The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 (Image Thread)

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yokohama, Monday Morning, GF1 posted on Sunday, Forum time...

another day, another hotel room
-bob
 

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
. . . .

Guy-you long exposure needs to be crossposted on the Photographing your bokeh thread

...
Thanks Terry - we need to keep these Guys under control - this one is needed over in the bokeh thread - we don't have too many "OOFs through movement"

:deadhorse:

Keith
 

woodyspedden

New member
Just as an attempt at clarification.

The DPReview of the GF1 made clear that if using the camera's jpeg processing engine you will get much much better results with the EP1.

On the other hand, if processing a Jpeg from raw then the GF1 is a far superior engine. They could not have been clearer about this. I think this distinction is really important since most of us take raw images and process later using our favorite converters. Personally I never shoot in Jpeg since once there you have no options in terms of going back to basic images then processing again if necessary.

If you agree with that logic, then it makes sense to use the camera/engine that does the best job of capturing raw images. Once you have that basic image you can process an infinite number of variants depending on what you need/want to accomplish. I subscribe to that notion.......big time!

Both are capable cameras, to be sure. I am a Panny fan when it comes to Micro 2/3 so that's all there is to that. My use for the GF1 is as a take with you camera so you never are in a position to lose a potentially useful and salable file. F8 and be there but if your camera is at home there is no F8 so you are basically hosed. The GF1 with the tiny 20 1.7 meets my criteria for a camera you can have with you at all times. Shoot raw and be there. JMHO!

Woody

By the way, last time I looked Jack, at about 6'6" and 260 or so is what is known as the moderator/administrator enforcer. Challenge this at your own peril
 

jonoslack

Active member
Just as an attempt at clarification.

The DPReview of the GF1 made clear that if using the camera's jpeg processing engine you will get much much better results with the EP1.

On the other hand, if processing a Jpeg from raw then the GF1 is a far superior engine.
HI Woody
Where did they say this about the RAW files from the GF1 being far superior to those from the EP1?

Can you point to it please?

I'm not denying it, It's just that it doesn't bear out what I'm finding (I'm using LR3, and I'd say the RAW quality was exactly equivalent), and I really really don't remember reading it.

If you are referring to the bottom of this page:

dpreview raw comparison

Then they are saying that the panasonic has a slight resolution advantage (as a result of a weaker AA filter) but that everything else is equivalent . .. and of course, you can get significantly more resolution out of an EP-1 by processing the files in C1 (an option not available for the GF1). What they are saying is that the improvement from jpg is much greater from the GF1 (because the jpg is less good).

I see nothing about 'far superior engine' . . . but, as I say . . . maybe I'm missing something?

all the best
 
Last edited:

Terry

New member
Woody,

Both cameras are using the same sensor. Panny uses a weaker AA filter that gives marginally more detail. But essentially shooting RAW there really isn't a demonstrable difference. As you said, shooting jpegs, the Oly wins.

Here is what I copied from the GF1 review (from a number of different pages):

As shown elsewhere in this review the color rendition and white balance on a bright sunny day suffers in comparison to the Olympus E-P1 (which has some of the best JPEGs on the market), and at a pixel level the JPEGs don't make the most of the sensor's capabilities, but for most users (without access to an E-P1 for comparison) I suspect the results - even at the default settings - will give little cause for complaint.

Focus and metering are very reliable (far more so than the E-P1), and since both lenses are excellent, overall impressions are very positive indeed - we took over 3500 shots during the production of this review, and the number of problems we had that could be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the camera (as opposed to the operator) was tiny.

Switching to raw capture and processing in ACR lifts the GF1's output from the realms of the 'perfectly decent' to the top tier of consumer camera picture quality, particularly at lower ISO settings, and particularly when detail and texture are important. Taking the camera's JPEG engine out of the equation reveals the excellent pixel-level sharpness captured by the CMOS sensor, and allows you to get exactly the color rendition you want (if, like us, you don't find the GF1's default color mapping that appealing). Even a straight ACR or Lightroom conversion at default settings produces results that are on a significantly higher level than those produced in-camera from the same exposure.


Panasonic GF1 advantages over E-P1

Faster autofocus and AF subject tracking
Higher resolution screen (twice as many dots)
Built in flash
Optional Viewfinder
AVCHD Lite
Fast (F1.7) pancake lens kit


Olympus E-P1 advantages over GF1

Currently supports autofocus on a wider range of Olympus Four Thirds lenses
In-body IS
Collapsible kit zoom
Stereo Sound
Dual control dials
Art Filters


As we've seen with previous Panasonic models, switching to raw mode is like lifting a veil from the output, and even in this quick ACR conversion the true capabilities of the sensor are revealed, with visibly more resolution and none of the demosaicing artefacts or moiré we saw in the camera JPEG. By comparison the Olympus has improved far less, which - as we pointed out when we reviewed the E-P1 - is as much an indication of just how good its JPEGs are as anything else.

Given our experience with every other Olympus and Panasonic camera it comes as no surprise that this raw comparison reveals the GF1 to have a slight resolution advantage over the E-P1 (thanks, presumably, to a slightly lighter low pass filter) - in fact the amount of detail you can capture with this body / lens combination is simply stunning.

If you are a raw shooter there's no doubt that the GF1 can make more use of a good lens (removing the E-P1's superior processing equalizes just about everything else, and from a color and tonality point of view there's no significant difference).


Here is the link to the full review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/

Just as an attempt at clarification.

The DPReview of the GF1 made clear that if using the camera's jpeg processing engine you will get much much better results with the EP1.

On the other hand, if processing a Jpeg from raw then the GF1 is a far superior engine. They could not have been clearer about this. I think this distinction is really important since most of us take raw images and process later using our favorite converters. Personally I never shoot in Jpeg since once there you have no options in terms of going back to basic images then processing again if necessary.

If you agree with that logic, then it makes sense to use the camera/engine that does the best job of capturing raw images. Once you have that basic image you can process an infinite number of variants depending on what you need/want to accomplish. I subscribe to that notion.......big time!

Both are capable cameras, to be sure. I am a Panny fan when it comes to Micro 2/3 so that's all there is to that. My use for the GF1 is as a take with you camera so you never are in a position to lose a potentially useful and salable file. F8 and be there but if your camera is at home there is no F8 so you are basically hosed. The GF1 with the tiny 20 1.7 meets my criteria for a camera you can have with you at all times. Shoot raw and be there. JMHO!

Woody

By the way, last time I looked Jack, at about 6'6" and 260 or so is what is known as the moderator/administrator enforcer. Challenge this at your own peril
 

Terry

New member
Most reviewers feel that this is the case, but I prefer the Panasonic in-camera B&W to Oly in-cam B&W, and I'm more likely to shoot in-cam B&W than in-cam color.
Thanks for the clarification. Most do talk about the color not the B&W and I do very much like the B&W I get out of the G series. That being said, I haven't done any deep comparisons between the B&W rendering between the two brands.
 

Amin

Active member
I almost never shoot color in-camera JPEG these days, and I suspect this would be the case whether I were to shoot Pana or Oly. I occasionally shoot in-cam B&W, so this is more important to me than the color.

I don't have deep experience either with E-P1 in-cam B&W, but most of what I have seen has been either flat or one of the extreme contrast art filter effects. My impression of Oly B&W from the E-410 and E-420 was that it was flat. OTOH, the dynamic B&W from the LX3 and Panasonic MFT cameras is quite good IMO.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Terry / Amin
I've seen some really nice b&w done with the EP1, but I can't for the life of me remember who took them.

Like most, I only really shoot RAW - if I'm going to do black and white conversions I like to use Silver efex pro or the channel mixer in Aperture.

All the best
now I really AM off to bed!
 

PeterB666

Member
Well it isn't black and white but it is largely monochrome...



I couldn't really figure out how to best crop this picture and this is a compromise. I wish I had a bit more in the frame to the left. I find some aspects of this building strangely erotic.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yokohama, Tuesday Morning

another day another hotel room
-bob
 
Last edited:
J

jerryk

Guest
I think the next lens for me is the 7-14 and the new 45mm and sell the kit lens. Most of my shots are 14mm, 20mm and 45mm from what I have been shooting with it. I actually pressed this into service yesterday on a job along with my MF images.
Guy, when you talk about selling the kit lens, are you talking about the 20 or the zoom.?

Jerry
 

Terry

New member
Bob,
I really like this shot. I've been in too many hotels rooms and up and awake in the pre-dawn hours that I can relate to this shot. I also didn't see your reflection making it all the better.

terry
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Bob,
I really like this shot. I've been in too many hotels rooms and up and awake in the pre-dawn hours that I can relate to this shot. I also didn't see your reflection making it all the better.

terry
Thanks Terry,
This time I tried to make the reflections work to my benefit instead of trying to minimize them.
Also, you might recognize the forum on the laptop screen :ROTFL:
-bob
 

Friedel

Member
Great pictures, Jack, I like the second one most.

Her another one from Frankfurt/Germany, I took it in a shopping mall.



Karl
 

scho

Well-known member
Very nice images Jack. I really like the first image of the tree with just a few remaining red leaves. Excellent detail and well controlled sharpening.

Carl
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Guys,

Karl -- I like your composition too, the woman is perfectly placed/timed for the shot!

Carl -- That was using basic ACR settings, then run through my standard CS sharpening and web converter routines. I have tweaked the routines to specifically avoid over-sharpening artifacts.
 
Top