Rumored Panasonic Lumix G9 ii with Phase Detect AF (3 Viewers)

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

I am tempted to upgrade from my mk 1, the increase in resolution and PDAF are my major wants, also more buffer, focus points and dynamic range!

…..I’m not exactly unhappy with my mk 1 either.

If you are a video shooter, mi vs mii is a significant difference. If you are missing shots due to AF, PD could be compelling. An extra 5mp, I dunno.

 

[Essex Tern]

If you are a video shooter, mi vs mii is a significant difference. If you are missing shots due to AF, PD could be compelling. An extra 5mp, I dunno.

I’m a photo only user. I don’t miss shots, but don’t try flight shots too often. When I do I usually get some come out just fine, especially with a red dot sight e.g. when going for hirundines. I reckon the mk 2 will be more reliable and may make my results better for impromptu flight shots though.

I am not overly fussed by animal detect etc, but if it is really good I guess that could change my mind.

I found the upgrade from 16 to 20 very big and useful (G85 to G9), and reckon 25 may be similar, I almost always crop, so any extra pixels can only but help, assuming similar or better quality sensor.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

I’m a photo only user. I don’t miss shots, but don’t try flight shots too often. When I do I usually get some come out just fine, especially with a red dot sight e.g. when going for hirundines. I reckon the mk 2 will be more reliable and may make my results better for impromptu flight shots though.

I am not overly fussed by animal detect etc, but if it is really good I guess that could change my mind.

I found the upgrade from 16 to 20 very big and useful (G85 to G9), and reckon 25 may be similar, I almost always crop, so any extra pixels can only but help, assuming similar or better quality sensor.

Well, I just went from 12mp to 20mp. It sounds like a lot, but another way to look at it is I'm going from 4000x3000 to 5184x3888. I'm gaining ~1000 pixels at the edges, not as impressive sounding as almost double the megapixels.

I suppose if you do a lot of cropping, I
That is where it pays off. I'm just getting started with 20mp, so perhaps I'll sing a different tune with experience.

 

[Essex Tern]

Well, I just went from 12mp to 20mp. It sounds like a lot, but another way to look at it is I'm going from 4000x3000 to 5184x3888. I'm gaining ~1000 pixels at the edges, not as impressive sounding as almost double the megapixels.

I suppose if you do a lot of cropping, I
That is where it pays off. I'm just getting started with 20mp, so perhaps I'll sing a different tune with experience.

Yeah I totally agree that the number of pixels increase is actually quite thinly spread when properly analysed, so the jump won’t be absolutely huge, but every pixel on the bird really counts when cropping, and maybe visual results could trump arithmetical ones with luck, be it through pixels, camera software, focusing etc.

From memory I might have jumped from G85 + 100-300 to G9 + 100-400 (can’t remember if I used the 100-400 on the G85, possibly not) so I can’t quite quantify what the biggest gain was down to, but the camera/sensor and lens combo hands down beat my previous setup, and I can definitely crop more than I used to. I guess part of that could also be down to me learning and gaining technique too.

Maybe the G9M2 won’t give me such a jump in quality as my previous kit change, but I’m still very tempted by the marginal or maybe even bigger gains, especially if they have any deals once the current S5 ones in the UK expire, and they hopefully start new ones for the G9M2.

 

[njlarsen]

For me, the jump from 100-300 to 100-400 was a bigger jump than GH2 to G85, but the better low light of the second was definitely a plus. One reason I am considering the OM1 relative to the G9-ii, is again low light performance. Will a bird at low light at 400 look ok with iso 12800 on one and not on the other? extra pixels usually counteracts the low light performance. On my recent trip to the cloud forest in Colombia, low light was important!
Niels

 

[Essex Tern]

Difficult to say what will be better in that scenario, but if pushing ISO to the max is a common use case for you, maybe full frame might be worth considering, as obviously the light gathering there would help you no end.

It does depend on whether you are after record shots or National Geographic shots too, I always go for the former, hoping for the odd latter!

It will be interesting to see some head to heads of the final production model.

I have never considered the OM-1 as I really like Panasonic bodies, I realise each have their strong points, but knowing you have the best of one manufacturer does make it easier to choose! I don’t think either will be a bad choice.

 

[njlarsen]

Difficult to say what will be better in that scenario, but if pushing ISO to the max is a common use case for you, maybe full frame might be worth considering, as obviously the light gathering there would help you no end.

It does depend on whether you are after record shots or National Geographic shots too, I always go for the former, hoping for the odd latter!

It will be interesting to see some head to heads of the final production model.

I have never considered the OM-1 as I really like Panasonic bodies, I realise each have their strong points, but knowing you have the best of one manufacturer does make it easier to choose! I don’t think either will be a bad choice.

I am not interested in anything heavier than my current setup. Therefore, the full frame options are out.
Niels

 

[Jim M.]

For me, the jump from 100-300 to 100-400 was a bigger jump than GH2 to G85, but the better low light of the second was definitely a plus. One reason I am considering the OM1 relative to the G9-ii, is again low light performance. Will a bird at low light at 400 look ok with iso 12800 on one and not on the other? extra pixels usually counteracts the low light performance. On my recent trip to the cloud forest in Colombia, low light was important!
Niels

Have you tried noise reduction software, e.g. DXO PureRaw? It can really help rescue low light rainforest shots.

 

[njlarsen]

Have you tried noise reduction software, e.g. DXO PureRaw? It can really help rescue low light rainforest shots.

I tried something a while back and felt I could do almost as well with my ACDSee installation. I have not tried the one you propose.

This photo was iso 6400 (the highest I go with my G85) and was also underexposed some:

Hermit Wood Wren

The same bird singing in the video I uploaded

www.birdforum.net

Niels

 

[Jim M.]

I tried something a while back and felt I could do almost as well with my ACDSee installation. I have not tried the one you propose.

Niels

I'd try something more recent. I was blown away by the results. Adobe recently added a new noise reduction function to Lightroom to try to compete, but it takes much longer with similar results.