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 10:01:47 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: AgF8m5w/3W6CIT3ryxQ3BgP3PsMP7xVbgzHL7J6+0mYhHhRCLe
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ibpLU7j5qzIywUhtMB0sygws6TQ=
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2018-02-18 08:30:49 +0000, RichA said:

> On Sunday, 18 February 2018 00:46:36 UTC-5, android  wrote:
>> 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
> FF is a bigger commitment in $$$ and size and in most cases, the 
> amateur shooter simply doesn't need it or can even make profitable use 
> of what it is capable of.   Also, it depends on the situation and 
> subject.  I got better images using a m4/3rd and 400mm lens shooting 
> wildlife than a guy with a 24mp FF and 400mm lens because I could fill 
> much more of the frame with the subject. Meanwhile, compare the cost 
> difference of the systems, $3000 versus $8000. FF will produce the best 
> images, all things being equal, but it also demands a much greater 
> level of dedication.  Most FF potential in amateur hands is wasted 
> because they don't put in the effort.

APS-C is better and generally more affordable with higher IQ than mFT. 
For soo many reason mentioned in the above. FT/mFT have been obsolete 
since it's introduction and is fraud IMO.

No one NEEDS an exchangeable lens camera, BTW...
teleportation kills