Lumix G5

[ziggy84]

I'm curious as to what everyone thinks of the Lumix G5. It seems like a cool camera. What is the advantage of the mirrorless opposed to the slr? Just better reliability because no moving mirror? Is Lumix a good brand?

 

[brunerww]

Hi Ziggy - I own the Panasonic Lumix GH1 and GH2 and have a GH3 on order. The GH2 and GH3 are great cameras for stills and video. The latest generation of mirrorless cameras(DSLMs), such as the Panasonic G5, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic GH3, have several advantages over DSLRs:

- they generally weigh less without the mirror box
- they are generally smaller, for the same reason
- they have essentially no moving parts - SLRs and DSLRs have shutter actuation limits - DSLMs do not
- during time exposures and while shooting video, DSLR optical viewfinders go blank - DSLM electronic viewfinders keep working

Autofocus speed was an issue for older generation DSLMs (2009-2011), but the G5 (and the GH3) have fixed this problem, and now autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

If you're looking at "moving up" and don't want to lug around heavy DSLR camera bodies and lenses, the G5 is a good choice.

Here is the still image quality you can get from it: Flickr: The Flickr Panasonic DMC-G5 Pool

And video (watch in 1080p): Panasonic LUMIX G5

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

 

[ziggy84]

Hi Ziggy - I own the Panasonic Lumix GH1 and GH2 and have a GH3 on order. The GH2 and GH3 are great cameras for stills and video. The latest generation of mirrorless cameras(DSLMs), such as the Panasonic G5, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic GH3, have several advantages over DSLRs:

- they generally weigh less without the mirror box
- they are generally smaller, for the same reason
- they have essentially no moving parts - SLRs and DSLRs have shutter actuation limits - DSLMs do not
- during time exposures and while shooting video, DSLR optical viewfinders go blank - DSLM electronic viewfinders keep working

Autofocus speed was an issue for older generation DSLMs (2009-2011), but the G5 (and the GH3) have fixed this problem, and now autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

If you're looking at "moving up" and don't want to lug around heavy DSLR camera bodies and lenses, the G5 is a good choice.

Here is the still image quality you can get from it: Flickr: The Flickr Panasonic DMC-G5 Pool

And video (watch in 1080p): Panasonic LUMIX G5

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

Thanks for the info Bill. Still trying to make my mind up, but getting close. The G5 is still an option, but I need to get my hands on it first.

 

[JDFlood]

Then there is the other side. It uses a small sensor. So for ideal lighting condition it is fine. But not so good in low light and not as flexible in post-processing. I shoot lots of low-light, so it would be a deal breaker for me... But that's me. JD

 

[Baldwin70101]

The sensor is smaller than FF or APS-C, but larger than P&S cameras. I shoot a G3, an earlier model of the G5, and thoroughly enjoy it. The photos are, in general, much better than what I shot with DSLRs. The only camera I have that rivals (and indeed surpasses) image quality, is my Toyo 45CX. In all fairness, I should point out that a physical disability makes it difficult to hold a heavy DSLR steady.

 

[Balinus]

Does having a fast lense (like the 25mm f/1.4) is enough to be close to a DSLR in low light conditions?

ziggy84: I have the GH2 and I'm overall satisfied. But indeed, in low light, the AF struggle (more than my brother's Sony A57, at the same aperture and is also mirrorless). If you want to do videos, look for a silent lens (the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4-5.6 is). The standard lens of the Sony A57 is not and you can hear the AF during videos.

brunerww: I'd be interested in your opinions about your GH3 vs the GH2. I'm still debating if I should stick with u4/3 format and invest in lenses and buy the GH3 (when the prices goes down) of if I should look for something else...

 

[3Ddeath]

If i'm ever to buy another camera I would first pick the lenses I want! than decide on the camera second.

One advantage SLRs still have is the amount of lenses you can get for it, and even 3rd party lenses of high quality like Sigma.

Also keep in mind how the buttons are, I always find manual buttons, wheels, knobs, things like that much better than menu pressing.

Also, sensor size would be on of the biggest factors, I don't think i would ever want to go below APS-C sized sensors, i'm now spoiled that way. A large camera with a small sensor is like a large dude with a small..... ...ah, nevermind

Also, I think you want a camera with a physical shutter, I hear its higher quality than the non shutter sensors because the sensors don't need extra crap on them to allow them to precisely turn on and off to act as a shutter. (correct me if i'm wrong on this one)

 

[usayit]

Then there is the other side. It uses a small sensor. So for ideal lighting condition it is fine. But not so good in low light and not as flexible in post-processing. I shoot lots of low-light, so it would be a deal breaker for me... But that's me. JD

You make it sound like a tiny sensor. Its not that small

Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its on par in low ISO with most entry and some mid level DSLRs.



The biggest disadvantage to the micro 4/3 systems is AF performance. PDAF is still ahead of CDAF.

 

[usayit]

One advantage SLRs still have is the amount of lenses you can get for it, and even 3rd party lenses of high quality like Sigma.

Not true...

No two camera manufacturers share the same mount except panasonic and olympus. The sheer number of lenses between Sigma, Voigtlander, Panasonic, and Olympus makes up ALOT. Also the short flange distance makes it possible to literally adapt any lens of any mount.. that's probably in the hundreds. Let's not forget that the lenses are MUCH smaller in size than DSLR lenses.

Letsee my list

Olympus and Panasonic
12 f/2
14 f/2.5 (sold)
20 f/1.7
45 f/1.8
75 f/1.8
12-42 kit
12-50 kit
45-200
100-300
12-35 f/2.8
35-100 f/2.8

Plus a dozen Leica M-mount lenses

Plus about 50 Pentax K and Takumar M42 mount lenses.

Also keep in mind how the buttons are, I always find manual buttons, wheels, knobs, things like that much better than menu pressing.

Funny... I have 4 wheels and a load of buttons on mine. Even touch screen to quickly change focus point. There are so many bodies to choose from for Panasonic and Olympus that there is a layout for everyone. Most DSLRs all have the same/similar handling across the entire line. Both olympus and panasonic have lines of cameras that have VERY different layouts, handling, and packaging. Makes for a wide selection to contemplate and choose from(G, GH, GF, GX, E-P, E-PL, E-PM, OMD). The G5 is just fine IMO handling wise... its ONE OF THE BIGGEST of the micro 4/3 bodies (referring to mr. big hands).

Also, I think you want a camera with a physical shutter, I hear its higher quality than the non shutter sensors because the sensors don't need extra crap on them to allow them to precisely turn on and off to act as a shutter. (correct me if i'm wrong on this one)

So wrong. Micro 4/3 still have physical shutters. And in some cases an electronic shutter is a huge advantage for strobists. Most shutter cameras have a sync speed of between 1/160th to 1/500th. Electronic shutters can have sync speeds of up to 1/4000th which opens the door for creativity. But again.. wrong... Micro 4/3 cameras have physical shutters.

 

[brunerww]

usayit - you said it! Thanks for clearing up those misconceptions about sensor size, shutters, physical controls and lenses. Some of it was true 2 years ago, but not any longer.

One thought - you may not have shot with the G5 or the GH3, but they autofocus just as fast, if not faster, than PDAF. I say that as someone who has been shooting SLRs and DSLRs for 38 years and still own a Nikon.

The Panasonic G5 and GH3 autofocus as fast or faster than Nikon DSLRs. I am not the only one who says so. David at soundimageplus says the same thing in this post:

The G5 incidentally is way faster at focusing and getting the shot than my Nikons

Bottom line for DSLR shooters who have not picked up a G5 or GH3 - mirrorless camera autofocus speeds have caught up - we can use your lenses as well as ours (and many of ours autofocus silently) - and our viewfinders still work when we switch to video

Balinus - I haven't forgotten your question - when I get some time this weekend, I will shoot some side-by-sides of the GH2 and GH3 and give you a report.

Best of the holidays to everyone,

Bill

 

[usayit]

let me clarify, static AF is extremely fast... what is not up to par is AF tracking of moving subjects.

 

[usayit]

Its on par in low ISO with most entry and some mid level DSLRs.

ps... i meant HIGH ISO is on par with most entry and mid level DSLRs.

 

[Balinus]

No worries brunerww. It's not urgent! You might want to start a new thread though, as it might attracts lots of viewer interested in the GH3.

 

[3Ddeath]

One advantage SLRs still have is the amount of lenses you can get for it, and even 3rd party lenses of high quality like Sigma.

Not true...

No two camera manufacturers share the same mount except panasonic and olympus. The sheer number of lenses between Sigma, Voigtlander, Panasonic, and Olympus makes up ALOT. Also the short flange distance makes it possible to literally adapt any lens of any mount.. that's probably in the hundreds. Let's not forget that the lenses are MUCH smaller in size than DSLR lenses.

Letsee my list

Olympus and Panasonic
12 f/2
14 f/2.5 (sold)
20 f/1.7
45 f/1.8
75 f/1.8
12-42 kit
12-50 kit
45-200
100-300
12-35 f/2.8
35-100 f/2.8

Plus a dozen Leica M-mount lenses

Plus about 50 Pentax K and Takumar M42 mount lenses.
...

You can argue that there are a lot of lens options or ways to get more lenses with adapters, you can even say there is an infinite amount of lenses you can get since you can make your own with a toilet paper roll.

I was more talking about in general on mirrorless cameras and adapters don't count as they remove the point of a mirrorless which usually allows you to use smaller lenses, nobody will buy a canon 70-200 2.8 and put it on a mirrorless with an adapter, its silly.
I'm sure It's even possible to make an adaptor on my canon to mount the hubble telescope.

I'm all for mirrorless cameras! i want one myself, I don't think there are THAT many lenses for mirriorless but I feel this isn't a bad thing, I feel its what it should be. If you want more crazy lenses that cost a stupid amount of money, wouldn't you want a viewfinder that looks through it?

At least those are my thoughts.

 

[usayit]

I was more talking about in general on mirrorless cameras and adapters don't count as they remove the point of a mirrorless which usually allows you to use smaller lenses, nobody will buy a canon 70-200 2.8 and put it on a mirrorless with an adapter, its silly.
I'm sure It's even possible to make an adaptor on my canon to mount the hubble telescope.

Wrong!

All the lenses I listed in my post are NATIVE to the micro 4/3 system (NOT ADAPTED) and that's not all of them... just the ones I have or continue to use. For example, missing from that list are the Sigma lenses and Voigtlanders (17 f/0.95 and 25 f/0.95) Need to re-read the part that starts with the word "also"... as "in addition to".

There's pretty much an equivalent in micro 4/3 for each lens type no matter the branding being compared with a few exceptions. You can nit and pick particulars but its not "A LOT". Some examples, like the voigtlanders have no equivalent in other systems outside micro 4/3. As the system gains popularity, the gaps will be filled in.


Let's take the typical high end zooms 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 that are popular. The equivalent are the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8.