The G9II is a no brainer I guess and a large part of my motivation is to continue with M43 as I know it is the smart choice, but a talk I had with a student at the school the other day did sow a seed of doubt.

I recommended to him the S5 II (should have insisted on the “X” as he stated clearly he was interested in video).

This was because I still feel twitchy recommending M43 to anyone who shows any reluctance to embrace a smaller sensor. The problem is, doubts tend to lead to scapegoating. Something does not work well enough, blame the sensor.

In all probability, the sensor has allowed the user to take advantage of the better stabiliser, AF/depth of field advantage and cost to quality benefits, but that advantage often comes from awareness of the benefits through experience, not blind faith.

Looking at the S5II and the G9II, there is no contest for me.

The G9II is an incremental improvement in all areas except very high ISO performance (but solid enough) and that is something the S5 that I already have can handle (according to Ed Prosser even better) and it justifies me owning that one. The G9II has (very) high bit rate All-i, USB to SSD recording, better stabilising, more reliable AF, better slo-mo, more relevant stills features, even higher resolution.

Very high ISO work would likely be manually focussed and a single camera, so the single S5 is fine (when a powerful G9II with 1.4 lens fails) and the newer cameras do not apparently improve on that. Anything else, especially multi camera shoots would be lit properly, well within the tolerances of the G9II (or even G9.I) with a fast prime, of which I have many.

The S5IIx is maybe another matter.

For a lower base body-only cost than the G9 (assuming lenses are available, which they are), the 5IIx matches the G9II’s video features, but with the higher ISO benefit. The saving is off-set by the need to buy a 24mm f1.8. I would intend to use the full frame/super 35 options to make four focal lengths out of two (24>35 and 50>75). If I get that camera, I will get that lens, if not I will stick with the current combo of the 20-60 and 50 only.

Even with a second kit lens, the S5IIx is only slightly dearer at the moment than the G9II body only.

This would mean I would sacrifice the handiness of the G9II, a camera I consider as close to a gimbal free camera as there is in this class, the best M43 AF for video and the best M43 slo-mo options (4k 120p/1080 300p), for a shift to full frame only for serious video. The S5x is actually slightly behind in video specs, but not by much.

Feelings now are still leaning towards the G9II otherwise my large investment in lenses and work flow habits are less logical. Some loyalty to the system that empowered me to this space is due and given, but video is a special case in some ways.

So.

Do I want to have limited M43 for video, using the system only for run-n-gun straight from camera work (2x G9 mk1’s) and stills, then focus on S series only for serious video? The S5x can of course take stills, but I would only have a handful of lenses, all short and no intention of going down that path again in great measure. So far $2500 has bought me a seriously good FF backup system, but $3500+ would be needed to get it up to semi-complete (S5x and 24mm).

The image below is a screen shot of beautiful 1080p/10bit/422 OOC quality, all I need for quick use, but the AF, stabiliser, dynamic range and codec choice of the G9II would be good also.

Alternatively, do I buy the ultimate M43 hybrid, really only intending to use it for video, but be able to switch it out completely to stills if needed and cut my losses in full frame for now, relegating that format to the role of support/static and high ISO work?

The S5.I is not a bad backup, only lacking All-i recording and the handling benefits of the G9II, something only one camera needs to do at any one time.

I have 14+ lenses for this system, basically a full video kit on top of my stills gear and the thought of using my 300mm in some other indoor venues for stills is tempting. Adding more lenses would also not be out of the question, because it is still my main system and they are cheaper, smaller and lighter.

One factor, though not a big one and thanks to Sam Holland’s review here. The G9II colour matches the cooler S5I better. The S5II and GH6 share warmer tones, but nothing a simple Lut won’t fix.

The G9 is the favourite now, ironically because there are fewer compromises.

• AF > G9 wins. The deeper depth of field and next gen application.

• Stabiliser > G9 Gimbal like, where the S5’s are next level down.

• Battery life > G9

• Non cropped video formats > G9 again ironically thanks to the smaller sensor.

• Slo-mo options > G9

• Ergonomics (extra front button and smaller lenses) > G9

• High ISO > S5 (any model, so I actually have this knocked).

• Overheating > theoretically S5II(x), but most reviewers have stated it is a non issue up to battery life, even when stressed.

• Lens selection > G9 (14 M43 lenses covering 16-600, even up to 2000 FF equiv).

As usual the format’s power and advantage’s come down to lenses. I have those.

This is something that needed to be explored before, not after, but explore I have.

The G9II is closer to the S5x than the S5II, superior in many ways to the GH6 and it empowers my stills kit a few generations past the EM1x, my current champion. I held off on the OM-1, GH6 and even EM1 Mk3, because they basically only added one or the other feature set. The G9II offers an across the board upgrade.

Yep, no brainer.