Very little progress in 5 years

JaKing said:

makings wrote
Methinks you missed my point by at least a country mile ...
In case you missed it, both my E-M1 MkI & MkII do all those things pretty well. Many of them were done pretty well by my E-510 and my E-30

Click to expand...

"Pretty well" can sometimes be equivalent to "almost", and as they say 'almost' only counts in horseshoes. If you missed the shot because of your camera's limitations, it's not coming back.

Not everyone here owns the EM1. Is this a common thread of thought from EM1 owners? That because they have the top of the line, with all available abilities, and therefore feel pretty unlimited, that everyone else (who own lesser models) should feel the exact same way or be able to do the exact same thing? This is not the first time I've been presented this from an aforementioned EM1 owner.

For example, with only minor argument it can be said that you have the best AF abilities in the m43 system. Does that mean that the rest of us can capture what you can? No, no it does not. You might, quite probably actually, come home with action shots that most of the rest of us will miss.

dinoSnake said:

dinoSnake said:

makings wrote

Methinks you missed my point by at least a country mile ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And it appears that you still have.

dinoSnake said:

dinoSnake said:

In case you missed it, both my E-M1 MkI & MkII do all those things pretty well. Many of them were done pretty well by my E-510 and my E-30

Click to expand...

"Pretty well" can sometimes be equivalent to "almost", and as they say 'almost' only counts in horseshoes. If you missed the shot because of your camera's limitations, it's not coming back.

Not everyone here owns the EM1. Is this a common thread of thought from EM1 owners? That because they have the top of the line, with all available abilities, and therefore feel pretty unlimited, that everyone else (who own lesser models) should feel the exact same way or be able to do the exact same thing? This is not the first time I've been presented this from an aforementioned EM1 owner.

For example, with only minor argument it can be said that you have the best AF abilities in the m43 system. Does that mean that the rest of us can capture what you can? No, no it does not. You might, quite probably actually, come home with action shots that most of the rest of us will miss.

Click to expand...

Dennis, Danny, Vas, Mark and plenty of others routinely get shots that I will never get. They have the skills and experience that I lack, regardless of gear.

My point was that it is only very rarely that any of us is limited by our gear; most of us are limited by our skills and experience, both of which are helped immensely by practice, and only rarely by upgrading gear. Note that I deliberately avoided the term 'replacing'. The latter would apply if you wanted to photograph hummingbirds with a Holga ...

JaKing said:

dinoSnake said:

JaKing said:

makings wrote

Methinks you missed my point by at least a country mile ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And it appears that you still have.

Click to expand...

As do you.

JaKing said:

JaKing said:

For example, with only minor argument it can be said that you have the best AF abilities in the m43 system. Does that mean that the rest of us can capture what you can? No, no it does not. You might, quite probably actually, come home with action shots that most of the rest of us will miss.

Click to expand...

Dennis, Danny, Vas, Mark and plenty of others routinely get shots that I will never get. They have the skills and experience that I lack, regardless of gear.

Click to expand...

And you miss the point.

The POINT of technology is to assist those who need the help, to allow everyday people the advantages of greater flexibility when using their products by automating previously difficult tasks.

The point is therefore that a photographer of lesser experience might get the photo he/she is trying for, when using a better camera, because the camera is doing more of the heavy lifting in the calculations and adjustments necessary.

Otherwise, if this were not true, we'd all be still using manual focus cameras with external exposure meters, now wouldn't we?

And THAT'S why we buy better cameras.

dinoSnake said:

JaKing said:

dinoSnake said:

dinoSnake said:

makings wrote

Methinks you missed my point by at least a country mile ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And it appears that you still have.

Click to expand...

As do you.

dinoSnake said:

dinoSnake said:

For example, with only minor argument it can be said that you have the best AF abilities in the m43 system. Does that mean that the rest of us can capture what you can? No, no it does not. You might, quite probably actually, come home with action shots that most of the rest of us will miss.

Click to expand...

Dennis, Danny, Vas, Mark and plenty of others routinely get shots that I will never get. They have the skills and experience that I lack, regardless of gear.

Click to expand...

And you miss the point.

The POINT of technology is to assist those who need the help, to allow everyday people the advantages of greater flexibility when using their products by automating previously difficult tasks.

The point is therefore that a photographer of lesser experience might get the photo he/she is trying for, when using a better camera, because the camera is doing more of the heavy lifting in the calculations and adjustments necessary.

Otherwise, if this were not true, we'd all be still using manual focus cameras with external exposure meters, now wouldn't we?

And THAT'S why we buy better cameras.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you keep telling me how I don't understand things that I have known for about 50 years.

How can I meaningfully respond to you, when you impute things to me that I've never thought or said?

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I first wrote on this sub-topic.

JaKing said:

Sorry, but you keep telling me how I don't understand things that I have known for about 50 years.

How can I meaningfully respond to you, when you impute things to me that I've never thought or said?

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I first wrote on this sub-topic.

Click to expand...

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.

JaKing said:

If you really think your photography cannot be improved except with new gear, I truly feel sorry for you

Click to expand...

Which I just proved can indeed happen when a new camera's automation system allows you to do something that YOU weren't able to accomplish before.

Therefore, the discussion has indeed reached its conclusion.

Sranang Boi said:

roberthd12 said:

glassoholic said:

The original EM5 was a huge breakthrough and hopefully Oly will do the same in January next year... if rumours are correct.

Click to expand...

I hope you are right, but it's likely too late. Too slow on new releases, too slow on innovation, certainly not moving enough product in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Nikon and Canon are only just getting round to some of the innovations that M43 users have been enjoying for years. Your argument becomes even more of smear in its content when you consider that innovations rely on sales that in turn help fund R&D. With buyers like you who only buy a camera once every decade how do you expect camera companies to fund new ideas?

Click to expand...

Totally disappointing comment that adds nothing to the conversation.

dinoSnake said:

JaKing said:

Sorry, but you keep telling me how I don't understand things that I have known for about 50 years.

How can I meaningfully respond to you, when you impute things to me that I've never thought or said?

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I first wrote on this sub-topic.

Click to expand...

My reading comprehension is just fine,, thank you.

Click to expand...

It appears not ...

dinoSnake said:

JaKing said:

If you really think your photography cannot be improved except with new gear, I truly feel sorry for you

Click to expand...

Which I just proved can indeed happen when a new camera's automation system allows you to do something that YOU weren't able to accomplish before.

Click to expand...

Actually, you proved nothing. You asserted something, without any proof of any description.

dinoSnake said:

Therefore, the discussion has indeed reached its conclusion.

Click to expand...

At least we can agree on that.

But I reiterate, you have been disagreeing with an imaginary point/s - ones that I have never asserted, but were raised by you ...

GX9 looks worst to me.

So yes, there was a lot of progress in many ways, but the sensor sadly is still the limiting factor.

Peter

My point was that all of this variety that you praise is also harmful on two counts: it’s unsustainable for two companies with a small market share, and it has caused the individual products to be not as good and inexpensive as they could be if there were fewer of them absorbing design and manufacturing resources.

If Olympus and Panasonic concentrated on fewer cameras, all centred on the inherent strengths of Micro Four Thirds, quality would improve and costs would go down. I’m also pretty sure sales would now go up, but that’s unprovable. (But I know I was on the verge of buying Micro Four Thirds many times over the last eight or so years and didn’t each time because the cameras had unacceptable flaws. Eventually I did buy an E-M10 Mark II but couldn’t cope with the user interface.)

Olympus and Panasonic have stretched themselves too thin, even if the thought process that got them there made sense at the time.

But now that the market has settled down and competitors have moved away from compact and affordable cameras and lenses, that territory is returned to its natural owner: Micro Four Thirds. Till that land!

String said:

mg_k said:

And you have fallen into what I call "A grandpa trap"?

Look you are happy with what you have, GOOD FOR YOU.

Not everyone is at your age and thinks like you. If someone wants the latest greatest and can afford it why not?!?!?

Click to expand...

Because we've learned that no matter how much you spend or what new gadget you buy if you cant take a good picture with your existing gear, spending money on new gear isn't going to help.

If you want the "latest greatest" then you will be switching brands yearly and rather than help your photography you are only going to hinder it. If you are just a gear collector then good on ya, go right ahead!

Click to expand...

Funny how so many insist that there must be continuous improvement in equipment, I wonder how many apply the same criteria to their own mind, its that which enable one to take better photographs, new kit is just a tool to help the process

Otherwise its the same old garage churned out with ever more expensive toys

Brian Wadie said:

String said:

mg_k said:

And you have fallen into what I call "A grandpa trap"?

Look you are happy with what you have, GOOD FOR YOU.

Not everyone is at your age and thinks like you. If someone wants the latest greatest and can afford it why not?!?!?

Click to expand...

Because we've learned that no matter how much you spend or what new gadget you buy if you cant take a good picture with your existing gear, spending money on new gear isn't going to help.

If you want the "latest greatest" then you will be switching brands yearly and rather than help your photography you are only going to hinder it. If you are just a gear collector then good on ya, go right ahead!

Click to expand...

Otherwise its the same old garage churned out with ever more expensive toys

Click to expand...

Meh. One's garbage is another person's jewel.

Similarily what's expensive or heavy to you might not be to others?

So let me ask you - Who are you to judge?

Brian Wadie said:

--
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

Click to expand...

--
My Flickr
My Getty Images

Peter Del said:

drbroom said:

Peter Del said:

I moved from an E-M5 mk1 to a PEN F. There is a slight improvement in image quality but a vast increase in convenience and usability. For walking through the woods I pair it with a 9-18 and 14-150 and for walking around town I have a 17 1.8 and 45 1.8.

Peter Del

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this further? I find the tilt screen of the E-M5 very handy but have heard mixed reviews about articulated screens. The removal of the hump when compared to EM5 and the addition of a well-magnified EVF do sound appealing. Overall I decided I could do without the EVF if it meant a smaller camera package overall.

Click to expand...

When the PEN F launched, I played with it and decided I didn't like the flappy screen resting on the side of my hand. Then they were on special offer, including a free 17 1.8 lens, so I bought one. I now find the screen very useful, particularly when photographing something low down or at an awkward angle.

The built in viewfinder is unobtrusive. The four MySets are now on a dial on the top plate, so that menu diving is considerably reduced. The front knob can be useful for B & W pictures (the grain can be permanently turned off) - in effect making another MySet.

Peter Del

Click to expand...

I like the articulated screen and tend to leave it facing into the camera as I use the EVF most of the time. Protects the screen and also gives that “film camera” feel. It’s great for low or awkward angle shots though.

The a EVF is great too. Although slightly samaller than my EM-1 MkII EVF, the Pen-F one is more accurate in terms of colour and exposure, and also seems to have more accurate DR.

Pen-F is my preferred camera of the 2, except with larger lenses.

mg_k said:

Brian Wadie said:

String said:

mg_k said:

And you have fallen into what I call "A grandpa trap"?

Look you are happy with what you have, GOOD FOR YOU.

Not everyone is at your age and thinks like you. If someone wants the latest greatest and can afford it why not?!?!?

Click to expand...

Because we've learned that no matter how much you spend or what new gadget you buy if you cant take a good picture with your existing gear, spending money on new gear isn't going to help.

If you want the "latest greatest" then you will be switching brands yearly and rather than help your photography you are only going to hinder it. If you are just a gear collector then good on ya, go right ahead!

Click to expand...

Otherwise its the same old garage churned out with ever more expensive toys

Click to expand...

Meh. One's garbage is another person's jewel.

Similarily what's expensive or heavy to you might not be to others?

So let me ask you - Who are you to judge?

Click to expand...

methinks you confuse "Judgement" with comment, I could respond, who are you to judge my comment - but I'm old and tolerant enough to recognise your right to a different view

EOF

drbroom said:

tjuster1 said:

drbroom said:

In this time I have owned:

• Olympus 12mm f2 [sold]
• Panasonic 14mm f2.5 [sold]
• Panasonic 20mm f1.7
• Panasonic 25mm f.14 [plan on selling]
• Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7

As you can infer I value small, reasonably fast, prime lenses.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. You value "small, reasonably fast prime lenses", yet you've SOLD the 12mm (fast for WA, very small) and 14mm (reasonably fast, super-small). Meanwhile you bought the 25mm f/1.4 instead of the nearly-as-fast-yet-way-smaller Oly 25mm f/1.8 and you're KEEPING the large Panny 42.5mm f/1.7 instead of the much smaller Oly 45mm f/1.8.

It seems to me many of the lenses you want are out there, you've just decided not to buy them.

Click to expand...

The Olympus 25mm was the first lens I purchased in 2012. Due to its size and the impressive quality of the 20mm I never use it.

I go on to explain why I’ve sold the wide-angle lenses. Further justifying that, I found the 14mm sub-par, with soft corners and very plain rendering. I sold it because I never took a photo with it that I loved. The 12mm was a much nicer rendering lens, that never quite justified its price. It wasn’t super sharp, but had a very pleasant quality to it. I enjoyed using it but at a point realised I had stopped taking photos with it.

I think you’re exaggerating the size difference between the 42.5mm and the 45mm. I purchased the 42.5 because it was cheaper, sharper, with better close focusing, and most importantly, had inbuilt OIS in case I ever purchased a GM5 body.

Click to expand...

Your OP said you bought and sold the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, not the Olympus (see quoted text) . . . my comment then doesn't apply.

As to the 14mm, when I look through my photo collection I find more great pics with the it than any other lens. I think I just love the focal length, and my copy at least does not have "soft corners" and I have no issue with "rendering" (whatever that is), though I accept that you do. To each his own, however.

The Oly 45mm is lighter, shorter, just as sharp, and where I live cheaper. But I can definitely see how its lack of IS might tilt you to the Paasonic if you're planning on using it with a body lacking IBIS. Fair point.

I do feel your pain, however. I'm a small lens fan too, and often bemoan the emphasis in recent years by Pansonic and Olympus on producing fast, large, and expensive primes. I would love an updated 17mm pancake, for example.

Have you tried the 15mm f/1.7? There's a DJI-branded version made for drones that's apparently identical to the Panasonic one, and can be bought relatively cheaply on the used market. It's very small.

There are also small MF lenses you might consider: the Loawa 7.5 mm WA and Rokinon 7.5 mm fisheye. As you surely know, with extreme WA lenses focusing isn't all that critical, and I find both of these to be great complements to a small kit.

JaKing said:

Robert, I think you have fallen into what I call "the Apple trap".

I strenuously resist this. My android phone is about 4-5 y.o. Still works perfectly. My E-30 served me well for about 7 years as my main camera. I expect my E-M1 MkI & MkII to do likewise.

Olympus practically owns the operating endoscope and imaging market (about 70+% IIRC). Their camera division includes their overall R&D department.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know my equipment still works and works well after several years. But that has nothing to do with all of us wanting Oly to survive. We can bemoan "the Apple trap," but it's not a trap at all. It's a method for growing sales and being top of consumers' minds. Why is that a bad thing for the camera division?

Adielle said:

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Michael Benveniste said:

Space the final frontier said:

Seriously, how often do you need to use that high a shutter speed? It has been a long time since I used anything faster than 1/1000. I am interested in understanding your photographic interest and shooting style.

Click to expand...

1/4000th is marginal if you want to limit DOF when you trek outdoors. For example, the “sunny 16” guideline at ISO 100 says you should shoot at 1/6400th at f/2.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially after base ISO bumped from 100 to 200. With adapted f:1.4 lenses and now, native f:1.2 lenses we have to resort to ND filters to shoot them wide open outdoors with a 1/4000 SS limit.

The GM5 1/500 shutter is an added oddity, although the full e-shutter extended range helps so long as the subject isn't moving quickly.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The dual native ISO of the GX8 is a major reason I bought it. With true ISO 100 and 1/8000 shutter, I'm never limited in any kind of shooting I want to do.

Click to expand...

The GX8 true base ISO is 200 , when you use 100 ISO it is an extended ISO which is a bit cleaner at the cost of DR. It is still my favourite m43 camera and i would love an updated version with a couple of the latest options, mainly real 4k ibis and pixel shift

Click to expand...

You're wrong. GX8's ISO 100 is not "a bit cleaner", it's twice cleaner than ISO 200, and it has higher dynamic range than ISO 200. That's because its "extended ISO" is actually a true secondary base ISO. That's not the case with most other models.

Click to expand...

No i am right, I own the camera {+ and I post photos from it ;-) } and I posted a direct link to the specs showing that 100ISO is an extended ISO , read the manual of your camera and you will find his is a fact . Extended does not mean true secondary ISO . But as facts even ones with direct links to proof do not trouble you no point talking about it .

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Michael Benveniste said:

Space the final frontier said:

Seriously, how often do you need to use that high a shutter speed? It has been a long time since I used anything faster than 1/1000. I am interested in understanding your photographic interest and shooting style.

Click to expand...

1/4000th is marginal if you want to limit DOF when you trek outdoors. For example, the “sunny 16” guideline at ISO 100 says you should shoot at 1/6400th at f/2.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially after base ISO bumped from 100 to 200. With adapted f:1.4 lenses and now, native f:1.2 lenses we have to resort to ND filters to shoot them wide open outdoors with a 1/4000 SS limit.

The GM5 1/500 shutter is an added oddity, although the full e-shutter extended range helps so long as the subject isn't moving quickly.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The dual native ISO of the GX8 is a major reason I bought it. With true ISO 100 and 1/8000 shutter, I'm never limited in any kind of shooting I want to do.

Click to expand...

The GX8 true base ISO is 200 , when you use 100 ISO it is an extended ISO which is a bit cleaner at the cost of DR. It is still my favourite m43 camera and i would love an updated version with a couple of the latest options, mainly real 4k ibis and pixel shift

Click to expand...

You're wrong. GX8's ISO 100 is not "a bit cleaner", it's twice cleaner than ISO 200, and it has higher dynamic range than ISO 200. That's because its "extended ISO" is actually a true secondary base ISO. That's not the case with most other models.

Click to expand...

No i am right, I own the camera {+ and I post photos from it ;-) } and I posted a direct link to the specs showing that 100ISO is an extended ISO , read the manual of your camera and you will find his is a fact . Extended does not mean true secondary ISO . But as facts even ones with direct links to proof do not trouble you no point talking about it .

Click to expand...

No, YOU ARE WRONG, the ISO 100 in this camera is in fact TWICE CLEANER than ISO 200 and it has HIGHER dynamic range, so stop making false claims and misleading everyone. GX80, GX9 and most other models are different, What they do with the GX8, GH5 and maybe G9 (I don't know for sure, haven't checked) is not the same. Sure, it's called "extended ISO", whatever, yes, but it's not "a bit cleaner" and definitely not "at the cost of DR" - you're just spreading disinformation, so cut it out.

mg_k said:

String said:

mg_k said:

And you have fallen into what I call "A grandpa trap"?

Look you are happy with what you have, GOOD FOR YOU.

Not everyone is at your age and thinks like you. If someone wants the latest greatest and can afford it why not?!?!?

Click to expand...

Because we've learned that no matter how much you spend or what new gadget you buy if you cant take a good picture with your existing gear, spending money on new gear isn't going to help.

Click to expand...

What IS a good picture?

What if I am already taking what I considered good picture? Is it the only time I am allowed to get new gear?

Does everyone has to learn driving with a sh!t bomb?

Seriously whatever gear that makes you happy just go for it. Why being so uptight about it? Because you can't afford it? Is that what it is?

mg_k said:

If you want the "latest greatest" then you will be switching brands yearly and rather than help your photography you are only going to hinder it. If you are just a gear collector then good on ya, go right ahead!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Speaking of uptight, you really like to infer things and start hostile conversations. Great way to live life; good luck to ya on that

Adielle said:

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Michael Benveniste said:

Space the final frontier said:

Seriously, how often do you need to use that high a shutter speed? It has been a long time since I used anything faster than 1/1000. I am interested in understanding your photographic interest and shooting style.

Click to expand...

1/4000th is marginal if you want to limit DOF when you trek outdoors. For example, the “sunny 16” guideline at ISO 100 says you should shoot at 1/6400th at f/2.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially after base ISO bumped from 100 to 200. With adapted f:1.4 lenses and now, native f:1.2 lenses we have to resort to ND filters to shoot them wide open outdoors with a 1/4000 SS limit.

The GM5 1/500 shutter is an added oddity, although the full e-shutter extended range helps so long as the subject isn't moving quickly.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The dual native ISO of the GX8 is a major reason I bought it. With true ISO 100 and 1/8000 shutter, I'm never limited in any kind of shooting I want to do.

Click to expand...

The GX8 true base ISO is 200 , when you use 100 ISO it is an extended ISO which is a bit cleaner at the cost of DR. It is still my favourite m43 camera and i would love an updated version with a couple of the latest options, mainly real 4k ibis and pixel shift

Click to expand...

You're wrong. GX8's ISO 100 is not "a bit cleaner", it's twice cleaner than ISO 200, and it has higher dynamic range than ISO 200. That's because its "extended ISO" is actually a true secondary base ISO. That's not the case with most other models.

Click to expand...

No i am right, I own the camera {+ and I post photos from it ;-) } and I posted a direct link to the specs showing that 100ISO is an extended ISO , read the manual of your camera and you will find his is a fact . Extended does not mean true secondary ISO . But as facts even ones with direct links to proof do not trouble you no point talking about it .

Click to expand...

No, YOU ARE WRONG, the ISO 100 in this camera is in fact TWICE CLEANER than ISO 200 and it has HIGHER dynamic range, so stop making false claims and misleading everyone. GX80, GX9 and most other models are different, What they do with the GX8, GH5 and maybe G9 (I don't know for sure, haven't checked) is not the same. Sure, it's called "extended ISO", whatever, yes, but it's not "a bit cleaner" and definitely not "at the cost of DR" - you're just spreading disinformation, so cut it out.

Click to expand...

These graphs from this review https://www.techradar.com/reviews/c...tal-slrs-hybrids/panasonic-gx8-1299185/review show that the ISO 100 and 200 results are essentially the same. Good but no real improvement in the extended ISO.













--
Nick

PentaxNick said:

Adielle said:

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

James Stirling said:

Adielle said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Michael Benveniste said:

Space the final frontier said:

Seriously, how often do you need to use that high a shutter speed? It has been a long time since I used anything faster than 1/1000. I am interested in understanding your photographic interest and shooting style.

Click to expand...

1/4000th is marginal if you want to limit DOF when you trek outdoors. For example, the “sunny 16” guideline at ISO 100 says you should shoot at 1/6400th at f/2.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially after base ISO bumped from 100 to 200. With adapted f:1.4 lenses and now, native f:1.2 lenses we have to resort to ND filters to shoot them wide open outdoors with a 1/4000 SS limit.

The GM5 1/500 shutter is an added oddity, although the full e-shutter extended range helps so long as the subject isn't moving quickly.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The dual native ISO of the GX8 is a major reason I bought it. With true ISO 100 and 1/8000 shutter, I'm never limited in any kind of shooting I want to do.

Click to expand...

The GX8 true base ISO is 200 , when you use 100 ISO it is an extended ISO which is a bit cleaner at the cost of DR. It is still my favourite m43 camera and i would love an updated version with a couple of the latest options, mainly real 4k ibis and pixel shift

Click to expand...

You're wrong. GX8's ISO 100 is not "a bit cleaner", it's twice cleaner than ISO 200, and it has higher dynamic range than ISO 200. That's because its "extended ISO" is actually a true secondary base ISO. That's not the case with most other models.

Click to expand...

No i am right, I own the camera {+ and I post photos from it ;-) } and I posted a direct link to the specs showing that 100ISO is an extended ISO , read the manual of your camera and you will find his is a fact . Extended does not mean true secondary ISO . But as facts even ones with direct links to proof do not trouble you no point talking about it .

Click to expand...

No, YOU ARE WRONG, the ISO 100 in this camera is in fact TWICE CLEANER than ISO 200 and it has HIGHER dynamic range, so stop making false claims and misleading everyone. GX80, GX9 and most other models are different, What they do with the GX8, GH5 and maybe G9 (I don't know for sure, haven't checked) is not the same. Sure, it's called "extended ISO", whatever, yes, but it's not "a bit cleaner" and definitely not "at the cost of DR" - you're just spreading disinformation, so cut it out.

Click to expand...

These graphs from this review https://www.techradar.com/reviews/c...tal-slrs-hybrids/panasonic-gx8-1299185/review show that the ISO 100 and 200 results are essentially the same. Good but no real improvement in the extended ISO.

Click to expand...

Then their graphs are a bunch of BS, because they contradict the actual results from this camera and you can test that yourself. Look at the the DXO measurements if you don't believe me. There's also a thread on this forum with tests that verify the DXO measurements exactly. Screw TechRadar.