Panasonic Lumix G9 additional information (price: $2,300?)

One more leaked picture of the Panasonic Lumix G9 camera and an updated list of rumored specifications:

  • To be announced in the next 1-2 days
  • Second display on top of camera
  • 80MB shooting mode - it can stitch multiple pictures (for example 6 pictures can produce 1GB final image)
  • 20.3MP sensor
  • 6k photo mode
  • Two memory card slots
  • New joystick
  • Able to shoot up to 20fps with full AF and 60fps with locked AF
  • 6.5-speed, 5-axis image stabilizer (working together with the stabilizer in the lens)
  • 0.83x magnification
  • Waterproof and frost proof (-10 degrees)
  • Magnesium body
  • Bluetooth
  • Update: the price is expected to be around €2,000 ($2,300) for body only and €2,600 ($3,000) with the 12-60mm lens

The price of the new Leica DG ELMARIT 200mm f/2.8 Power OIS lens is expected to be around €3,300 (around $3,800).

This entry was posted in Panasonic and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • KT

    Wow, so much for mirrorless being cheaper to built, On the other hand this thing is clearly ahead of the Olympus E-M 1 Mark II spec-wise, so it deserves to have it’s own higher price. A mini-A9 if you are interested. Just not so sure it’ll sell all that well with the D500 going down into the $1500 price on eBay.

    • Forget the D500, MFT cameras are slowly coming in the D850 price category… I am really speechless…

  • Zos Xavius

    Big price. Tiny sensor.

    • I really don’t know what to say. I thought $2000 was already way too much for the GH5 and the E-M1 Mark II. Now they broke the $2,000 barrier…

      • ZMWT

        Because this performance-level mirrorless cameras are vastly superior to crop sensor DSLRs in many respects. The amount of investment put in G9 or OMD-E1 surpasses what Canon and Nikon do with most DSLRs. This is top of Panasonic’s line — better for them to start with higher price that demands some respect, because what Nikon and Canon ask for their crop DSLRs is a true rip-off.

        • Yes, superior if you need 60 fps. I really don’t see any other practical benefit. What can you do with this camera that you cannot do with the already 2 years old Nikon D500? Your idea of raising the price just to get some respect just sounds scary to me. I really hope you are wrong.

          • ZMWT

            I think this level of performance deserves it. This camera, for example, has far better mechanical shutter and fps combination than the Sony A9, and A9 costs extra 2 grand for delivering less in terms of hardware quality.
            We must balance apples and ranges carefully, because we are falling for certain myths. m4/3 cameras have become really, really serious business; they mop the floor with many more expensive cameras and systems. We must erase prejudices about the m4/3, and this is the right moment.

          • We are talking about spec on paper again. I fail to see the advantage in a real life scenario. I do agree that the high fps is unmatched, but again – who needs this? In what scenario you will not be able to take the shot at 10fps and you will need 20fps? I also wonder for how many people the fps is the main deciding factor when buying new camera before ISO performance, resolution, dynamic range, etc.

          • ZMWT

            Who needs 5 stops IBIS, Nikon and Canon may ask? Well, it is taken for granted that a $5K Nikon body does not have it, and won’t have it, but a $300 Olympus has it and must have it. Same that $300 Olympus, has superior shutter performance and flash sync when compared to best Canon crops, which cost 5x more, and people still fork $ to buy Canon and way inferior and larger lens. This game is really difficult to evaluate if we lose perspective, and in popular digital photography, that perspective is heavily distorted and often lost completely.

          • Originaru

            It’s a very different situation, in the frames per second department, we already got to a level which is getting counter productive, have you ever used a 10fps camera?
            Take a look at the intervals between the images, is quite difficult to lose the frame, for 99% of humans 10fps is already overkill, 20fps is for a very niche of photographers, who will probably prefer to spend on a larger sensor with 20 fps, so at this price is suicidal.
            Ibis on the other hand is not overkill by any means, if we could have a 10 stop ibis it would be usefull for 99% of us, that’s the key element here in this hole equation.
            This camera will be a sell for a sub-niche of people, who probably already has the EM1-mk2.

          • I agree 100%, at 10fps I am already lost trying to select the best image. 20fps will just double the time I spend selecting the keepers.

          • ZMWT

            That is a very interesting excuse; anything to put the m4/3 down? 😉

          • this was just an answer to you comment about 20fps – I will repeat, my main issue here is the price, otherwise this looks like a nice camera – I will never buy it, but this is just me

          • ZMWT

            The price estimation, based of false perception of the inherent “sensor size value”, is problematic. By that notion, who can justify paying more than $60 for any smartphone?

          • I have no problem with a $300 Olympus camera – this is where MFT cameras should be, cheap and small. This G9 is neither. MFT and pro should just not go together in one sentence.

          • ZMWT

            I don’t think it is good assessment, that m4/3 deserves rock bottom, because brilliant optical designs are possible for m4/3 that cannot be made for FF, or even for APS-C. Same you could state for the Leica M, because in M mount, possible are optical MF designs that mop the floor with most of FF AF optics.
            So the real answer is in the optics, not in the sensor. Top of the line m4/3 optics is nothing but spectacular, while it is not so with the FF or even APS-C.

          • My issue is only with the latest MFT camera and lens prices, I have no issues with the system itself. This G9 for $999 would be a bargain. I also think Leica product are seriously overpriced.

          • RC Jenkins

            This is not true at all. Which optical designs are impossible for FF? Which laws of physics suddenly stop working at the exact size of m4/3? Does this trend continue such that cell phone cameras provide superior results to medium format cameras?

            An m4/3 lens has to project a 4x higher resolution per area than FF just to match FF sharpness for a given resolution. m4/3 also has to be 2 stops faster (4x more light per area) just to match FF noise performance for a given field of view.

            Why don’t we see 50MP m4/3 cameras?

            Here’s a comparison for you: this is the Olympus 25mm F/1.2 PRO MTF:

            Let’s compare to a 50mm F/1.8 from Nikon. Note this Nikon also has a larger aperture than the Olympus (28mm vs. 21mm)–meaning for the same field of view, this Nikon gathers twice as much light as the Olympus:

            This is as close as we’ll get to a practical apples to apples comparison, since the MTFs are scaled appropriately (eg. S10 vs. S20 & 10mm vs. 20mm), and since Nikon doesn’t make a 50mm F/2.4 lens to match the Olympus–and Olympus doesn’t make an 25mm F/0.9 to match the Nikon.

            Here’s the bombshell…that Olympus lens costs $1200, is physically larger, and weighs more than twice as much as the Nikon. The Nikon costs $200. That’s a cheap lens.

            And the $200 Nikon still outperforms the $1200 Olympus. In imaging. The Olympus could be absolutely sharper, but that doesn’t mean anything–the pixels are 4x smaller for the same image resolution. The Olympus must be 4x sharper just to match performance.

            We can do the same with the Nikon 105mm F/1.4E if you like–especially on a D850. But of course, I’d need an ultra-sharp 52.5mm F/0.7 m4/3 to compare with, and a 46MP m4/3 camera. Can you point me to where these exist?

            Your premise above doesn’t seem to be based on any form of reality or fact.

          • RC Jenkins

            So you’ve shot extensively with the G9, A9, D500, and D5 and compared them side-by-side then?

            Can you post a link to your side-by-side apples comparisons, including ‘resultant image quality?’ Mechanical shutter is one component of many. Also, in the specific areas that ‘mop the floor’ in actual shooting? For example, IBIS doesn’t mean anything when you’re shooting high frame-rate action. And in long shutter speeds, m4/3 already starts with a 2-stop disadvantage in terms of light gathering.

            Photographers are interested in images, not shutter.

            –from a m4/3 & Nikon full-frame photographer. My m4/3 is for its compact size, not because it’s ‘better’ in any other way than my full frames. My full-frames are objectively more capable tools than my m4/3.

          • Ernst Haas

            yes and yes!
            m43 for snaps as well as for anything like macro or also street. I sold my EM1 Mark2 which is really a great camera in certain circumstances but you can’t get decent results for distant landscape shots. Sensor / pixel size don’t allow it and I am sure that Olympus is one of the most capable companies in processing colors and details. I really would have liked not to lug a FF camera anymore but if picture quality is your prime criteria there iso way – besides MF 🙂

        • Ernst Haas

          There are a couple of things that are expensive: the sensor – the larger the more expensive and I mean much more expensive, an optical viewfinder and all mechanical parts in general. Thus this price if it really comes is ridiculous because the picture quality is still a fraction of any FF camera and the rendering never can be of the same quality and I‘ve shot with all systems. Honestly the IBIS of of the same quality than in the EM1 Mark2 is a big + but that’s it. For some photographers also 20 pics per second may be impressive but if someone isn’t capable of producing great images with 5 pics per second he should first improve his shooting skills.
          For me this price of USD 2.300,00 is insane for a MFT camera probably only used for web sized pics for which you could also use your iPhone which in terms of connection and ease of use is still much better and lighter but hey IPhone X also costs about 1.300,00. So who cares 🙂

          • I agree, 20 fps is great on paper, but how many people really need 20 fps? In a 5 seconds burst you will get 100 pictures which you have to examine later and pick the best. I go crazy when I have to select one out of ten picture…

          • a4

            Hahaha, exactly!

      • Spy Black

        There was some talk going around online about Panasonic bowing out of cameras. The prices of recent M4/3 may be indicative of the brick wall they’re coming up against, and perhaps it’s true after all. Nobody in their right mind who’s photographically inclined would buy present-day M4/3 gear.

      • Zos Xavius

        You can buy an A7r mk2 or a d810 for that much money. Real hard decision there.

    • ZMWT

      What sensor has to do with price? Or, if you think it does, why don’t you ask Nikon or Canon why they dare to sell underpowered crop DSLRs with crippled features to the market, that obviously are not worth even half the asking price?

      • Because sensor seize has to do with dynamic range and low light performance. It is hard for me to believe that this camera will come even close to the D500 in those two areas.

        • ZMWT

          Cars are tested on roads, not in mud pits. I mean, testers of cars have more maturity than the digital camera reviewers. Considering practical points of photography, and required final enlargement, today’s m4/3 is more than sufficient for professional results in many fields of photography. There is no doubt about it. 99% of photography is done up to ISO 12K, and m4/3 delivers there. However, this camera delivers IBIS at the level that it does not need Hi-ISO at all. If Nikon delivered IBIS, how much would they charge for it? Through the roof! But in m4/3 terms, IBIS is expected, and OIS too, and that is problem with the heavy prejudice against the system.

          • To me the disadvantages are more, than the advantages of MFT when compared to larger sensor DSLR. MFT camera and perfect for a small and compact solution but as you can see from the leaked pictures, the size has gone up also significantly (especially the grip).
            IBIS is helpful in some situation, but if you want to freeze action, you will need a good high ISO performance, IBIS will not help. BTW, Nikon has many lenses with built-in VR.
            I am not a prejudice against the system. I just think this price is way to high for this camera.

          • sdf0815

            Today I will try to get better information on the price. But i still think 1200€ plus lens is realistic. If Panasonic takes 1500€ or more, “i” buy Nikon D500. The AF is still better than in EVIL-cameras. and u get the bigger Sensor.
            But i would not buy the A6500. Fucking crappy controls für a 1500€ cam.

          • ZMWT

            I think this G9, together with E-M1 and GH5, is a game changer for the m4/3, and these type of cameras must be larger to sport better battery life, card slots, heat sinks, ruggedness, wr, work with telephoto lenses (like that 200/2.8), etc. Regarding the final price, let’s wait for it but it is reasonable and well justified it is in vicinity of $2K.

          • HD10

            Peter, as likewise a user of the m43, the primary advantages are in the smaller and lighter LENSES which one gains in exchange for having a sensor about 1.5 to 2 stops behind in performance to a 35mm sensor. This disadvantage can be gained back in some conditions when a pixel-shift multi-shot option can be used. Re greater DOF, this can be an advantage or disadvantage or not really an issue. The features and technology used in mirrorless are advanced and typically ahead of entry level dSLRs. Many of the D850 features that makes it a better camera have long been available in m43 cameras, e.g. excellent live view, electronic first curtain, articulating touchscreen, high magnification view finder, focus peaking, high frame rate and robust buffer, better than average video (specially video-oriented mirrorless), etc. The m43 F is more accurate on AF-S. It lags in tracking AF-C but is steadily improving.

          • I understand your point, but all those advantage do not justify a price above $2,000. This is my main issue here and we got carried away in the discussion. I hope that the price is actually lower.

          • HD10

            We definitely would see the price ceiling tested if the G9 is priced almost triple it’s predecessor G85.

            But let’s look at price from another perspective.

            For many video oriented users, the $2000 price for the GH5 is a bargain given its capabilities.

            Does the G9 have features to justify it’s price? We will know soon enough.

          • yes, let’s see tomorrow – we don’t even know what the real price will be

          • HD10

            So price is initially set at $1700. This is still higher than I expected. Whether the G9 will be worth it will now depend how usable its added features are.

          • it will be $200 off soon, they all drop in price pretty quickly

          • Stephen Roberts

            Still a point and shoot sized sensor. You can have as many fps as you want. Its still a sub par system.

          • I agree, the only advantage of MFT cameras is the small size – like the PEN line. They are also more reasonably priced. I just don’t get this.

          • SGG

            And what would you do with m4/3 picture shot at ISO 12k??? Shrink it to 800×600 and post to your FB wall???

      • a4

        “What sensor has to do with price?”
        Seriously? A lot :D. Hint: silicon wafers and the funny stuff around, give google a chance in case you don’t have a clue (but I bet you do)

        • ZMWT

          Sensor size alone has little with asking price for the camera, because sensors are tied to a certain manufacturing process, yield, run, etc, not the surface area. It is possible that an FF sensor made by Sony for their expanding FF range is cheaper to make than a sophisticated m4/3 sensor, but they ride the wave of a persistent public illusion that the “FF is valuable” because the forum guys and YouTube celebs tell it must be so.

          • destroy2153

            You are a troll, I don’t understand why other are still debating with you… The size of the ship makes the prize. period.

          • a4

            O… kay… (*trying to leave the room unnoticed, going slowly backwards and trying not to do any rushed movement that’d upset the troll*).
            Oh, wait a minute! Most of the sensors (including thode mft, or Fujifilm X-trans, e.g.) are made by… uh… um… I know it, i know it… if I just could remem… oh got it! Sony! 😀
            (sorry, couldn’t help myself, now going to get trolled to death, aren’t I?)

      • Zos Xavius

        So it’s more expensive to not include a mirror assembly, separate at module and meter? There is nothing this camera has to offer over cameras with larger sensors other than framerate. Where the value????

        • ZMWT

          I am sorry you fail to see it. The value is in the optics — for much less money, you get amazing quality optics, that simply cannot be manufactured for an FF system to be plausible.

          • regarding the pricing of MFT lenses:


          • ZMWT

            That guy does not understand what he is talking about. He does not understand that same optical design possible with m4/3, is impossible to make in the FF at a reasonable cost. Only Leica does it, at a huge cost, and it is THE equivalent of that m4/3 quality in the FF. Olympus PRO 25/1.2 only compares to Leica SL 50/1.4 in colour and micro-contrast quality.
            So, when he buys an FF glass of a similar price as top tier m4/3 glass, he gets a heavily compromised lens that strangles half the light.
            You of all folks can understand this because you own a Leica M10 — Leica glass for M, despite FF sensor, still use low element special designs made from superb optical glass and special finishing. Only such a scenario yields acceptable IQ on an FF, and that ain’t the case with most of other manufacturers. Because to to do that it costs a fortune, and is reserved for niche players.

  • price madness for sure… I hope that this info is wrong and my initial report of $1,400 is correct:

    • Davo

      I hope you’re right. As i’ve become quite interested in the G9 after looking at the camera layout and potential UI, coming from a Nikon DSLR user’s POV.

  • ZMWT

    This baby mops the floor with D500 and 7Dwhatever. Why would it be cheaper than DSLR crop bodies? Why? This amount of tech packed in top m4/3 body is not found in many more expensive cameras. If you don’t like the price, buy G85 or OMD E-M5 etc.

    • The amount of tech inside? The camera is not even announced yet 🙂

      • ZMWT

        From posted specs, this is almost same as GH5, and perhaps better in some respects in terms of photography, and perhaps slightly lesser in terms of video (no 6K video, for example). When was the last time we have seen a DSLR with 20 fps tracking AF? Or this awesome level of video? This is the level of A9 performance (!!), albeit with a proper shutter, so even better and than the A9 with its poor mechanical shutter.

        • Yes, Sony is more expensive, but they could achieve the same 20 fps with a full frame sensor – that is a big deal. Otherwise I agree – the G9 is the cheapest 20fps camera – it will be great for people who need 20fps. I just don’t see who else will buy the G9 for that price. Just to make it clear – I am not saying this is a bad camera, I am just saying it is way too expensive.

          • sdf0815

            It is still a 4/3 Sensor, and anyone who think it does not matter 4/3, APS-C or Full Frame never took a picture indoor with no flash…. Never made a Portrait wide open.

          • ZMWT

            Some folk never used competent optics for the m4/3. The final answer to photography is not in the sensor size, but in glass. That size matters, is an illusion, that was dispelled even in times of film, when emulsions came out that allowed greater magnification factor for a tiny 135 frame and quality optics. In digital, there are no such magnification obstacles.

          • BP2012

            To compensate for m43 sensor you need at least f/0.5 as a competent optics. Those sensors are so bad in high ISOs. Modern APS-Cs has at least 1 stop advantage and full frame exactly 3 stops.

            Full frame mirrorless camera with 3 stops slower optics is much lighter and smaller combo.

          • I agree, you just cannot compare the sensor tech. The latest Sony and Nikon cameras offer so much more.

        • CG462

          The GH5 continuous autofocus, even with the new firmware, sucks when compared to higher end Canon, Nikon, and the A9. I doubt Panasonic has dramatically improved the continuous autofocus since the GH5. It looks like this might have a few extra stills features and be missing the high end video features which caused people to pay 2 grand for the GH5. If that’s the case, I don’t see anyway this price is correct.

    • Stephen Roberts

      Depends on what you want. TheD500 will mop the floor for wildlife and sports and lens selection. Video this will be better. Tech doesn’t always make a camera better. Just adds junk like 20 fps.

      • Yes, but I thought the GH5 was the video camera. Where does this fit in the line-up? I was told that this camera is for photography while the GH5 is for video.

  • HD10

    The $2300 price is a red herring. It does not refer to just the G9 body but likely to a G9 kit that includes a Panasonic G9 and a Panasonic Leia 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 zoom which currently sells for approx. $1000. Its unlikely that the G9 price will exceed the GH5 which currently sells for approx. $2000.

    There is another Panasonic 12-60mm f/4.5-5.6 that sells for approx. $500 but that is not likely the lens bundled in this G9 kit if sold at this price.

    Anyway, we will know the real price tomorrow.

    • The lens kit could be actually around $3000.

      • HD10

        If true, this kind of pricing suddenly makes the price I paid for the 2 x D850 very reasonable. =)

  • malchick743

    Any word on selectable system frequency (50/60)? For a camera with premium specs it would be a deal breaker not to have this basic function……

  • CG462

    How can it cost more than the GH5 when it has worse video capabilities? The reason 99% of the people who purchased the GH5 did so was for the video. I don’t see how this can be an accurate price.

    • MB

      I think there must be some misconception here about video capabilities … because camera that can do 60fps at full resolution and at 6k can certainty do video …
      The prices if correct are ridiculous though and will certainly mean the end of Panasonic camera business …

      • I think they are trying to see if it will stick. If this is really the price, there will be a $400 drop 3 months after announcement. The latest Olympus E-M1 is already $200 off – I think the price dropped 2-3 months after announcement. So what they are trying to tell you is don’t pay the full price on announcement day.

        • MB

          Even if the price drops as you say it will still be overpriced for the amateurs that are target market, and they will lose the hype momentum … no future … at those prices m4/3 is dead …

          • I agree. The MFT system started as a small and cheap mirrorless solution. Now it is neither. The latest PEN was priced at $1,300 if I am not mistaken…

  • Tapper

    Looks like it will be an amazing M43 camera, but at that price point people will start looking at full frame instead.

    • ZMWT

      I think it is the other way round: newbies are drawn into the FF for the sake of misinformation, bias and prejudices. As a result of common ignorance, the FF has become a true flea market. But after a while, when they learn more, and gather experience, they chose smaller formats and better optics for most of their work, or go MF.

      • BP2012

        Small sensor with big lenses is like you are compensating small dick with a big car. Sony is right in one thing, FF is best sensor size for mirrorless. High ISO shooting and pulling up the shadows in post are very important for a lot of photographers and even newest m43 sensors are pathetic regarding that.

        • ZMWT

          FF is worst sensor size ever; 135 was good in film because of magnification needed (maximum size frame possible), but is detriment for digital. In 1990s, APS was made a standard for film, and also used in digital because things progressed and better magnifications were possible with smaller frames. FF is breaking away from that standard, and it is wholly Nikon’s and Sony’s whim. It has noting with practicality – in fact, it is totally impractical, and was never endorsed as a standard of any sort.

      • Clarice Heuson

        It’d be great if only it was correct. I’m afraid the laws of physics don’t give a shit about personal bias or opinion or even good marketing, it is what it is.

        • ZMWT

          In photography, most important are laws of optics and practicality, and they do not go in favour of the FF at all. Laws of physics apply too: heavy FF lens bends necks faster and suffocates more light than an m4/3 lens – always. And if dropped from the same height, both an FF lens and an m4/3 lens will hit the floor at the same time. Do you have more laws to add?

      • I think it’s the other way around – people start small and cheap (MFT cameras for example) and then they realize how much better full frame is and move up.

        • ZMWT

          I saw the trend going exactly as I described above — people become sick and tired lugging weight around the neck, and ask themselves what really they get for so much trouble? When in most situations they get same results with a m4/3 camera and a kit lens, as with an FF camera and a mid-range FF lens.

    • That’s correct – the camera specs look very good for a $1,200 camera max.

  • a4

    €2,000 body only, ok.
    …or maybe they could just say “we’ve decided to go out of camera business”

  • Ronald Noerachmad

    I hope X-T2s won’t be this expensive like G9 did… this day apsc mirrorless being so much expensive than DSLR just becouse adding more burst, 5-axis image stabilizer, etc with the same konventional sensor…

  • Nobody seems to have noticed the huge and pricey 200mm f/2.8. It appears even larger than the Canon 200/2.8 (which covers a four times larger sensor) and not to mention it’s nearly three times the price of the Canon. Micro 4/3 is getting ridiculous.

    • Ernst Haas

      yes I am speechless too 🙂 the 300mm Olympus is a bargain compared to this 200mm but honestly meanwhile I doubt both prices. I simply don’t believe that there are managers at Panasonic who are convinced of selling more than a couple of pieces. Perhaps they should ask Sigma how well they sold the Sigma SD1 for – I hope I can remember roughly – USD 6.000,00 and reduced the price to even not sellable 2.000,00 after a very short time.

    • Azmodan

      More like 5x the price based on the bhphotovideo website. Olympus and Panasonic are smoking crack it seems. I thought the Olympus 300 f/4 was ridiculously priced, but this 200 is even worse. So glad I sold my m4/3 system a few months ago; apart from negligee sensor improvements in 4 years, prices are ridiculous for lenses especially. In Australia it cost me $2K less to buy a D500 + 200-500 than E-M1 II + 300 /4

      RIP Panasonic, it’s been nice knowing you.

      • Most camera gear is becoming ridiculously priced now. I guess the Fuji X-T2s will also see a price bump towards $2k.
        Still, m4/3 is competitive with its small size – I almost bought the OM-D E-M10 mk II together with a few primes but ended up getting a X-T10 instead. I think I made the right choice 😉

        • I agree and it’s getting worse. Camera manufacturers don’t have the volume anymore and they have to bump prices.

  • James Brickwood

    Sure, a camera is just a tool, but do they have to make it so damn ugly?

  • Friedhelm

    $2300 for an mft camera ???
    OMG, don’t say that this is real !

    • I still hope that this pricing is wrong and my initial report of $1,400 is correct.

  • FountainHead

    Looks like the Panasonic/Leica partnership has Leica setting Panny’s prices.

    • The latest Leica TL2 is actually cheaper at $1,950 (with APS-C sensor). So here you basically pay $2,300 for ultra fast AF with 20fps.

      • Davo

        What will be interesting is if there’re any underlying tech similarities between the upcoming G9 and CL.
        I expect the form factor to be quite different but I get the inkling Panasonic might be involved with the Leica after seeing the leaked 18mm lenses and it’s resemblance to Panasonic pancakes.

        • Yes, and the funny thing is that Leica is supposed to be doing the lenses for Panasonic, not the other way around 🙂

  • Harold

    Do many pros really use 4/3 sensor? Because that’s just about the only folks who will be able to afford it.

  • Gear_Junkie

    At the original rumor price of $1400USD, I was ALL OVER THIS AND EXCITED TO GET IT. At $2000 – $2300 – NO WAY! Panasonic does make quality gear (although a step beneath Olympus for the high-end gear), this is priced too high.

      • Clarice Heuson

        That surely wasn’t written by Panasonic?

        • Not sure I understand your comment. The pictures are very real and so are the specs. Could it be that they mistakenly reported the price? Sure, everything is possible. Is that what you are trying to say?

          • Clarice Heuson

            Ah right, i was referring to the wording which was odd, if google translate was involved then that’s believable.

          • Yes, see the link above – the post was on a Norwegian site and then removed. The link is pointing to Google cache where the page is still available. If you convert the pricing, you get the numbers I published in my post above. Of course the pricing reported by that site could be wrong. The first rumors I received indicated a $1,400 price tag for the G9:


          • Yes, see the link above – the post was on a Norwegian site and then removed. The link is pointing to Google cache where the page is still available. If you convert the pricing, you get the numbers I published in my post above. Of course the pricing reported by that site could be wrong. The first rumors I received indicated a $1,400 price tag for the G9:

          • Clarice Heuson

            Ya, I should have clicked the link! I assumed the translated version was the original…
            Having said that, I wish it was fake, €1,400 is a lot easier to swallow than €2,000. So lets hope that at least is incorrect.
            The conversion on the lens price being over €3,000. Nuts.

          • Yes, we will find out tomorrow.

        • obviously the text is Google translated

        • Not sure I understand your comment. The pictures are very real and so are the specs. Could it be that they mistakenly reported the price? Sure, everything is possible. Is that what you are trying to say?

  • jason

    Crazy prices. Also why isn’t the 200mm a 2.0? Seems like 2.8 isn’t enough unless it was a zoom.

    • ZMWT

      The lens has equivalent angle of view of a 400mm lens in 135 format. How many 400/2 lenses for the 135 format you know about and who ever made them and for what use?! Canon and Nikon have 400/2.8 that each cost like a small car, and this Leica’s lens for Panasonic is the m4/3 version of it. And it costs like a bicycle.

      • jason

        Yeah, well it is only 50mm longer than the Olympus 40-150 which is already 2.8 Panasonic could make the lens brighter without making it as big as a 400mm 2.8 or the 200mm f2 Nikon I had for a while. You are right though, I didn’t think too much about the crop factor.

      • a4

        Actually, no. As mentioned elsewhere, to do the fair comparison in terms of final output (FOV + DOF equivalency!), we’re talking 400/5.6 here. Stop mentioning only those parts of the whole image (pun intended), that fit…

  • Eno

    The camera looks very interesting but I hope Panasonic is clever enough not to screw it in the price department. 🙂

  • Mark Borkowski

    As someone who has gone from Nikon to Panasonic, I can honestly say, I don’t care about the size of the body. Put great benefits like those outlined above in slightly larger bodies. I still have a huge advantage in lens size. Remember between M43 and Full Frame, these have the same FOV.

    • it depends what’s important to you, for me ISO performance and dynamic range are more important

      • Mark Borkowski

        And if that’s the most important thing to you – you probably wouldn’t be looking at m43 in the first place. Full frame owns those both. Although, 20FPS sure makes taking HDR’s a breeze! 🙂

      • ZMWT

        What’s the use of extra sensor sensitivity if the lens suffocates 2+ stops of light before it even reaches the sensor? In practical terms, by using an m4/3 camera and optically superior lens, it is possible to obtain excellent photos at higher effective ISO than with a FF sensor. That is, “the noise” will look better on an FF image, but the available gain (ISO) is more productive in m4/3 cameras at all values.

        • Aaron Leavy

          Why would one not use an optically superior lens on the FF camera also?

        • I simple do not agree with statment. Full frame has a very obvious advantage in low light situation.

          • ZMWT

            If you put a lens cap direct on the mount, what’s the use of the sensor? Because that is the equivalence of buying an average modern lens for the FF — it eats light and spits out mere bones.

          • I would not call Nikon lenses a lens cap – they have some very good full frame glass.

    • a4

      Same FOV, but not DOF B-). To really compare apples to apples, you’d need a 35-100 f/1.4 for the mft lens. Please show me, what that lens looks like and what’s the cost – oh, you can’t… (ok, to be fair, there isn’t a 70-200 f/5.6 lens for FF Nikon either…)

  • Duncan Dimanche

    Like a lot of people out there I’m really wondering where this G9 positions itself.
    1) Will it be superior to the gh5 ?
    2) Will it be more photo oriented ?
    3) What will make one decide wether to get the g9 or the Gh5 if they are both at 2k ?
    4) I wish that it was a baby gh5 at a lower cost of course (kind of what the samsung nx-500 was to the x1). (same video mode without 4k 60fps maybe ?
    5) Did they improve the AF in video mode ?!!!

    And all we can do really is wait 2 days for those answers haha but it is exiting !!

    • Eno

      3) IF the G9 will have he same 2000$ launch price as the Gh5 I will probably search for some GH5 deals, especially is they share the same sensor.
      4) I also wish that!

      • Duncan Dimanche

        yeah that 1499$ sounds good to my ears !!

        I have two A6500 and I really want to sell one to get a GH5 instead ! But the prices are still a bit steep for now 😉

  • KT

    The new price is around $1700, a bit more reasonable than the $2300 previously rumored.

  • Cynog

    It’s £1,499.99 for body only, £1,669.99 with 12-60 mm lens. £2,019 with the Leica 12-60.

  • Zeneize

    LOL 2300? Is it full frame?

  • Eloise

    Now available to pre-order from Park Cameras in the UK (probably elsewhere). £1,499 (1965 USD, 1695 Euro) with “free” battery grip with pre-orders.

    The 200mm f/2.8 (with a 1.4x converter) is listed for preorder at £2699 (3540 USD, 3050 Euro) at the same place.

  • a4

    So, taken from dpreview:
    “The DC-G9 will ship in January 2018 for $1699 body only. ”
    Still pretty steep though, imo, but could have been worse…

    • indeed, they also missed the holiday shopping season and end of year write offs

      • a4

        Yep, AFAIR Nikon is also quite known for this weird kind of new products timing…

  • Back to top