From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Panasonic GX9 - FAIL (a cheapened GX8)
Full headers:
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Panasonic GX9 - FAIL (a cheapened GX8)
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 06:46:31 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: JAEW4o9rTwNJrHK0+9Ue3wGFBmTzsTAZAUNMluh8XWLx9krW41
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ei3RDtWFChMZ0dP3i8pGW2s4rsc=
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2018-02-18 04:00:19 +0000, RichA said:

> On Saturday, 17 February 2018 11:43:14 UTC-5, android  wrote:
>> 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:
>>>> <>
>>>> --
>>>> teleportation kills
>>> Some interesting shots, but none really illustrates superiority to m4/3rds.
>> 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
> Why stop there?  Maybe medium format should be the minimum size acceptable?

You can use mFT as much as you like but call it cost effective is a 
lie. I have a Zeiss Nettar that I experimented back in senior high 
wanted the portability of 35mm and ended up replacing my OM1 with a 
Leica CL and a Rollie 35 on the side... That said: The 6x6 Nettar negs 
was really good but it was not a pro grade cam.

It's more to this than DOF. The larger systems gives you more 
mechanical stability in the gear and the sensors get less relative 
variation in pixel patterns with deeper wheals that gives you more 
continuity in the gain readout.

Here's a cute DOF simulator though:

teleportation kills