Gave The GX7 MkII Another Go...

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh. Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.  I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

For the focusing, I think there's a 'lens position resume' setting so that the focus is saved (and zoom on power zooms, if I remember rightly). I don't have a gx9/7ii at the moment so I could be misremembering.

larsbc wrote:

Fwestivus wrote:

For the focusing, I think there's a 'lens position resume' setting so that the focus is saved (and zoom on power zooms, if I remember rightly). I don't have a gx9/7ii at the moment so I could be misremembering.

I was going to mention that as well. Yes, there's a setting that will preserve the default focus position.

Where is it, because I was looking for anything related to it last night.

I think in the menu it's under custom/the c-spanner, then lens/others?

Fwestivus wrote:

I think in the menu it's under custom/the c-spanner, then lens/others?

Well If I shoot in Manual like I have, using Back button focusing, it should save my my focus point. For some reason, its not.

Its a small nuisance.

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one. Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor. You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants. From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Fwestivus wrote:

I think in the menu it's under custom/the c-spanner, then lens/others?

Ok, so the only thing I found online is a suggestion to just let the camera sleep and not switch it off. I'll give it another go-around when I get home from work.

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

You mean a 1-1/3 stops.

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics. The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43.  Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens. That I would agree.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

You mean a 1-1/3 stops.

No. An APS sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2/3 of a stop higher.

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?

No. A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as APS when the former is at an ISO setting 1-1/3 stops higher.

A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2 stops higher.

This reflects the differences in sizes of the sensors' light gathering area, which you can read and compare here.

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics.

Of course you can. Sensors and software have improved vastly over the past decade.

The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.

Capture One and LR are not as good as PhotoLab for noise reduction. Look, if you want better results from your Panasonic, as you claim to do, then why are you ignoring my main recommendation? It seems like you're just committed to experiencing that camera as inferior and promulgating that opinion.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43. Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens.

Um, yeah. To put it mildly.

That I would agree.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.

Good idea. Much better than making unfounded assertions based on a tiny data set.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

You mean a 1-1/3 stops.

No. An APS sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2/3 of a stop higher.

Now you're moving the goalposts. A larger sensor can gather more light, at matching settings, matching iso's, the larger sensor will have cleaner image.

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?

No. A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as APS when the former is at an ISO setting 1-1/3 stops higher.

A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2 stops higher.

This reflects the differences in sizes of the sensors' light gathering area, which you can read and compare here.

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics.

Of course you can. Sensors and software have improved vastly over the past decade.

The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.

Capture One and LR are not as good as PhotoLab for noise reduction. Look, if you want better results from your Panasonic, as you claim to do, then why are you ignoring my main recommendation? It seems like you're just committed to experiencing that camera as inferior and promulgating that opinion.

So lets say that its better, what about Dynamic Range?? What about pulling detail from Shadows? You just can pull more details out of dark areas in a M43 image than a APS-C image. You just can't!

Thanks for your recommendation, but I'll stick to Capture One.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43. Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens.

Um, yeah. To put it mildly.

That I would agree.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.

Good idea. Much better than making unfounded assertions based on a tiny data set.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

You mean a 1-1/3 stops.

No. An APS sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2/3 of a stop higher.

Now you're moving the goalposts.

No, I'm not.

A larger sensor can gather more light, at matching settings, matching iso's, the larger sensor will have cleaner image.

What I said above can be put another way: the MFT sensor will deliver "2/3 of a stop" more noise than the Fuji sensor at the same ISO. Point is, the difference is only 2/3 of a stop, not what I'd call "much more harsh".

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?

No. A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as APS when the former is at an ISO setting 1-1/3 stops higher.

A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2 stops higher.

This reflects the differences in sizes of the sensors' light gathering area, which you can read and compare here.

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics.

Of course you can. Sensors and software have improved vastly over the past decade.

The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.

Capture One and LR are not as good as PhotoLab for noise reduction. Look, if you want better results from your Panasonic, as you claim to do, then why are you ignoring my main recommendation? It seems like you're just committed to experiencing that camera as inferior and promulgating that opinion.

So lets say that its better, what about Dynamic Range?? What about pulling detail from Shadows? You just can pull more details out of dark areas in a M43 image than a APS-C image. You just can't!

You may be right, but it depends on the specific sensors in question. APS does not always deliver better DR. Just look at the DR differences between 35mm sensors from Sony and Canon. FWIW, I'm quite confident that the blocked up blacks in your sample images could easily be pushed to reveal detail if you haven't grossly underexposed the images. Your experience simply doesn't match mine, and I shoot low-light corporate events with MFT and Sony 35mm professionally.

Thanks for your recommendation, but I'll stick to Capture One.

OK. But, understand that if you're not using the best possible noise reduction, you're not making a fair comparison between what's possible with Fuji and MFT.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43. Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens.

Um, yeah. To put it mildly.

That I would agree.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.

Good idea. Much better than making unfounded assertions based on a tiny data set.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

You mean a 1-1/3 stops.

No. An APS sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2/3 of a stop higher.

Now you're moving the goalposts.

No, I'm not.

A larger sensor can gather more light, at matching settings, matching iso's, the larger sensor will have cleaner image.

What I said above can be put another way: the MFT sensor will deliver "2/3 of a stop" more noise than the Fuji sensor at the same ISO. Point is, the difference is only 2/3 of a stop, not what I'd call "much more harsh".

We disagree, you think it's less, I think it's more. Luckily I have a few camera systems, so I can make the judgement for myself.

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?

No. A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as APS when the former is at an ISO setting 1-1/3 stops higher.

A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2 stops higher.

This reflects the differences in sizes of the sensors' light gathering area, which you can read and compare here.

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics.

Of course you can. Sensors and software have improved vastly over the past decade.

The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.

Capture One and LR are not as good as PhotoLab for noise reduction. Look, if you want better results from your Panasonic, as you claim to do, then why are you ignoring my main recommendation? It seems like you're just committed to experiencing that camera as inferior and promulgating that opinion.

So lets say that its better, what about Dynamic Range?? What about pulling detail from Shadows? You just can pull more details out of dark areas in a M43 image than a APS-C image. You just can't!

You may be right, but it depends on the specific sensors in question. APS does not always deliver better DR. Just look at the DR differences between 35mm sensors from Sony and Canon. FWIW, I'm quite confident that the blocked up blacks in your sample images could easily be pushed to reveal detail if you haven't grossly underexposed the images. Your experience simply doesn't match mine, and I shoot low-light corporate events with MFT and Sony 35mm professionally.

Now you're pitting the Best sensors (Sony) against easily the worst (Canon). Im talking about M43 & APS-C. what's next? You're going to use Canon 7D sensor vs the latest M43 sensor?

And sure, I underexposed my shots, but I always Underexpose my shots on the street, to squeeze out a little more speed to capture what I want and pull detail later in post. If I didn't, all of those pics would've been blurry. All those images were shot on the move. I would like to see some samples of your street photography.

Thanks for your recommendation, but I'll stick to Capture One.

OK. But, understand that if you're not using the best possible noise reduction, you're not making a fair comparison between what's possible with Fuji and MFT.

I can, based off what initially comes out of the cameras I own. I don't mind Post Processing, but I don't need to get Another program, just to eek out a bit more detail, to match the detail I easily get out of my Fuji or Nikon kit.

It was a short experiment, but I'll be returning the MkII. Maybe I'll keep the 15mm in the hope that I can get a GX9, cheap on the used market. It's an amazing little lens.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43. Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens.

Um, yeah. To put it mildly.

That I would agree.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.

Good idea. Much better than making unfounded assertions based on a tiny data set.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

The Panasonic 12-60 is a very well regarded lens, punching way above it's price. When I purchased my GX85, the standard kit lens supplied was the 12-32. I asked the store if I could swap it for the 12-60 for some extra cash. The store obliged. It's my most used lens.

I am also a DxO PhotoLab user. Jacques is right - it is a great piece of software for M43.

Given the problems you've found with the GX85, I'd suggest you stick with Fuji. Or get a Sony. As you said, you can't change physics.

Pete_W wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

The Panasonic 12-60 is a very well regarded lens, punching way above it's price. When I purchased my GX85, the standard kit lens supplied was the 12-32. I asked the store if I could swap it for the 12-60 for some extra cash. The store obliged. It's my most used lens.

Then I stand corrected and "Nobody" was a bit harsh. I still will stand by Most RF styled bodies own are most used with Primes only.

I am also a DxO PhotoLab user. Jacques is right - it is a great piece of software for M43.

Given the problems you've found with the GX85, I'd suggest you stick with Fuji. Or get a Sony. As you said, you can't change physics.

Agreed, aside from Sony.

-- hide signature --

Pete

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.

I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.

But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.

And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.

Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.

You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.

It's only 2/3 of a stop.

You mean a 1-1/3 stops.

No. An APS sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2/3 of a stop higher.

Now you're moving the goalposts.

No, I'm not.

A larger sensor can gather more light, at matching settings, matching iso's, the larger sensor will have cleaner image.

What I said above can be put another way: the MFT sensor will deliver "2/3 of a stop" more noise than the Fuji sensor at the same ISO. Point is, the difference is only 2/3 of a stop, not what I'd call "much more harsh".

We disagree, you think it's less, I think it's more. Luckily I have a few camera systems, so I can make the judgement for myself.

Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.

That's 1-1/3 stops.

You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?

No. A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as APS when the former is at an ISO setting 1-1/3 stops higher.

A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2 stops higher.

This reflects the differences in sizes of the sensors' light gathering area, which you can read and compare here.

You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.

I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.

I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics.

Of course you can. Sensors and software have improved vastly over the past decade.

The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.

Capture One and LR are not as good as PhotoLab for noise reduction. Look, if you want better results from your Panasonic, as you claim to do, then why are you ignoring my main recommendation? It seems like you're just committed to experiencing that camera as inferior and promulgating that opinion.

So lets say that its better, what about Dynamic Range?? What about pulling detail from Shadows? You just can pull more details out of dark areas in a M43 image than a APS-C image. You just can't!

You may be right, but it depends on the specific sensors in question. APS does not always deliver better DR. Just look at the DR differences between 35mm sensors from Sony and Canon. FWIW, I'm quite confident that the blocked up blacks in your sample images could easily be pushed to reveal detail if you haven't grossly underexposed the images. Your experience simply doesn't match mine, and I shoot low-light corporate events with MFT and Sony 35mm professionally.

Now you're pitting the Best sensors (Sony) against easily the worst (Canon).

I'm simply pointing out that sensor size does not determine everything and that there are differences even among sensors of the same generation and format. Your generalizations about MFT are too broad and undiscriminating.

Im talking about M43 & APS-C. what's next? You're going to use Canon 7D sensor vs the latest M43 sensor?

And sure, I underexposed my shots, but I always Underexpose my shots on the street, to squeeze out a little more speed to capture what I want and pull detail later in post. If I didn't, all of those pics would've been blurry.

And yet, you're unable to recover shadow detail. I don't have that problem in low light with moving subjects. I raise the ISO to enable a sufficiently fast shutter speed, and I rely on PhotoLab to remove the resulting noise. It works great. I think your gripes arise from your unwillingness to stop underexposing.

All those images were shot on the move. I would like to see some samples of your street photography.

You'd be better off bumping the ISO and getting a better exposure. Look at my websites to see the kinds of dim conditions I face in my event work.

Thanks for your recommendation, but I'll stick to Capture One.

OK. But, understand that if you're not using the best possible noise reduction, you're not making a fair comparison between what's possible with Fuji and MFT.

I can, based off what initially comes out of the cameras I own. I don't mind Post Processing, but I don't need to get Another program, just to eek out a bit more detail, to match the detail I easily get out of my Fuji or Nikon kit.

It was a short experiment, but I'll be returning the MkII. Maybe I'll keep the 15mm in the hope that I can get a GX9, cheap on the used market. It's an amazing little lens.

The GX9 will not do substantially better in terms of high-ISO noise. PhotoLab will.

Look, the Fujis (and other APS cameras) do generally have a noise advantage over MFT. But, it's only 2/3 of a stop. They may have a slight DR advantage, but your approach to exposure is what's causing your problems with shadow detail. You can get substantially better results from your Panasonic if you will 1) stop underexposing, and 2) use better noise reduction.

Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.

That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.

Wrong. Its the Sensor.

"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.

I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43. Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens.

Um, yeah. To put it mildly.

That I would agree.

I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/

But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.

Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.

Good idea. Much better than making unfounded assertions based on a tiny data set.

Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.

-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.

That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).

I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.

I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.

MrALLCAPS wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MrALLCAPS wrote:

I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.

Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.

From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.

And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?

The Panasonic 12-60 is a very well regarded lens, punching way above it's price. When I purchased my GX85, the standard kit lens supplied was the 12-32. I asked the store if I could swap it for the 12-60 for some extra cash. The store obliged. It's my most used lens.

Then I stand corrected and "Nobody" was a bit harsh. I still will stand by Most RF styled bodies own are most used with Primes only.

All you have to back this up is a handful of anecdotes based on your limited circle of acquaintances. This hardly qualifies you as an expert on the market. And, as an event pro and a landscape amateur, I use zooms on my two GX8s, GX85 and GX9 quite regularly, so that's one data point contrary to your assertion.

I am also a DxO PhotoLab user. Jacques is right - it is a great piece of software for M43.

Given the problems you've found with the GX85, I'd suggest you stick with Fuji. Or get a Sony. As you said, you can't change physics.

Agreed, aside from Sony.

Here in the UK the GX9 is available body only or with 12-32 or 12-60 zooms. After much consideration I chose the 12-60. I do have a collection of primes (7.5 fe, 12mm f2, 17mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8) as well as other zooms, but wanted the extra flexibility of the 12-60 as an option. I am very pleased with both body and lens.

Mark