The G9 Mk2 excites.

If you are a M43 user, it is the pinnacle of the offerings so far, especially if like me you are a generalist who needs the best rubber-meets-the-road performance now, but with plenty of upgrade options.

The OM-1 is a beast, but if you are a hybrid shooter, still a little photo-centric.

The GH6 was arguably the top dog, hybrid especially, but is suddenly sidelined to all but the most video centric shooters by a true hybrid that lacks little and improves on much. Yes I would and will happinly swap a fan and flippy-dippy screen for twin SD slots, better AF, stabilising and stills features.

Gimbal like stabilising, professional video specs, best in class stills features, ideal form factor and cross compatibility (my S5 rig will fit it), all with a minimum of fuss. my recent post about video options seems almost quaint after the drop of this camera and all for the price of a low-mid range full frame.

If you are not a M43 user, best be aware. The advantages of the format are many, while the disadvantages are becoming less and less relevant.

Shallow depth of field rendering, meaning often impractical but “on trend” super shallow depth, like an 85 f1.4 used close, is a great look, but rarely of any use in the real world (it can also be matched for DOF by a M43 56 f1.4 Sigma that is much smaller and cheaper). Lenses like that used to assume best in class build and glass pedigrees, but these days, that is rarely the case. Lens perfection can be found in little gems like the 45mm f1.8 Oly, Sigma 30, 15mm f1.7 Leica or the base model f1.8’s from most brands.

A M43 user can and will use f1.8 for a lot of things a full frame user would avoid. Personally I shoot groups three deep at distance with the 75mm at 1.8 for that snappy sharp/soft look. The full frame user is more likely to use f1.8 and wider sparingly, falling back on the old workhorse professional setting of f2.8 (also the pro zoom maximum), achieving much the same* in the end, but losing over two stops of light while getting there*.

Which brings us to the second “biggie”, low light performance. In many scenarios M43 has answers for all the low light head aches. More efficient stabilisers, improved sensors, many with some form of dual ISO or dynamic range lift, then shot over to ever improving software can often fill in the balance.

Get yourself out of an Adobe only workflow and ISO 6400 holds no fear, go even higher if needed**, which when combined with the 2x magnification and smaller sensor stabiliser benefit and extra focus depth allowing for wider apertures to be used safely (see above) and you make up 3-4 ISO settings, all while being smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Of course the full frame file can be put through the same “soup” and/or bigger, dearer lenses bought, evening out some of these factors, but at the end of the day, for all practical uses, M43 provides plenty, only beaten in direct test bed comparisons with the always better by definition full frame sensors, but these comparisons are often without real context**.

There is alway more to be found somewhere, but enough is actually enough.

In direct comparison to the S5 Mk2, the only genuine advantage to the full frame camera is extremely high dual ISO performance (8000+), but only if the camera sports a similar fast lens. This is something that in video is a tougher fix for me, not running a super computer.

I am happy to have the “older” S5 for just that (one of the areas the Mk2 offers no actual improvement), but even then, I am keen to use it in Super-35 mode (APS-C crop) as there is little actually lost.

The G9 Mk2 will then do the AF, stabilising work and provide better format choices for me than even the S5 Mk2 would, all while tapping into my huge M43 lens arsenal.

For stills, even the twin EM1x’s are under some pressure, but each of my stable, old and tired or relatively unused****, are all relevant in some way. Even two of my original EM5 Mk1’s still take images that please me and are reliable enough to have been in the running for our next trip to Japan.

The older G9’s can now just be my stills/run-and-gun video cameras, basically stills cameras that can more than “do the job” when needed.

The G9 Mk2 also fixes the little issue I had with some of my video “rigs”.

The Samllrig shoulder and chest mounts used with the G9 Mk1’s I had to deal with manual focus and stabilising that was good for static work, but less capable than the Olympus cameras for movement. The Olympus cameras offered better AF and stabilising, but were not the best video performers.

Basically, I could put a G9 on a shoulder rig with a wide angle, set focus to a few feet with f5.6 and move with the subject putting the M43 depth of field advantage to good use. There were a few scenarios this worked in, but many ideas that I just had to cut loose.

It looks like the Mk2 would allow me to trust the camera with both its active stabiliser mode and face/body detect AF with any rig***. Suddenly two possibly ill-conceived ideas have fully found their feet.

*1.8 M43 = 3.4 ff in depth of field equivalences.

**The other two togs at the paper use f2.8 zooms and the new Z9 Nikon’s processed through Lightroom and the sports team still ask me why my night and indoor sports shots look brighter and cleaner! The power of modern M43 cameras with faster glass, put through Capture 1 and the occasional dip into ON1 No Noise (oh and the reality that a sensor 4x bigger is not 4x better).

***Another combination is the weighted shoulder rig with a top handle carried low, that seems nearly perfectly balanced for running hand held.

****Near new; S5, EM1x, G9, Pen F, OSMO, Worn in; EM1x, EM1.2, 2x EM10.2, G9, 2x Pen Mini-2, Bit tired; 2x EM5.1, EM1.2, Worn out; 2x EM5.1.