There are two new updates to high-end cameras, at either end of the ILC sensor spectrum. Let's take a look at the Micro 4/3 update first, the Panasonic G9II ($1,900), introduced yesterday.
The new G9II. Look familiar?
While I'm happy that Panasonic has introduced a new Micro 4/3 camera, updating the flagship stills-side body, some of the choices the company made seem...interesting. First of all, it does away with the G9 body style and form factor, which a lot of users liked a lot and are obviously used to, and adapts the existing S5II full-frame (FF) body:
(By the way, I have Idan's permission to post images from CameraSize.com here. Here's a link to all three cameras. Note that you can change the view, to compare, say, the top plates.)
This re-use of the S5 design isn't necessarily just a so-what: you lose the top display. And some people really liked the G9's deluxe, oversized viewfinder, and it's not a given that it has survived into the new body style—we'll have to see it for ourselves before we know how they compare. The G9II is a bit lighter than the S5II, by 82 grams. It's the same weight as the older (2017) G9. Users who have honed their muscle memory to the G9 might be in for a period of adaptation if they want to move to the new v.II.
The new camera's sensor—probably the same one already found in the GH6 ($1,700), Panasonic's "video-centric" Micro 4/3 flagship—has 25.2 megapixels as opposed to the G9's 20.3. Despite the fact that the G9II is said to be oriented toward stills, our friend Carl points out that many of the G9II's feature improvements seem to be for video. The biggest change is phase-detect autofocus, which is probably for video too, but it makes for better focus tracking and face recognition with stills.
I'm not saying there's anything amiss with the G9II. But it does create one odd disconnect: it means Panasonic is now offering two nearly identical bodies with sensors of nearly identical resolution, the big difference being that one is Micro 4/3 and the other FF...and the FF model costs $100 less than the one with the smaller sensor. Hmm. You'd naturally be interested exclusively in the former if you already have a bunch of Micro 4/3 lenses, so Panasonic is taking care of its legacy customers. And that's good. But you can't say the new camera offers much in the way of innovation or fresh thinking for Micro 4/3. And it makes a pointed comparison for newcomers to the ecosystem who aren't invested in lenses yet. Seems pretty clear which direction Panasonic would rather have them go.
Personally I've always been of the opinion that Micro 4/3 is a sweet spot for sensor size, but the way things have worked out it has gotten all but lost between the sea of smaller sensors and the prestige of larger ones. Pity, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. No use cryin'.
This probably shouldn't be an afterthought, but two Micro 4/3 lenses were updated too: the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 and the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100–400mm f/4–6.3 II ASPH.
The nice price
As often happens, there's a silver lining here for Micro 4/3 fans. The original G9, which is still a technical tour-de-force and is hardly dated at all, can be had right now for the old-fashioned, pre-pandemic, pre-inflationary period "good camera" price of $900, less than half what the II version goes for. If money matters. My friend who shoots with a G9 simply bought another one.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
I'd really like to see them stuff all of the good stuff from the original G9, minus every iteration of anything to do with video, into a GX8 sized body with a good tilting viewfinder, robust battery, same articulated screen, a joystick for AF points, very basic menus, and no gimmicks as far as filters or AI, or any of that crap. Simple.
Posted by: Mike Peters | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 11:58 AM
I've been very happy with my G9 and don't see any reason to upgrade to the G9II, but then I've really been happy with what I can do with all my digital cameras since I bought a Nikon D90 way back in 2009 and I even have quite a nice largish print made from a picture I took with a D40 (6 megapixels!) in 2007. Occasionally I get gear envy and sometimes I regret cameras I've sold, but for most of us the models we have are good enough already.
Posted by: Chris Bertram | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 02:16 PM
It certainly makes sense from a manufacturing point of view to use essentially the same body with different sensors and mounts; not odd at all, IMO. It's not like our hands change with the format. And there's no overall size change vs the previous G9. Too bad about the grip, though.
Same for pricing: I'd expect the smaller format to be more demanding to produce, other things being equal (especially resolution). I know, consumer perception is the opposite, but, whaddayagonnado? They can adjust the price if they have to.
Posted by: robert e | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 02:40 PM
Olympus made my first digital camera, the OM-1, and they are still making OM-D's albeit in a company that the mothership sold in order to stop losing money and concentrate on much more profitable medical sensing and imaging technology. Elsewhere in the family we are making use of two late series OM-Ds with some nice lenses at an acquisition cost of $0. They are holding up just fine, and we might even consider upgrading the lenses from time to time.
Posted by: scott kirkpatrick | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 03:37 PM
Cramming so many pixels on a m4/3 sensor can only mean noise above 1600 iso. I wouldn't call this stills-centric.
Posted by: Cal | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 04:22 PM
I got into M43 because the weight and price were both modest by digital camera standards and image quality for photos taken in good light, and viewed on a computer screen or as a fairly small print (what I do) was very good.
I still use my 20Mpx Olympus even though I continue to hate the menus. I personally would have no interest in spending $2k for a new M43 camera. If I was going to spend $2k it would have to be because I wanted to move to a bigger sensor.
However with the new iPhone 15 high end models appearing to bump up against 48 Mpx and 120mm it's not clear if I will ever want to buy a new camera again.
Posted by: Jeff | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 04:26 PM
Chris Bertram says:
"...made from a picture I took with a D40 (6
megapixels!) in 2007... but for most of us the models we have are good enough already."
There's a lesson there for sure. I wish I learned it thousands of dollars ago. I also have great prints from my D40.
Posted by: Albert Smith | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 06:45 PM
Had a G9 a while back. Sold it within the year. I can't explain why I didn't quite cotton to it.
My GX8 is my go-to camera. It seems just right to me.
I really liked the original GF1. Made some nice prints from that one. I liked the camera enough that I had one converted to IR, then bought another one a couple years ago (cheap!), and had it converted to super color IR. These are for where I really want to just play ... and not screw around with chemicals.
Posted by: MikeR | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 06:49 PM
I said to someone a couple days ago that I might buy TWO of the new Panasonics, to replace my two eight-year-old GX8s. I misspoke. The GX8s still work but they are fairly beat up, and have an obsolete sensor. I thought the new camera would be a GX9 II -- the small body. No, it's not; it's as large as some full-frame models, though it uses the smaller m4/3 lenses. That doesn't make sense to me.
When I decided some months back that Panasonic wasn't going to update its GX models, I bought a Fuji X-T5, APS-C camera, which has a body that's actually a bit smaller side-to-side than the GX8, and only a little taller. But, it has lenses that are essentially as large as full frame lenses. Because of the big lenses, I resisted buying it for a while, mostly because I like the m4/3 aspect ratio better than the FF and APS-C aspect ratios.
Anyway, we now have a choice: small body, big fat lenses. Or big fat body, small lenses. (I also have Nikon Z cameras, which has me covered for fat/fat.) I was hoping for small/small -- a compact, carry-everywhere camera with an upgraded sensor (which the G9 II has, and it's a good one.) I now suspect there's no hope for small/small, as Olympus seems to be sticking with the REALLY big-fat/small model. I think there's a market for small/small, but I no longer see one coming.
Posted by: John Camp | Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 10:26 PM
Because my Panasonic Lumix G9 and GX8 cameras and lenses perform well and are a pleasure to use, I have no interest in acquiring a G9 II. I'll keep using and enjoying what I have.
"Small is beautiful." Bigger is not necessarily better.
Posted by: Sid | Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 12:10 AM
Funny how old myths remain. There are still people complaining about the "large" size of Olympus bodies, which is very confusing to me when I hold the very tiny E-M5 in my hand. Others worry about cramming too many pixels on the "tiny" m4/3s sensor that is only fractionally smaller than APS/C about which this issue is never mentioned. I have no intention of starting a Canon vs Nikon type discussion, but shouldn't we be passed this by now.
I mean, why ARE sports shooters still carrying around gargantuan "full-frame" bodies and lenses to create photos that are only even seen on smart phone screens. Seems to be that sports photographers would be better served by well-developed 1" sensor bridge cameras, the kind that Sony and Fuji used to make.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 10:14 AM
@John Camp
Don't listen to the "you have to buy the big high-res lenses for the new Fuji sensors" advice! If you stick to the small f2 lenses and the classic 35 1.4 you will get great results in a small package. I also have the Z cameras, but generally prefer, for walking about, just using a small lens with my X-H1.
Posted by: John Krumm | Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 11:07 AM
My interest in ILCs like this is melting faster than a snowball in a Texas heatwave. I find that virtually all my photography uses equivalent focal lengths between 24mm and 90mm; my subject matter is everyday, documentary, and my preferred output (if not the web) is prints of 8.5 x 11. (Big enough to appreciate, and easy to store). No one who looks at my work can ever tell if I used a digital Leica, a film camera, or a phone. I just watched the Apple promo for the new iPhone, and have decided that from now on I will use the iPhone as my main camera (and really learn the thing) and never use an ILC ever again, unless I find it really can’t do what I want (which I doubt).
Posted by: Peter Wright | Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 01:04 PM
So, if it's as big as a full-frame camera, and costs around the same, then why not just get the full-frame camera? That just sounds odd to me. Wasn't one of the basic points of micro four thirds cameras that the cameras could be smaller and lighter?
[I'll answer this in a future post. --Mike]
Posted by: Antony Shepherd | Friday, 15 September 2023 at 03:07 AM
An apsc sensor has about 1.6 times the area of a m4/3. That's significant. However, the aspect ratio of apsc, and full frame, is also significant if you don't like 2:3. Whether a camera is for you though is down to its design. How it suits your hands and how the controls and menu system work are just as important as performance. I tried an Olympus, admittedly some years ago, and I found it didn't suit me at all. Another person might love it. Fuji make big large aperture lenses but they also make small and light ones. We have many choices, which is a wonderful thing.
Posted by: Bob Johnston | Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 02:59 AM
For anyone looking for a long lens setup for wildlife shooting, the 100-400mm coupled with this new G9ii would be the most sensible kit that is most portable and least expensive compared to any full-frame setups (assuming its AFC performance is at least equal the OM-1, or preferably better, and lower ISO quality has improved over the GH6). This would compare equally in image quality to any of those FF setups as well: using a FF 600mm lens on a 45-60MP FF body, one needs to crop to around APS-C size for similar view and similar number of pixels. Cropping like this effectively produces exactly the same image quality (dynamic range) to any of the top 20MP m43 sensors. photonstophoto.net has graphs for all those FF sensors at DX/APS-C crop that show all of them have essentially the same pDR as m43 from ISO 200 and up. (https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20Z%207II(DX),Nikon%20Z%209(DX),Olympus%20System%20OM-1,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-G9,Sony%20ILCE-1(APS-C),Sony%20ILCE-7RM5(APS-C))
Hope this is useful info for any readers of this blog looking for some portable walking around wildlife kit that's not only light on their shoulder but also has multiple times lighter effect on their wallet.
Posted by: Tony T | Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 01:07 PM