin 7.5mm fisheye in the next month or two.

Richard
 
I love the 100-300, but it can not replace the 45-200, the focal length covered by the latter is just to useful the 100-300 is a bit extreme for most indoors situation. I was not happy withe the acuity of my 45-200 (brand new 6 month ago) and got a banged up old one, guess what like evey other m43 lens i tried the old one was miles better, now it is on par with the 100-300, which is also not soft at the long end once you use the e-shutter.

JL
 
grumpyolderman said:
grumpyolderman wrote:

I love the 100-300, but it can not replace the 45-200, the focal length covered by the latter is just to useful the 100-300 is a bit extreme for most indoors situation. I was not happy withe the acuity of my 45-200 (brand new 6 month ago) and got a banged up old one, guess what like evey other m43 lens i tried the old one was miles better, now it is on par with the 100-300, which is also not soft at the long end once you use the e-shutter.

JL
Click to expand...
You should try the 45-175mm power zoom on the G5 sometime. Generally considered sharper than the old 45-200, smaller, doesn't extend at all when zoomed, more effective OIS. And you can zoom it with the G5's lever just behind the shutter. It's possible with that nice G5 grip to zoom through the entire zoom range and get a shot off without taking your left hand off your bicycle's handlebar. ;)
 
Hen3ry said:
Hen3ry wrote:

…which all my research suggests is much under-rated. i had a G1 and loved it ex cept for the JPEG color (I work in JPEG all the time) then switched to an E-PL3 for the Oly color and smaller size.

I'm thinking of a G5 as a second camera for specific purposes. Panny's color seems to have improved enough to do the job for me now (and my handling of color has improved a lot too!).

Cheers, geoff
Click to expand...
The important thing here is that your processing skills have improved. :)

Panasonic Lumix colors in JPG even on the G1, the first and good Micro 4/3 camera, maybe were not so pleasant to the eye because Olympus use to make them a bit warm and a bit over saturated, they know that people like that.

Panasonic has since the beginning a different approach, making the colors more flat and sometimes more equal to the reality, I think this makes the user to do more effort if they edit the JPG's to make some corrections and adjust the colors to their preferences.

I think the difference now with the recent Panasonic Lumix Cameras is that they have understood that with the change on the JPG's color rendition they can please more the users of the cameras, thing that Olympus already does for some years. Sometimes neutral colors are criticized, most of the people prefer a picture a bit saturated and warm. To me the talk about Panasonic Lumix and Olympus colors is simple as that.
 
corporate said:
corporate wrote:

Bought a G5 a few weeks back. It was a toss up between this or the OMD and like the OP the Oly just didn't feel right in my hands.

Been too busy to give it a really thorough workout yet but so far, I'm a little disappointed. Images feel a little "flat" to me (JPEG only so far) and using the Pana 14mm and the Sigma 30mm images don't seem as sharp as I was expecting? Am I expecting too much after using SLR's?
Click to expand...
if you're coming from an SLR (esp one with a good LCD) you need to compare images on a decent computer screen side by side. i often found myself dissappointed by the G3 now G5 images on the camera LCD display compared with the sharpness and clarity if was accustomed to compared with what i saw on my Canon SLRs (60D,5d2 etc) lcds. on the computer the difference is much less...the lcd on the panys just doesn't compare to the canons, but the image quality is getting up there.
 
Last edited:
robonrome said:
robonrome wrote:
robonrome said:
corporate wrote:

Bought a G5 a few weeks back. It was a toss up between this or the OMD and like the OP the Oly just didn't feel right in my hands.

Been too busy to give it a really thorough workout yet but so far, I'm a little disappointed. Images feel a little "flat" to me (JPEG only so far) and using the Pana 14mm and the Sigma 30mm images don't seem as sharp as I was expecting? Am I expecting too much after using SLR's?
Click to expand...
if you're coming from an SLR (esp one with a good LCD) you need to compare images on a decent computer screen side by side. i often found myself dissappointed by the G3 now G5 images on the camera LCD display compared with the sharpness and clarity if was accustomed to compared with what i saw on my Canon SLRs (60D,5d2 etc) lcds. on the computer the difference is much less...the lcd on the panys just doesn't compare to the canons, but the image quality is getting up there.
Click to expand...
I agree. The quality of the LCD for the G3 is nothing special and sometimes a review of pics leaves a concern about the quality of the image which is quickly dismissed upon review using a computer. Love the LCD of my Sony HX200V and RX100...and also really liked the LCDs on the Oly XZ-1 and Canon s95 (two cameras I owned until I got it right by purchasing an RX100). The LCDs on my GF3 and G3 are disappointing.

Richard
 
I was planning to get the OMD EM-5 with the 12-50 kit lens for last six months. The G5 was not even on my radar. I was finally ready to purchase (now that I finally have the funds from the sale of my remaining Pentax gear) when I realized that right now it would be just $300 more to get the G5 with the 12-35/2.8 lens, which is the upper limit of my budget right now.

So OMD with 12-50 vs. G5 with with 12-35? Which one would give me better results overall?
I know I could get the OMD without the kit lens and then two primes for about the same budget. Although it seems it is almost heresy in this forum, I am not a big fan of prime lenses. I have tried it and it just does not seem to work for me, I am missing too many shots. I also don't like changing lenses every few minutes.

The other thing that I don't like on the OMD is the missing flash. And if you want to put the one on that comes with it, you need to remove three tiny platic parts (two from the camera and one on the flash) before you can actually attach it. That is completely impractical in my opinion.

I also briefly tried both cameras, and from a handling and menu point of view, the G5 fits me much better, despite having an EPL2 at the moment.

So, right now I am tending torward the G5 with the 12-23 lens despite the supposedly somewhat inferior sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top