# Lumix G5



## ziggy84

I'm curious as to what everyone thinks of the Lumix G5. It seems like a cool camera. What is the advantage of the mirrorless opposed to the slr? Just better reliability because no moving mirror? Is Lumix a good brand?


----------



## brunerww

Hi Ziggy - I own the Panasonic Lumix GH1 and GH2 and have a GH3 on order.  The GH2 and GH3 are great cameras for stills and video.  The latest generation of mirrorless cameras(DSLMs), such as the Panasonic G5, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic GH3, have several advantages over DSLRs:

- they generally weigh less without the mirror box
- they are generally smaller, for the same reason
- they have essentially no moving parts - SLRs and DSLRs have shutter actuation limits - DSLMs do not
- during time exposures and while shooting video, DSLR optical viewfinders go blank - DSLM electronic viewfinders keep working

Autofocus speed was an issue for older generation DSLMs (2009-2011), but the G5 (and the GH3) have fixed this problem, and now autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

If you're looking at "moving up" and don't want to lug around heavy DSLR camera bodies and lenses, the G5 is a good choice.

Here is the still image quality you can get from it: Flickr: The Flickr Panasonic DMC-G5 Pool

And video (watch in 1080p): Panasonic LUMIX G5

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution


----------



## ziggy84

brunerww said:


> Hi Ziggy - I own the Panasonic Lumix GH1 and GH2 and have a GH3 on order.  The GH2 and GH3 are great cameras for stills and video.  The latest generation of mirrorless cameras(DSLMs), such as the Panasonic G5, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic GH3, have several advantages over DSLRs:
> 
> - they generally weigh less without the mirror box
> - they are generally smaller, for the same reason
> - they have essentially no moving parts - SLRs and DSLRs have shutter actuation limits - DSLMs do not
> - during time exposures and while shooting video, DSLR optical viewfinders go blank - DSLM electronic viewfinders keep working
> 
> Autofocus speed was an issue for older generation DSLMs (2009-2011), but the G5 (and the GH3) have fixed this problem, and now autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.
> 
> If you're looking at "moving up" and don't want to lug around heavy DSLR camera bodies and lenses, the G5 is a good choice.
> 
> Here is the still image quality you can get from it: Flickr: The Flickr Panasonic DMC-G5 Pool
> 
> And video (watch in 1080p): Panasonic LUMIX G5
> 
> Hope this is helpful,
> 
> Bill
> Hybrid Camera Revolution



Thanks for the info Bill. Still trying to make my mind up, but getting close. The G5 is still an option, but I need to get my hands on it first.


----------



## JDFlood

Then there is the other side. It uses a small sensor. So for ideal lighting condition it is fine. But not so good in low light and not as flexible in post-processing. I shoot lots of low-light, so it would be a deal breaker for me... But that's me. JD


----------



## Baldwin70101

The sensor is smaller than FF or APS-C, but larger than P&S cameras.  I shoot a G3, an earlier model of the G5, and thoroughly enjoy it.  The photos are, in general, much better than what I shot with DSLRs.  The only camera I have that rivals (and indeed surpasses) image quality, is my Toyo 45CX.  In all fairness, I should point out that a physical disability makes it difficult to hold a heavy DSLR steady.


----------



## Balinus

Does having a fast lense (like the 25mm f/1.4) is enough to be close to a DSLR in low light conditions?

ziggy84: I have the GH2 and I'm overall satisfied. But indeed, in low light, the AF struggle (more than my brother's Sony A57, at the same aperture and  is also mirrorless). If you want to do videos, look for a silent lens (the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4-5.6 is). The standard lens of the Sony A57 is not and you can hear the AF during videos.

brunerww: I'd be interested in your opinions about your GH3 vs the GH2. I'm still debating if I should stick with u4/3 format and invest in lenses and buy the GH3 (when the prices goes down) of if I should look for something else...


----------



## 3Ddeath

If i'm ever to buy another camera I would first pick the lenses I want! than decide on the camera second.

One advantage SLRs still have is the amount of lenses you can get for it, and even 3rd party lenses of high quality like Sigma.

Also keep in mind how the buttons are, I always find manual buttons, wheels, knobs, things like that much better than menu pressing.

Also, sensor size would be on of the biggest factors, I don't think i would ever want to go below APS-C sized sensors, i'm now spoiled that way. A large camera with a small sensor is like a large dude with a small..... ...ah, nevermind 

Also, I think you want a camera with a physical shutter, I hear its higher quality than the non shutter sensors because the sensors don't need extra crap on them to allow them to precisely turn on and off to act as a shutter. (correct me if i'm wrong on this one)


----------



## usayit

JDFlood said:


> Then there is the other side. It uses a small sensor. So for ideal lighting condition it is fine. But not so good in low light and not as flexible in post-processing. I shoot lots of low-light, so it would be a deal breaker for me... But that's me. JD



You make it sound like a tiny sensor.  Its not that small

Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its on par in low ISO with most entry and some mid level DSLRs.



The biggest disadvantage to the micro 4/3 systems is AF performance.   PDAF is still ahead of CDAF.


----------



## usayit

3Ddeath said:


> One advantage SLRs still have is the amount of lenses you can get for it, and even 3rd party lenses of high quality like Sigma.



Not true...

No two camera manufacturers share the same mount except panasonic and olympus.  The sheer number of lenses between Sigma, Voigtlander, Panasonic, and Olympus makes up ALOT.  Also the short flange distance makes it possible to literally adapt any lens of any mount.. that's probably in the hundreds.  Let's not forget that the lenses are MUCH smaller in size than DSLR lenses.  

Letsee my list

Olympus and Panasonic
12 f/2
14 f/2.5 (sold)
20 f/1.7
45 f/1.8
75 f/1.8
12-42 kit
12-50 kit
45-200
100-300
12-35 f/2.8
35-100 f/2.8

Plus a dozen Leica M-mount lenses

Plus about 50 Pentax K and Takumar M42 mount lenses.  



> Also keep in mind how the buttons are, I always find manual buttons, wheels, knobs, things like that much better than menu pressing.



Funny... I have 4 wheels and a load of buttons on mine.   Even touch screen to quickly change focus point.  There are so many bodies to choose from for Panasonic and Olympus that there is a layout for everyone.   Most DSLRs all have the same/similar handling across the entire line.   Both olympus and panasonic have lines of cameras that have VERY different layouts, handling, and packaging.   Makes for a wide selection to contemplate and choose from(G, GH, GF, GX, E-P, E-PL, E-PM, OMD).  The G5 is just fine IMO handling wise... its ONE OF THE BIGGEST of the micro 4/3 bodies (referring to mr. big hands).



> Also, I think you want a camera with a physical shutter, I hear its higher quality than the non shutter sensors because the sensors don't need extra crap on them to allow them to precisely turn on and off to act as a shutter. (correct me if i'm wrong on this one)



So wrong.  Micro 4/3 still have physical shutters.  And in some cases an electronic shutter is a huge advantage for strobists.  Most shutter cameras have a sync speed of between 1/160th to 1/500th.  Electronic shutters can have sync speeds of up to 1/4000th which opens the door for creativity.  But again.. wrong... Micro 4/3 cameras have physical shutters.


----------



## brunerww

usayit - you said it! Thanks for clearing up those misconceptions about sensor size, shutters, physical controls and lenses.  Some of it was true 2 years ago, but not any longer.

One thought - you may not have shot with the G5 or the GH3, but they autofocus just as fast, if not faster, than PDAF.  I say that as someone who has been shooting SLRs and DSLRs for 38 years and still own a Nikon.

The Panasonic G5 and GH3 autofocus as fast or faster than Nikon DSLRs.  I am not the only one who says so.  David at soundimageplus says the same thing in this post:



> The G5 incidentally is way faster at focusing and getting the shot than my Nikons


Bottom line for DSLR shooters who have not picked up a G5 or GH3 - mirrorless camera autofocus speeds have caught up - we can use your lenses as well as ours (and many of ours autofocus silently) - and our viewfinders still work when we switch to video 

Balinus - I haven't forgotten your question - when I get some time this weekend, I will shoot some side-by-sides of the GH2 and GH3 and give you a report.

Best of the holidays to everyone,

Bill


----------



## usayit

let me clarify,  static AF is extremely fast... what is not up to par is AF tracking of moving subjects.


----------



## usayit

usayit said:
			
		

> Its on par in low ISO with most entry and some mid level DSLRs.



ps...  i meant HIGH ISO is on par with most entry and mid level DSLRs.


----------



## Balinus

No worries brunerww. It's not urgent! You might want to start a new thread though, as it might attracts lots of viewer interested in the GH3.


----------



## 3Ddeath

usayit said:


> 3Ddeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> One advantage SLRs still have is the amount of lenses you can get for it, and even 3rd party lenses of high quality like Sigma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true...
> 
> No two camera manufacturers share the same mount except panasonic and olympus.  The sheer number of lenses between Sigma, Voigtlander, Panasonic, and Olympus makes up ALOT.  Also the short flange distance makes it possible to literally adapt any lens of any mount.. that's probably in the hundreds.  Let's not forget that the lenses are MUCH smaller in size than DSLR lenses.
> 
> Letsee my list
> 
> Olympus and Panasonic
> 12 f/2
> 14 f/2.5 (sold)
> 20 f/1.7
> 45 f/1.8
> 75 f/1.8
> 12-42 kit
> 12-50 kit
> 45-200
> 100-300
> 12-35 f/2.8
> 35-100 f/2.8
> 
> Plus a dozen Leica M-mount lenses
> 
> Plus about 50 Pentax K and Takumar M42 mount lenses.
> ...
Click to expand...


You can argue that there are a lot of lens options or ways to get more lenses with adapters, you can even say there is an infinite amount of lenses you can get since you can make your own with a toilet paper roll.

I was more talking about in general on mirrorless cameras and adapters don't count as they remove the point of a mirrorless which usually allows you to use smaller lenses, nobody will buy a canon 70-200 2.8 and put it on a mirrorless with an adapter, its silly.
I'm sure It's even possible to make an adaptor on my canon to mount the hubble telescope.

I'm all for mirrorless cameras! i want one myself, I don't think there are THAT many lenses for mirriorless but I feel this isn't a bad thing, I feel its what it should be. If you want more crazy lenses that cost a stupid amount of money, wouldn't you want a viewfinder that looks through it?

At least those are my thoughts.


----------



## usayit

3Ddeath said:


> I was more talking about in general on mirrorless cameras and adapters don't count as they remove the point of a mirrorless which usually allows you to use smaller lenses, nobody will buy a canon 70-200 2.8 and put it on a mirrorless with an adapter, its silly.
> I'm sure It's even possible to make an adaptor on my canon to mount the hubble telescope.



Wrong!

All the lenses I listed in my post are NATIVE to the micro 4/3 system (NOT ADAPTED) and that's not all of them... just the ones I have or continue to use.   For example, missing from that list are the Sigma lenses and Voigtlanders (17 f/0.95 and 25 f/0.95)  Need to re-read the part that starts with the word "also"... as "in addition to".

There's pretty much an equivalent in micro 4/3 for each lens type no matter the branding being compared with a few exceptions.  You can nit and pick particulars but its not "A LOT".   Some examples, like the voigtlanders have no equivalent in other systems outside micro 4/3.   As the system gains popularity, the gaps will be filled in.


Let's take the typical high end zooms 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 that are popular.   The equivalent are the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8.


----------



## 3Ddeath

Why do you have such a strong need to justify buying the mirriorless camera, there are points to both sides in an argument, or do you just enjoy telling people they are wrong?

I don't have this need to say you are wrong, so I won't go and count every lens ever made that fits the canon mount SLR to attempt to prove myself.

I still stand by the point of if your going to a high end zoom lens you'll want to be looking through it, were as if your doing street photography, why not just have a screen? or range finder?


----------



## usayit

No need... just correcting.

I used to be a Canon shooter as well... with a very wide array of high end lenses....  If you were around long enough, you would know that I'm the first to say it isn't the system for everyone.    I have steered many away from micro 4/3 and mirrorless.   It is by no means perfect.  I usually state that its a great system to compliment but not necessarily replace a DSLR.

What does erk me is....

There is a lot of false information regarding this new system.. .especially perpetuated by those that barely know anything about the system.  Its ok to say, "its not for me" but don't pass on false information as fact.     Just like those that say that lens selection is small.... or the "tiny" sensor of a P&S... or that fellow in this thread that claims that the system has no physical shutter... or those that claim that EVF is unusable most of the time.   All people just chiming in with no real knowledge about the system.




3Ddeath said:


> I still stand by the point of if your going to a high end zoom lens you'll want to be looking through it, were as if your doing street photography, why not just have a screen? or range finder?




Wrong again!

<< My primary system is a rangefinder... and NO it has little to do with whether or not you shoot street photography.  That's just the stereotype that dates back to the early days portrayed news media (think Robert Capa etc)  Most "street" photographers (realy just journalists) use DSLRs or P&S .. really a variety of cameras.   And you are incorrect, Micro 4/3 is through the lens viewing and you are not limited to composition via the screen.


----------



## 3Ddeath

usayit said:


> What does erk me is....
> 
> There is a lot of false information regarding this new system..



Do keep in mind that there is a difference between false information and discussions based around a topic, the ladder is usually suggestions on what to research for yourself when looking for a camera from someones knowledge on the general topic, were as false information would be someone talking about very specific information regarding the exact camera in question (which i was careful not to do so, or at least I thought I was).

The two can very easily be confused when reading from text and false information can easily be taken out of general discussions.

BTW, how can I be wrong on something that is my general view on it? what I like better when looking through a camera can't be wrong or right, perhaps I like one system better than another, are you going to tell me i'm wrong because I like something better? you are wrong in that regard my friend.

"or the "tiny" sensor of a P&S.." how is that incorrect? sure its not quite as small as a iphone sensor, but it is physical small compared to a full frame, how do you deny it? i'm so confused with your commitment to a one sided discussion.

The constructive way to respond to the small sensor comment would be "The sensor is 4/3rds which is much bigger than entry level compacts, its only slightly smaller than an APS-C sensor and due to the following reasons it performs nearly as well and perhaps better in these areas..."


----------



## panblue

I would disagree that adaptors remove the point of a mirrorless. The mirror-boxless design makes those cameras more versatile in that they can accept so many legacy, manual lenses. If you wanta small lens, you cannot get much smaller than the tiny Industar 3.5/50 pancake..or Kern C-mounts which were made for Bolex 8mm cine. As for longer lenses like a 200mm, people do that; they also use longer still. Re: (crazy) cost, well.. $15-30  or if you are flush, you can grab a Super Takumar or Hexanon AR, Yashicaa DSB or Rollei QBM for a bit more 





3Ddeath said:


> You can argue that there are a lot of lens options or ways to get more lenses with adapters, you can even say there is an infinite amount of lenses you can get since you can make your own with a toilet paper roll.
> 
> I was more talking about in general on mirrorless cameras and adapters don't count as they remove the point of a mirrorless which usually allows you to use smaller lenses, nobody will buy a canon 70-200 2.8 and put it on a mirrorless with an adapter, its silly.
> I'm sure It's even possible to make an adaptor on my canon to mount the hubble telescope.
> 
> I'm all for mirrorless cameras! i want one myself, I don't think there are THAT many lenses for mirriorless but I feel this isn't a bad thing, I feel its what it should be. If you want more crazy lenses that cost a stupid amount of money, wouldn't you want a viewfinder that looks through it?
> 
> At least those are my thoughts.


----------



## 3Ddeath

panblue said:


> I would disagree that adaptors remove the point of a mirrorless. The mirror-boxless design makes those cameras more versatile in that they can accept so many legacy, manual lenses. If you wanta small lens, you cannot get much smaller than the tiny Industar 3.5/50 pancake..or Kern C-mounts which were made for Bolex 8mm cine. As for longer lenses like a 200mm, people do that; they also use longer still. Re: (crazy) cost, well.. $15-30  or if you are flush, you can grab a Super Takumar or Hexanon AR, Yashicaa DSB or Rollei QBM for a bit more



Thank you!  its actually the kind of discussion I wanted to get going, i'm interested in buying a mirrorless myself and its good to hear some discussions that help talk about some of the concerns I have with them 

And sorry for helping hijack the thread from the original poster :O


----------



## usayit

3Ddeath said:


> Do keep in mind that there is a difference between false information and discussions based around a topic,
> ....
> BTW, how can I be wrong on something that is my general view on it? what I like better when looking through a camera can't be wrong or right, perhaps I like one system better than another, are you going to tell me i'm wrong because I like something better? you are wrong in that regard my friend.



Total B.S.  You didn't state an opinion on what you did or did not like.  You passed on false information.. I presume because you didn't know any better.    Just like you didn't know that composition on a micro 4/3 is through the lens.  Simply state, "I didnt know" man up to it and move on.   I don't "correct" opinions ... I respect them.  Nothing you stated is an opinion... they are statements.  Move on...



3Ddeath said:


> I still stand by the point of if your going to a high end zoom lens you'll want to be looking through it, were as if your doing street photography, why not just have a screen? or range finder?


----------



## usayit

3Ddeath said:


> panblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree that adaptors remove the point of a mirrorless. The mirror-boxless design makes those cameras more versatile in that they can accept so many legacy, manual lenses. If you wanta small lens, you cannot get much smaller than the tiny Industar 3.5/50 pancake..or Kern C-mounts which were made for Bolex 8mm cine. As for longer lenses like a 200mm, people do that; they also use longer still. Re: (crazy) cost, well.. $15-30  or if you are flush, you can grab a Super Takumar or Hexanon AR, Yashicaa DSB or Rollei QBM for a bit more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!  its actually the kind of discussion I wanted to get going, i'm interested in buying a mirrorless myself and its good to hear some discussions that help talk about some of the concerns I have with them
> 
> And sorry for helping hijack the thread from the original poster :O
Click to expand...


Um... which is in agreement with my post :er:


----------



## 3Ddeath

usayit said:


> 3Ddeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um... which is in agreement with my post :er:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but said in a much better way to promote 2-sided discussion without the need of telling people they are wrong and stupid. Hope you see a difference and maybe learn from it.
Click to expand...


----------



## usayit

and please point out where I said you or anyone is stupid?


----------



## kundalini

3Ddeath said:


> True, but said in a much better way to promote 2-sided discussion without the need of telling people they are wrong and stupid. Hope you see a difference and maybe learn from it.



I'm calling bull$hit. usayit was merely pointing out the difference between opinion and fact. Anyone can read a spec sheet, but without first hand experience, you're basically spouting an uninformed opinion. FWIW, you can read the second line of my signiture.


----------



## panblue

ziggy84 said:


> Is Lumix a good brand?



That's a tough question to answer succinctly ..
Panasonic have made a lot of cameras; a number of lines of cameras. Who really knows what the deal is with their 'Leica' optics. They are very good lenses generally for the money but one apparently identical lens I recall, also turned-up branded Canon, Carl Zeiss (the 7-21 f2). Panasonic's compacts range from mediocre to very good (TZ). Their mirrorless cameras are popular with stills photographers and videographers. The FZ bridge cameras are good value. Sensational cameras in terms of design like the LC1, L1, (and not sensational but good L10) were discontinued before too long IMO.

The thing with all digital cameras of lesser format than 36x24 full frame (and to a degree with 23x15 crop sensor) is this 'coffin corner' problem of wanting shallow DOF, and wanting sharpness and performance through stopping down a little bit, yet facing diffraction issues at middling apertures and losing light, compared to 135 film, 120 film and larger formats.
Once you into 4/3, 2/3 and smaller, you are shooting wide-open to achieve any kind of shallow DOF/seperation. Wide-open on most but the very best lenses is not at all optimal performance (e.g wide with CA). Stop down a little bit and you've lost light (not good for a small sensor with poor ISO performance that needs all the light available) and you have now huge DOF, with 35mm equivalence and possibly diffraction issues akin to f16 and beyond.


----------



## panblue

3D, BTW from reading these boards over time, usayit and Kundalini are very knowledgeable about 4/3rds and much more. Usayit also with rangefinders, Leicas etc. I'm sure you could learn a huge amount from them.


----------



## kundalini

panblue said:


> 3D, BTW from reading these boards over time, usayit and Kundalini are very knowledgeable about 4/3rds and much more. Usayit also with rangefinders, Leicas etc. I'm sure you could learn a huge amount from them.



Kind words to be sure, but I bow at usayit's knowledge on the subject.  I read many of his posts and picked his brain before I launched into m4/3.  With the improvements over the last two years that I have used m4/3, it is certainly a viable camera format and is being used as a first camera by some pros.  The future looks bright......... where are my shades?


----------



## ducatiman1967

Very interesting thread, I currently shoot Canon and must say I was looking forward to Canon's entry into mirrorless but was very disappointed . IMO until pro sports photographers start exchanging their 1DX bodies for mirrorless bodies Canon and Nikon will not take this market seriously. 
I plan on getting into the mirrorless system as soon as the EVFs get better or I have laser eye surgery !


----------

