Panasonic G9 Mark II. I was wrong

[Andrew - EOSHD]

It turns out I am a bit wrong.

... That Micro Four Thirds was dead. Well near me, the G9 II came down to a much more sensible 1299 so I thought I'd give it a try.

This thing... oh my gawd.

Feel like putting the rest of my gear in the bin!

This little box of joy is pure art in the handheld 4K/120p mode (and also in 5K open gate). The colour science, slow mo and IBIS are so, so good. The new GH7 sensor is quite something. Beautiful filmic quality to it.

And I thought IBIS was good on the full frame Panasonic cameras or Olympus OM-1 but this is taking the biscuit now.

You can just stand there and get a completely static frame especially in 120fps. I keep putting shutter at 1 second for long expose stills, pin sharp...The first camera that can really lay claim to being a tripod killer, in my view.

Then there's the image processing... It totally defies the price. The new sensor just looks so clean in low light and dynamic range is fantastic. The real-time LUTs look stunning here. No other Micro Four Thirds camera has nearly as good colour processing (except the more expensive GH7), so in this sense I prefer it even to the Olympus OM-1 with the lovely Olympus skin tones.

In some ways it is better than a flagship $4k full frame cam... I am not joking.

Not missing a full frame sensor that much to be honest. It has the dynamic range, the low light, the resolution, and with a fast enough lens... the full frame look as well. The Metabones Speed Booster 0.64x fits without scraping the sensor-box.

Also, the EVF is enormous and totally defies the price.

Criticisms? Autofocus is very lens dependant - it's still a bit rubbish with the older stuff and adapters. Also no ProRes LT like the X-H2... With two SD card slots, it limits you only to 1080p in ProRes mode which is a bit silly... but the high-res stuff is available if you plug in an SSD via USB. GH7 has an advantage there for sure.

But in plain old 10bit H.265 the image is superb.

I think this body design suits the smaller lenses too... You know I'm not the greatest fan of the S5 II body design, well it is growing on me here... Micro Four Thirds and small stuff seems to go well with the G9 II / S5 II body design. It starts to make more sense. The sharp angles cut in less, camera as a whole is lighter, the grip is sufficient for everything and it's got that "GH2 feel" when you put the tiny 20mm F1.7 pancake on there whereas the S5 II with the larger lenses doesn't have that same charm to it.

I am inclined to say Micro Four Thirds LOOK is back too... It's an antidote to predominance of a super shallow depth of field in commercial work and Netflix.

It really makes me want to fully commit again to the system as it just does SO MUCH, far more than any full frame camera remotely affordable.

It does more than a Sony a1 II FFS!

[FHDcrew]

I just freaking bought this thing.  I so agree with you.  The camera is unbelievable for the price.  I genuinely will never need anything more than what this camera has.  Lowlight was quite impressive.  And I'm coming from having shot on the OG Nikon Z6 for nearly 4 years; that camera was very good in low light.  Like "lets shoot a wedding reception at 25,600 ISO" level good.  And on this G9 II...you can actually use it at 12,800 if you are fine with some somewhat pleasing grain, or just denoise the image in Davinci.  Cleans up easy.  Colors are VERY thick. Dynamic range is great.  IBIS is the best I've ever used.  E-stabilization high is amazing and crops less than 1.3x according to my tests.  Planning on getting the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 OG and the 25mm 1.7 and pairing those two together for a nice compact kit.  I think its the most underrated camera of 2025.  A real steal.  Also I consider this camera to be a real tempting alternative to an FX30.

[kye]

Welcome back!

Can you tell me your name?  Where are we?  What year is it?

Good, good...

You've been in a DOF-induced coma for the last 7 years.  We'll contact your families and let them know you've woken up - they'll be very happy to see you!

[FHDcrew]

4 hours ago, kye said:

Welcome back!

Can you tell me your name?  Where are we?  What year is it?

Good, good...

You've been in a DOF-induced coma for the last 7 years.  We'll contact your families and let them know you've woken up - they'll be very happy to see you!

I know I can finally breathe haha. I’ve learned full frame is NOT the savior of the world. Shocking really!

[Andrew - EOSHD]

On 12/29/2025 at 9:47 PM, FHDcrew said:

I just freaking bought this thing.  I so agree with you.  The camera is unbelievable for the price.  I genuinely will never need anything more than what this camera has.  Lowlight was quite impressive.  And I'm coming from having shot on the OG Nikon Z6 for nearly 4 years; that camera was very good in low light.  Like "lets shoot a wedding reception at 25,600 ISO" level good.  And on this G9 II...you can actually use it at 12,800 if you are fine with some somewhat pleasing grain, or just denoise the image in Davinci.  Cleans up easy.  Colors are VERY thick. Dynamic range is great.  IBIS is the best I've ever used.  E-stabilization high is amazing and crops less than 1.3x according to my tests.  Planning on getting the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 OG and the 25mm 1.7 and pairing those two together for a nice compact kit.  I think its the most underrated camera of 2025.  A real steal.  Also I consider this camera to be a real tempting alternative to an FX30.

Once they brought the price down it made so much more sense to me, $2k region was always asking just a tad too much for a Micro Four Thirds camera, at least that was the perception.

But this now has the specs of a $6k camera, only it's a Micro Four Thirds size sensor.

So even at $2k it's a good deal.

At nearly half that it's a total must-have.

In the old days, the smaller sensor lacked dynamic range, low light performance and decent autofocus.

This is just not the issue it used to be, gap has closed up.

[FHDcrew]

Exactly.  It does so much for such a cheap price.

 

I am currently very torn between getting a Panasonic 12-35 2.8 II or a Sigma 18-35 1.8 & Metabones 0.64x speedbooster.  I know both will autofocus well.  I am unsure...would I prefer the small size of the Panasonic 12-35 or would I appreciate the 2 stops extra lowlight I'd get with the sigma combo.  DOF is far from everything, so I think I could live with the DOF of the 12-35...decisions decisions.

[FHDcrew]

Settled on getting a combo of the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 II and the Panasonic/DJI 15mm 1.7!  I figured 12-35 2.8 would be enough for a lot, and for the few times I know I need more shallow DOF, that 15mm 1.7 would give me a 30mm equiv which is a SUPER versatile focal length, while having very decent DOF.

[MrSMW]

13 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Settled on getting a combo of the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 II and the Panasonic/DJI 15mm 1.7

Good call. 

I have spent years and years going back and forth between primes and zooms and in the end came to what should have been a very obvious conclusion and that is I need both. Depending on the circumstances.

In an ideal world, I could do it all with fast zooms but fast zooms (faster than f2.8) are a rarity and come with the penalty of size & weight.

I was debating (yet again) at the end of my most recent season the case for continuing with just primes (needs +1 body) or going back to zooms (needs -1 body) but there are compromises to both scenarios.

Instead, I decided to go with the -1 body, but keep the primes and though it means a couple of extra lenses in my bag, that (and having to do a lens swap every now and again) is my only compromise.

I took a very hard look at the G9II and I think if my needs were different, I might have gone for it (over the OM-1) but in the end decided I wished to stick with full-frame stills but would go back to shooting S35 for video. Which is what I am doing.

[FHDcrew]

Yeah I just figured why not embrace being on micro four thirds and use the small lenses I guess haha. But I DO need good lowlight for weddings and some concert stuff I do. G9II as Andrew said is good in lowlight. I rank it not bad. From my testing, if well-exposed then even ISO 12,800 is not too shabby all things considered. It does seem to revert back to contrast detect af at that high of an ISO though, or maybe that’s just V-log being b-log; I know log profiles in general aren’t always great with AF in lowlight. I may toy around with using cineD v2 in intense lowlight and running it through the same Davinci node tree I used to use with Nikon flat. Should still hold up better being 10 bit and I know to get a comparable exposure you don’t need to have as high of an ISO. 

 

I was unsure if I’d miss the extra two stops difference between the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 and the sigma/metabones combo. Same for DOF. But DOF isn’t everything. I think I’ll get enough with the 12-35. And I know I’ll just love how compact it will make the setup feel. And again the DJI 15mm 1.7 will sort of bridge the gap when I really need it.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

 

I was unsure if I’d miss the extra two stops difference between the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 and the sigma/metabones combo.

I think sometimes on forums and YouRube  comments sections, too many get jumped on for wanting fast lenses with the often false assumption it’s all about getting the most shallow DOF possible, but for many of us, that is not the primary driver which is low light capability, ie, without the picture turning into a muddy mushy mess.

Personally, I do like a shallow(er) DOF, but then for me it’s not a fad but something I have preferred for 25+ pro years.

But not the razor shallow f1.0 in bright sunlight shallowness that causes all kinds of issues, more some clear separation and modest background blur rather than obliterated any and all context.

Focal length can also of course remove said context so it’s all about balance and intent.

In good light, outdoors, nothing much in it really but it’s definitely easier/more options with full-frame for low light.

I don’t have anything faster than f1.8 for primes and no issues with low light.

[FHDcrew]

 

3 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I think sometimes on forums and YouRube  comments sections, too many get jumped on for wanting fast lenses with the often false assumption it’s all about getting the most shallow DOF possible, but for many of us, that is not the primary driver which is low light capability, ie, without the picture turning into a muddy mushy mess.

Personally, I do like a shallow(er) DOF, but then for me it’s not a fad but something I have preferred for 25+ pro years.

But not the razor shallow f1.0 in bright sunlight shallowness that causes all kinds of issues, more some clear separation and modest background blur rather than obliterated any and all context.

Focal length can also of course remove said context so it’s all about balance and intent.

In good light, outdoors, nothing much in it really but it’s definitely easier/more options with full-frame for low light.

I don’t have anything faster than f1.8 for primes and no issues with low light.

I still do like shallow DOF, but I've find even the equivelant of a full frame f4 for example is just fine.  

[FHDcrew]

8 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I think sometimes on forums and YouRube  comments sections, too many get jumped on for wanting fast lenses with the often false assumption it’s all about getting the most shallow DOF possible, but for many of us, that is not the primary driver which is low light capability, ie, without the picture turning into a muddy mushy mess.

Personally, I do like a shallow(er) DOF, but then for me it’s not a fad but something I have preferred for 25+ pro years.

But not the razor shallow f1.0 in bright sunlight shallowness that causes all kinds of issues, more some clear separation and modest background blur rather than obliterated any and all context.

Focal length can also of course remove said context so it’s all about balance and intent.

In good light, outdoors, nothing much in it really but it’s definitely easier/more options with full-frame for low light.

I don’t have anything faster than f1.8 for primes and no issues with low light.

I get what you are saying though for sure.  It's an artistic taste.  I do still like it; i just find that you can get away with less, which is what I will end up getting with my 12-35 2.8 for example.  It's a 5.6 full frame equiv.  But I still think I can get enough to get by.  And I get a nice tiny lens and dual IS.