Robin Wong G9 Review - Thoughts?

I've read through it... it has some interesting bits and pieces in it

(you can read the full review here - https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/22/review-the-2018-panasonic-lumix-g9/)

There are a few weird parts to this review, and I'd like to hear people with G9 where they stand on this:

• "There were moments when the AF failed to lock focus, and then the EVF/LCD screen went completely black for a couple seconds, before returning to normal. I’m not sure what caused this temporary black-out, but I have not observed this with any other camera, not even with the other Panaosnic cameras I have used (LX100, GH4 and GM1). The EVF black-out happened only when the camera struggled to acquire focus repeatedly." - Did anybody experience that?
  Also - he claims AF is great (and faster even on an Oly lens than on the EM1.2) but then says it has all those limitations. I'm trying to understand if it's just nitpicking or if there are real issues here worse than in other cameras?

• "The continuous AF is one of the best I have seen on a Micro Four Thirds camera" - This is also interesting in his conclusion. He does not say it out right, but he essentially claims the new DFD C-AF is better than the PDAF on the EM1.2...

• "There is no easy way of saying this, but I dislike the color profile of the G9. The default JPEG color and the white balance engine don’t work for me. I find the reds unnatural with strong hints of magenta and the green channel is off as well. Skin tones don’t look close to real life and the overall balance is not pleasing. Perhaps the problem is not with the camera, but my own preference." - This is also very weird as ALL other reviews claims this camera has finally great JPGs. Any ideas?
  
• "The default JPEG engine does a poor job at managing the high ISO noise and details balance. There are noticeable traces of over-sharpening and artificial blurring of details at ISO3200 and higher. I also observed random, stray color fringes in shadow areas that look ugly. I tried various noise reduction settings in camera and they all produced undesirable results. In summary, at high ISO, shoot RAW."
  This is also not inline with a lot of other reviews. In fact I read claims by other reviewers they were unable to replicate the excellent noise reduction of Panasonic with LR. 

Happy to hear thoughts of G9 owners here...

""The continuous AF is one of the best I have seen on a Micro Four Thirds camera" - This is also interesting in his conclusion. He does not say it out right, but he essentially claims the new DFD C-AF is better than the PDAF on the EM1.2..."

"One of the Best"

Not

"The Best"

So he just as easily be saying it now matches or comes close to the EM-! mk2 PDAF system?

Please note - I am in the process of ordering a G9 so have no axe to grind, just pointing out what he said vs your interpretation

slartz wrote:

There are a few weird parts to this review, and I'd like to hear people with G9 where they stand on this:

• "There were moments when the AF failed to lock focus, and then the EVF/LCD screen went completely black for a couple seconds, before returning to normal. I’m not sure what caused this temporary black-out, but I have not observed this with any other camera, not even with the other Panaosnic cameras I have used (LX100, GH4 and GM1). The EVF black-out happened only when the camera struggled to acquire focus repeatedly." - Did anybody experience that?

I had a couple of instances of focus racking-- I'm pretty sure I was trying to get AF on something on my desk closer than the minimum focus distance of the lenses -- where the AF was going back and forth without locking focus, and the EVF never went black.

Brian Wadie wrote:

""The continuous AF is one of the best I have seen on a Micro Four Thirds camera" - This is also interesting in his conclusion. He does not say it out right, but he essentially claims the new DFD C-AF is better than the PDAF on the EM1.2..."

"One of the Best"

Not

"The Best"

So he just as easily be saying it now matches or comes close to the EM-! mk2 PDAF system?

Please note - I am in the process of ordering a G9 so have no axe to grind, just pointing out what he said vs your interpretation

yeah... u are right.... reading too fast and missing stuff. I take it back

so we still don't have a direct test comparison of CAF between EM1.2 and G9.... although I think from everything we are seeing - even if the EM1.2 is better, it is probably very marginally so...

If, on the other hand SAF is much better in low light, it kinda balances it out unless you shoot mainly BIF.

slartz wrote:

I've read through it... it has some interesting bits and pieces in it

(you can read the full review here - https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/22/review-the-2018-panasonic-lumix-g9/)

There are a few weird parts to this review, and I'd like to hear people with G9 where they stand on this:

• "There were moments when the AF failed to lock focus, and then the EVF/LCD screen went completely black for a couple seconds, before returning to normal. I’m not sure what caused this temporary black-out, but I have not observed this with any other camera, not even with the other Panaosnic cameras I have used (LX100, GH4 and GM1). The EVF black-out happened only when the camera struggled to acquire focus repeatedly." - Did anybody experience that?
  Also - he claims AF is great (and faster even on an Oly lens than on the EM1.2) but then says it has all those limitations. I'm trying to understand if it's just nitpicking or if there are real issues here worse than in other cameras?

• "The continuous AF is one of the best I have seen on a Micro Four Thirds camera" - This is also interesting in his conclusion. He does not say it out right, but he essentially claims the new DFD C-AF is better than the PDAF on the EM1.2...

He also says he rarely photographs fast action and doesn't use continuous autofocus in his usual photography and suggest you look at other reviews for flying birds....

A dog swimming in a pool is not a difficult target and I suspect his few misses were more user error than the camera focus problems.  My 8 year old E5 would have no problem with this target.

• "There is no easy way of saying this, but I dislike the color profile of the G9. The default JPEG color and the white balance engine don’t work for me. I find the reds unnatural with strong hints of magenta and the green channel is off as well. Skin tones don’t look close to real life and the overall balance is not pleasing. Perhaps the problem is not with the camera, but my own preference." - This is also very weird as ALL other reviews claims this camera has finally great JPGs. Any ideas?
• "The default JPEG engine does a poor job at managing the high ISO noise and details balance. There are noticeable traces of over-sharpening and artificial blurring of details at ISO3200 and higher. I also observed random, stray color fringes in shadow areas that look ugly. I tried various noise reduction settings in camera and they all produced undesirable results. In summary, at high ISO, shoot RAW."
  This is also not inline with a lot of other reviews. In fact I read claims by other reviewers they were unable to replicate the excellent noise reduction of Panasonic with LR.

Imaging Resource also mentions this..., but since it is jpeg, one can always change the defaults so I do not see why either would be a serious problem.

"Again, I'm basing all this just on in-camera JPEGs (at camera default picture style settings), but it can look a bit unnatural at close-inspection with a kind of artificial-looking smoothing of detail. JPEG sharpening also felt a bit too strong for my taste, depending on the subject. "

Happy to hear thoughts of G9 owners here...

slartz wrote:

Brian Wadie wrote:

""The continuous AF is one of the best I have seen on a Micro Four Thirds camera" - This is also interesting in his conclusion. He does not say it out right, but he essentially claims the new DFD C-AF is better than the PDAF on the EM1.2..."

"One of the Best"

Not

"The Best"

So he just as easily be saying it now matches or comes close to the EM-! mk2 PDAF system?

Please note - I am in the process of ordering a G9 so have no axe to grind, just pointing out what he said vs your interpretation

yeah... u are right.... reading too fast and missing stuff. I take it back

so we still don't have a direct test comparison of CAF between EM1.2 and G9.... although I think from everything we are seeing - even if the EM1.2 is better, it is probably very marginally so...

If, on the other hand SAF is much better in low light, it kinda balances it out unless you shoot mainly BIF.

If one uses SAF the majority of the time and often photographs things in very low illumination, then SAF performance would be far more important than CAF performance.

For those of us who find SAF rarely offers any advantage over CAF and almost never use it for stationary or moving targets, CAF performance it far more critical.

drj3 wrote:

If one uses SAF the majority of the time and often photographs things in very low illumination, then SAF performance would be far more important than CAF performance.

For those of us who find SAF rarely offers any advantage over CAF and almost never use it for stationary or moving targets, CAF performance it far more critical.

This is a kinda "obvious" statement. But the reality is that MOST people use a combination. I use CAF when I shoot kids running around, wild life or BIF. I use SAF for pretty much everything else. How much is that in percentages? Depending on time... I'd say usually 80/20 for SAF, but in 2015-2016 I did two trips to Africa where CAF was obviously a huge part of the deal (and my older EM1.1 delivered, albeit barely in that perspective...).

I think most people focus on CAF because SAF is much easier and generally very good in most cameras today. My EM1.2 has terrific SAF, and is only getting a little slower in really dim situations. Would I be happier for even better SAF? sure... but it's a "nice to have feature". Whereas in therms of CAF, my EM1.2 is the first m43 that makes it to a performance that does not make me cringe for my old Canon 7D. So.... being better here would be awesome. Being good here as the EM1.2 would be very good. Being just a tad worse - maybe agreeable. More than that - deal breaker for me.

I DO think, that a lot of people (and to some degree me included) put a LOT into the CAF performance (again, because it's a touchy subject in m43). The point I tried to make earlier, that while CAF is important, unless you are MOSTLY looking for an action camera, it should be treated as one more thing to consider, esp if it's "good enough" for most tasks. The feeling I'm getting from all the reviewers here, is that it's definitely "good enough". Which means it's not becoming a deal breaker, which means I can look at all the rest...

slartz wrote:

drj3 wrote:

If one uses SAF the majority of the time and often photographs things in very low illumination, then SAF performance would be far more important than CAF performance.

For those of us who find SAF rarely offers any advantage over CAF and almost never use it for stationary or moving targets, CAF performance it far more critical.

This is a kinda "obvious" statement. But the reality is that MOST people use a combination. I use CAF when I shoot kids running around, wild life or BIF. I use SAF for pretty much everything else. How much is that in percentages? Depending on time... I'd say usually 80/20 for SAF, but in 2015-2016 I did two trips to Africa where CAF was obviously a huge part of the deal (and my older EM1.1 delivered, albeit barely in that perspective...).

I think most people focus on CAF because SAF is much easier and generally very good in most cameras today. My EM1.2 has terrific SAF, and is only getting a little slower in really dim situations. Would I be happier for even better SAF? sure... but it's a "nice to have feature". Whereas in therms of CAF, my EM1.2 is the first m43 that makes it to a performance that does not make me cringe for my old Canon 7D. So.... being better here would be awesome. Being good here as the EM1.2 would be very good. Being just a tad worse - maybe agreeable. More than that - deal breaker for me.

I DO think, that a lot of people (and to some degree me included) put a LOT into the CAF performance (again, because it's a touchy subject in m43). The point I tried to make earlier, that while CAF is important, unless you are MOSTLY looking for an action camera, it should be treated as one more thing to consider, esp if it's "good enough" for most tasks. The feeling I'm getting from all the reviewers here, is that it's definitely "good enough". Which means it's not becoming a deal breaker, which means I can look at all the rest...

I do think either the E-M1.2 or G9 will perform very well for most users and I haven't yet decided if I will get the G9.  I will wait to see more reports on its CAF performance.  However, I really don't know why I would want a far more expensive camera aimed at sports/wildlife photography instead of one of the other excellent mFTs cameras other than the for better CAF performance.

drj3 wrote:

I do think either the E-M1.2 or G9 will perform very well for most users and I haven't yet decided if I will get the G9. I will wait to see more reports on its CAF performance. However, I really don't know why I would want a far more expensive camera aimed at sports/wildlife photography instead of one of the other excellent mFTs cameras other than the for better CAF performance.

Well - two reasons....

1. There are far more capabilities in the G9 (or EM1.2) than just the "wildlife/sports" angle. Before even going to "features", just the new, better, 20MP sensor with better DR and the better IBIS. Also - bigger EVF, better mechanical shutter (1/8000), less rolling shutter when shooting electronic shutter, better video AF, and then of course Ergonomics, button customisation, AF Joystick (for G9), Top LCD Screen (G9 again), and probably a hundred items more I forget...  I own both a GX85 and an EM1.2. Naturally I will always pick my EM1.2 if I go shooting something CAF. But I will also pick my EM1.2 for anything where I do "serious" photography like landscapes (and not because of the 20MP sensor. I took the EM1.1 too over it). Simply because I like shooting it much better than a smaller body like the GX85. 
   
2. The other kinda obvious reason is that you are not looking "just" for CAF, but you are looking for an ALL AROUND camera. If I go to Africa, I shoot wildlife but also landscapes. Also street. Also people. Also architecture and urban. I want a camera as versatile as possible. The G9 (and the EM1.2) is this. And I'm willing to pay the price for that.

-- hide signature --

drj3

I do have a G9 for tests in my arsenal since Friday afternoon. I plan to use it mainly with my PL100-400. I can NOT confirm Robin's EVF blackouts, but I DO confirm that in low light, especially with this lens, AF gets tricky. I run some tests in my home environment with not entirely consistent but similar enough conditions, and the G9 fails to lock focus once you get below a certain light threshold - this is no Nikon D500. I have run these tests with literally dozens of cameras and the G9 is no slouch in AF speed in good light, but breaks down fairly quickly in low light. Granted, I have only tested PinPoint AF so far, so this is therefore non-conclusive. I can also confirm that I changed the JPEG profile from "standard" to "neutral" since I like the color rendering better (early Sat morning shot attached).

That being said - I like the camera much better than I thought I would, and I seriously consider to keep it. It's a photographers camera (unlike my Sony A7RII). I like (and still keep) the Panasonic GM1/GM5 models (just for sheer size and fun of it) but have been mostly in the Olympus m4/3rd camp for travel and m4/3rd 'reach'. The G9 is a positive surprise for me. Very positive actually.

The EVF pin cushion distortion for me as an eye-glass wearer is pretty severe - that being said it's still better of an EVF as for instance my Leica Q. Pretty amazing actually.

C-AF Test and BIF etc. still outstanding - the weather was not cooperative here over the weekend, and I did not want to test the weather sealing on a camera I don't own - yet.

G9 and early morning light - initial tests w/ PL 100-400 - original size OOC JPEG

"it kinda balances it out unless you shoot mainly BIF."

That's me, except when I'm shooting action, water-sports, aircraft or macro

it should have been GOLD!

wolfychi wrote:

The EVF pincushion is quite severe, also the smear of the display towards the corners looks terrible, I wonder if that is common as I read some other poster report the same on this forum.

But the Dual IS seems to be really good!

Either some people notice it more than others or trying to photograph it close up distorts it.

i do not notice it at all.  Viewfinder is beautiful.

jrsforums wrote:

i do not notice it at all. Viewfinder is beautiful.

I'm with you - I have to look for pincushion to see a tiny bit on the edges of the screen, but I haven't seen it in vertical lines in the subject.  As far as "smearing" in corners, the EVF is so big that I wonder if people who observe that are not using their macular vision to evaluate the corners, and it's more a function of their eyesight than anything else.  I think it's an amazingly beautiful EVF.

• "There is no easy way of saying this, but I dislike the color profile of the G9. The default JPEG color and the white balance engine don’t work for me. I find the reds unnatural with strong hints of magenta and the green channel is off as well. Skin tones don’t look close to real life and the overall balance is not pleasing. Perhaps the problem is not with the camera, but my own preference." - This is also very weird as ALL other reviews claims this camera has finally great JPGs. Any ideas?
• "The default JPEG engine does a poor job at managing the high ISO noise and details balance. There are noticeable traces of over-sharpening and artificial blurring of details at ISO3200 and higher. I also observed random, stray color fringes in shadow areas that look ugly. I tried various noise reduction settings in camera and they all produced undesirable results. In summary, at high ISO, shoot RAW."
  This is also not inline with a lot of other reviews. In fact I read claims by other reviewers they were unable to replicate the excellent noise reduction of Panasonic with LR.

Happy to hear thoughts of G9 owners here...

As a JPEG shooter, I was disappointed to read this, but then got a bit confused when I looked at his example:

From Robin: "ISO6400, RAW processed (left) vs SOOC JPEG (right). Pay attention to the yellow color patches on the eye-brows on the JPEG image."

I find the SOOC JPEG superior - the processed RAW appears much noisier with smeared details(microphone grill, necklace, earring). The JPEG skin and skin tone look more pleasing to me as well. Arguably too smooth but the result achieves better transitions/gradations).

I always enjoy Robin's reviews, and am blown away by his photos. As with most things, I guess this JPEG color/NR/detail issue comes down to subjective preference - or I'm just WEIRD Still planning on slowly embezzling from the kids' college fund to buy my G9! Don't tell my wife!

TheMixMan wrote:

• "There is no easy way of saying this, but I dislike the color profile of the G9. The default JPEG color and the white balance engine don’t work for me. I find the reds unnatural with strong hints of magenta and the green channel is off as well. Skin tones don’t look close to real life and the overall balance is not pleasing. Perhaps the problem is not with the camera, but my own preference." - This is also very weird as ALL other reviews claims this camera has finally great JPGs. Any ideas?
• "The default JPEG engine does a poor job at managing the high ISO noise and details balance. There are noticeable traces of over-sharpening and artificial blurring of details at ISO3200 and higher. I also observed random, stray color fringes in shadow areas that look ugly. I tried various noise reduction settings in camera and they all produced undesirable results. In summary, at high ISO, shoot RAW."
  This is also not inline with a lot of other reviews. In fact I read claims by other reviewers they were unable to replicate the excellent noise reduction of Panasonic with LR.

Happy to hear thoughts of G9 owners here...

As a JPEG shooter, I was disappointed to read this, but then got a bit confused when I looked at his example:

From Robin: "ISO6400, RAW processed (left) vs SOOC JPEG (right). Pay attention to the yellow color patches on the eye-brows on the JPEG image."

I find the SOOC JPEG superior - the processed RAW appears much noisier with smeared details(microphone grill, necklace, earring). The JPEG skin and skin tone look more pleasing to me as well. Arguably too smooth but the result achieves better transitions/gradations).

I always enjoy Robin's reviews, and am blown away by his photos. As with most things, I guess this JPEG color/NR/detail issue comes down to subjective preference - or I'm just WEIRD Still planning on slowly embezzling from the kids' college fund to buy my G9! Don't tell my wife!

I agree with you, I wonder if his monitor calibration was off?

I cycled through some of my calibration standards on my Eizo monitor and in all of them the RH image looked better and I couldn't see those yellow colour patches.

Should get my G9 tomorrow so will be able to see for myself

I'm enjoying all of this info from you early adopters! Now the big question for us G85 owners is whether to go for the G9 at all. I've enjoyed the G85 and my newly acquired E-m5II so much that it's hard to see what the G9 will provide that they don't, from a realistic viewpoint. I know I would like to have it from the sheer pleasure in owning a nice piece of hardware, but I'm not sure that's enough to sway me. The reviews are inconsistent and the comments in this thread and others on the forum are very welcome.

Dick