Rumours that Panasonic is slowing/postponing Micro Four Thirds gear

[Macroramphosis]

If I were going to go FF, this is almost definitely the camera I would get. But the big lenses, poor telephoto reach (vs m43), and the pain of starting a new lens mount is a real show-stopper for me (like others).

I'm with you, but the answer may be simpler than you imagine. Buy a S5 with the remarkably adept 20-60mm for landscape and portrait needs, and (as an example in my case) keep my GX8 with a P45-175, a PL15 and a P30 macro for their various case uses. Best of both worlds, bank not broken, etc etc. It's still a small bag to carry around.

It's also not too expensive to then add a Sigma lens of whatever flavour you want to the S5 at some stage for either low light, macro or some reach. As I'd have the telephoto and macro options already in place with the GX8, I'd probably plump for the 14-24mm f/2.8 to get some UWA low-light capabilities.

These are the thoughts that I ponder on as I drive around on dark winter days, waiting for the sun to reappear. And they're all 'ifs', anyway. I'd be just as happy with some better glass for my GX8. Perhaps a PL60, a PL50-200 and an Oly60 (finally). With a TC or two.

 

[RAH]

I'm with you, but the answer may be simpler than you imagine. Buy a S5 with the remarkably adept 20-60mm for landscape and portrait needs, and (as an example in my case) keep my GX8 with a P45-175, a PL15 and a P30 macro for their various case uses. Best of both worlds, bank not broken, etc etc. It's still a small bag to carry around.

It's also not too expensive to then add a Sigma lens of whatever flavour you want to the S5 at some stage for either low light, macro or some reach. As I'd have the telephoto and macro options already in place with the GX8, I'd probably plump for the 14-24mm f/2.8 to get some UWA low-light capabilities.

These are the thoughts that I ponder on as I drive around on dark winter days, waiting for the sun to reappear. And they're all 'ifs', anyway. I'd be just as happy with some better glass for my GX8. Perhaps a PL60, a PL50-200 and an Oly60 (finally). With a TC or two.

I agree with everything you said, which is why I am tempted by the S5, even given what I said. I am still using a Canon 80D (APS-C; 24MP) for non-travel, and replacing it with the S5 would make sense (except monetarily). But so would getting an E-M1.3, so I just restrain myself and use the E-M5.3 for most things nowadays (since I'm not traveling). I still have GAS, however.

 

[pake]

If it were possible to buy an S5 for the same as a M4/3, would anyone get the M4/3??

I would. It seems you are unable to understand that the price isn't the thing that is keeping people from buying into full frames...

 

[Mike Wingate]

What is stopping me from buying anything, is the availability and the need to see the item in real life and to be able to hold it in my hot little hands.

 

[RAH]

@Mike Wingate That could be a real show-stopper during this pandemic, for sure. The GAS attacks must be brutal!

 

[Macroramphosis]

If it were possible to buy an S5 for the same as a M4/3, would anyone get the M4/3??

Sure! Until they can fit a 90-350mm lens to the S5 that is the same size, weight and price as my little P45-175mm, then I'm carrying it around on a m4/3 body for ever I can easily envisage a G100 attached to it, slipped into a deep coat pocket for some sleuthography in a city somewhere. It's not just the size of the m4/3 bodies that make the system sing, it's the lenses that go with it.

 

[archaeopteryx]

If it were possible to buy an S5 for the same as a M4/3, would anyone get the M4/3??

Me three. As mentioned in my previous post, if I wanted to haul a 135 system I'd have one instead of m43. Making L mount stuff cheaper doesn't make it any lighter. To be a bit more specific, I'll lug a 400 f/5.6 if I have to but they're getting punitively expensive at this point and I want at least 600 mme, preferably 800ish, and would really rather carry no more than a 300 f/5.6. So it's been either m43 or some alternate universe where Nikon 1 didn't die. 30 MPish APS-C more or less matched m43 pixel densities, so cropping from a 70-300 f/4-5.6 type zoom can be pretty much interchangeable on the image side. But it's still more lens, more expensive, and I'm not away of any APS-C manufacturer providing a 2x crop mode in their EVF. For 135 I also don't see 70-80 MP bodies being even vaguely affordable for years yet and I'm unenthusiastic about the processing time and storage requirements of that many MP. 16 MP is plenty for the rare 1 m prints I make, 20 MP is OK too, more than that is overkill.

I have the 45-175 as well and it's one of my main lenses. Since I rely on its fixed-length design for photomacrography with working distances that drop under 10 mm it's not easily switched to something else. While 135 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4s have often been fixed length and are focal length interchangeable they're large, heavy, and expensive in comparison and none of them are built for 30 fps focus bracketing. As long as I'm routinely doing deep stacks I think moving off Panasonic and DFD is improbable in the current state of the ILC market.

Combining APS-C ultrawide to short tele with m43 macro and long tele is something I've thought about. E, EF, F, R, X, and Z lens availability isn't as good as m43 and it automatically means another body to carry. I'm fine with the 9-18 and 12-60, thanks. There are cases where the 7-14 or 8-18 would be nice but they're not common enough to justify owning either lens and I think I'd still rather have one of those m43 lenses than an APS-C or 135 equivalent. Not that the Nikon Z 14-30 isn't a cool lens in certain ways but it's big and heavy and I have no idea how'd ever afford it.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Isn't the storage and processing of these large images going to require big HD’s. Will they be any good for Facebook?

 

[RAH]

Isn't the storage and processing of these large images going to require big HD’s. Will they be any good for Facebook?

The worst thing about large images is the effort to edit them, I think. I took some 80MP images in hi-res mode with my E-M5.3 and trying to use several layers and then say Topaz plugins with them in an image editor was agony. I'd actually go away for 10 or 15 minutes to wait for it to finish doing usually simple things like a sharpening. So, in other words, you need a suped-up computer similar to what you might use for gaming, in order to efficiently edit such images. I don't think I could even try to do a stitched panorama with them on my computer. It would just roll over and die.

 

[pake]

The worst thing about large images is the effort to edit them, I think. I took some 80MP images in hi-res mode with my E-M5.3 and trying to use several layers and then say Topaz plugins with them in an image editor was agony. I'd actually go away for 10 or 15 minutes to wait for it to finish doing usually simple things like a sharpening. So, in other words, you need a suped-up computer similar to what you might use for gaming, in order to efficiently edit such images. I don't think I could even try to do a stitched panorama with them on my computer. It would just roll over and die.

I spent 1000EUR on a fast CPU, RAM, GPU & SSD a year ago. I'm editing 20MP photos and my PC is still too slow. I'd be in agony with +40MP photos. That would mean I'd spend even more time in front of my PC and that would kill my passion for photography pretty soon.

 

[speedy]

If it were possible to buy an S5 for the same as a M4/3, would anyone get the M4/3??

I would for sure. Seeing that I actually sold my FF gear once I started using m4/3 cameras and lenses. Using m4/3 has nothing to do with cost for me. Until FF has tiny little comparable lenses like my Laowa 10mm, 14 & 20mm pancakes, PL15, Lumix 42.5 & PL50-200, I'm not interested in going back there

 

[JensM]

G9 with 8-200mm reach in premium quality glass is 1943 grams. And those are all on the larger/heavier side in the M43 universe, which is why I am using it. I will admit to creeping upwards in weight/size due to GAS and the song of the premium sirens, but when the FF fat lady sings, it has no allure to me...

 

[speedy]

G9 with 8-200mm reach in premium quality glass is 1943 grams. And those are all on the larger/heavier side in the M43 universe, which is why I am using it. I will admit to creeping upwards in weight/size due to GAS and the song of the premium sirens, but when the FF fat lady sings, it has no allure to me...

Quoted for the truth. I thought I'd lost my PL50-200 at one point. Big heart attack moment. Wasn't in the cupboard. Then I discovered that I'd been carrying it around in the bottom of my camera bag, without realising it. Try that with your 100-400 full frame lenses
And you can still get exceptionally good image quality out of tiny & light/compact lenses, without going the bigger, more expensive premium lenses. My Siggy 56 1.4 knocks me over with how good it is. Colour, contrast, sharpness & AF abilities. The tiny and light PL15. I'm a big fan of my PL25 1.4 too. And I have no hesitations in grabbing my new, absolutely tiny little Laowa 10mm instead of my PL8-18, if I just want an ultrawide only option. No difference in IQ that I can see.There's nothing like most of those lenses in FF land. That's the reason why I have no interest in going back. Yeah, I shoot a G9, which is one of the larger m4/3 bodies. I chose it deliberately, because it's actually comfortable in my hand

 

[JDS]

I expect these are out there, but does anybody have a side-by-side comparison between comparable cameras to evaluate the images? I would love to see a G9 & S5 side by side with as comparable lenses as possible, just to see the quality difference. I sometimes find photo comparisons between, say, the f1.8 & f1.2 lenses with differences that are really difficult to see (at the same f-stop). I wonder what circumstances would be needed before someone can see the difference between images shot on these two systems? I'm sure the S5 is better and in certain circumstances the difference is very noticeable, I'm just wondering how often that's the case (depth of field excepted, and I know how important that can be).

 

[speedy]

I expect these are out there, but does anybody have a side-by-side comparison between comparable cameras to evaluate the images? I would love to see a G9 & S5 side by side with as comparable lenses as possible, just to see the quality difference. I sometimes find photo comparisons between, say, the f1.8 & f1.2 lenses with differences that are really difficult to see (at the same f-stop). I wonder what circumstances would be needed before someone can see the difference between images shot on these two systems? I'm sure the S5 is better and in certain circumstances the difference is very noticeable, I'm just wondering how often that's the case (depth of field excepted, and I know how important that can be).

Not an S5, but occasionally, very occasionally, I'd take my 6D and GX8 out, shoot a few frames, and make sure I wasn't missing out somewhere/somehow with the GX8. I concluded I wasn't the vast majority of the time, so sold the 6D after about 4 years. I might still have some shots kicking around on a hard drive somewhere, I'll have a look if you're interested. Yeah, cameras have moved on a bit since, but I used what was relevant at the time. I must admit to giggling a bit when people rave about cameras like the Canon RP, which actually had a worse sensor as far as dynamic range/shadow pushing than the 6D. I should add that my experiences were with shooting primes on both systems (because I wanted to try and keep the size/weight down on the 6D kit), slower zooms might be different. I simply find lenses like the 24-105 f/4L too fat and chunky to be comfortable with, when going about my general, daily walking around

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I spent 1000EUR on a fast CPU, RAM, GPU & SSD a year ago. I'm editing 20MP photos and my PC is still too slow. I'd be in agony with +40MP photos. That would mean I'd spend even more time in front of my PC and that would kill my passion for photography pretty soon.

What software are you using? The newer programs that leverage GPUs more seem to do much better with all the sliders.

 

[John King]

@pake Teemu, even my old PC running windows XpPro 32 and no SSD is faster than that, operating on 200+ MB Tiff-16 A2 size files prior to printing.

Something is very wrong with your computer!

 

[doady]

Yeah, I can edit 20MP files in C1 Pro 20 on my 11-year-old Phenom II machine no problem. A modern CPU should be good enough for editing videos, let alone photos.

 

[pake]

What software are you using? The newer programs that leverage GPUs more seem to do much better with all the sliders.

Latest Lightroom Classic.

@pake Teemu, even my old PC running windows XpPro 32 and no SSD is faster than that, operating on 200+ MB Tiff-16 A2 size files prior to printing.

Something is very wrong with your computer!

Faster than what? I haven't said how fast/slow it is. There's nothing "wrong" with my computer. I just want my zoom ins and zoom outs and moving from one photo to then next to be instant and not having a 0.2s delay. I want EVERYTHING to be INSTANT. I want LR NOT to slow down even the slightest after I've placed 20 or 30 spot removals and local adjustments.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Latest Lightroom Classic.


Faster than what? I haven't said how fast/slow it is. There's nothing "wrong" with my computer. I just want my zoom ins and zoom outs and moving from one photo to then next to be instant and not having a 0.2s delay. I want EVERYTHING to be INSTANT. I want LR NOT to slow down even the slightest after I've placed 20 or 30 spot removals and local adjustments.

Yeah, I remember LR not doing too great with that many spot heals, too. I assume your working drive is NVMe/PCIe storage? That seemed to be one of the best improvements I noticed, other than having a larger display so less panning and zooming was needed.