Panasonic Comparisons. Advice

[thormanson]

I have been a Canon owner for many years, but am looking to switch to a Panasonic Mirrorless Camera in anticipation of the release of their new 100x500 lens scheduled for November, I think.
I should premise my question by saying that I am primarily a bird photographer, ( hobby ), and am not all that interested in video.
Looking at a major camera retailer I see 4 Lumix models which seem to meet my needs ranging in price from $1497 to $1997. The first two listed use the micro four thirds sensor, and the latter are full frame. G9ii, GH7, S5ii,and S5iiX. I think I read on another forum on this site that the main differerence between the two " S" cameras are that the iiX model is better for video? In any event I would appreciate any input from photographers who have used any of these cameras or know about them, keeping in mind what my primary use would be. Thanks.

 

[Don Fischer]

I don't understand the opinion's about micro four thirds and full frame photography. You fill up a micro four thirds frame and don't you have a full frame? But this stuff get's thrown all over the place. And seems like most compare the frame size to 35mm frames. I'd bet looking just at the finished product and knowing nothing else, the vast majority, probably 99.9% couldn't tell you what you took the photo with. Reason I say that is most people taking a photo set the view in the camera before shooting it. And if something seem's a bit off they fix it with some photo fixer upper program. So what difference does it really make what lens you use long as the lens works on your body

 

[Ysarex99 93]

I don't understand the opinion's about micro four thirds and full frame photography.

The area of a FF sensor is 4X that of a M4/3 sensor and so there are differences in the images they can deliver due to that variation in size.

A) At the same exposure the FF sensor captures more total light because it's 4X bigger. The noise we most commonly see in our photos is a function of exposure and sensor area (total light) and so the FF sensor cameras can produce images with less visible noise.

B) The larger area of a FF sensor can potentially provide higher resolution although in the case of the OP's noted cameras (G9 and S5) the resolution is the same.

C) In the same way that the noise difference is simply a matter of physics so to larger sensors can deliver more captured dynamic range. In the case of the OP's noted cameras the G9 and S5 the difference is more than a full stop.

D) When used to take the same photo (same perspective and same framing) at the same f/stop the M4/3 camera will deliver more DOF. To match DOF between the two cameras the FF must be stopped down two additional f/stops so if the M4/3 camera is used at f/4 the FF needs to be set to f/8 to deliver the same DOF. Used with lenses wide open then the FF camera can render shallower DOF than the M4/3 camera -- potentially meaningful to portrait photographers.

That's the theory; in practice those differences matter or they don't depending on circumstance. For example I've posted photos here in the past couple of days taken with an M4/3 camera. Consider first this one: Park Along the River of barges on the river. The lighting is bright sunshine -- and I took the photo at ISO 200 (base) 1/250 sec. f/6.3. If I instead had my FF camera and wanted to take the same photo I'd set ISO 200 1/60 sec. f/13 -- same exposure but the lens stopped down to f/13 to match DOF and so the shutter slowed to 1/60 sec. I could do that and the IQ from the FF camera is going to be better -- more total light = better SNR = less noise.*

Back walking by the river and yesterday I took this photo: Dawn on a Working River At sunrise there was a lot less light than the photo above and I took the photo at ISO 200 (base) 1/60 sec. f/5. If I instead had my FF camera and wanted to take the same photo I'd set ISO 200 1/15 sec. f/10 -- same exposure but the lens stopped down to f/10 to match DOF and so the shutter slowed to 1/15 sec. and Oops! I can't do that. I don't carry a tripod when I walk and no way can I hand-hold at 1/15 sec. With the FF camera something has to give. I give up having the same DOF or I have to expose less and if I expose less those advantages in theory start melting away. In this photo at sunrise I was able to set an optimum sensor exposure for my M4/3 sensor. If I want the same DOF with the FF camera and don't have a tripod I can't do the same.

*Less noise is relative. What advantage do we get from less noise if we start out with zero noise? In the photo taken in bright sun the potential is there for the FF camera hand-held to do better than my M4/3 sensor camera. But if that's the case then it's also the case that I can set an optimum sensor exposure for the M4/3 sensor and basically have no visible noise -- not much point having less than none.

The OP noted bird photography with extreme long lenses. In the landscape photos I take I'm nearly always able to set an optimum sensor exposure and so a FF camera's less noise isn't worth much to me especially since I don't carry a tripod -- depends on circumstance. The circumstance of bird photography typically requires very fast shutter speeds and in shade or overcast substantial sensor underexposure such that the noise difference could matter quite a bit.

You fill up a micro four thirds frame and don't you have a full frame? But this stuff get's thrown all over the place. And seems like most compare the frame size to 35mm frames. I'd bet looking just at the finished product and knowing nothing else, the vast majority, probably 99.9% couldn't tell you what you took the photo with. Reason I say that is most people taking a photo set the view in the camera before shooting it. And if something seem's a bit off they fix it with some photo fixer upper program. So what difference does it really make what lens you use long as the lens works on your body