From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Panasonic GX9 - FAIL (a cheapened GX8)
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Panasonic GX9 - FAIL (a cheapened GX8)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 17:43:07 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <fer4crF49eaU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <70584711-152a-4d0b-a02f-655ebbfceb37@googlegroups.com> <fei0quF20miU1@mid.individual.net> <c43ed308-66f5-4d29-a56d-ca3d7f03efa0@googlegroups.com> <feki9qFju6qU1@mid.individual.net> <ddf07a52-5fe5-4faf-9703-203663aff2cd@googlegroups.com> <fena4rF8he2U1@mid.individual.net> <094e33c2-4a39-4393-93b6-2d74f66d43bf@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net +jX4W+r8HuK8JoGmSbrm8AoPfKNyH+N3PSus6XhZ1v+JHvwZzn
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JzoAD/DWSuM2GFaLkCmECqPQf0o=
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2018-02-17 01:38:35 +0000, RichA said:

> On Friday, 16 February 2018 00:56:47 UTC-5, android  wrote:
>> On 2018-02-16 00:51:52 +0000, RichA said:
>> 
>>> On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 23:57:37 UTC-5, android  wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-15 04:29:48 +0000, RichA said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 00:47:15 UTC-5, android  wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-02-14 03:39:42 +0000, RichA said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I had the GX8.  It's stabilization for non-stabilized Panasonic lenses
>>>>>>> was poor, way below that of my Olympus.  But the EVF was superb like
>>>>>>> looking out a window.  So they "updated" it with the GX9.  What did
>>>>>>> they do?  Dropped the price $200.  Cut out weather resistance.  The EVF
>>>>>>> isn't as good.  The stabilization was upgraded to 5-axis.  But what a
>>>>>>> let-down.  They've essentially dropped the camera into the lower class
>>>>>>> tier.  This was the only non-DSLR-styled body that was in a high tier
>>>>>>> as the Gx8.  There were changes to video, but I'm not concerned about
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I still think that those tiny sensors makes mFT fraudulent...
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> teleportation kills
>>>>> 
>>>>> Spare me.  If you can't take a decent picture with one, the fault lies
>>>>> with you.
>>>> 
>>>> No, I won't spare you 'cause you are dooomed! Besides the ugly look of
>>>> mFT and FT photos because of the small format itself they just don't
>>>> produce good files since the sensors are tooo small to gather photons
>>>> properly compared to larger sensor with similar tech... :-ppp
>>>> --
>>>> teleportation kills
>>> 
>>> Put up, or...
>> 
>> You can go to the gallery on my blog to compare pictures captures where
>> FT, APS-C, APS-H and 35mm FF is used... And an Xperia smartphone...
>> Unfortunately the negs from my 6x6 Zeiss Nettar seem to have got lost
>> somehow and all i have is a couple of prints. I might post scans on the
>> blog at a later date. This link takes you to the Gallery:
>> 
>> <https://wp.me/P3strj-2m>
>> --
>> teleportation kills
> 
> Some interesting shots, but none really illustrates superiority to m4/3rds.
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/159650750

Nice figurin but I think that you should go bigger in sensor size!

mFT and FT sensors are the same. The tiny sensors takes the umph out of 
the captures. An EOS-M is as compact as a mFT cam and has almost twice 
the umph! Smartphones are the way to go on the go!
:-ppp
-- 
teleportation kills