@@DavidThorpeMFTSo are you going to keep the S1 David? I have the G80 and was thinking of G9, GH5 or S1 .. both photos and videos, what are your thoughts? thanks, Jeff
@@jeffjhcom No, I'll sell the S1. It's too big and I know I'll just not use it. The G9 is my favourite, a really good tool and no slouch for video, either. That or the GH5 is just a matter for personal preference really. The GH5 might be better if you understand and use the deeper aspects of video. If not the G9's the one.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks David, I agree, I saw it in the shop as a demo model and immediately could see that there wouldn't be much room in my bag for anything else! I've looked at GH5 videos and saw the comparison with the S1, the GH5 is Incredible and held it's own in both Photos and Videos, I really couldn't see the difference. I want the G9 but for some reason the sensor of the G9 appears to be less sharp than the GH5, same with the older GX80 vs GX9.. GX80 appears sharper on Jpegs out of camera. I think I'll settle for the GH5! Thanks for your help and hopefully one day see you down the Southbank! I live close to there! Cheers David, all the best, Jeff
It's very simple: just imagine Full Frame wouldn't exist, everybody would be extremely happy with the present M43 qualities and possibilities... we don't necessarily need more... It's typical human: we always want more and better but in fact we forget to enjoy what is more than good enough already! Real artists will not care about pixels and low light capacities, they will always find the right circumstances to catch the right atmosphere and express what needs to be expressed... Even 'noise' can be artistic and beautiful... The only 'noise' in the photography community that really disturbs me is the noise of 'arrogance'... Thank you David for your wise reviews, always with full respect for whoever and for whatever existing or new system...
@Hans Then why don't you just go out, sell your cameras and lenses, and be happy with just using your smartphone, or better yet with using your 1MP digital compact camera from the mid nineties, exclusively to take artsy, noisy pictures. :-) Trust me, it's possible, because I did exactly just that years ago. Yet I would miss my FF equipment nowadays, if I sold it, because I like to take pictures with all of the tools that I own (Smartphone/M43/Sony FE) , not just with the hammer. Or with the saw for that matter. :D I use any of my cameras and lenses when I want to, and the best of it is: I actually can. Yes, I can. I don't have to use them, I don't need to, but I can. :-) In fact sold my big and expensive M43 glass (Nocticron, 7-14/2.8, etc., with a sad eye of course) in order to buy me a Sony A7II and the equivalent lenses. Also I love, no I adore the tiny f/2.8 Samyang lenses (24/35, which are equivalent to f/1.4 lenses on M43), of which I think any camera manufacturer should have some variants in their portfolio. For sure will I never again mount a f/1.4 or even a f/1.2 prime on my M43 cameras, which are now reserved for the small and convenient stuff (with 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 75/1.8) and which indeed see quite a bit more use in everyday life than my Sony FF equipment. But that's merely because I adore small and convenient, and I do favor it over big and clumsy with technical supremacy. The FF I use for professional work and for pre-planned portrait sessions only, nothing else in fact. So as usual I do agree with David Thorpe's comments on M43 vs. FF, while to me personally there is no 'vs.', no 'either or', but more a 'horses for courses' type of view on this topic. I guess we will all have to wait and see which direction the photographic industry takes with the clever smartphones chasing or even exceeding them in some ways or another. It will be quite interesting to watch, me thinks. :-)
@@MarcoGraupner Your horses for courses remark covers exactly my own take on the two cameras. I was careful to say that there are things the S1 will do much better than a Micro Four Thirds camera and that If I had a studio, f i didn't have a Hasselblad on a tripod in there, it'd be an S1. When it comes to pictures, I have many different views. Having worked as a new photographer, I know that there agree times when it's the moment that counts and the only question a picture editor will ask is 'did you get it'? Provides the image is of usable quality - not a high bar on a web page or in news print - it doesn't mater a damn whether it was on a phone or a stand camera. In fact, the picture quoted as the first ever new picture was of a fore on ships in the Harbour at Hamburg. That was on a stand/ plate camera but being in 1840 it pre-dates the smartphone by a century and some :-)
@@DavidThorpeMFT I agree with you on all topics. We use what we can use and want to use, but we don't have to. Often times this is also a matter of money, and whether we are able and willing to spend it or not. I see absolutely no need to spend big money in order to make great art, in fact the opposite is often more true than not, because great art often follows great suffering.
MFT is the perfect balanced sensor size. It's also close to Super 35mm frame size which is what film movies used for a very long time. It allows for smaller, lighter, faster, cooler hardware without sacrificing too much image quality. Full-frame has several obvious benefits but the drawbacks make it more expensive and difficult to carry around and use, especially for extended periods. Tiny sensors like in camcorders have vastly superior battery life and allow for superior optical stabilization and truly colossal zoom ranges in a compact package along with much more forgiving and reliable autofocus, but noise performance (especially in low light) is inevitably inferior, and depth of field effects are harder to achieve. People dick-measuring sensor sizes don't understand that they are different tools meant for different uses.
While MFT might be "close" to S35, it isn't quite as close as APS-C. In terms of noise, dual ISO is really shaking things up at the moment, but FF will be getting the technology eventually. Maybe Sony will try to reignite the "night-vision" hype of the A7Sii with the A7siii using some kind of 20MP dual ISO BSI FF sensor.
@@TheUlitamateStunt The technology is certainly exciting. My entire point is that it's not fair to compare systems by sensor sizes because they all carry different advantages and disadvantages. One surprising advantage of smaller sensors is having more stuff in focus. A long-running web series I have liked for over a decade went from filming on a Panasonic HVX200 to full-frame DSLRs, and despite the higher resolution and detail and zero change in setting or typical camera angles, I disliked the "higher quality" video. I didn't know why and I was bothered by not being able to put my finger on the reason. It took me a couple of years to realize the problem: the depth of field was now very shallow, so all of the supporting props behind the main character's seat went from recognizable and readable to just this blurry mush that had lost all meaning. Backgrounds are important and larger sensors make it very hard to capture indoor backgrounds without them becoming meaningless bokeh. I was at little sad to come to this realization about the series, but I learned a very important lesson in the process. I pay a lot more attention to the backgrounds and how blurry they are when I shoot now.
When I watch stuff on Netflix, I note that shallow depth of field is very much a special effect for use when isolating the subject furthers the story. But in general footage, someone making their way through an airport, say, you want to see the surroundings. Shallow DoF has become a bit of a fetish to some but like all effects, it's better not used all the time.
I look at the S1/S1R just like I look at medium format or cinema production cameras like the Ari or Red. It's fantastic, wonderful gear and I admire the technical perfectness but I couldn't make much use out if it if I had the opportunity to use them.
David; I had the pleasure of re-visiting your review of the S1 and G9 which I enjoyed again. My G9 is still relevant in my bag although I had been wondering about the new Panasonic full size cameras. It's not surprising that once I had to confront the overall size and portability question again, as I had when I originally bought into the micro 4/3 camera system, I come to the same conclusion as you in your video. This was reassuring that logic still prevails! Thanks again.
Ahhh, it is so cheery to experience a video like this, in this world of review videos filled with thumbing techno music, drone shots and fast cuts. I mean I can't remember the last time I saw a stop motion animation in a camera related video. Thank you!
So good to hear that! Mind you, in future videos I will be wearing a back to front baseball cap and yelling out "Hi guys" at the beginning. Then the techno music will start. I've bought a drone and I'm practising fast cuts. It's the modern way and it saves an awful lot of time compared to actually using the cameras.
Such a pleasure. Clearly the argument between the S1 and G9 easily straddles any discussion between Full Frame (FF) and Micro 4/3 (M4/3) and across all brands. The bottom line is convenience and portability and M4/3 wins every time for me. What really matters with any reviewer is the research, the delivery and an element of wit; of knowing that I am listening to somebody wholly in control of their subject and in this respect Sir you nail it every time. Many thanks by the way for the review of the Panny 35-100 f3.5>. On your recommendation I purchased one and I concur with your review - it is a bloody magnificent lens. Sitges Carnival in February - low light, flash, outdoor, indoor, fast moving etc. The lens, with my lovely G1 performed brilliantly; over 1000 shots in properly testing conditions and all worthy. As per the opening, a wonderful and informed review of two cameras in 11 minutes. Tip o' the hat.
Wow. It doesn't get better than this. What a comparison with FF and m43. Mr. Thorpe you have nailed it. Fantastic. Looking forward to education like this. Cheers.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Well they finally got it right with the GX8 and then they came up with that utter failure called the GX9. I was really looking forward to the GX9 but boy were we in for a disappointment. I still hope they make things right and come up with a GX8ii. All it needs to be is a GX8 with G9s IBIS, no AA filter and a shock free shutter. Come on Panasonic, you can do it!
I had the GM5 for a while, but really disliked it's small tunnel-like viewfinder and 16:9 screen, so i sold it. It was better than nothing, but not much. Small camera, so it goes with the territory. I much prefer the basic GM1 still with it's nice screen. So, i've been eyeing on the GX series and i would like to know how does those EVF's compare to GM5 puny ones? If GX8 is the true step-up in this regards, i shall my keep my eye on it then. Should be good price by now, i don't need the latest tech anyways. Thanks for any tips.
For some reason the S1 looks really big in videos and photos on it's own, but compared to the G9 it doesn't seem too bad. I mainly use the Battery Grip with the G9 because it's more comfortable so the S1 might actually have a better grip for me. Maybe I should test it out when the stores start getting stock for display.
I’ve had the S1 in hand, and it feels very nice, the size is not what you notice, what is noticeable is the weight, the build quality is spectacular, all other cameras of other brands feel cheap and poorly made in comparison.
The S1 seems a lot bigger to me but it's not _too_ big and as a camera to use it's better than the G9 because it has more space. However, more bulk and weight, the need for a bigger bag, the bigger lenses, all weigh against it for me. But that's me. Every objection I raise could be the reason another photographer wants it. I hope Panasonic go on to make an MF body as well!
David Thorpe I went through this silly period where I was shooting with two Leica SLs. The cameras were wonderful, and so were the lenses, except they were massive, heavy and of course, expensive. The benefits of full frame when shooting events was lost on me and my clients. Switched to APSC (Fuji) for stills, and got a pair of GH5s for my video work. I find myself finding more excuses for shooting stills with the GH5s. It’s such a pleasure to haul less weight without losing shooting options.
@@tpf1952 I think more and more photographers are thinking that way. There'll always be a professional need for bigger formats but they get fewer and fewer.
Watching your videos has made me even more happy with my recent G9 purchase. The camera and three good lenses cost me less than ONE Sony lens (although I do have an A6400 as well) and I can fit it all in my shoulder bag. I absolutely love my G9!
Great video David and it’s the real truth. Of course a full frame camera will always produce superior results to a m4/3. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t understand the science. They are very different animals though. Today’s full frame cameras and lenses are, for some reason, much bigger, heavier and more expensive the 35mm film cameras we used to use. The quality and low light performance are truly mind boggling, but few would ever tell the difference on the media to which they’d output (nearly always a screen for both stills and video). Todays full frame options are really equivalent to medium format in the past with film. For the very rich and dedicated, for the fool with all the gear and no idea, or for the upper end professional. m4/3 is a much better option for 99% of us. I consider m4/3 to be today’s version of 35mm film which, for years, was considered good enough for 99% of uses. My original OM-D E-M5 produces absolutely cracking prints at 16x12” on my A3 plus Epson printer and I have seen what the Panasonics can do with 4k video. I can’t imagine ever needing or wanting more!
Thanks, Alex. Yes, I'd guess that a Micro Four Thirds image has about the same resolution as film 35mm, probably fine grain film at that. I regularly used to have my stuff printed 16x12 or 20x16 for sales purposes (it didn't impress the picture editors but it did the words people). I used to use my Hasselblad where appropriate on jobs for the greater possibilities for magazine covers or posters. I think it pleased some art desk people because they could see what they were looking at on a 6x6 or 6x7cm transparency. Not that it made any difference once reproduced.
I’m more into wildlife and cannot not afford the cost of a 800mm for FF. I love the 100-400 m43 and 20mp are enough. It will also be difficult to carry it on long haul flights or walking in a forest. The extra dof of m43 plays handy in 1:1+ macro too. I admit S1 is a beautiful craft but no gain for my fotography.
Thank you David for presenting such wonderfully balanced, informative and entertaining content. I always feel suitably uplifted after watching one of your reviews 📸
For some similar reasons I have a Pany Fz2500 bridge - that I can just grab & go . From 24 through 480mm ( 960 w i zoom ) it works on macro or for subjects way off. Yes, my camera friend Jim with his Canon full frame sensor body & bazooka size 600 mm lens can get a bit sharper distant bird image than me but I've chosen not to spend $3000 for a lens like his or to haul it's weight around. Enjoyed your pragmatic comments. I'm enjoying / learning photography with the Lumix Fz2500.
The bridge cameras are a great concept and suit the needs of many, many photographers. I wish I had time to review some but I can hardly keep up with my Micro Four Thirds stuff!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I think bridge cameras are a nice way to get into photography these days. They're a nice step up from a phone, without spending too much. I started off with a Panasonic FZ72, the image quality obviously isn't the best out there, but 20-1200mm range in such a small package is great.
Very good, common sense video! I was also tempted to buy the S1 but luckily could escape this GAS attack. You gave the right reasons now. Interesting to remark, that one of the reasons Panasonic gave for launching the 35 mm equivalent cameras was editability of files for high end editing as required in top end ad work where digital medium format is still very strong and even dominant. Just another example of requirements a normal enthusiast as well as many professionals just do not have.
Yes, looked at from the point of view of 'must have' attributes, FF is rarely a necessity. I'd probably use FF (or quite likely, MF) because clients might expect it. Not for the quality of results but when they are in the studio or location with you it's good business to have a camera that the client wouldn't know how to use! A little mystique goes a long way.
11:31 I'll get one just as soon as "Panasonic nullifies the laws of physics and built one the size of the G9!..."... David you are a riot! Keep up the awesome work!
Thanks, Matthieu - I do like to have a bit of fun in my reviews. It's easy to get too serious about photo gear so it's lovely to know I gave you a laugh!
Looks to be a nice camera. I'm not particularly interested because I don't need the IQ improvement (largely theoretical for me) and bigger lenses FF entails. I wish Panasonic would develop some PDAF too.
Wise words as ever David. You hit the nail on the head with the car analogy. Just about all of us lust for a Ferrari as a car but what we actually need is an all rounder. I shoot Nikon full frame and a g9. It's the g9 I grab most. Rather like having a track day when I would grab that Ferrari, I use the D810 when I need what the g9 can't match and when it's critical...usually the resolution. Other than that the size, weight and hassle of carrying a full frame kit is a killer. The g9 is simply enjoyable and right for most jobs. The trouble with comparison image wise is, it shows the difference but without comparing we would be perfectly happy with either image.
You sum it up, Charlie. For anyone who has the money for both cameras, they can be regarded as complementary rather than alternatives. You need the money, though!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I think Panasonic FF will struggle if they don't get third party FF lenses on board. The price for their 2.8 glass is silly money. While I have the Nikon with all good glass it's all third party. There is no way I could have covered 15 -600 with Nikor. I'd happily go to Mft but it's the loss in selling and then needing to buy new Mft glass. It took years to acquire the full kit including flashes etc. Mft is as you say an alternative and one that is more enjoyable. Keep the videos coming please:)
@@mutley3136 Once you've invested in a system it's an expensive business adopting a new one and there are all the bits and bobs that you forget about. I once had my 35mm gear nicked from the boot of my car and even 2 years later there's be some little item that I'd be searching for before I thought, "of course, ti was stolen".
Thanks DAvid, great video as always. Curious about the bag you stuck the gear in in the video, what brand/model? Looks like a perfekt walk-around bag but not looking like a boring photo bag.
Thanks for such an intelligent and sensible video! The boffin in me is fascinated by the S1 but when all is said and done, it can't beat my GX80! It will never be as small, it will never be as useful to me. Plus, sticking with M43 means I will be able to afford food, which is always a plus ;-)
Food? You want food and a camera? What's this, Daddy's yacht? Seriously, it is faascinating to try the S1 but the moment I took it from the box I knew it wasn't for me. No detriment to the camera itself, purely the size.
Nice Video David! When I saw those videos entitled "Micro 4/3rds is Dead", I said "What F****n idiots!". Panasonic is a Great Company, with many Great Products, all you have to do is choose the ones that suit your own needs. Micro 4/3rds will be here, long after we are gone!
Brilliant video. That isn't to say that the advantages of the S1 don't exist, but it really is a matter of matching a technology to a need. I absolutely adore what Panasonic have done with the S1. I would, very frankly, love to own an S1 (or something similar) in the future. However, I had a revelation the other day, much the same as you. I was invited to help out with a music video shoot for a band I know and am friends with. They had hired a professional cinematographer for the shoot, and he brought out his GH5. Now, the fact that he brought his GH5 wasn't what tipped the scales for me, but it was my own experience. I love my GX85, but I would love something that handles better, something that has the capabilities I need to grow as a photographer. The G9 is not, technically, leaps and bounds better than the GX85, but, I realized that (especially between my G.A.S for the S1 or the G9) i would be better served by a nimble camera platform for the types of work that I see myself doing in the future. I'm in need of an affordable and nimble kit. I need high quality lenses that don't take up a lot of space. I want to be encouraged by my gear to take photos, instead of having to face the choice of what specific gear I should take on a shoot because I'm weight/size limited. I came out of that music video shoot realizing that my main limitation has been low light, of which I would gain 4 stops of advantage by purchasing a high quality m43 prime lens instead of the 2 stops afforded by the fact that the S1 has a larger sensor. I don't typically shoot in situations where I'm in almost blackout conditions, and I actually don't mind the look of a bit of grain in some of the shots I've taken even at 6400 ISO. In short, the flexibility of a nimble camera platform like the g9 is what I desired and need at this point in my photography. I can keep my current GX85 and lenses for hyperportable travel photography, but the g9 with fast m43 glass is what I actually need (and can afford) for the type of work i would like to see myself doing. That isn't to say that i won't ever get an S1, or don't appreciate the advantages it offers. I would absolutely adore the ability to have the S1 with the 50mm f1.8 some day, and I greatly appreciate simply having something that provides me with all of the technical ability I will ever need. but, for the price of the S1 and the 50mm f1.8, I could purchase the g9 and a whole host of high quality primes that would suit my style of shooting and give me a portable and well rounded kit that, frankly, most people would never see as lacking in almost any way. You even said it yourself: the only way someone would truly be able to appreciate the difference between the g9 and the s1 is if they were printing larger than 3 x 2 foot. Even then, I'm sure many people would not necessarily mind having a bit of grain on the photos and, as you also pointed out, people have been happy with what people have delivered in the past, on early digital cameras, and film, and way on back to the earliest days of photography.
A bit of noise doesn't bother me and I usually do absolutely minimal noise reduction even at 6400. The simple act of downsampling getrid of a lot of it, anyway. Another ppint with the prints is that the bigger a print, the further away you stand, so apparent sharpness probably doesn't look much different. Like when you look at huge posters on hoardings, if you go right up to one, it looks quite fuzzy and crude. But from across the road, it looks highly detailed.
Thanks for the video. Can you please help me clarify one thing ? I noticed that on some samples on your video and others I looked around the S1 has a shallower depth of field for the same F factor, that meaning, as you explained, that you have to raise the F factor by two on the S1 to have the same depth of field. Now, doesn't that defeat the advantage of better low light performance if one wants a deeper depth of field ? Two F stops is 4 times less light and the FF sensor is 4 times bigger, that's why I'm asking .... Which means for landscape photographers or even videographers who normally don't use a shallow depth of field, the S1 would end up offering no advantage. Or the low light performance would still be better with aperture reduced by two stops (assuming lens with same performance of course...) ? Thanks
As you say, if you want more depth of field you must stop down which means using using higher iSO which negates to some extent the advantage of the bigger sensor. The thing is with FF that it can provide ultimately better image quality simply because it has the larger sensor and most people like the shallower depth. You can get more comparable results with Micro Four Thirds by using an f/1.2 lens, say, but then you are back to less depth of field and bigger lenses. It's all a trade-off!
Thanks Kurt- and yes, a great camera. I use mine for so many things! At the moment it is tethered to my computer so that I can make product shots, very handy.
I fell exactly the same, you have to print a highway outdoor to see the difference. I do feel a bit more free, more light for carry out my gear. It is all been said. Thanks David for another excellent review and personal opinion. Regards
Excellent ways of capturing the "difference" and why it doesn't matter to most of us that Micro Four Thirds doesn't have quite the image quality of full frame (and why we only hear "MFT is dead" only from Full-frame fanciers.) "I'm pleased to say that even though my brother is bigger than me, my mother didn't feel it necessary to kill me when he was born" .. "It's a bit like a 700 brake horse class supercar being used for normal transport. It'll happily do it, but you won't see any difference between it and a family saloon going to the shops.".. "I do not see any image quality gate in full-frame that *compensates* for the clumsiness of the system." (emphasis mine)..
Yes, I'm really only interested in the usable differences. If someone made a FF camera that covered a similar range of sizes and prices to Micro Four Thirds and had lenses of similar weight and size, I'd buy that. Who wouldn't? In the meantime, Micro Four Thirds it is.
Hi David, thanks for the review. You said u mainly shoot with electronic shooter, are there advantages over the mechanical shooter? Is picture quality as good? Can you explain why you choose the electronic shooter setting? Thanks in advance.
It's no big deal, the mechanical shutter is great as well. However, the electronic shutter saves battery - just think how many frames it shoots with video, 30 per second or so and you can shoot video for around 2 hours. Also, you can choose the volume and sound of the shutter. And there's no quality hit, though you may need to use the mechanical shutter in some kinds of artificial light. Plus, you have higher sequence speeds available in some cases.
Always the most thoughtful, intelligent and considered reviews, and without the irritating "dude" presentation from a desk with a wrong way round ugly peek cap and trite language. David Thorpe is a wonderful antidote to the FRO_KNOWS...DOT COM school of pushy, loud reviewers. Thank you for your civility, humour and calm.
Another excellent review David! Always really look forward to your words of wisdom. Balanced thoughtful and unique amongst the myriad other reviewers! And no you can’t have a pay rise!🤣Great stuff.🇦🇺😎👍
I was disappointed with the S1 after testing one for a week. I love my Panasonic mft cameras and their great menu system. But, Panasonic made a huge mistake by not updating the focusing system with their FF cameras. I found it missed shots way more than my G9. The S1 can't come close to most of the current FF cameras. If they do update to a hybrid focus system in the future I will reconsider.
Yes, I felt that the focusing was similar to the G9 but the minimal depth of focus meant more missed shots. Focus slightly off with the G9 was masked by the depth of field, where on the S1 the lack of depth highlighted it. I'm with you on the PDAF - Panasonic's Depth from Fefocus will never match the tried and tested Phase Detection. Panasonic say it degrades the image because of the interpolation necessary tpo fill in for the PD pixels but I use an E-M1 Mk2 and I've yet to see it.
WIthout any fast prime lenses (other than the solitary 50mm f1.4 at a scary price) the G9 makes more sense at the moment. The S1 needs a full frame lens of 85mm @ f2.4 to compete with the existing 42.5mm f1.2 lens for M43. ... until then the G9 will be able out-perform it. I'm looking forward to the GH6, although I think we could be waiting a while yet for that.
It's getting harder and harder to see what improvements could be made to this latest generation of cameras. And yes, the 50mm f/1.4, that's a rich man's lens. Plus, how often will anyone be using display media that can show this ultra high resolution?
I always enjoy your reviews David! You do such a great job with them. Your common sense and wit make watching them fun. BTW what brand & model was that sexy camera bag were you using for the G9??
Thanks, Richard! The bag is a Wotancraft Trooper www.wotancraft.tw/product/trooper-m-ash-green . I have a review of it at th-cam.com/video/DCtJg5GheQQ/w-d-xo.html .
My personal experience of Sigma is that they pretty much match original maker's IQ and in some cases are better. I remember reading somewhere that some of the lenses made by the big makers were designed by Sigma.
My thoughts exactly! I went from Canon to Panasonic first because of 4K video. I needed a hybrid and didn't want to carry around a stills camera and video camera. Once I got a "taste" of M43, there was no turning back. I always carry my G9 with me whenever I leave home. Always in my shoulder bag. I bike and travel, so it's easier on my back too. While I can get caught up with "gear craze", and the S1 is a superior camera, I won't notice the difference in what I do. And the weight.... no thank you. Still, glad Panasonic came out with it.
Yes, I'm glad too, the S1 shows that they are committed to the photographic side of their business. I bike around too and it would be impossible with an S1 and lenses.
@@DavidThorpeMFT it was hard with the Canon... making me think twice about taking it when I would go out. The wife loves the Canon "bling" around her neck... until it starts to wear her down with the weight!
Would be great to see a review of that Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8. I'm a bit surprised you haven't got a review of it on your channel considering how many times it ends up on your camera bodies :)
@@DavidThorpeMFT Great, I and many others will look forward to it :) The choice between the Panasonic 12-35mm and Olympus 12-40mm is a hard one and has been a contentious topic for many years. I'd be particularly interested to hear your thoughts for someone considering those 2 lenses, and why one might chose one over the other.
Bought 1 and returned it for all the reasons you mentioned. In fact I can use a 2nd G9 for a multi camera setup. I'm happy to pay 1/3 of the price for a brand new G9. It's the best camera I've ever used and I love MFT lenses.
Hi Thanks for your great videos. I have a Lumix GX8 with 25 mm f1.7 + 14 mm f2.5 + 42.5 mm f1.7 and a GM1. I missed a zoom so I just bought a 12-60mm f2.8-4.0. Since I probably never afford or need a Lumix S1 since all lenses must also be changed. I have considered switching my GX8 off with a G9. But I doubt if I can see the difference in picture quality or whether it is only stabilization and some other features that are the difference. I never printed larger images than a3. Have you seen the difference between your prints?
Thanks, Peter! I don't make big prints bigger than 15x10 and at that there really isn't any difference between Micro Four Thirds and FF. Re the GX8 and G9, if I did find a difference in IQ it would have to be by peering into a 36 inch print at 8 inches distance. The difference is, as you say, in body style, features and stabilization and in such a comparison many photographers would prefer the GX8 overall. I'd be very insulted if anyone looked at a picture of mine and peered into it to see if it was critically sharp! The picture obviously wasn't very interesting! You have a set of quality lenses - they'll [perform well on any Micro Four Thirds body. In practise, I can see little difference between pictures on my Gm1 and my G9. Probably the same for you with GX8 and GM1.
David, your humor and introspective thoughts are second to none. :-) I personally think the S1R would be a more appropriate comparison with the G9. They are photo cameras first, video second. From what I've seen so far, there would be an appreciable difference between the photo quality between them. But then again, the S1R is 3x the cost of the G9. Sort of like FF vs MF.... I had been eyeing the S1R and finally got to handle one at B&H here in New York. It really looks like a big G9. With a video I've seen recently with some excellent glass on it, the color reproduction and detail is absolutely stunning. But when I get an itch like that... I compare some of my best photography done with my Panasonic GX8 and some Medium Format raw files I download to test and play with. You know what? When you nail the focus, have great glass, it can be tough to see the difference between such systems. Sure when you zoom in at 200% you see a difference or step back and look at the transition from sharp to blur.... Only pros really can tell. If I were to go FF again, it would be the S1R. DXO proved that at least on a purely technical basis, it's as good as the best if not better than any FF system out there. There's a chance. A small one to have a S1R for times when I want that quality. Though the S1R is much more versatile, MF is MF and I'd want an obvious jump in quality. I just have to keep eating macaroni and cheese for the next couple of years to afford it. Love is pain. :-)
Thanks, Ricardo. The S1R is beyond my means - I get no cameras on loan from anyone - but also the need for 47Mp resolution escapes me. For everything I do, I'd simply be discarding and averaging out more pixels than I do now, making the image quality no different from the S1, with which I am already discarding and averaging most of the pixels. The only way to show the extra pixels of the S1R would be a _minimum_ 35" wide print but in reality 48" wide, something I never do. In reality, you'd almost never see any IQ difference between your GX8. But, the idea of ultimate quality is very attractive!
David Thorpe I hear ya. For fashion and portrait, the extra megapixels comes in real handy when you're doing a full-length portrait and want to crop. Then, you still have great detail and quality. You have a keeper if that's the only way you can get that specific shot. That's the big advantage with the MP increase. But yes.. m43 is so good... Going to a bigger format is mostly for better color reproduction and detail second for me. I'm going to rent the S1R when it's available and test if the color/quality is that much better. But MF has been on radar forever and FF is going to be a tough sell for me.. We'll see. :-). Keep up the great work!
Great comparison, David and it wouldn't sway me from micro four thirds given its size and cost. One question, what make is your camera bag? I'm looking out for one kind of like that.
Glad you lies it, Kenny. The bag is a Wotancraft Trooper and it is just about perfect for my needs. I've made a video of it th-cam.com/video/DCtJg5GheQQ/w-d-xo.html
@David Thorpe Hi David, Thank you for excellent review. Recently bought G9, but have issues shooting moving subjects. What is your best technique and settings with G9 to shooting moving subjects such as running around kids? And also is S1 better performing in case of continuous AF?
The Si is much the same as the G9, though the narrower depth of field for any given setting makes it a bit more tricky. I use M burst setting, AF Sensitivity settings all to +2 and stabilization off. Since children will move play unpredictably while playing and running around I just throw the max sensitivity at the subject and if something gets in the way and throws off the focus, so be it.
@@michalm9199 I usually use the Custom Multi but set it to a 5x5 grid. Basically, I am trying to take as much load off the processor as possible (hence no stabilization and as small a choice of focus points as possible) to free as many cycles as possible up for calculating the focus. The stabilization isn't useful above about 1/1000th anyway and while single point would probably be best it doesn't leave any leeway when you lose the subject for a moment as it/they change direction suddenly.
Admittedly, I like "Panasonic" more than m4/3.. I like Pana's great UI, OOC Colour, VDO features, IBIS, Exe Tele Conv, 4k/6k photo, and reliability.. That's why, despite being a happy m4/3 user, I am attracted to S1.. Because I know I will have all of what I like above in FF sensor.. But S1 is too big for me.. I am waiting for "entry model" S1 in the future..
The trouble is that even with a smaller body (which is possible), there's a limit to how much smaller the lenses can be. I agree with you about Panasonic. they do seem to be spending money on R&D and developing their cameras.
@@DavidThorpeMFT If manufacturers start to focus on creating slower (but smaller lenses), like Samyang's 35mm f2.8 at other focal lengths, I think we'll find that the size of such FF systems (given a smaller, A7iii-sized body) will get very close to similiar M43 kits. Too bad there aren't more of such lenses.
@@aloi Interestingly, when Panasonic introduced truly small cameras, the GM1 and GM5, people didn't want them. I have a GM1 with 12-32mm and the combination is unique in its IQ/ size relationship. There does seem to be a minimum size that serious photographers will accept, probably something like the GX9. Whether a usable FF camera camera with EVF could be developed at that size I'm not sure. The other problem is that enthusiasts, the main market, do like high speed lenses and f/1.2 has a great draw. For me personally it doesn't but there's no money in the professional market so that doesn't count. As I've said many times, I have no emotional investment in Micro Four Thirds, purely practical. I look at my outlets before deciding what my input should be and for web/publication/prints up to 30 inches Micro Four Thirds cannot be distinguished from FF. Or MF for that matter. If someone comes up with a FF camera the size of a GX9 -_with the usability_ of a G9 or S1 and fast lenses the same size as Micro Four Thirds. I'd buy into it. It would be stupid to reject higher camera IQ - necessary or not - at no cost. But for now, a GX9 sized Sony with a 30°-8° angle of view and f/2.8 constant aperture doesn't even seem to be on the horizon. Any mention of equivalence will lock this comment section :-)
I came from film directly to MFT (well, to be honest, I had a Pentax MX-1 compact camera for a year). If I were to make another switch, it would be back to film, no matter how impractical that seems today.
Film has its own special qualities and discipline to be followed for good results. I hope it never dies. From a personal perspective, I think that its (by digital standards only) impracticality is what gives it its attraction to me. The ability to take 1,000 frames of a subject at no extra cost does not necessarily enhance the final result. Knowing you have fewer goes at it and that each one costs a bit more money can concentrate the senses wonderfully.
They will be humongous. Panasonic already managed to beat Leica to the size of their 50mm F1.4 lens design - something I would not have thought could happen! ;-)
Very sensible comparison. And don't forget: No camera can be better than the lenses you put on it. It is far easier to make good small lenses than big ones. Plus I wouldn't want to carry a 200-800 mm lens around (if there was one for the S1). But the 100-400 for MFT is still manageable.
I sold my Sony A7RIII for a G9. The only thing I regret is my 55 F/1.8 lens. For everything else, le G9 is like no other. Handling, ergonomics, features-price ratio, and an adequate image quality if you choose the good lenses. I get a look to the S1 and S1r and definitely decided to keep my G9 because as you mentioned, I easily take my 1kg combo G9+25 F/1.4 but I won't if it was a 2kg combo S1+50 F/1.4 Panasonic.
It seems kind of lazy but like you I'll take my G9 where I know I wouldn't the S1. The reality is that taking an S1 and lenses would mean making definite decision to go out taking pictures. With the G9, I can take it without breaking my back, on the off-chance I might want to take some pictures. I may think I'm being lazy but it is reality and many of my best pictures have been taken when I've actually gone out for a drink or cycle ride round the park with photography not my main intention. I have always fancied the Sony, though!
If you don't need the extra two stops of light/background blur - sure, no point in carrying larger system. To me personally even one stop makes a difference. But everyone should evaluate their own shooting style.
I get the impression that it is much the same but overall a teeny bit slower. There's more weight of glass to move, I guess. And with the AFS, it's much the same as the G9 but can appear not so good simply because the depth of filed is so much less. So where it might be back-focused a little it shows, whereas on the G9 it isn't apparent. It's hard to know whether it is better than a Nikon FX but without evidence to the contrary, I'd doubt it.
EXACTLY what I wanted to know. I own the S1 and it's a bit too much. I was doing pro work, so it was justified. Now I am moving to doing some TH-cam stuff and not so much pro. You told me what I already thought I knew. I am selling the S1 for a G9. Thanks for your great reviews. You told me exactly what I was thinking!
My situation/thoughts on S1: I currently have a GH5 (for video use) & A7R II (for photo use). I prefer to not have two different cameras for different uses, and would like to have a hybrid All In One. S1 seems to solve my dilemma. Lens selection: adapting lenses to full frame doesn’t require a speed booster. Using the Metabones XL 0.64x for the GH5, I can only use Canon EF, Nikon F, M42, Pentax K, and some other lenses. I cannot use FD or Minolta without buying a speed booster, and that only takes me to 0.71x, which is a Super35 crop (and my wallet gets cropped too!) Even though the 0.64x is a good speed booster, I prefer not losing any crop. If I use the S1, I eliminate any crop factors, since I generally shoot 4K 30. I also have a lot of Canon EF lenses laying around already, most of them aren’t too big, and I don’t need 3-5 lenses every shoot. As for lens selection on the L-Mount, the Sigma MC-21 will make all my EF lenses work, I may not even need to buy any official L lens. They are coming with and update to allow Art/Sport lenses to retain C-AF for video like the Sigma MC-11 for Sony. Depth of Field: People praise the Micro 4/3 system for not having to deal with the shallow depth of field. I have shot plenty of videos on manual focus with a f/1.8 or f/3.6, both are FF aperture equivalent. Having the option to take it down or up is nice. If you only use the Micro 4/3 lens selection. It is very hard to give you more options in this regard, unless you spend a lot of money to the point where you’re paying the same price for a high quality FF Lens. Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 as an example. Most people tend to shoot with non-native glass when it comes to the GH5 for this reason. Speed booster may cost money but you have the ability to adapt any EF lens at that point. Noise/ISO/Lighting: With the GH5, using a Neat Video Noise reducer for premiere, I noticed that sharpness decreases at ISOs past 1600. Controlling lighting would mean I have to carry more lighting equipment around and take time to properly do it. Having a couple stops advantage saves me from doing so, and not have to spend too much for figuring out the scenario. I think in the video perspective, it’s a trade off here, you lose the portability aspect of the Micro 4/3 for better low light, but in cases where you need controlled lighting, you will have to carry around lights. Body Weight/Portability: Sony Mirrorless have the best portability for a Full Frame Mirrorless, they no doubt nailed that. IBIS isn’t that great and no 10-bit. GH5 is an outstanding body size still, but it feels a bit bulky. Compared to GX8 or G85, it has that professional feel or body weight. I tried the S1 in my hands, it is quite heavy, but it’s not a big jump for me either. Feels like Canon DSLR, which I don’t mind. I believe the amount of strangers that would bat eyes at me as said in your video, wouldn’t be much of a difference. Since the lenses I intend to use on the S1 will be the same with the GH5 + Metabones XL, it won’t feel much different. Flip Out Screen: GH5 is excellent for having this, you can hide the screen so if you use the viewfinder, your nose won’t affect the touch screen. Although I don’t mind not having the flip screen either, since I have gotten used to Sony Cameras LCDs for not flipping out. I am not a full time vlogger so I don’t think this will kill me for not having it. IBIS: Panasonic nail it in this category, the new S1 feels like the GH5’s IBIS. Sony isn’t as great, and most of the time you end up using warp stabilizer. I do have a Gimbal, but I prefer to shoot handheld with IBIS to keep my profile low in public situations. Gimbal is for more controlled scenes. Interface: Personally, Panasonic’s Interface is much easier to follow through than on Sony. I think what it comes down to is how you are using your camera typically. Since I shoot mainly video handheld for events and some short films and plan to get into real estate, I think it makes more sense for me to grab a S1, I do not have to deal with lighting, and the body is a bit bigger than GH5 but I will be used to it. If the GH5 has an APS-C size sensor, it probably would not make me consider an upgrade, adapting and speed boosting lenses would have almost a 1:1 ratio. Someone in the comments said it best, they may have targetted the wrong audience with the S1 and GH5. Some people are out there waiting for a FF GH5, by no means that the S1 is a perfect solution, but I think it is a compromise I am willing to stick around for. Just pick the best tool for your situations! Thoughts?
No-one knows their work and method better than themselves and it sounds like the S1 would be a great choice for you. I loved the thing, as I said but for my purposes it holds too many disadvantages and not enough gain. But, that's for _my_ purposes. As a professional taking commissions and covering assignments for scenario given me by someone else, rather than working on my own projects as I do now, I'd be more tempted by the S1 since it is the easier way to cover most eventualities. In point of fact, that is how I used my Hasselblad and Mamiya RB 6x7s in the studio. I'll be interested to see how film lenses play with the S1. Especially with wide angles, the light rays hit the outer parts of the sensor at quite an acute angle. It didn't matter so much with film since the receiving surface was flat but sensors are much more fussy about the incidence of the light falling on them. It might lead to excessive vignetting which could be corrected in software but at the cost of noise in those areas. Or it may not matter. Interesting, though.
Adapting glass without a crop factor is a big deal: even with the 0.64x Metabones speedbooster, you're still gonna get a decent crop with a M43 body. It makes achieving wider field of views with vintage glass very difficult. With regards to corner smearing, field curvature and colour casts in the corners, you're unlikely to notice them with 99% of SLR lenses. If you adapt rangefinder lenses 50mm or wider though, you will notice such issues to varying degrees. The folks at phillipreeve.net cover this very thoroughly and have tested several lenses!
I wanted to review this video again with the upcoming lumix S5 release 8/2/2020. It helps me to cool my “gott’a get” impulse. My G9 still fills all my needs and then sum. I’m sure the S5 is going to be great but how much great do I need, especially now during Covid and a shortage of paying shoots.
The comparison with the S1 won't (wouldn't) be much different than with the S5 since my main interest was the technical quality. The S5 is more compact and that's nice but the lenses are still very big. It's the lenses that make Micro Four Thirds attractive as a system, for me.
Hi, David. Please, I ask for your help. My main job is photography and any videos. I'm loving the G80. I think of doing an up grade for need of more MP. I think of G9 but I saw an analysis where gh5 was better for still. You think it's worth upgrading from g80 to g9 or gh5. Please take into account please photos with high iso
Hi Guarim - the difference between the G80 and the G9/GH5 is not that great but the extra pixels you get don't degrade IQ in any way so you get them at no cost (other than money!). There's no perceivable difference between the G9 and GH5 - they use the same sensor so RAW files would be all but identical and you can tailor JPGs from them to your own requirements, of course. The main difference between the two top line cameras is simply that the GH5 is more video oriented than the G9, which is tilted to stills. In point of fact both fulfil either role very well, though.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I won't, i rather keep on living. Still, S1 is very big and i know they can do something smaller. So i shall wait for the smaller models.
How is the auto focus on the G9 for fast moving objects? I am looking for something to photograph birds of prey in flight and aviation (airshows, "Jedi Transition" etc) and was thinking that a G9 with the Panasonic/Leica DG 100-400 lens would be a good combination.
It's very good, certainly good enough for my purposes, though the E-M1 MkII is that bit better with its PDAF. It's not enough to base an entire choice of camera on, though, since the gap is quite small. The G9 and 100-400 would be an ideal combination, class leading stabilization and fast AF. If you look at my review of the 100-400 th-cam.com/video/s8VsOCY-D8U/w-d-xo.html, you'll see it was with a GX8. The G9 is an improvement on that - though given the GX8 results I'm not convinced any improvement is necessary!
@@DavidThorpeMFT thank you for your reply. My concern with the G9 is that with Contrast AF only, that it might not give me sharp results with fast moving subject such as high speed jets, especially camouflaged grey jets moving in a canyon with brown walls. I have a Sony A7iii (Full Frame) and I shot the Jedi Transition in March with a 70-300mm lens and it simply wasn't long enough. That is why I was looking at this combination for that specific purpose. It would be in addition to not a replacement for my A7iii and would serve a very specific role. I am trying to get more reach while keeping the cost below the cost of the Sony 100-400G Master lens (about $3400 in Canada). This set-up would have one purpose in my camera bag -- reach out long distances and get the shot of fast moving jets or birds of prey.
@@R.HogarthI'd be inclined to try cropping the Sony 300mm image before anything else. Unless you are making huge prints IQ won't suffer since even with a 2x crop to give an _effective_ 600mm, you'll still be likely to be discarding pixels for any electronic display. The G9, provided you keep the focus area squarely on the jet I don't think the G9 should have a problem following focus. While jets move fast, they are quite predictable in movement. You'd use 1-Area AF or Custom Area and switch off stabilization.
The big brother of... Ha ha ha. Well done Sir for another very enjoyable-to- watch and balanced video. I tip my hat to you! Love the little bits of humour you weave in. I think I'm gonna get an S1R because I run a studio and need to enlarge to 36" fairly regularly. Can you tell me, I'm currently using a GH5 with a Metabones adapter and Canon L lenses, for both video and stills. If I buy an S1R and a new matching full frame 28-105 Panasonic lens, is there some way to use this lens on my GH5? Also, can I use my Canon lenses on an S1R? Thanks so much.
Glad you liked it, Trevor! The S1 models share the Leica L mount so adapters for those should work for the S1 too. Might be expensive, though. I've seen nothing with regard to adapting S1 to Micro Four Thirds. The FF->MFT adapters rely on the FF lanes having a longer back-focus distance, as they must to clear the mirror. FF mirrorless lenses may not have that extra clearance.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
David is a rare gem of wisdom, wit and philosophy in a camera world gone a bit crazy.
I'm blushing - thank you!
@@DavidThorpeMFTSo are you going to keep the S1 David? I have the G80 and was thinking of G9, GH5 or S1 .. both photos and videos, what are your thoughts? thanks, Jeff
@@jeffjhcom No, I'll sell the S1. It's too big and I know I'll just not use it. The G9 is my favourite, a really good tool and no slouch for video, either. That or the GH5 is just a matter for personal preference really. The GH5 might be better if you understand and use the deeper aspects of video. If not the G9's the one.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks David, I agree, I saw it in the shop as a demo model and immediately could see that there wouldn't be much room in my bag for anything else! I've looked at GH5 videos and saw the comparison with the S1, the GH5 is Incredible and held it's own in both Photos and Videos, I really couldn't see the difference. I want the G9 but for some reason the sensor of the G9 appears to be less sharp than the GH5, same with the older GX80 vs GX9.. GX80 appears sharper on Jpegs out of camera. I think I'll settle for the GH5! Thanks for your help and hopefully one day see you down the Southbank! I live close to there! Cheers David, all the best, Jeff
@@DavidThorpeMFT out of curiosity David, you say g9 is your favorite, do you like the Olympus EM1 mk2?
Thank you David, the voice of common sense.
Thanks, Frank.
Belated thank you to late David Thorpe for the most fair & articulate comparison of FF & MFT I've seen.
I see David Thorpe, I click.
Same
I go straight thumbs up! (haven't even watched)@@alfabravo80
Yep couldn't agree more.
:-)
David is one of the unique voices of knowledge and reason in a huge pool of pretenders. I actually learn something worthwile from him - how rare.
It's very simple: just imagine Full Frame wouldn't exist, everybody would be extremely happy with the present M43 qualities and possibilities... we don't necessarily need more... It's typical human: we always want more and better but in fact we forget to enjoy what is more than good enough already! Real artists will not care about pixels and low light capacities, they will always find the right circumstances to catch the right atmosphere and express what needs to be expressed... Even 'noise' can be artistic and beautiful... The only 'noise' in the photography community that really disturbs me is the noise of 'arrogance'...
Thank you David for your wise reviews, always with full respect for whoever and for whatever existing or new system...
Thanks, Hans!
@Hans
Then why don't you just go out, sell your cameras and lenses, and be happy with just using your smartphone, or better yet with using your 1MP digital compact camera from the mid nineties, exclusively to take artsy, noisy pictures. :-) Trust me, it's possible, because I did exactly just that years ago.
Yet I would miss my FF equipment nowadays, if I sold it, because I like to take pictures with all of the tools that I own (Smartphone/M43/Sony FE) , not just with the hammer. Or with the saw for that matter. :D I use any of my cameras and lenses when I want to, and the best of it is: I actually can. Yes, I can. I don't have to use them, I don't need to, but I can. :-)
In fact sold my big and expensive M43 glass (Nocticron, 7-14/2.8, etc., with a sad eye of course) in order to buy me a Sony A7II and the equivalent lenses. Also I love, no I adore the tiny f/2.8 Samyang lenses (24/35, which are equivalent to f/1.4 lenses on M43), of which I think any camera manufacturer should have some variants in their portfolio.
For sure will I never again mount a f/1.4 or even a f/1.2 prime on my M43 cameras, which are now reserved for the small and convenient stuff (with 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 75/1.8) and which indeed see quite a bit more use in everyday life than my Sony FF equipment. But that's merely because I adore small and convenient, and I do favor it over big and clumsy with technical supremacy. The FF I use for professional work and for pre-planned portrait sessions only, nothing else in fact.
So as usual I do agree with David Thorpe's comments on M43 vs. FF, while to me personally there is no 'vs.', no 'either or', but more a 'horses for courses' type of view on this topic.
I guess we will all have to wait and see which direction the photographic industry takes with the clever smartphones chasing or even exceeding them in some ways or another. It will be quite interesting to watch, me thinks. :-)
@@MarcoGraupner Your horses for courses remark covers exactly my own take on the two cameras. I was careful to say that there are things the S1 will do much better than a Micro Four Thirds camera and that If I had a studio, f i didn't have a Hasselblad on a tripod in there, it'd be an S1. When it comes to pictures, I have many different views. Having worked as a new photographer, I know that there agree times when it's the moment that counts and the only question a picture editor will ask is 'did you get it'? Provides the image is of usable quality - not a high bar on a web page or in news print - it doesn't mater a damn whether it was on a phone or a stand camera.
In fact, the picture quoted as the first ever new picture was of a fore on ships in the Harbour at Hamburg. That was on a stand/ plate camera but being in 1840 it pre-dates the smartphone by a century and some :-)
@@DavidThorpeMFT I agree with you on all topics. We use what we can use and want to use, but we don't have to. Often times this is also a matter of money, and whether we are able and willing to spend it or not. I see absolutely no need to spend big money in order to make great art, in fact the opposite is often more true than not, because great art often follows great suffering.
MFT is the perfect balanced sensor size. It's also close to Super 35mm frame size which is what film movies used for a very long time. It allows for smaller, lighter, faster, cooler hardware without sacrificing too much image quality. Full-frame has several obvious benefits but the drawbacks make it more expensive and difficult to carry around and use, especially for extended periods. Tiny sensors like in camcorders have vastly superior battery life and allow for superior optical stabilization and truly colossal zoom ranges in a compact package along with much more forgiving and reliable autofocus, but noise performance (especially in low light) is inevitably inferior, and depth of field effects are harder to achieve.
People dick-measuring sensor sizes don't understand that they are different tools meant for different uses.
While MFT might be "close" to S35, it isn't quite as close as APS-C. In terms of noise, dual ISO is really shaking things up at the moment, but FF will be getting the technology eventually. Maybe Sony will try to reignite the "night-vision" hype of the A7Sii with the A7siii using some kind of 20MP dual ISO BSI FF sensor.
@@TheUlitamateStunt The technology is certainly exciting. My entire point is that it's not fair to compare systems by sensor sizes because they all carry different advantages and disadvantages. One surprising advantage of smaller sensors is having more stuff in focus. A long-running web series I have liked for over a decade went from filming on a Panasonic HVX200 to full-frame DSLRs, and despite the higher resolution and detail and zero change in setting or typical camera angles, I disliked the "higher quality" video. I didn't know why and I was bothered by not being able to put my finger on the reason. It took me a couple of years to realize the problem: the depth of field was now very shallow, so all of the supporting props behind the main character's seat went from recognizable and readable to just this blurry mush that had lost all meaning. Backgrounds are important and larger sensors make it very hard to capture indoor backgrounds without them becoming meaningless bokeh. I was at little sad to come to this realization about the series, but I learned a very important lesson in the process. I pay a lot more attention to the backgrounds and how blurry they are when I shoot now.
When I watch stuff on Netflix, I note that shallow depth of field is very much a special effect for use when isolating the subject furthers the story. But in general footage, someone making their way through an airport, say, you want to see the surroundings. Shallow DoF has become a bit of a fetish to some but like all effects, it's better not used all the time.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Exactly! :-)
@@DavidThorpeMFT The gear for shallow depth of field may be a sign for the incapability to choose appropriate backgrounds.
You put to words what I know many of us are thinking on this subject. I’m with you sir!
Thanks for putting it out there!
Thank you, Joe.
Thorpe review of S1? Stop, grab popcorn, hit play.
:-)
Yeah, popcorn is a great idea!
The best real world review yet seen or read, of both the S1 and G9/microfourthirds format. This is the definitive review...
Thanks so much, Andrew, much appreciated.
The movers and shakers respond with knee jerk, click bait responses. David waits. Tests the new camera. Responds sensibly with a balanced opinion.
Thanks, Tom.
For a second i thought you fallen to the dark side my friend, but again you gave me a mft lesson.
I have been known to lean to the dark side but the path of righteousness has a greater attraction for me :-)
What is the dark side?
RIP David. You were a teacher
Thanks David/ Always a pleasure to listen to your reviews :)
Thank you!
I love the amount of work you put into this video. Instead of doing a talking head all video you have actual related video. Thanks for your uploads!
I appreciate that! It is a lot of effort so it's nice when someone notices. Thanks, Michal!
I look at the S1/S1R just like I look at medium format or cinema production cameras like the Ari or Red. It's fantastic, wonderful gear and I admire the technical perfectness but I couldn't make much use out if it if I had the opportunity to use them.
I think that applies to most photographers, Ulrich.
Must say I enjoy listening to you more and more
Thank you, Jan-Martin!
I bought the Nokton 60mm 0.95 for my E-M1. A killer Full Frame if you like Portrait and macro !
Great infanticide analogy at the start, 10/10
:-)
Careful@@DavidThorpeMFT, she may simply be biding her time ;)
Absolutely pissing myself at this point too!
David; I had the pleasure of re-visiting your review of the S1 and G9 which I enjoyed again. My G9 is still relevant in my bag although I had been wondering about the new Panasonic full size cameras. It's not surprising that once I had to confront the overall size and portability question again, as I had when I originally bought into the micro 4/3 camera system, I come to the same conclusion as you in your video. This was reassuring that logic still prevails! Thanks again.
Ahhh, it is so cheery to experience a video like this, in this world of review videos filled with thumbing techno music, drone shots and fast cuts. I mean I can't remember the last time I saw a stop motion animation in a camera related video. Thank you!
So good to hear that! Mind you, in future videos I will be wearing a back to front baseball cap and yelling out "Hi guys" at the beginning. Then the techno music will start. I've bought a drone and I'm practising fast cuts. It's the modern way and it saves an awful lot of time compared to actually using the cameras.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Also add "funny" content like licking batteries, smashing cameras with a sledgehammer etc. People need it!
@@bege4394 Great suggestions B G. So good that I suspect B G is a pseudonym and that you are really Stephen Spielberg.
Such a pleasure.
Clearly the argument between the S1 and G9 easily straddles any discussion between Full Frame (FF) and Micro 4/3 (M4/3) and across all brands. The bottom line is convenience and portability and M4/3 wins every time for me.
What really matters with any reviewer is the research, the delivery and an element of wit; of knowing that I am listening to somebody wholly in control of their subject and in this respect Sir you nail it every time.
Many thanks by the way for the review of the Panny 35-100 f3.5>. On your recommendation I purchased one and I concur with your review - it is a bloody magnificent lens. Sitges Carnival in February - low light, flash, outdoor, indoor, fast moving etc. The lens, with my lovely G1 performed brilliantly; over 1000 shots in properly testing conditions and all worthy.
As per the opening, a wonderful and informed review of two cameras in 11 minutes.
Tip o' the hat.
Thanks so much, Paul! The 35-100 is a unique lens, it just seems too good to be true that something so tiny can be so good.
Nice comparison David. It asks the questions no one was prepared to answer - I like that!
Glad to hear that, Paul, thanks. Because I don't borrow gear generally I can say what I want.
As usual , the nail on the head,
Thanks, Gary!
Wow. It doesn't get better than this. What a comparison with FF and m43. Mr. Thorpe you have nailed it. Fantastic. Looking forward to education like this. Cheers.
I'm flattered! Glad you found it so useful.
I'm still waiting for the GX8 MKII...
Love the G9 but hate the GX7mkii with its tiny EVF
It's always been the GX series Achilles heel, the viewfinder. Apart from the GX8, of course.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Well they finally got it right with the GX8 and then they came up with that utter failure called the GX9. I was really looking forward to the GX9 but boy were we in for a disappointment. I still hope they make things right and come up with a GX8ii. All it needs to be is a GX8 with G9s IBIS, no AA filter and a shock free shutter. Come on Panasonic, you can do it!
@@Gijz74 They could, easily. I'd have though a rangefinder style larger camera would be popular but camera makers move in mysterious ways.
@@DavidThorpeMFT: Probably , as most businesses, guided mostly by accountants, marketers and lawyers.
I had the GM5 for a while, but really disliked it's small tunnel-like viewfinder and 16:9 screen, so i sold it. It was better than nothing, but not much. Small camera, so it goes with the territory. I much prefer the basic GM1 still with it's nice screen. So, i've been eyeing on the GX series and i would like to know how does those EVF's compare to GM5 puny ones? If GX8 is the true step-up in this regards, i shall my keep my eye on it then. Should be good price by now, i don't need the latest tech anyways. Thanks for any tips.
Mr. Thorpe, I'm going to sound like a broken record here. But you are a poet! I love everything you say sir, always making sense
Thanks so much - I'm blushing!.
I love my S one and I put for the larger frame. I don’t mind the weight at all either.
For some reason the S1 looks really big in videos and photos on it's own, but compared to the G9 it doesn't seem too bad. I mainly use the Battery Grip with the G9 because it's more comfortable so the S1 might actually have a better grip for me. Maybe I should test it out when the stores start getting stock for display.
I’ve had the S1 in hand, and it feels very nice, the size is not what you notice, what is noticeable is the weight, the build quality is spectacular, all other cameras of other brands feel cheap and poorly made in comparison.
The S1 seems a lot bigger to me but it's not _too_ big and as a camera to use it's better than the G9 because it has more space. However, more bulk and weight, the need for a bigger bag, the bigger lenses, all weigh against it for me. But that's me. Every objection I raise could be the reason another photographer wants it. I hope Panasonic go on to make an MF body as well!
Thank you, David. I was wavering between the S1 and the G9. Will go with latter.
I wouldn't want to put anyone off the S1 but being practical, it offers only occasional real world advantage and a good few disadvantages.
David Thorpe I went through this silly period where I was shooting with two Leica SLs. The cameras were wonderful, and so were the lenses, except they were massive, heavy and of course, expensive. The benefits of full frame when shooting events was lost on me and my clients. Switched to APSC (Fuji) for stills, and got a pair of GH5s for my video work. I find myself finding more excuses for shooting stills with the GH5s. It’s such a pleasure to haul less weight without losing shooting options.
@@tpf1952 I think more and more photographers are thinking that way. There'll always be a professional need for bigger formats but they get fewer and fewer.
A spot on and completely rational analysis that the FF pixel peepers will absolutely reject. Well done sir.
Thank you, Jay.
7:23 so which colors are most accurate? The reds look more orange on the G9 and more true red on the S1 and I'm liking it
I'm looking at the balls and the video on my calibrated screen and the S1 is definitely more accurate.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Nice, thanks for letting me know
Watching your videos has made me even more happy with my recent G9 purchase. The camera and three good lenses cost me less than ONE Sony lens (although I do have an A6400 as well) and I can fit it all in my shoulder bag. I absolutely love my G9!
I'm very happy with mine. It's great to use but a real workhorse too.
I love your term “superfluous image quality”!
And I managed to spelt it right :-)
Great video David and it’s the real truth. Of course a full frame camera will always produce superior results to a m4/3. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t understand the science. They are very different animals though. Today’s full frame cameras and lenses are, for some reason, much bigger, heavier and more expensive the 35mm film cameras we used to use. The quality and low light performance are truly mind boggling, but few would ever tell the difference on the media to which they’d output (nearly always a screen for both stills and video). Todays full frame options are really equivalent to medium format in the past with film. For the very rich and dedicated, for the fool with all the gear and no idea, or for the upper end professional. m4/3 is a much better option for 99% of us. I consider m4/3 to be today’s version of 35mm film which, for years, was considered good enough for 99% of uses. My original OM-D E-M5 produces absolutely cracking prints at 16x12” on my A3 plus Epson printer and I have seen what the Panasonics can do with 4k video. I can’t imagine ever needing or wanting more!
Thanks, Alex. Yes, I'd guess that a Micro Four Thirds image has about the same resolution as film 35mm, probably fine grain film at that. I regularly used to have my stuff printed 16x12 or 20x16 for sales purposes (it didn't impress the picture editors but it did the words people). I used to use my Hasselblad where appropriate on jobs for the greater possibilities for magazine covers or posters. I think it pleased some art desk people because they could see what they were looking at on a 6x6 or 6x7cm transparency. Not that it made any difference once reproduced.
Well done!
Thank you!
I’m more into wildlife and cannot not afford the cost of a 800mm for FF. I love the 100-400 m43 and 20mp are enough. It will also be difficult to carry it on long haul flights or walking in a forest. The extra dof of m43 plays handy in 1:1+ macro too. I admit S1 is a beautiful craft but no gain for my fotography.
Pretty much the same thoughts as me, Andrea. And an 800mm - you'd be into paying excess baggage probably.
Thank you David for presenting such wonderfully balanced, informative and entertaining content. I always feel suitably uplifted after watching one of your reviews 📸
Thanks, Richard. I do like to have a bit of fun with what is occasionally a rather too serious business!
Thank you once a again David. Tempted by the fruit of another...I will stay with my Panasonic G9. Happy New to you and your family!
And you Rick! I am sticking with Micro Four Thirds. No advantage in FF for me.
For some similar reasons I have a Pany Fz2500 bridge - that I can just grab & go . From 24 through 480mm ( 960 w i zoom ) it works on macro or for subjects way off. Yes, my camera friend Jim with his Canon full frame sensor body & bazooka size 600 mm lens can get a bit sharper distant bird image than me but I've chosen not to spend $3000 for a lens like his or to haul it's weight around. Enjoyed your pragmatic comments. I'm enjoying / learning photography with the Lumix Fz2500.
The bridge cameras are a great concept and suit the needs of many, many photographers. I wish I had time to review some but I can hardly keep up with my Micro Four Thirds stuff!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I think bridge cameras are a nice way to get into photography these days. They're a nice step up from a phone, without spending too much. I started off with a Panasonic FZ72, the image quality obviously isn't the best out there, but 20-1200mm range in such a small package is great.
THANK GOODNESS , AND LOVED THE ENDING DAVID . VERY ENTERTAINING .
Thanks you, sir!
@@DavidThorpeMFT VERY GOOD !! CHUCKLES , NICE ONE .
Very good, common sense video! I was also tempted to buy the S1 but luckily could escape this GAS attack. You gave the right reasons now. Interesting to remark, that one of the reasons Panasonic gave for launching the 35 mm equivalent cameras was editability of files for high end editing as required in top end ad work where digital medium format is still very strong and even dominant. Just another example of requirements a normal enthusiast as well as many professionals just do not have.
Yes, looked at from the point of view of 'must have' attributes, FF is rarely a necessity. I'd probably use FF (or quite likely, MF) because clients might expect it. Not for the quality of results but when they are in the studio or location with you it's good business to have a camera that the client wouldn't know how to use! A little mystique goes a long way.
11:31 I'll get one just as soon as "Panasonic nullifies the laws of physics and built one the size of the G9!..."... David you are a riot! Keep up the awesome work!
Thanks, Matthieu - I do like to have a bit of fun in my reviews. It's easy to get too serious about photo gear so it's lovely to know I gave you a laugh!
What are your thoughts on the s5? They say is it's almost a full frame gh5, but a tiny bit smaller too.
Looks to be a nice camera. I'm not particularly interested because I don't need the IQ improvement (largely theoretical for me) and bigger lenses FF entails. I wish Panasonic would develop some PDAF too.
I do love your reviews, there's always a pearl of wisdom. The my mother didn't look me was genius
Thanks, Jonny, much appreciated!
Wise words as ever David. You hit the nail on the head with the car analogy. Just about all of us lust for a Ferrari as a car but what we actually need is an all rounder. I shoot Nikon full frame and a g9. It's the g9 I grab most. Rather like having a track day when I would grab that Ferrari, I use the D810 when I need what the g9 can't match and when it's critical...usually the resolution. Other than that the size, weight and hassle of carrying a full frame kit is a killer. The g9 is simply enjoyable and right for most jobs. The trouble with comparison image wise is, it shows the difference but without comparing we would be perfectly happy with either image.
You sum it up, Charlie. For anyone who has the money for both cameras, they can be regarded as complementary rather than alternatives. You need the money, though!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I think Panasonic FF will struggle if they don't get third party FF lenses on board. The price for their 2.8 glass is silly money. While I have the Nikon with all good glass it's all third party. There is no way I could have covered 15 -600 with Nikor. I'd happily go to Mft but it's the loss in selling and then needing to buy new Mft glass. It took years to acquire the full kit including flashes etc. Mft is as you say an alternative and one that is more enjoyable. Keep the videos coming please:)
@@mutley3136 Once you've invested in a system it's an expensive business adopting a new one and there are all the bits and bobs that you forget about. I once had my 35mm gear nicked from the boot of my car and even 2 years later there's be some little item that I'd be searching for before I thought, "of course, ti was stolen".
Love it David! Brilliant take on the subject!
Thanks you :-)
Another excellent, eloquent video. Thank you.
Thanks, Abdul
I always look forward hearing your opinions.
Glad to hear that, Kent, thank you!
Good information from experience and common sense plus LOVED the bigger brother bit. Thank you Mr Thorpe.
Thanks, William!
Thanks DAvid, great video as always. Curious about the bag you stuck the gear in in the video, what brand/model? Looks like a perfekt walk-around bag but not looking like a boring photo bag.
Thanks, Peter. The bag is ideal for my needs. It's a Wotancraft Trooper in M size - www.wotancraft.tw/en/product/trooper-m-ash-green
Thanks for such an intelligent and sensible video! The boffin in me is fascinated by the S1 but when all is said and done, it can't beat my GX80! It will never be as small, it will never be as useful to me. Plus, sticking with M43 means I will be able to afford food, which is always a plus ;-)
Food? You want food and a camera? What's this, Daddy's yacht? Seriously, it is faascinating to try the S1 but the moment I took it from the box I knew it wasn't for me. No detriment to the camera itself, purely the size.
Interesting comparison. When will you review the g90/95?
Yes, I do plan get one when they are available.
David Thorpe I’d like to see that
@@ultravioletdragon5935 Can't get one yet but I will when they are available.
Excellent as usual!!! An very clear explanation of why m43 exists... thanks.
Thanks, Brian. Glad you liked it.
Nice Video David! When I saw those videos entitled "Micro 4/3rds is Dead", I said "What F****n idiots!". Panasonic is a Great Company, with many Great Products, all you have to do is choose the ones that suit your own needs. Micro 4/3rds will be here, long after we are gone!
I think so, Joe. I certainly hope so.
I can’t thank you enough for your videos. Great video, brilliant thoughts, such a helpful take on the practicalities. Thank you my friend. 🙏🏼
It's lovely to hear that, thank you, Timothy.
Brilliant video. That isn't to say that the advantages of the S1 don't exist, but it really is a matter of matching a technology to a need. I absolutely adore what Panasonic have done with the S1. I would, very frankly, love to own an S1 (or something similar) in the future. However, I had a revelation the other day, much the same as you. I was invited to help out with a music video shoot for a band I know and am friends with. They had hired a professional cinematographer for the shoot, and he brought out his GH5. Now, the fact that he brought his GH5 wasn't what tipped the scales for me, but it was my own experience. I love my GX85, but I would love something that handles better, something that has the capabilities I need to grow as a photographer. The G9 is not, technically, leaps and bounds better than the GX85, but, I realized that (especially between my G.A.S for the S1 or the G9) i would be better served by a nimble camera platform for the types of work that I see myself doing in the future.
I'm in need of an affordable and nimble kit. I need high quality lenses that don't take up a lot of space. I want to be encouraged by my gear to take photos, instead of having to face the choice of what specific gear I should take on a shoot because I'm weight/size limited. I came out of that music video shoot realizing that my main limitation has been low light, of which I would gain 4 stops of advantage by purchasing a high quality m43 prime lens instead of the 2 stops afforded by the fact that the S1 has a larger sensor. I don't typically shoot in situations where I'm in almost blackout conditions, and I actually don't mind the look of a bit of grain in some of the shots I've taken even at 6400 ISO.
In short, the flexibility of a nimble camera platform like the g9 is what I desired and need at this point in my photography. I can keep my current GX85 and lenses for hyperportable travel photography, but the g9 with fast m43 glass is what I actually need (and can afford) for the type of work i would like to see myself doing.
That isn't to say that i won't ever get an S1, or don't appreciate the advantages it offers. I would absolutely adore the ability to have the S1 with the 50mm f1.8 some day, and I greatly appreciate simply having something that provides me with all of the technical ability I will ever need.
but, for the price of the S1 and the 50mm f1.8, I could purchase the g9 and a whole host of high quality primes that would suit my style of shooting and give me a portable and well rounded kit that, frankly, most people would never see as lacking in almost any way.
You even said it yourself: the only way someone would truly be able to appreciate the difference between the g9 and the s1 is if they were printing larger than 3 x 2 foot. Even then, I'm sure many people would not necessarily mind having a bit of grain on the photos and, as you also pointed out, people have been happy with what people have delivered in the past, on early digital cameras, and film, and way on back to the earliest days of photography.
A bit of noise doesn't bother me and I usually do absolutely minimal noise reduction even at 6400. The simple act of downsampling getrid of a lot of it, anyway. Another ppint with the prints is that the bigger a print, the further away you stand, so apparent sharpness probably doesn't look much different. Like when you look at huge posters on hoardings, if you go right up to one, it looks quite fuzzy and crude. But from across the road, it looks highly detailed.
Thanks for the video. Can you please help me clarify one thing ? I noticed that on some samples on your video and others I looked around the S1 has a shallower depth of field for the same F factor, that meaning, as you explained, that you have to raise the F factor by two on the S1 to have the same depth of field. Now, doesn't that defeat the advantage of better low light performance if one wants a deeper depth of field ? Two F stops is 4 times less light and the FF sensor is 4 times bigger, that's why I'm asking .... Which means for landscape photographers or even videographers who normally don't use a shallow depth of field, the S1 would end up offering no advantage. Or the low light performance would still be better with aperture reduced by two stops (assuming lens with same performance of course...) ?
Thanks
As you say, if you want more depth of field you must stop down which means using using higher iSO which negates to some extent the advantage of the bigger sensor. The thing is with FF that it can provide ultimately better image quality simply because it has the larger sensor and most people like the shallower depth. You can get more comparable results with Micro Four Thirds by using an f/1.2 lens, say, but then you are back to less depth of field and bigger lenses. It's all a trade-off!
Great review as always David I love MFT and my G9 is amazing
Thanks Kurt- and yes, a great camera. I use mine for so many things! At the moment it is tethered to my computer so that I can make product shots, very handy.
As always, this is very informative, fair, and honest comparison.
Glad you thought so, Simon, thanks.
I fell exactly the same, you have to print a highway outdoor to see the difference. I do feel a bit more free, more light for carry out my gear. It is all been said. Thanks David for another excellent review and personal opinion. Regards
Thanks!
Excellent ways of capturing the "difference" and why it doesn't matter to most of us that Micro Four Thirds doesn't have quite the image quality of full frame (and why we only hear "MFT is dead" only from Full-frame fanciers.)
"I'm pleased to say that even though my brother is bigger than me, my mother didn't feel it necessary to kill me when he was born" ..
"It's a bit like a 700 brake horse class supercar being used for normal transport. It'll happily do it, but you won't see any difference between it and a family saloon going to the shops."..
"I do not see any image quality gate in full-frame that *compensates* for the clumsiness of the system." (emphasis mine)..
Yes, I'm really only interested in the usable differences. If someone made a FF camera that covered a similar range of sizes and prices to Micro Four Thirds and had lenses of similar weight and size, I'd buy that. Who wouldn't? In the meantime, Micro Four Thirds it is.
Hi David, thanks for the review. You said u mainly shoot with electronic shooter, are there advantages over the mechanical shooter? Is picture quality as good? Can you explain why you choose the electronic shooter setting? Thanks in advance.
It's no big deal, the mechanical shutter is great as well. However, the electronic shutter saves battery - just think how many frames it shoots with video, 30 per second or so and you can shoot video for around 2 hours. Also, you can choose the volume and sound of the shutter. And there's no quality hit, though you may need to use the mechanical shutter in some kinds of artificial light. Plus, you have higher sequence speeds available in some cases.
Always the most thoughtful, intelligent and considered reviews, and without the irritating "dude" presentation from a desk with a wrong way round ugly peek cap and trite language. David Thorpe is a wonderful antidote to the FRO_KNOWS...DOT COM school of pushy, loud reviewers. Thank you for your civility, humour and calm.
Damn! I just bought a baseball cap and have been practising saying 'dude' and 'like' every other word and now you tell me 😆
“As soon as Panasonic builds an S1 the size of a G9” :) one year later here we are waiting for an S5-G9 double act then... looking forward to it!
Yes, Panasonic have done well. They'll need to do something about the lens sizes, though.
Another excellent review David! Always really look forward to your words of wisdom. Balanced thoughtful and unique amongst the myriad other reviewers! And no you can’t have a pay rise!🤣Great stuff.🇦🇺😎👍
Who needs a pay rise with comment like that - thank, Stephen :-)
I was disappointed with the S1 after testing one for a week. I love my Panasonic mft cameras and their great menu system. But, Panasonic made a huge mistake by not updating the focusing system with their FF cameras. I found it missed shots way more than my G9. The S1 can't come close to most of the current FF cameras. If they do update to a hybrid focus system in the future I will reconsider.
Yes, I felt that the focusing was similar to the G9 but the minimal depth of focus meant more missed shots. Focus slightly off with the G9 was masked by the depth of field, where on the S1 the lack of depth highlighted it. I'm with you on the PDAF - Panasonic's Depth from Fefocus will never match the tried and tested Phase Detection. Panasonic say it degrades the image because of the interpolation necessary tpo fill in for the PD pixels but I use an E-M1 Mk2 and I've yet to see it.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I now will look forward to Sony's 32mp MFT sensor as a possible update in future Panasonic cameras. Thanks for you opinion as always.
WIthout any fast prime lenses (other than the solitary 50mm f1.4 at a scary price) the G9 makes more sense at the moment.
The S1 needs a full frame lens of 85mm @ f2.4 to compete with the existing 42.5mm f1.2 lens for M43. ... until then the G9 will be able out-perform it.
I'm looking forward to the GH6, although I think we could be waiting a while yet for that.
It's getting harder and harder to see what improvements could be made to this latest generation of cameras. And yes, the 50mm f/1.4, that's a rich man's lens. Plus, how often will anyone be using display media that can show this ultra high resolution?
I always enjoy your reviews David! You do such a great job with them. Your common sense and wit make watching them fun. BTW what brand & model was that sexy camera bag were you using for the G9??
Thanks, Richard! The bag is a Wotancraft Trooper www.wotancraft.tw/product/trooper-m-ash-green . I have a review of it at th-cam.com/video/DCtJg5GheQQ/w-d-xo.html .
I wouldn’t buy an S1 til a proper high quality 85mm from Panasonic was released. Well done review as always 😀
Thanks, Cody. I'd assume Panasonic will put out an 85mm at some point.
Still coveting this. Especially with the very affordable Sigma lenses... Oooooo it would be nice. Maybe later in the year....
Lets see how affordable those sigma lenses are first ;)
@@JoeMaranophotography the prices have been released the 50mm 1.4 is £1700 quid cheaper than the Panasonic one 😂
@@MicroFourNerds Wow. What is the price?
@@JoeMaranophotography it was a slight exaggeration but the Sigma 50mm is $949 instead of £2199 for the lumix!
My personal experience of Sigma is that they pretty much match original maker's IQ and in some cases are better. I remember reading somewhere that some of the lenses made by the big makers were designed by Sigma.
My thoughts exactly! I went from Canon to Panasonic first because of 4K video. I needed a hybrid and didn't want to carry around a stills camera and video camera. Once I got a "taste" of M43, there was no turning back. I always carry my G9 with me whenever I leave home. Always in my shoulder bag. I bike and travel, so it's easier on my back too. While I can get caught up with "gear craze", and the S1 is a superior camera, I won't notice the difference in what I do. And the weight.... no thank you. Still, glad Panasonic came out with it.
Yes, I'm glad too, the S1 shows that they are committed to the photographic side of their business. I bike around too and it would be impossible with an S1 and lenses.
@@DavidThorpeMFT it was hard with the Canon... making me think twice about taking it when I would go out. The wife loves the Canon "bling" around her neck... until it starts to wear her down with the weight!
Would be great to see a review of that Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8. I'm a bit surprised you haven't got a review of it on your channel considering how many times it ends up on your camera bodies :)
I've had it a long time and and it's about time I reviewed it. I will.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Great, I and many others will look forward to it :)
The choice between the Panasonic 12-35mm and Olympus 12-40mm is a hard one and has been a contentious topic for many years. I'd be particularly interested to hear your thoughts for someone considering those 2 lenses, and why one might chose one over the other.
Good to see real experience comparison instead of charts
Thanks - I think charts are great if you intend to use a camera for photographing charts. Otherwise, it's a matter of suck it and see!
Bought 1 and returned it for all the reasons you mentioned. In fact I can use a 2nd G9 for a multi camera setup. I'm happy to pay 1/3 of the price for a brand new G9. It's the best camera I've ever used and I love MFT lenses.
Agreed!
Hi
Thanks for your great videos. I have a Lumix GX8 with 25 mm f1.7 + 14 mm f2.5 + 42.5 mm f1.7 and a GM1. I missed a zoom so I just bought a 12-60mm f2.8-4.0. Since I probably never afford or need a Lumix S1 since all lenses must also be changed. I have considered switching my GX8 off with a G9. But I doubt if I can see the difference in picture quality or whether it is only stabilization and some other features that are the difference.
I never printed larger images than a3. Have you seen the difference between your prints?
Thanks, Peter! I don't make big prints bigger than 15x10 and at that there really isn't any difference between Micro Four Thirds and FF. Re the GX8 and G9, if I did find a difference in IQ it would have to be by peering into a 36 inch print at 8 inches distance. The difference is, as you say, in body style, features and stabilization and in such a comparison many photographers would prefer the GX8 overall. I'd be very insulted if anyone looked at a picture of mine and peered into it to see if it was critically sharp! The picture obviously wasn't very interesting! You have a set of quality lenses - they'll [perform well on any Micro Four Thirds body. In practise, I can see little difference between pictures on my Gm1 and my G9. Probably the same for you with GX8 and GM1.
Thanks Mr. Thorpe for another great review!
You are very welcome, Andrew - thank you!
David, your humor and introspective thoughts are second to none. :-)
I personally think the S1R would be a more appropriate comparison with the G9. They are photo cameras first, video second. From what I've seen so far, there would be an appreciable difference between the photo quality between them. But then again, the S1R is 3x the cost of the G9. Sort of like FF vs MF....
I had been eyeing the S1R and finally got to handle one at B&H here in New York. It really looks like a big G9. With a video I've seen recently with some excellent glass on it, the color reproduction and detail is absolutely stunning.
But when I get an itch like that... I compare some of my best photography done with my Panasonic GX8 and some Medium Format raw files I download to test and play with. You know what? When you nail the focus, have great glass, it can be tough to see the difference between such systems. Sure when you zoom in at 200% you see a difference or step back and look at the transition from sharp to blur.... Only pros really can tell.
If I were to go FF again, it would be the S1R. DXO proved that at least on a purely technical basis, it's as good as the best if not better than any FF system out there. There's a chance. A small one to have a S1R for times when I want that quality. Though the S1R is much more versatile, MF is MF and I'd want an obvious jump in quality. I just have to keep eating macaroni and cheese for the next couple of years to afford it. Love is pain. :-)
Thanks, Ricardo. The S1R is beyond my means - I get no cameras on loan from anyone - but also the need for 47Mp resolution escapes me. For everything I do, I'd simply be discarding and averaging out more pixels than I do now, making the image quality no different from the S1, with which I am already discarding and averaging most of the pixels. The only way to show the extra pixels of the S1R would be a _minimum_ 35" wide print but in reality 48" wide, something I never do. In reality, you'd almost never see any IQ difference between your GX8. But, the idea of ultimate quality is very attractive!
David Thorpe I hear ya. For fashion and portrait, the extra megapixels comes in real handy when you're doing a full-length portrait and want to crop. Then, you still have great detail and quality. You have a keeper if that's the only way you can get that specific shot. That's the big advantage with the MP increase. But yes.. m43 is so good... Going to a bigger format is mostly for better color reproduction and detail second for me. I'm going to rent the S1R when it's available and test if the color/quality is that much better. But MF has been on radar forever and FF is going to be a tough sell for me.. We'll see. :-). Keep up the great work!
Great comparison, David and it wouldn't sway me from micro four thirds given its size and cost. One question, what make is your camera bag? I'm looking out for one kind of like that.
Glad you lies it, Kenny. The bag is a Wotancraft Trooper and it is just about perfect for my needs. I've made a video of it th-cam.com/video/DCtJg5GheQQ/w-d-xo.html
@David Thorpe Hi David, Thank you for excellent review. Recently bought G9, but have issues shooting moving subjects. What is your best technique and settings with G9 to shooting moving subjects such as running around kids? And also is S1 better performing in case of continuous AF?
The Si is much the same as the G9, though the narrower depth of field for any given setting makes it a bit more tricky. I use M burst setting, AF Sensitivity settings all to +2 and stabilization off. Since children will move play unpredictably while playing and running around I just throw the max sensitivity at the subject and if something gets in the way and throws off the focus, so be it.
Thank you David! Is it better to use face/body detection or tracking or single point option ?
@@michalm9199 I usually use the Custom Multi but set it to a 5x5 grid. Basically, I am trying to take as much load off the processor as possible (hence no stabilization and as small a choice of focus points as possible) to free as many cycles as possible up for calculating the focus. The stabilization isn't useful above about 1/1000th anyway and while single point would probably be best it doesn't leave any leeway when you lose the subject for a moment as it/they change direction suddenly.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you David!
What U think David About last rumor 32mpx MFT sensor ? that have sense ?
I've not heard of it, Kamil. I'd have nothing against it provided it didn't come at the cost of more noise. But I feel no need for it, I must say.
Admittedly, I like "Panasonic" more than m4/3..
I like Pana's great UI, OOC Colour, VDO features, IBIS, Exe Tele Conv, 4k/6k photo, and reliability..
That's why, despite being a happy m4/3 user, I am attracted to S1..
Because I know I will have all of what I like above in FF sensor..
But S1 is too big for me.. I am waiting for "entry model" S1 in the future..
The trouble is that even with a smaller body (which is possible), there's a limit to how much smaller the lenses can be. I agree with you about Panasonic. they do seem to be spending money on R&D and developing their cameras.
@@DavidThorpeMFT If manufacturers start to focus on creating slower (but smaller lenses), like Samyang's 35mm f2.8 at other focal lengths, I think we'll find that the size of such FF systems (given a smaller, A7iii-sized body) will get very close to similiar M43 kits. Too bad there aren't more of such lenses.
@@aloi Interestingly, when Panasonic introduced truly small cameras, the GM1 and GM5, people didn't want them. I have a GM1 with 12-32mm and the combination is unique in its IQ/ size relationship. There does seem to be a minimum size that serious photographers will accept, probably something like the GX9. Whether a usable FF camera camera with EVF could be developed at that size I'm not sure. The other problem is that enthusiasts, the main market, do like high speed lenses and f/1.2 has a great draw. For me personally it doesn't but there's no money in the professional market so that doesn't count.
As I've said many times, I have no emotional investment in Micro Four Thirds, purely practical. I look at my outlets before deciding what my input should be and for web/publication/prints up to 30 inches Micro Four Thirds cannot be distinguished from FF. Or MF for that matter. If someone comes up with a FF camera the size of a GX9 -_with the usability_ of a G9 or S1 and fast lenses the same size as Micro Four Thirds. I'd buy into it. It would be stupid to reject higher camera IQ - necessary or not - at no cost. But for now, a GX9 sized Sony with a 30°-8° angle of view and f/2.8 constant aperture doesn't even seem to be on the horizon. Any mention of equivalence will lock this comment section :-)
I came from film directly to MFT (well, to be honest, I had a Pentax MX-1 compact camera for a year).
If I were to make another switch, it would be back to film, no matter how impractical that seems today.
Film has its own special qualities and discipline to be followed for good results. I hope it never dies. From a personal perspective, I think that its (by digital standards only) impracticality is what gives it its attraction to me. The ability to take 1,000 frames of a subject at no extra cost does not necessarily enhance the final result. Knowing you have fewer goes at it and that each one costs a bit more money can concentrate the senses wonderfully.
As a wildlife photographer 24mp isn't much of a jump and lets see how expensive and big those telephotos are when they come :(
They will be humongous. Panasonic already managed to beat Leica to the size of their 50mm F1.4 lens design - something I would not have thought could happen! ;-)
There's always the S1R, though quite what display medium or print size you'd have to use to see any difference between that and 24MP I don't know.
Crystal clear, explicit and accurate as ever!
Thanks you, Aris!
Very sensible comparison. And don't forget: No camera can be better than the lenses you put on it. It is far easier to make good small lenses than big ones. Plus I wouldn't want to carry a 200-800 mm lens around (if there was one for the S1). But the 100-400 for MFT is still manageable.
Oof! A 200-800, it makes my back ache just thinking about it!
I sold my Sony A7RIII for a G9. The only thing I regret is my 55 F/1.8 lens. For everything else, le G9 is like no other. Handling, ergonomics, features-price ratio, and an adequate image quality if you choose the good lenses. I get a look to the S1 and S1r and definitely decided to keep my G9 because as you mentioned, I easily take my 1kg combo G9+25 F/1.4 but I won't if it was a 2kg combo S1+50 F/1.4 Panasonic.
It seems kind of lazy but like you I'll take my G9 where I know I wouldn't the S1. The reality is that taking an S1 and lenses would mean making definite decision to go out taking pictures. With the G9, I can take it without breaking my back, on the off-chance I might want to take some pictures. I may think I'm being lazy but it is reality and many of my best pictures have been taken when I've actually gone out for a drink or cycle ride round the park with photography not my main intention. I have always fancied the Sony, though!
Such a good practical comparison David 👍
Thanks, Marko. That was exactly what I intended.
If you don't need the extra two stops of light/background blur - sure, no point in carrying larger system.
To me personally even one stop makes a difference.
But everyone should evaluate their own shooting style.
I agree totally, Vitaliy.
Excellent David - look forward to hear you opinion on the Leica 10-25mm.
Thamks, Torsten. Yes, I'll order one as soon as they become available.
Hi David. Is the afs acquisitions speed and lowlight sf performance up to the g9''s? If it is I could be tempted to ditch my FX Nikon gear for it ...
I get the impression that it is much the same but overall a teeny bit slower. There's more weight of glass to move, I guess. And with the AFS, it's much the same as the G9 but can appear not so good simply because the depth of filed is so much less. So where it might be back-focused a little it shows, whereas on the G9 it isn't apparent. It's hard to know whether it is better than a Nikon FX but without evidence to the contrary, I'd doubt it.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks David. Just love the g9 and have not touched my d750 since getting it.
Again David , you have entertained me .
Good to hear that, thanks!
EXACTLY what I wanted to know. I own the S1 and it's a bit too much. I was doing pro work, so it was justified. Now I am moving to doing some TH-cam stuff and not so much pro. You told me what I already thought I knew. I am selling the S1 for a G9. Thanks for your great reviews. You told me exactly what I was thinking!
I'm glad it was useful to you. I often find that reading someone else's thoughts is what I need to crystallise mine. Glad you like the reviews!
My situation/thoughts on S1:
I currently have a GH5 (for video use) & A7R II (for photo use). I prefer to not have two different cameras for different uses, and would like to have a hybrid All In One. S1 seems to solve my dilemma.
Lens selection: adapting lenses to full frame doesn’t require a speed booster. Using the Metabones XL 0.64x for the GH5, I can only use Canon EF, Nikon F, M42, Pentax K, and some other lenses. I cannot use FD or Minolta without buying a speed booster, and that only takes me to 0.71x, which is a Super35 crop (and my wallet gets cropped too!) Even though the 0.64x is a good speed booster, I prefer not losing any crop. If I use the S1, I eliminate any crop factors, since I generally shoot 4K 30. I also have a lot of Canon EF lenses laying around already, most of them aren’t too big, and I don’t need 3-5 lenses every shoot. As for lens selection on the L-Mount, the Sigma MC-21 will make all my EF lenses work, I may not even need to buy any official L lens. They are coming with and update to allow Art/Sport lenses to retain C-AF for video like the Sigma MC-11 for Sony.
Depth of Field: People praise the Micro 4/3 system for not having to deal with the shallow depth of field. I have shot plenty of videos on manual focus with a f/1.8 or f/3.6, both are FF aperture equivalent. Having the option to take it down or up is nice. If you only use the Micro 4/3 lens selection. It is very hard to give you more options in this regard, unless you spend a lot of money to the point where you’re paying the same price for a high quality FF Lens. Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 as an example. Most people tend to shoot with non-native glass when it comes to the GH5 for this reason. Speed booster may cost money but you have the ability to adapt any EF lens at that point.
Noise/ISO/Lighting: With the GH5, using a Neat Video Noise reducer for premiere, I noticed that sharpness decreases at ISOs past 1600. Controlling lighting would mean I have to carry more lighting equipment around and take time to properly do it. Having a couple stops advantage saves me from doing so, and not have to spend too much for figuring out the scenario. I think in the video perspective, it’s a trade off here, you lose the portability aspect of the Micro 4/3 for better low light, but in cases where you need controlled lighting, you will have to carry around lights.
Body Weight/Portability:
Sony Mirrorless have the best portability for a Full Frame Mirrorless, they no doubt nailed that. IBIS isn’t that great and no 10-bit. GH5 is an outstanding body size still, but it feels a bit bulky. Compared to GX8 or G85, it has that professional feel or body weight. I tried the S1 in my hands, it is quite heavy, but it’s not a big jump for me either. Feels like Canon DSLR, which I don’t mind. I believe the amount of strangers that would bat eyes at me as said in your video, wouldn’t be much of a difference. Since the lenses I intend to use on the S1 will be the same with the GH5 + Metabones XL, it won’t feel much different.
Flip Out Screen: GH5 is excellent for having this, you can hide the screen so if you use the viewfinder, your nose won’t affect the touch screen. Although I don’t mind not having the flip screen either, since I have gotten used to Sony Cameras LCDs for not flipping out. I am not a full time vlogger so I don’t think this will kill me for not having it.
IBIS: Panasonic nail it in this category, the new S1 feels like the GH5’s IBIS. Sony isn’t as great, and most of the time you end up using warp stabilizer. I do have a Gimbal, but I prefer to shoot handheld with IBIS to keep my profile low in public situations. Gimbal is for more controlled scenes.
Interface: Personally, Panasonic’s Interface is much easier to follow through than on Sony.
I think what it comes down to is how you are using your camera typically. Since I shoot mainly video handheld for events and some short films and plan to get into real estate, I think it makes more sense for me to grab a S1, I do not have to deal with lighting, and the body is a bit bigger than GH5 but I will be used to it. If the GH5 has an APS-C size sensor, it probably would not make me consider an upgrade, adapting and speed boosting lenses would have almost a 1:1 ratio. Someone in the comments said it best, they may have targetted the wrong audience with the S1 and GH5. Some people are out there waiting for a FF GH5, by no means that the S1 is a perfect solution, but I think it is a compromise I am willing to stick around for.
Just pick the best tool for your situations!
Thoughts?
No-one knows their work and method better than themselves and it sounds like the S1 would be a great choice for you. I loved the thing, as I said but for my purposes it holds too many disadvantages and not enough gain. But, that's for _my_ purposes. As a professional taking commissions and covering assignments for scenario given me by someone else, rather than working on my own projects as I do now, I'd be more tempted by the S1 since it is the easier way to cover most eventualities. In point of fact, that is how I used my Hasselblad and Mamiya RB 6x7s in the studio.
I'll be interested to see how film lenses play with the S1. Especially with wide angles, the light rays hit the outer parts of the sensor at quite an acute angle. It didn't matter so much with film since the receiving surface was flat but sensors are much more fussy about the incidence of the light falling on them. It might lead to excessive vignetting which could be corrected in software but at the cost of noise in those areas. Or it may not matter. Interesting, though.
Adapting glass without a crop factor is a big deal: even with the 0.64x Metabones speedbooster, you're still gonna get a decent crop with a M43 body. It makes achieving wider field of views with vintage glass very difficult.
With regards to corner smearing, field curvature and colour casts in the corners, you're unlikely to notice them with 99% of SLR lenses. If you adapt rangefinder lenses 50mm or wider though, you will notice such issues to varying degrees. The folks at phillipreeve.net cover this very thoroughly and have tested several lenses!
@@aloi Good information, Aloysius, thank you.
Hi David , i think your wish will be granted on SEPT. 2nd 2020 when the Panasonic S5 will be announced .
Possibly the FF camera they should have brought out first?
I wanted to review this video again with the upcoming lumix S5 release 8/2/2020. It helps me to cool my “gott’a get” impulse. My G9 still fills all my needs and then sum. I’m sure the S5 is going to be great but how much great do I need, especially now during Covid and a shortage of paying shoots.
The comparison with the S1 won't (wouldn't) be much different than with the S5 since my main interest was the technical quality. The S5 is more compact and that's nice but the lenses are still very big. It's the lenses that make Micro Four Thirds attractive as a system, for me.
Hi, David. Please, I ask for your help. My main job is photography and any videos. I'm loving the G80. I think of doing an up grade for need of more MP. I think of G9 but I saw an analysis where gh5 was better for still. You think it's worth upgrading from g80 to g9 or gh5. Please take into account please photos with high iso
Hi Guarim - the difference between the G80 and the G9/GH5 is not that great but the extra pixels you get don't degrade IQ in any way so you get them at no cost (other than money!). There's no perceivable difference between the G9 and GH5 - they use the same sensor so RAW files would be all but identical and you can tailor JPGs from them to your own requirements, of course. The main difference between the two top line cameras is simply that the GH5 is more video oriented than the G9, which is tilted to stills. In point of fact both fulfil either role very well, though.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for more great help. Good week!
It really looks great, but too big and heavy for my needs. Panasonic FF closer to GX -series and more reasonable price? Then i'm in.
I wouldn't hold my breath, Ville!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I won't, i rather keep on living. Still, S1 is very big and i know they can do something smaller. So i shall wait for the smaller models.
Thank you very much sir..!! And I also like your pleasant voice to listen to.
Thanks, Derk-Jan!
How is the auto focus on the G9 for fast moving objects? I am looking for something to photograph birds of prey in flight and aviation (airshows, "Jedi Transition" etc) and was thinking that a G9 with the Panasonic/Leica DG 100-400 lens would be a good combination.
It's very good, certainly good enough for my purposes, though the E-M1 MkII is that bit better with its PDAF. It's not enough to base an entire choice of camera on, though, since the gap is quite small. The G9 and 100-400 would be an ideal combination, class leading stabilization and fast AF. If you look at my review of the 100-400 th-cam.com/video/s8VsOCY-D8U/w-d-xo.html, you'll see it was with a GX8. The G9 is an improvement on that - though given the GX8 results I'm not convinced any improvement is necessary!
@@DavidThorpeMFT thank you for your reply. My concern with the G9 is that with Contrast AF only, that it might not give me sharp results with fast moving subject such as high speed jets, especially camouflaged grey jets moving in a canyon with brown walls. I have a Sony A7iii (Full Frame) and I shot the Jedi Transition in March with a 70-300mm lens and it simply wasn't long enough. That is why I was looking at this combination for that specific purpose. It would be in addition to not a replacement for my A7iii and would serve a very specific role. I am trying to get more reach while keeping the cost below the cost of the Sony 100-400G Master lens (about $3400 in Canada). This set-up would have one purpose in my camera bag -- reach out long distances and get the shot of fast moving jets or birds of prey.
@@R.HogarthI'd be inclined to try cropping the Sony 300mm image before anything else. Unless you are making huge prints IQ won't suffer since even with a 2x crop to give an _effective_ 600mm, you'll still be likely to be discarding pixels for any electronic display. The G9, provided you keep the focus area squarely on the jet I don't think the G9 should have a problem following focus. While jets move fast, they are quite predictable in movement. You'd use 1-Area AF or Custom Area and switch off stabilization.
The big brother of... Ha ha ha. Well done Sir for another very enjoyable-to- watch and balanced video. I tip my hat to you! Love the little bits of humour you weave in. I think I'm gonna get an S1R because I run a studio and need to enlarge to 36" fairly regularly. Can you tell me, I'm currently using a GH5 with a Metabones adapter and Canon L lenses, for both video and stills. If I buy an S1R and a new matching full frame 28-105 Panasonic lens, is there some way to use this lens on my GH5? Also, can I use my Canon lenses on an S1R? Thanks so much.
Glad you liked it, Trevor! The S1 models share the Leica L mount so adapters for those should work for the S1 too. Might be expensive, though. I've seen nothing with regard to adapting S1 to Micro Four Thirds. The FF->MFT adapters rely on the FF lanes having a longer back-focus distance, as they must to clear the mirror. FF mirrorless lenses may not have that extra clearance.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks so much David for that informative reply. I appreciate that. Great that there is a solution. Thanks again.