Your wish is granted. On sale now for $1197.99 I believe, at B&H and probably every other authorized reseller.

I am going to start to think that my hands are on the smaller side. I have found it too big for my liking and sending it back. The grip felt somehow even bigger than on my canon 40D :-D

You don't really think this looks good do you? Very grainy, and a lot of her pics have heavy sharpening around the edges of objects. And very busy bokeh which is ugly.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114407047@N06/31260858252/in/album-72157686225817362/

It's probably related to their test camera, I have purchased two G9's and none of them has any magenta cast in the shadows. :)

I did some more testing...
At ISO 100 I get a very good image, with no magenta casting in the deep shadows and very good highlights roll of.
At ISO 200 the magenta cast is present in the shadows after a severe underexposure/recovery unfortunately.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3030453205/photos/3728192/panasonic-g9

At ISO 100 the image is very good!
At ISO 400 again, there are no problems with the magenta cast in the deep shadows. At higher ISO's there's nothing out of the ordinary.

Only at ISO 200 I see the anomaly.

Another very interesting fact: the magenta cast anomaly manifests itself only in hugely underexposed images.
I shot several tests and only once found it, in this particular scenario only.

In real life situations I never encountered any problems what so ever with the G9. :)

Perhaps the G9 looks sharper because it used a much better lens? Note that the G9 used the 42.5 Nocticron. All the others cams used the inexpensive Oly 45. The Oly 45 is a great lens *for the price*, but is NOT as sharp nor as consistent across the frame as the Nocticron.

- Sensor size does not modify the DOF effect of the focal length, but sensor size does change the angle of view of the same focal length.
- If you want the same DOF effect as a FF camera you just buy a 75mm or 100 mm m43 lens and stand further away from the subject.
- Actually deeper DOF can be an advantage in many situations.

Richard Butler: As soon as you change the angle of view, you change the perspective (perspective change is dependent on AOV). There is a depth of field advantage of smaller sensors using the same angle of view. The distance has more effect on DOF (macro photography) than stopping down the lens.

There are other advantages to smaller sensors: the cameras and lenses can be smaller, they may well be less expensive. There's also the potential for faster readout (less rolling shutter) and for better stabilization (since a smaller sensor has less inertia). And that's before you get to personal needs and preferences in terms of lens quality, available lens range, color response, ergonomics.

However, there is no inherent D-o-F advantage to small sensors.

@Richard Butler

Not long ago you where reviewing m4/3 cameras at f/8, I wander why didn't you also reviewed the 35mm ones at f/16. :)

Cause you won't be using f/16 or f/22 very often on a 35mm camera, the resulted images are way to soft. M4/3 lenses although are at their best @ f/4, they are still good at f/8 and acceptable at f/11 when you are interested in maximum DOF (for landscape, architecture, macro etc).
And, the current m4/3 sensors are not 2 full stops behind in image quality compared to current 35mm ones, it's more like 1+ stops of a difference only.

"However, there is no inherent D-o-F advantage to small sensors."
However it' pointless arguing with you, once your mind is set on one direction only (in the SoNykon 35mm one). :)

@Richard Butler

Agree, larger sensors will provide better image quality (with similar tech inside) but as you said "good enough (and more than good enough) are tempting alternatives" nowadays.

Yes the G9 may not challenge the D850 image quality wise, or a C300 mk2 in video department, but the G9 it's better in all regards compared to the very good 5D mk2 which I extensively used back in the days for both photo and video purposes + it's cheaper and my photographic needs haven't changed
that much since them. :)

I quite agree: it's a really good camera.

Richard Butler:
"There is no deeper depth-of-field advantage to smaller sensors."
Interestingly, FF has been known not only for shallower DOF at the same F stop and angle of view but also for this property being advantageous when one needs it, say for portraits.

On the other hand, MFT cannot reach the same thin DOF as FF "unless using Pro 1.2s", its DOF is deeper, but strangely enough, this feature is not allowed to be advantageous.

Buratino - the point is that a larger sensor (with a bright enough lens) can do shallow depth-of-field or deeper depth-of-field. It's harder for a small sensor to do the shallow aspect of that.

So what if the sensor is smaller than in X-Pro2, if G9 blows it out of the water in many ways? There's a lot more things that X Pro2 cannot do that G9 does, than the other way around.

In fact, the Fuji being the exact same price as G9 (both 1699 EUR) makes it a very poor value for money and the slightly larger sensor is the only thing that saves it from being a complete rip-off. Actually, not even that, since you can have an FF camera for half the price of X-Pro2. So I guess X-Pro2 is joke. ;-)

So, how does that logic of yours working out for you?

Well, RB, your memory is failing you. the XPro has dual SD card slots, not one, and the speed of the card is determined by the card, not the camera. Presumably since you sold yours, the firmware updates have ensured that the focus speed is excellent, and I dont have problems with the buffer ever. Not sure what was causing you to plod.
And sensor size. Astro, I like the idea of it being 'slightly' bigger, but an MFT sensor is 225 sq mm, and the Fuji is 368 sq mm. It is more than 'slightly' with significant implications for DOF and light gathering
But go for your life. If you like those smudgy little sensors, sounds like a match made in heaven

My bad on forgetting about the dual cards on the Pro2. But boasting of card speed is meaningless when you have the meager buffer that the XPRO-2 is saddled with. But my bigger point is it is silly to even compare the two. They are for such very different markets. NOONE focused on a sports/action camera is ever thinking about an X-PRO2. It is a great camera in its own way, and if you really want the best low light performance then it is a better choice than the G9- unless your scenarios can benefit from IBIS.

Paul JM, since you figered out price difference and weight I bet you can figure a whole lot more differences yourself. What stopped you from using your analytical powers and come with this simplistic comparison since it is pretty obvious where the differences are. Like: XPro-2: what IBIS?, what 4K video specs? Focussing speed in S-AF and C-AF, Dualcardslot speed is not the same (I did not compare) and very few cam have both at the maximum speed, what buffer, what Hires mode, where is the 3,6 mp EVF, how long does the battery last, topllate LCD on Xpro2, preshot focussing, USB- c charging (? Might be on the XPro2) haven't checked...

I've just tried an XT 2 camera from a friend.
I like the retro design and all but:
- The camera is a pain to hold for a longer period of time in the hand, especially with bigger lenses and a flash
- It doesn't have a proper ISO 100 (the G9 has)
- It's resolution, although higher in numbers compared to the G9, it's actually lower if you look at the same shot side by side
- I dislike the waxiness and X-Trans artifacts
- The AF speed is ok, but nowhere near as fast as on the G9
- The EVF is inferior
- The LCD screen rotation (for my needs) is impractical
- The battery life is about half of the G9
- The video quality is inferior to the G9, the sound quality and options are vastly inferior to the G9.
- Using f/1,2 lenses on the G9 vs 1/1,4 on the XT2 the shallow DOF differences between the two is practically indistinguishable. The same can be said about low light performance.
- The image stabilization is vastly inferior to the G9
- They cost about the same in my country.

Really, I am so pleased for all of you that you enjoy that tiny little sensor. Just not for me, and really I cant understand how the gains in using a small sensor are blown away by the relatively large body size and price, but if you are happy with the camera, all power to you. Not for me. Tried 2 MFT cameras, one pana one oly, and they gather dust these days. For me, the sweet spot between size and functionality in a mirrorless camera is with APSc

Pau JM...buy a K1. FF sensor. 36 Mp. Almost the same price as the Fuji. 864 mm2 vs tiny 365 mm2. Easy choice if sensors dictate all it seems.
Also I have a Gm5 too. Anything Fuji can deliver that is remotely close in size and weigght? No. Si we can have it all if we like. We also can buy a GX85 if we want something larger etc.

Although the G9 ISO 100 is called extended, it actually has a very good highlight DR, more in fact compered to many cameras with "native" ISO 100.

Compared to the native ISO 200 on the XT 2 the "extended" ISO 100 on the G9 has more highlight DR.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3030453205/photos/3726785/g9-vs-xt-2-dr

@whumber

If you download the original files and look at the histograms, the difference between the two exposures is insignificant.

"There's really no such thing as highlight DR"

You are totally wrong here!
Like the shadows DR, highlight DR can be measured and in real life scenarios, thy are probably equally important.

You can say whatever you like but the G9's ISO 100 is very good, in contrast to the unusable ISO 100 from the XT 2.

@Paul JM Just not for me,

But man you sure make lots of stink and noise tying to tell people the G9 is not for you.

@whumber

Looking closer into the files, the Fuji it's not only 0,25 stops underexposed (as you pointed out) but also a little bit darker compared to the G9 files. This practically means the XT 2 is 1/3 stops darker for the same exposure values compared to the G9.
The Panasonic not only has a higher latitude in the highlights but the so called half a stop ISO difference is actually more like 1/3 of a stop + the G9 has a better resolving detail. The G9 with f/1,2 native lenses will yield better results in all departments vs the XT 2 with f/1,4 ones. :)

Yes, the Xt 2 files are exposed 0.25 stops of light more compared to the G9 yet the G9 is brighter, making the Xt2 files 1/3 of a stop darker if the exact same settings were used.
I use Photoshop and Lightroom like most photographers do. :)

As a photographer I really don't care about RAWDigger etc. The only thing that really matters in the end are the results and the XT 2 although is a nice camera it's definitely NOT better compared to the G9. :)

There is an excellent review on mirrorlesscomparison. XT2 vs EM1.2 and you can see there is really nothing in it when it comes to IQ. And MC is a site with people that use XT2 personally and also they have used three softwarepackages to get the best out of the RAWs, Currently the best mFT sensors, as we can see in DxO too (not only mirrorless comparison) are very close to the best APS-c sensors. May be a 1/3 of a stop max. This is smaller than is to be expected so newer APS-c sensors might extend the lead to 2/3 of a stop or even more. 2/3 is about the difference we can expect based on sensorsize differences. Whether such differences are meaningful or not is a personal matter. Some see APS-c is their ideal tradeoff between size/weight and IQ as compared to FF and others have other standards. For those who like m43 and do not mind the G9 being a big exaple of such a cam, it seems this cam offers a whole lot and is probably the best m43 cam out there currently all things considered.

Struggling to understand all the criticism of the size of this camera. If you're just buying a single body, then it might be an issue. But like many, I've been running a mirrorless system alongside my DSLRs for several years now for something smaller and for video. This camera has, in one stroke, allowed me to consolidate back down to a single system without losing the benefits of DSLR AF and handling. I get to use a single set of lenses on tiny pocket cameras or on a body that'll handle big, fast lenses and AF sharply for sports. Stills or video. High ISO noise virtually identical to the 7D2.

So as part of a kit of tools, this thing makes a huge amount of sense. Being able to liquidate all my Canon gear means I get to stick all the best glass on it as well :)

The last mFT I sold was the GX8. I believe the sensor is quite similar with G9. Real world Hi ISO is no match to current APSC and FF ones. The noise level above 1600 is worse compared to larger sensor. If I’m going to carry a camera bag to take photos, I can might as well throw in a FF kit in it otherwise just use my phone. Simple logic.

Thanks for the enlightening words. Being able to include all categories in the comparison is not very useful then.

Boerni52: Although I think it can be a mistake to get hung up on measurements, a DxO comparison between the GX7 and the E-M1 II shows what you might expect the difference between the GX7 and G9 to be. (DxO hasn't tested the G9 yet but it's fair to assume it will be very similar to the E-M1 II.): https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7___1136_901

do you really want to have a tiny body with bad ergonomics?
the real difference in "compact m4/3" will be if you use e.g. a 200-800mm FF lens even if you "just" use a 100-400 with a 2x TC.

DaveX81just look at fuji x-t. Tiny body with great ergonomics & bigger sensors & not much biger sizes of lens.

MrLito I personally love fuji cameras with the exception of their ergonomics. I tried aftermarket extended grips as I refused to pay another 80-100 dollars for Fuji's version. It works, but it's definitely not as comfortable as a dslr styled grip that I've gotten accustomed to. The great thing is that m43 offers different styled bodies for different purposes. When that X-H1 is announced I'll look back at fuji.

It's due to what they are used to, they (most sportsshooters) prefer DSLR's.
And around a basketball field or tennis field I understand it cause you don't need to move much and can cover almost everything from one point.
That won't hold for soccer and F1, the big gear is a hindrance and this is where m43 come in very handy.

i think its because the gh5s is only 10 megapixels so the file sizes are really small which allows them to up it to 14 bit.