This is why the Lumix S9 will become cult

[GeorgeHudetz]

But the S9 raws are 12-bit only - so you won't get the same "amazing 24 Mp files" as you would get from an S5/S5ii.

Too bad. Although for most travel shots, it's probably not an issue.

And if you put a decent lens onto the body (as opposed to the rather limited 18-40) then you're in to diminishing returns on body size since the lens will likely dominate the overall size/weight.

That wouldn't bother me. You could just as easily argue that fitting a small lens to an S5 is diminishing returns, particularly a small prime.

I think an S5/S5ii (or even the new S1 models since they are not much bigger) with a lens like the Sigma 45/2.8 would make a good "small FF" kit - and you'll get an EVF, a shutter, flash capability, and better handling.

Not for me. If I wanted to travel with a prime, might as well get a Fuji X100 of some type.

 

[Nevyn72]

But the S9 raws are 12-bit only - so you won't get the same "amazing 24 Mp files" as you would get from an S5/S5ii. And if you put a decent lens onto the body (as opposed to the rather limited 18-40) then you're in to diminishing returns on body size since the lens will likely dominate the overall size/weight.

I think an S5/S5ii (or even the new S1 models since they are not much bigger) with a lens like the Sigma 45/2.8 would make a good "small FF" kit - and you'll get an EVF, a shutter, flash capability, and better handling.

But most people don't even know the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit, and also 12-bot can give excellent pictures.

Video is only 10-bit, and a lot of people even shoot still video in 8-bit.

I really DO understand Josh his excitement.
And not now, but I think we will buy a S9 in the future.

But for now, just bought the new PC and a new Phone, budget is up....

 

[HarisO]

As someone who used the S5II extensively - especially on travels - the moment I got my S9, the S5ii ended up staying at home unless I really needed the mechanical shutter. You might think that a S5ii with a Sigma 35mm F2 or a S9 with a 35mm F2 is a negligible difference, but in real life it really tipped the scales! And mind you, the only reason I own a Sigma 35mm F2 is because I wanted to shrink my kit for traveling - I usually shoot with the 35mm F1.2 from Sigma. But especially during the months of the year where I am living in Japan, where I'll average 15k steps a day, carrying that S5ii was definitely an uncalled-for workout! Even the smaller lens didn't change much, I found myself so often deciding against bringing my S5II due to size, weight and so on.

Only with the S9 did I finally find an option that allowed me to almost always bring a FF camera with me without having to think if it will fit a small bag or if I really want to carry that weight for 10k, 20k steps and son.

I didn't notice the difference in bit depth too much, but again, the situations I'd take my S9 instead of the S5II weren't challenging. Street, casual portrait, travel snapshots - I genuinely don't believe that the 2 bits more from the S5II would have been actually noticeable apart from very fringe scenarios. Obviously for proper landscape photography or in a studio things would've been different.

But for me, the S9 made an actual difference in how often I use a "proper" camera and it also replaced the S5II in many situations. I really think it's one of those "on paper" it's maybe 20 % but in real life it's much more than that situation.

 

[Pete_W]

As someone who used the S5II extensively - especially on travels - the moment I got my S9, the S5ii ended up staying at home unless I really needed the mechanical shutter.

It's a similar situation for me although it's more about the lenses/ergonomics. The S5II is what I will take when I need the 24-105mm and 70-30mm lenses. In almost every other situation I will take the S9. It now lives on the living room table with the 18-40mm ready to go.

I didn't notice the difference in bit depth too much, but again, the situations I'd take my S9 instead of the S5II weren't challenging. Street, casual portrait, travel snapshots - I genuinely don't believe that the 2 bits more from the S5II would have been actually noticeable apart from very fringe scenarios. Obviously for proper landscape photography or in a studio things would've been different.

Yes, same for me. I appreciate the 14-bit depth of the S5II when shooting moving trains where I often am dealing with high contrast scenes and will be needing to lift shadows heavily in post. The S9 is not used for that and I've never had an issue with 12-bit.

The S9 is a great little camera. Having a "mini S5II" that even uses the same battery is so convenient and fun to use.

 

[Pete_W]

The only thing holding me back is my eyesight - I need to wear readers to see the screen. Often, I wear 1.5x sunglasses when out & about, but that still makes it hard to see the screen - it's too dark when viewed through sunglasses, and still, I need something like 2.0 or 2.5x to really make sense of the screen. I really don't understand why I can't get "progressive" sunglass readers without a prescription & spending $$$ on something I'm just going to lose. I suppose that's the power of the Washington lobbyists talking there.

I need to wear readers too but I always have a pair in my pocket. Without them I wouldn't be able to use my iPhone. Well, that's not entirely correct. I could use the iPhone but I would be sending some fairly weird text messages because of autocorrect!

With the S9, I just push my sunglasses up on top of my head and put the readers on to take a photo. I've never had corrected sunglasses as it's only my short distance eyesight that's compromised.

 

[dirk]

It will be interesting to see what kind of lenses Sigma will introduce for its Sigma BF. They need small and light lenses for it. The same lenses would also be attractive for the S9.

But if you need to wear readers to see the screen, I doubt that the S9 is the right camera for you.

The Leica Q3 43 replaced my need for the S9. But still, I go back and forth whether not to keep the S9. Especially since the introduction of the Sigma BF and future lenses for it.

Maybe I can swap my black one against a green one, one day

 

[dirk]

If you want to have something small without EVF, there is not that much choice.

Ricoh GR3 & GR3x (APSC) for around 1000€, lens included and really, really small.
Fuji X-M5 (APSC) for around 900€ without a lens
Lumix S9 (fullframe) for around 1.089€ without a lens

The best bang for the buck is the Ricoh, if you can live with APS-C sensor size.

2nd place is the Lumix S9. Third place by a large margin is the Fuji XM5.

 

[Pete_W]

But if you need to wear readers to see the screen, I doubt that the S9 is the right camera for you.

Well, I disagree with this. As I mentioned above, I need readers to see my iPhone and the same applies to focusing on anything close like my laptop, iPad, books, even food labels in the supermarket. As eyesight declines with age, spectacles are just a fact of life, so it's not a problem using them with the camera LCD.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Well, I disagree with this. As I mentioned above, I need readers to see my iPhone and the same applies to focusing on anything close like my laptop, iPad, books, even food labels in the supermarket. As eyesight declines with age, spectacles are just a fact of life, so it's not a problem using them with the camera LCD.

The truth is, I need more than readers. Did LASIK a few years back, and it's been a great ride, but at this point I need to go back to the eye doctor and get legit glasses again, and I'm sure they will be bifocal. With that, or perhaps another surgery, I'm sure I could make the rear screen work. I could probably get away with a set of bifocal readers - which you can get, I discovered today, but ultimately I should probably have a set of proper glasses.

If all I needed was a set of readers, then I agree with you. I could make that work. Lots of people do.

 

[CharlesH]

Well, I disagree with this. As I mentioned above, I need readers to see my iPhone and the same applies to focusing on anything close like my laptop, iPad, books, even food labels in the supermarket. As eyesight declines with age, spectacles are just a fact of life, so it's not a problem using them with the camera LCD.

I have worn trifocals for years and years. I've used them for so long I never think about it. I need long distance, obviously, and medium distance for things like the dashboard or the instrument panel on an airplane, or my computer screen, and then very close distance for my phone and my cameras or reading small print. I'm very particular about my glasses, and fortunately I have a very particular optometrist. For sunglasses I use gradient ones that are darker at the top and vary to almost clear at the bottom so I can see up close things with good light (like a camera LCD). Some people wear "progressive" glasses that in principle achieve the same thing as trifocals; unfortunately I could never get used to them, but if you can they might also be a good overall solution.

And, I have a friend that claims he has used eye exercises to keep his eye focusing muscles (the ciliary muscles) strong so he can avoid this whole need to use glasses thing as he ages. It does seem to work for him. Alas, it never helped me, but fortunately good glasses do.

 

[pdk42]

On the glasses front, I use varifocals and, thankfully, they work for me. So, the lack of an EVF wouldn’t be a vision problem for me. In fact, when I shoot on a tripod, the rear screen is the main interface for me. My biggest two pushbacks on no-EVF designs are problems in bright light, and really bad stability when hand-holding the camera with my arms outstretched. It’s a terrible ergonomic approach on a proper camera.

 

[dirk]

Some people wear "progressive" glasses that in principle achieve the same thing as trifocals; unfortunately I could never get used to them, but if you can they might also be a good overall solution.

I use these progressive glasses. Works well for me. Except for the PC. I work long hours on computer screens. For this, progressive glasses are not designed. So, I use special glasses for the PC only. With optimized distances of 50-70cm. Any other distance does not work. But thanks to this I can work in front of a screen for 10-12 hours without problems.

Of course you always should do eye exercices/muscle training inbetween.

My biggest two pushbacks on no-EVF designs are problems in bright light, and really bad stability when hand-holding the camera with my arms outstretched.

I agree. This is why I like to use the camera screen only with focal lengths between around 20mm up to 28mm. With these focal lenght, I hold the camera differently for my kind of shooting (travel, street, family). More like a Smartphone to get close to the subject and more from below.

Everything longer, like 35mm or 45mm, 70mm etc, I prefer an EVF. This is why I use the Leica Q3 43 (43mm) more often than the Ricoh GR3x (40mm), but use the Ricoh GR3 (28mm) in 99% of the cases over a camera with EVF i.e. Lumix S5 with 24mm.

If Sigma would bring out a small & light 28mm FFL which is at least on par with the image quality of the Ricoh GR3, then the Ricoh would probably have a tough fight against the Lumix S9/28mm FFL combination.

 

[pdk42]

I agree. This is why I like to use the camera screen only with focal lengths between around 20mm up to 28mm. With these focal lenght, I hold the camera differently for my kind of shooting (travel, street, family). More like a Smartphone to get close to the subject and more from below.

I think a screen-only approach is fine for casual photography and is totally reasonable for a point and shoot (do these things exist any more?). But on a proper camera with a price tag north of €1000, I just don’t accept that premise. As Sony has shown, a small EVF needn’t add a lot to the external dimensions. So I continue my crusade against cameras like the S9, BF etc. When they put an EVF onto a design like this then my S5 will be off its next owner and I’ll buy one.

 

[xaviergut]

I think a screen-only approach is fine for casual photography and is totally reasonable for a point and shoot (do these things exist any more?). But on a proper camera with a price tag north of €1000, I just don’t accept that premise. As Sony has shown, a small EVF needn’t add a lot to the external dimensions. So I continue my crusade against cameras like the S9, BF etc. When they put an EVF onto a design like this then my S5 will be off its next owner and I’ll buy one.

If Leica made an optional evf for the TL cameras, Lumix could do it for the S9ii

 

[Quentinquirelino]

If Leica made an optional evf for the TL cameras, Lumix could do it for the S9ii

View attachment 13250

Theoretically you could use something like this:

V780H-EVF Large Screen HDMI-compatible Electronic Viewfinder Photographic Camera | eBay.de

1 x Viewfinder. - HDMI-compatible format micro-display chip, image and 1ight source system, high performance optical engine. - HDMI-compatible format micro-display chip, image and light source system, high performance optical engine.

ebay.us

 

[xaviergut]

Theoretically you could use something like this:

V780H-EVF Large Screen HDMI-compatible Electronic Viewfinder Photographic Camera | eBay.de

1 x Viewfinder. - HDMI-compatible format micro-display chip, image and 1ight source system, high performance optical engine. - HDMI-compatible format micro-display chip, image and light source system, high performance optical engine.

ebay.us

Thank you! I did not know that one, the only one I was aware of is this one, that is way more expensive :

Kinefinity EAGLE HDMI e-Viewfinder Launched | CineD

Following the release of the Kinefinity EAGLE SDI e-Viewfinder, the company has introduced an HDMI version with many of the same features.

www.cined.com

 

[Pete_W]

The truth is, I need more than readers. Did LASIK a few years back, and it's been a great ride, but at this point I need to go back to the eye doctor and get legit glasses again, and I'm sure they will be bifocal. With that, or perhaps another surgery, I'm sure I could make the rear screen work. I could probably get away with a set of bifocal readers - which you can get, I discovered today, but ultimately I should probably have a set of proper glasses.

If all I needed was a set of readers, then I agree with you. I could make that work. Lots of people do.

I call my glasses 'readers' but in fact they are prescription bifocals. The bottom is for close up and the upper section is for focusing at about arm's length for the computer monitors on my desk at work. Outside of those two distances I don't need anything else. I do have mild astigmatism in one eye that is also corrected.

 

[Pete_W]

Some people wear "progressive" glasses that in principle achieve the same thing as trifocals; unfortunately I could never get used to them, but if you can they might also be a good overall solution.

I did try progressive varifocals but never quite got the hang of using them. The trick seems to be that you had to move your head as well as your eyes, rather than just your eyes. I guess I should probably try again some day!

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I did try progressive varifocals but never quite got the hang of using them. The trick seems to be that you had to move your head as well as your eyes, rather than just your eyes. I guess I should probably try again some day!

Yeah, I always struggled with them, which is why I had the surgery.

 

[Prosecutor]

Despite its limitations I love that little thing. It‘s not an all-rounder like the bigger models. It‘s designed for „special operations“ where I need a very compact, unobstrusive body (e.g. for street photography). Combined with 18-40, 45/2.8. 90/2.8, 35/1,8 or even 28-200 it‘s a lot of fun to use ist.