I have a question regarding the Lumix GH5 vs the Lumix G9 particularly regarding shooting video however as a hybrid shooter still photography is of serious interest also.

Reading the specifications I note that the big differences are the ability of the GH5 to shoot V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2. So what, is my question. Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?

Many thanks

John, you should look at the plethora of YouTube videos that clearly explain the differences between 4:2:0 8-bit and 4:2:2 10-bit color. It's a major, visible palpable step-up in image quality.

As I've mentioned in other posts, the GH5 is the ONLY DSLR that shoots the same formats, color space, and high data-rates as true digital cinema cameras. No other DSLR comes even close to it's capabilities.

Think of it this way: The GH5 is a video camera that also shoots stills, so the majority of it's feature-set and capabilities are primarily focused on video. Every other DLSR's primary use is photography, and just also happens to shoot video. But they lack the features and the far-higher quality output the GH5 is capable of.

Hope that helps.

Many thanks Robert for taking the time to reply to my question, much appreciated.

Indeed I have looked at various YouTube videos and I more or less understand the math involved, the theory. In a prefect world my local gear supplier would send me one of each model to see for myself. Not going to happen!

I do understand that the GH5 delivers a 'far-higher quality output' but I remain unconvinced that I would utilize that capability given my shooting/viewing behavior.

I need to talk again, convincingly, to my supplier about a loaner GH5.

Cheers, and thanks again.

You may want to look at this comparison which I think covers the main differences. https://www.wexphotovideo.com/blog/reviews/panasonic-lumix-g9-vs-gh5--the-differences-you-need-to-know/ If your primary focus is video then the GH5 or the GH5S would be the choice.

If video is an add-on to your primary work in photography then the G9 would be perfect. It is in fact optimized for photography, not video, unlike the GH5 which is the reverse.

I like the G9 a lot however if you're looking to get a new body that's an excellent stills camera but still has pro-sumer video options I'd take a serious look at the Fuji XH-1; it's head-and-shoulders superior to any MFT-type system and has enough video capabilities to be relevant for the next 5-6 years, minimum. Not to mention Fuji is very aggressive with firmware/feature updates so as time goes on it will become even more of a powerhouse.

As I just mentioned in another thread, for my own personal "pro" film camera I'm migrating up to a Super-35 system. And while I've been using my GH5 for stills (commercial-print is where I got my career started) I'll be replacing it with the Fuji XH-1 specifically for stills.

A lot of people are screaming "Sony" these days, what with a mirror-less, full-frame format and all, (The a9 especially) but I can't justify the price-point. Especially when the new Fuji is every bit as capable and, has much more natural, organic color output than Sony chips. (The a9 might be the exception)

If you're heavily invested in the MFT format already the G9 is a killer camera. if not, take a gander at the Fuji XH-1 system. That's my pick for dedicated photography with a video-add on feature.

Ron, many thanks. Your input most appreciated, as always. I have visited countless web sites like Wex Photo and they all say the same things, more or less. It all depends on your 'primary focus' we are told over and over again. I imagine this simplistic phrase originated in the Panasonic marketing department. To me this comes across almost as a false dichotomy in that we are forced to go one way or the other. In point of fact I invariably shoot both video and stills at all times and I refuse to entertain the 'primary focus' notion. My primary focus changes by the minute, if you will.

Having said that one thing is clear; I do not plan, have no intention of, nothing could be further from my wildest dreams than the thought of being or becoming a 'filmmakers and independent video producers' per se.

Robert, I understand that the GH5 is optimized for video while the G8 is optimized for photography but as a hybrid shooter what really interest me is which camera best does both video and photography that more than meets my needs. Thanks for the Fuji thought however in that it does not shoot 4k 60p it is simply a non-starter.

At the risk of being boring let me say again loud and clear: is video important for me, absolutely totally important, as is photography, and in fact both are my primary focus.

For me it all comes down to functionality, 'features' as the sales brochures tell us. I remain ignorant as to the advantages for me of the added video capability the GH5 offers versus the G9. I know the theory ad nauseum and now I want to view a side by side critical comparison. The G9, on paper, out-performs by a country mile most all of the competition with the proviso that this applies to those not about to make a Hollywood-style movie.

Anyone want to loan me a new GH5 and a G9 for a few days :-)

I think there are a few limits to look at. If you want to shoot 4K/UHD60P for more than 10 mins then the G9 will not do that or UHD 30P for more than 30mins. VlogL and HLG for HDR video 10bit 4:2:2 video etc all in GH5 territory. The GH5 can still shoot stills too!!!! If you do not think these features are worth the about $300 difference in price then the G9 is your camera and it has the advantage over the GH5 of being USB C powered.

The gh5 has gone down in price, the difference is only 100 dollar now

Thanks Ron, yes, I'm aware of the time limits and how for you such limitations render the G9 unacceptable. Not so for me as I always only shoot short bursts.

It's not just the $300 but if one compares side by side the on-paper attributes, features, functionality clearly the G9 has certain clear cut quantifiable 'improvements' verses the GH5.

The big unknown for me is the value the superior video capability of the GH5 brings to the table in real life, for me.

We can talk until we are blue in the face but I need to see a side by side...

Thanks Noa, for me it's not so much about the money difference.

Have you seen this video?
https://youtu.be/6W1Tzr43L4c

Thanks Noa, I have viewed the Calgary lad's input over the years and proudly confess to being also a Canadian. My company head office was in Calgary so my visits there were regular and mostly pleasant. I routinely enjoy the Chris and Jordan show but I did find this episode not up to their usual top notch quality in that Chris sort of overdid himself a bit and poor old Joe hardly got a word in edgewise. So that got in my way somewhat. I shall take another looks though. Thanks for reminding me.

This one also explains well what you will be missing or gaining, it's up to you to decide what is most important for your use

https://youtu.be/DqmMOLkyqpM

Thanks again Noa but I don't believe this fellow even remotely talked about let alone demonstrated the attributes that are the subject of this thread. I most admit I fast forwarded as I already know all that stuff and I found his style not to my taste so I may well have missed something.

Both of these YouTube videos are just words, more words, nothing but words.

Noting that you've already been given the breadth of advice that anyone can offer with this comparison, there is one more factor you might want to consider, to have the "best of both worlds" as it were:

The newly released GH5s is a totally different animal in two regards:

- There is no IBIS (stabilization will have to come from lenses or an external device) and;

- It's a totally different sensor, fewer pixels (larger) which allows for greater low-light sensitivity in both stills and film modes.

Aside from the obvious low-light/less noise characteristic, the new sensor is also just a *smidgen* sharper. That's because it's no longer in a floating device which is how it gets it's in-body stabilization.

Powered off the GH5 sensor literally slips around inside the camera, you can hear it bang against it's mounts when you pick up and move the camera around. So even with Stabilization turned off, those micro-magnets are in "keep in place" mode, which means it's not rock-solid. I've had several images (stills) that should have been tack-sharp but weren't simply because of this "slip-magnet" mounting.

I made the exact same shot, seconds later with the same lens on another MFT camera without IBIS and in fact the images were tack sharp. This is pixel-peeping sharpness, not something the causal observer would ever notice - but it IS a known issue with floating imaging sensors. Nature of the beast, as it were.

Having a solid-mount sensor in the GH5s removes that issue but, now you're left to getting stabilization outside the body. For me this wouldn't be a problem either for stills or filming because I've got decades of experience hand-holding and manual focusing, and for filming we've got various stabilized rigs.

My final thought on your query is that the GH5 would be the best-bet for you. It's got IBIS, it's got superb stills capabilities and, IF you ever decided that you wanted the higher quality video then it's an option! With the G9 it's not.

Best to have all options on the table as-needed rather than shortchange yourself and realize later, "damn, wish I had that other camera!!"

My two cents.

Here's some GH5 samples from commercial portfolios shots recently (what I do in my downtime between film gigs). Not full-size obviously, but straight from the camera with my own custom color settings:

Nice Robert, and thanks for your thoughts which I shall keep in mind as I think this through. I would still very much like to see the side by side I go on about -)

Both of these YouTube videos are just words, more words, nothing but words.

You said that for you it comes down to functionality or 'features'" and that is exactly what these videos show you, they tell you which features you either will be missing or which are added, like do you need the xlr adapter, vlog, anamorphic shooting, unlimited recording times, synchroscan etc or are the g9 added features more important for you, as shown in photojoseph's video?

Both the g9 and gh5 will deliver comparable results with just minor visual differences that only pixelpeepers will be able to tell apart, for your use I would just look at the features each camera offer because that will make a bigger difference.

John, you should look at the plethora of YouTube videos that clearly explain the differences between 4:2:0 8-bit and 4:2:2 10-bit color. It's a major, visible palpable step-up in image quality.



No, no, it is not. 10bit comes in very handy if you do extreme grades of video. Otherwise, no, the difference between 422 and 10bit vs. 420 and 8bit is nearly invisible. The videos that "explain" the difference are talking theory, not demonstrating differences that you can see. I shoot in both. I care about IQ, I do not see anything important (I do not do extreme grades, though I grade from log profiles).

However, If you are talking a "visible step up in image quality" then you need to consider HDR video. HDR is a big step up in visual quality. And you need to shoot Vlog for that, or HLG. If the camera cannot shoot in log profiles then it is missing the ability to really make for extraordinary video - HDR. And for taking advantage of the full dynamic range of the camera.

Real-world footage tells the tale on the differences between 8 and 10-bit. All you need do is look at non-graded footage tests (posted by dozens on YT/Vimeo) on simple things like open sky gradients. In 8-bit world you'll see clearly visible banding. In 10-bit you don't, smooth natural gradient.

This visible and technical difference gets deeper when grading/color finishing. There's simply more data and deeper colors available. To say otherwise is not only misleading but technically incorrect.

*You* may not see or realize the difference in your work, but the distinction between bit-rate/color depth is very much a pre-production planning issue from one-man-band to full-crew national campaign productions that has to be addressed before anyone gets on-set. Even clients see - and pay for this difference.

Nice Robert, and thanks for your thoughts which I shall keep in mind as I think this through. I would still very much like to see the side by side I go on about -)

Honestly John, you'll beat yourself to death making minutia comparisons like this. Once you get on-set with whichever camera you choose you'll quickly forget about these minuscule details because you'll be concerned with much bigger issues - like how to get good looking output from your compositions.

Pick a camera that has the majority of the features you prefer - and that fits the budget/workflow you want and go for it. Otherwise you risk "...becoming an old man... waiting to die..." (quote from "Inception") hahaha

Real-world footage tells the tale on the differences between 8 and 10-bit. All you need do is look at non-graded footage tests (posted by dozens on YT/Vimeo) on simple things like open sky gradients. In 8-bit world you'll see clearly visible banding. In 10-bit you don't, smooth natural gradient.

This visible and technical difference gets deeper when grading/color finishing. There's simply more data and deeper colors available. To say otherwise is not only misleading but technically incorrect.

*You* may not see or realize the difference in your work, but the distinction between bit-rate/color depth is very much a pre-production planning issue from one-man-band to full-crew national campaign productions that has to be addressed before anyone gets on-set. Even clients see - and pay for this difference.

I am sorry, but watching recompressed 8bit streams on YouTube or vimeo will not demonstrate your claim. High compression is a big factor in banding. If the OP intends to grade a lot, 10bit matters. But for most video it does not. What "clients"? - newlyweds? local broadcasters? or Netflix?

You think a guy asking whether to get a GH5 has clients who will see the difference? More than dynamic range? or resolution? 10bit is second order.

Finally, you keep spouting specs. Deeper color and more data are better (really?). The issue is how much it matters visually and in what circumstances.

If the OP wants to shoot HDR, the issues of bit depth, log files, color gamut become much more important. HDR is a big deal visually; tried it?

Noa, indeed those videos TALK about functionality and I know that stuff backwards, forwards and sideways having studied the specifications and viewed many such videos. It seems clear to me that for photography the G9 is the better product, for my intended use. But for video the picture is not clear. Let me repeat what I wrote in the comments with which I opened this thread:

'I note that the big differences are the ability of the GH5 to shoot V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2. So what, is my question. Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?"

I believe you are saying indirectly that no, I don't need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2 but not in so many words. Many thanks.

Mark, many thanks for your input. So I do need V-Log in order to get HDR. And I absolutely do need HDR, you say. Please forgive my ignorance but will I obtain the visual benefits of HDR when viewing on my gorgeous 27" Dell P2715Q 4k monitor.

Robert, I hear you. Many thanks. I should point out that right now I shoot using a Sony AX100, a Lumix G85 and a Lumix GX85 and this far I have not seen the dreaded 'clearly visible banding', not even the remotest hint of it. I should point out I do little to no grading as I try to get it right in the camera. I should also point out I am not becoming an old man but I already am. And the moment I was born I was waiting to die, as we all are, but that's a subject for alt.philosophy and not DVINFO. Believe me, I am not beating myself but continue to happily shoot with my existing gear, very happily that is. The intent to upgrade is pure luxury, and indeed a pleasurable exercise.

So now the question I shall now address is do I need/want HDR. I really do need a loaner GH5!

Noa, indeed those videos TALK about functionality and I know that stuff backwards, forwards and sideways having studied the specifications and viewed many such videos. It seems clear to me that for photography the G9 is the better product, for my intended use. But for video the picture is not clear. Let me repeat what I wrote in the comments with which I opened this thread:

'I note that the big differences are the ability of the GH5 to shoot V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2. So what, is my question. Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?"

I believe you are saying indirectly that no, I don't need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2 but not in so many words. Many thanks.

Mark, many thanks for your input. So I do need V-Log in order to get HDR. And I absolutely do need HDR, you say. Please forgive my ignorance but will I obtain the visual benefits of HDR when viewing on my gorgeous 27" Dell P2715Q 4k monitor.

Robert, I hear you. Many thanks. I should point out that right now I shoot using a Sony AX100, a Lumix G85 and a Lumix GX85 and this far I have not seen the dreaded 'clearly visible banding', not even the remotest hint of it. I should point out I do little to no grading as I try to get it right in the camera. I should also point out I am not becoming an old man but I already am. And the moment I was born I was waiting to die, as we all are, but that's a subject for alt.philosophy and not DVINFO. Believe me, I am not beating myself but continue to happily shoot with my existing gear, very happily that is. The intent to upgrade is pure luxury, and indeed a pleasurable exercise.

So now the question I shall now address is do I need/want HDR. I really do need a loaner GH5!

Yes, that is the question. HDR is wonderful, but you cannot see the benefits unless the viewing device is HDR capable. Almost no monitors are - requires an enlarged color gamut and 10 bit color depth and higher brightness/ dr. Many TVs are HDR capable, YouTube displays in HDR on capable viewing devices. Many new smartphones, from Apple, Samsung, Sony, and LG, are HDR certified.

Now, you might not want to get into HDR right away, but if you have a camera that has log profiles you are future proofed. But, no mistake, HLG is bigger step up than even 4K over HD. And way, way, more visible than 8bit vs 10bit SDR videos.

I know with what question you started the thread but a bit further you also said: "For me it all comes down to functionality" so that made it a bit uinclear, anyways:
Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?
I would say, if you have to ask then no, you don't "need" it. The same applies for HDR, you need a camera, a nle and a tv (not your dell) capable of dealing with HDR footage and it's not as simple as it seems to produce. HDR is the new buzz word and those who have seen correct produced HDR footage say it makes all the difference, well, that's what they also said about camera's that can shoot in RAW and since I have a camera that can shoot in that format I much prefer shooting with a baked in look. HDR doesn't interest me at this moment and also not in the coming years, unless my clients would start to demand it, everytime something new comes up the whole videographerscommunity goes wild because you "need" to have that, right? :)

Both the gh5 and the g9 are fine camera's and like I said before, pick one of two based on the importance of the features the camera's have, not based on the fact if they can shoot vlog or not because if that would be important for you, you would not have to ask.

Thanks Mark, and Noa; most helpful. For many complicated reasons heaving nothing to do with videography I must pass on HDR at this time. 'Future proofing' this type of gear I have found to be problematic. If and when I choose to go HDR I shall spring for a GH6, or whatever. In the meantime I might just go with the G9.

Many thanks.

When I got my GH5 a year ago, I didn't bother with the vLog upgrade. Now I have it on order. The difference. Having got the GH5s with vLog installed and shot some footage with It, I suddenly see why I need it. The colours and extra dynamic range can really lift image quality. My main colour profiles I use are HLG and vLog not for HDR delivery though I hope to experiment with this in time, but simply to provide better rec709 colour footage. Even with a single pass of a LUT table can elevate the GH5 footage above other colour profiles used in camera.

My best aadvice. Hire a GH5 for a day and see if the extra features are worth it
The G9 is more aimed for Photography and whilst it can just like the G80 deliver great 4K footage, the GH5 makes these cameras feel quite inferior. Until you start shooting with the extra functions the GH5 provide, how can you really say if they are worth it or not.

When I got my GH5 a year ago, I didn't bother with the vLog upgrade. Now I have it on order. The difference. Having got the GH5s with vLog installed and shot some footage with It, I suddenly see why I need it. The colours and extra dynamic range can really lift image quality. My main colour profiles I use are HLG and vLog not for HDR delivery though I hope to experiment with this in time, but simply to provide better rec709 colour footage. Even with a single pass of a LUT table can elevate the GH5 footage above other colour profiles used in camera.

My best aadvice. Hire a GH5 for a day and see if the extra features are worth it
The G9 is more aimed for Photography and whilst it can just like the G80 deliver great 4K footage, the GH5 makes these cameras feel quite inferior. Until you start shooting with the extra functions the GH5 provide, how can you really say if they are worth it or not.

Bravo, perfect answer to end the thread.

When I got my GH5 a year ago, I didn't bother with the vLog upgrade. Now I have it on order. The difference. Having got the GH5s with vLog installed and shot some footage with It, I suddenly see why I need it. The colours and extra dynamic range can really lift image quality. My main colour profiles I use are HLG and vLog not for HDR delivery though I hope to experiment with this in time, but simply to provide better rec709 colour footage. Even with a single pass of a LUT table can elevate the GH5 footage above other colour profiles used in camera.

My best aadvice. Hire a GH5 for a day and see if the extra features are worth it
The G9 is more aimed for Photography and whilst it can just like the G80 deliver great 4K footage, the GH5 makes these cameras feel quite inferior. Until you start shooting with the extra functions the GH5 provide, how can you really say if they are worth it or not.

Thanks Steve. As you might glean from a close reading of this thread I have been seeking to obtain a loaner to do just that. Where I am currently located hiring is not an option, at least not at a reasonable price. Whilst it is true that the G9 is aimed more at photography - the Panasonic marketing folks have stressed that point and in my opinion it is a superior photography camera versus the GH5 - as a hybrid shooter, perhaps not a common specie here at DVINFO that reality gets my attention.

By the way, I believe the G9 delivers superior footage, has improved video functionality, versus the G80/G85 which I have, 4k 60p to name one superior attribute and there are many more.

You believe the GH5 makes the G9 feel quite inferior. Have you shot video with the G9? Having said that let me add that as you use the GH5 that may indeed be quite true, you will get no argument on that from me, but again as explained in the thread I don't intend to go with HDR at this time.

The overall consensus in my read of this thread, not unanimous, is that the G9 under the conditions in which I intend to use the camera, will provide a superior hybrid shooting experience versus the GH5. Jordan Drake, Camera Store TV video guy tells us 'the G9 is an insanely capable video camera'. Words, I know, but so is this thread.

Look, please don't misunderstand me; for you video only production guys the GH5 is it. I get it. Based on the huge amount of data out there, specifications and wot not, let me repeat I now believe the G9 is the superior hybrid shooting camera for me especially as I don't intent to go with HDR, for now.

Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.

John if your video shooting is clips of no more than a few minutes at a time then you may be really happy with the G9. The time limits which vary depending on what your shooting may come as a disappointment if there is something interesting to shoot. I think that for me is the most restricting part of the G9. If this will never happen to you then the G9 will be great and of course the form factor is more arranged for still shooting.

Marketing wise. The G9 is the stills camera with 80Mpixels stills, GH5 the hybrid and the GH5S the video centric model see in the dark. They will all shoot video and stills of course with different specialties and restrictions the user has to choose. Being video is my needs I have the GH5 and the GH5S.

Thanks Steve. As you might glean from a close reading of this thread I have been seeking to obtain a loaner to do just that. Where I am currently located hiring is not an option, at least not at a reasonable price. Whilst it is true that the G9 is aimed more at photography - the Panasonic marketing folks have stressed that point and in my opinion it is a superior photography camera versus the GH5 - as a hybrid shooter, perhaps not a common specie here at DVINFO that reality gets my attention.

You believe the GH5 makes the G9 feel quite inferior. Have you shot video with the G9? Having said that let me add that as you use the GH5 that may indeed be quite true, you will get no argument on that from me, but again as explained in the thread I don't intend to go with HDR at this time.

The overall consensus in my read of this thread, not unanimous, is that the G9 under the conditions in which I intend to use the camera, will provide a superior hybrid shooting experience versus the GH5. .

John, no I've not used the G9, but its specs and my considerable experience with so many Panasonic Hybrid, mirrorless cameras lends me an opinion that for video functions, it is inferior to the GH5. It is as others say designed for Photography with a bit of video on the side. Sure it can deliver good quality video, and if you're not dedicated to Producing video, but do it as a side to Photography, the G9 is a better option than the GH5. However there is more to 10 bit and vLog than HDR. Just so you're aware.

Personally if I was primarily a Photo producer with video on the side, I'd go for the Fuji XH1. Far better Photography than Panasonic IMO and the baked in video is better than Panasonic too, which I find the colours need tweaking to get right. Hence why I value the GH5 for its 10 bit and Log.

Ron, I understand how and why you operate as in recording staged events. I did that on one occasion about ten years ago when I recorded a play my brother directed. My clips are much more like 20 to 30 seconds maximum and almost always of something interesting, for me at least :-)

Furthermore, I almost invariably shoot both video and photographs, hybrid shooting, switching quickly from one mode to the other all the time. I am no longer in 'production video' and my EX1 is obsolete. While Panasonic marketing may well push the GH5 as their hybrid camera it is now clear to me, thanks to the input on the subject from contributors to this thread, that if one does not need or want to shoot using the very advanced video features the GH5 offers including V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2 along with the option of saving files in many more formats then the G9 is a better hybrid camera in that it offers superior focusing ability, better ergonomics, superior stabilization capability, hugely better EVF and so on, not to mention the clearly superior photography capability.

Steve, let me repeat myself again; I am a hybrid shooter and the notion of a 'bit of video on the side' fails to do justice to the video capability of the G9 or to my modus operandi. As I have said these days I am not a video 'producer' per se and I'm not doing video as a side to photography, nor photography as a side to video.

The Fuji XH1 does not shoot 4k 60p and I prefer the Lumix colours so I won't go there. Your mileage does indeed vary.

Again, many thanks gentlemen.

John, sounds like you've made your mind up. So really, I'd not worry about how others feel. I agree the G9 offering 60p 4K is a major plus for the camera. You asked for input from others and you have it, but the choice is as always your own. Only you can determine your personal needs. At the end of the day I am biased towards the GH5.

As for the Fuji, I still feel it is a better hybrid. In fact I was very tempted by it myself, but the video features somewhat fall short of what I've become use to. The larger sensor and colours are in my opinion and many others of outstanding quality. Moreover Pansonic have never in my mind been altogether superb in Photography. Focusing may well be better for Photos (jury is out on video), but still falls short on other manufacturers. Other manufacturers just get Photography more than Pansonic. If my role was even 30% Photography, I'd be using another brand of camera. No hesitation. And I say this with £10000's invested in Panasonic gear and a huge love for the GH5.

I am sure you have seen this John, MONGO Panasonic G9 AF + GH5 Hack Review - YouTube. Long but interesting. All this discussion of auto focus. I only use auto on my 1/3" Sony camcorders that work fine. With shallower depth of field and getting the camera to decide what to focus on then upset because it isn't what the user wants is amusing !!! All my serious stuff is manual focus though to be fair the setup is often with touch spot focus. That works on the AX100, GH5 and GH5S just fine !!!

I am sure the G9 will work fine for you.

Steve, again many thanks. Yes, I've made up my mind, for now, but tomorrow brings another day, and who knows, the gear landscape continues to change, for the better I reckon. Nothing is cast in bronze. I do understand your lack of enthusiasm for Panasonic still cameras and I share that to some degree, for sure. I do continue to sometimes bring my Sony a6000 with the FE 4/70-200 attached but only when I can park my vehicle close to the action and bringing a bunch of gear is possible. Great photography setup but rather useless regarding video. As a hybrid camera it just doesn't cut it.

The great cliché of this age is 'everything is a compromise, nothing is perfect'. I am of the opinion, soon to be tested, that the Lumix G9, if not perfect, might actually be a significant step up in the photography department for Panasonic. I hope so. I shall let you know. I should point out that I'm not making large prints anymore but pop the occasional shot up on the Web.

One thing is clear; if one wants affordable 4k 60p and very good still image quality all in the same device then there are not a lot of options out there in the interchangeable lens camera department. We shall see if the G9 delivers as promised.

Ron, thanks yes, I did already view that video, albeit with much fast forwarding as I find that fellow a bit too pedantic; way too many words and seemingly to self-absorbed for my liking which gets in the way of the information sharing. He is not alone in that regard when it comes to YouTube videos about this sort of gear.

In due course I shall post my finding regarding the G9 here.

way too many words

All the input you have gotten here so far are also just a lot of words so I'm not sure what you exactly want to hear from us if you have a problem with words. :)

Just rent the camera's you have interest in if you can and see for yourself as that looks to be the only way to convince yourself.

Thanks Noa, but your words were indeed helpful as were Mark's as I already said. And while that comment about 'words' was partly a rhetorical gesture I do have a problem with too many words but please don't get hung up on that. And as I said in my most recent post 'I've made up my mind, for now' but perhaps you didn't read that yet.

Cheers.