Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery

Did you see other galleries? These are Seattle colors, not Panasonic.

Process the RAWs differently, then. You don't need to stick with emulated Panasonic "colors".

It's flagship time on the markets.

I see technical improvements but I don’t see it should get every time more and more expensive. Actually the manufacturer can produce cheaper and cheaper every time.

You need to show them how to do it.
Come back with your camera that matches its features and sell it for $800.
I'll buy one. Of course I insist on reliability, bug free, a range of great lenses and with great warranty service anywhere on the globe.

The IQ of a cheaper Sony A7ii is way better than this. You could add all the extra toppings and specs, but at the end still is a tiny sensor vs FF.

But at this price this product won't sell very well. A normal consumer would probably buy a G7 or a Gx80. I doubt there will be much buyer to justify the high price only to make photos. If you are a professional that's another story. But then you probably won't buy a MFT camera for stills (video is another storyb but this is not a video camera).

@ZeBebito not to mention the cheaper A7 which costs sometimes only 790 € at Amazon.de

I would go for used Sony A7 instantly. It's also lighter probably.

The A7 is almost 200 grams lighter. The Zeiss 35mm and 55mm lenses -both superb- are pretty light and compact too. Even cheaper than the “pro” m43 equivalents. The whole kit can be found new for maybe $2500 including the already good 28-70mm OOS zoom (which in m43 terms is like a 14-35mm f1.7-2.8 lens).

So how much would be for the G9 plus 2 of those lenses, $4000?? No thanks.

How can you seriously compare a FF to a M43 body?
They are not designed for the same kinds of photography.
Thats just specs talk.

These are similar sized cameras. You take the camera and take pictures. I don't care the spec sheet, the A7 will produce a visibly better image than the Panasonic. That's what cares.

Barney made a good point the other day, we're going to do some more pixel shift shots with longer shutter speeds to see if using, say, 1/4 sec shutter speed over eight shots, will allow those exposures to blend motion more effectively while still giving extra detail in static areas of the scene.

Could you please test whether it works with flash as well?

Jacques Cornell-- I use an OM-1 OM-5 and G3. I still also use a Pentax K-10 so I am well aware of the advantages of MFTs. I do think despite my obvious bias that the lower light quality(iso 200-400 are fine) of the 4/3 sensor in real life is not a patch on APS and above. Just take a look at the 2 dogs picture taken at iso 1000. At 100% they are pretty awful. I am stuck with 4/3 as I have too much invested in them but if I could, I would switch to Fuji XT 20. The problem is you are paying a great deal of money for this camera which is struggling to cope in IQ terms with cameras which are barely larger and significantly cheaper. The Panasonic GX 8 however has many of the attributes of the G9 for less than half the price.

Exatly "when"... but now this 20mp sensor gives on m4/3 noise even at 100iso. High iso is worse then 16mp m4/3.

Matter of opinion about jpegs. I've always liked Panasonic's, still use my G1 occasionally because of that, even though I generally shoot Nikon.

Panasonic colors are pretty bad. I even couldn’t get the RAW files to my taste (GF7).
I think the MFT cameras should not try to compete with APS-C cameras.
The should be small compact camera replacement like the GM5 or the PEN or the M10. And they should be considerably cheaper than comparable APS-C cameras.

Of course but there's no match for native bigger pixels for higher ISO performances.

The idea that less pixels = less noise is antiquated. Sony's 42MP a7RII and 12MP a7SII have similar noise at the same image size. IOW, downsample an a7RII image to 12MP and you get the same noise as the a7SII. With current technology, noise is largely a function of TOTAL light gathered, not light gathered per pixel. Going back to 12MP on MFT sensors will not get us less noise. It might improve DR, though, as larger pixels can collect more photons before reaching saturation.

Aside from those two benefits? I can't think of any. I'm talking here strictly of pixel count, irrespective of sensor size or pixel pitch.

Well, the biggest advantage is that you finally have a use for your 500TB RAID storage...

I'm sorry, but you have been runing the wrong tests if you don't think RAW gives better results than JPEG.

Don't get me wrong: I've always been more of a JPEG shooter (for many reasons) but when there was a specific picture I really liked and wanted it to shine even more, I'd develop the RAW file for better results.

The problem is when people take bad pictures in RAW thinking "I'll fix it in PP later" when a properly taken JPEG can work wonders.

@neo and Joao - and to be clear, raw files need different exposure to get the best out of them. so they will often look flat and overexposed, but that's a good thing and puts you in a position to optimize them better.

So if you want ultimate IQ you must go to the gym first, there's no other option

Yep and then, you'd be all set for the ultimate selfie!

Which FF model has these high end features besides its sensor size? You'll be happy to find entry level model with cheap kit lens but that's like comparing apples to oranges. People don't upgrade from Canon 7D to 6D just because they are similar in price.

bobogdan78 -
Going to the gym will not prevent nerve & joint damage associated with carrying heavy gear for long periods. I'm pretty fit, but 20 years of carrying 35mm & medium format cameras in big, heavy bags ruined my right shoulder. Now I'm a happy MFT shooter with an OpTechUSA Dual Sling.

I know I was just kidding. However I'm always appalled when I see those National Geographic film makers carrying huge cameras through the jungle and I guess they're doing that for a good reason and it's not training for the Ironman.