G3 image, 1600 ISO JPEG

[RichA]

Indeed good times. I can't wait to get my G3 but still have a few reservations since I originally expected to opt for the GH2. Now I anticipate waiting until the GH3 if I feel I want a bit more (or try to keep my mind open to other bodies or systems. Has to have OVF or excellent EVF, reasonable ergonomics all other things being about equal).

Dianr

I'm hanging on to the G1 until I get to wring-out the G3. I want to see how the menu-driven controls effect shooting. I owned an Olympus E-410 and didn't mind the menu controls because you didn't have to go down through multiple layers to get at key functions.

 

[Diane B]

That's my plan too. In fact probably won't sell the G1 at all but use it as a second body and pass my GF1 to my husband if I can persuade him he'll like it better than his G9 LOL. To be truthful the G1 is just about the right size and ergonomics for me except for the front dial so the GH2 would likely be closer to what I'm comfortable shooting for the last almost 2.5 years but I've been told I will probably like the touch screen and think the grip will be alright so I won't know, like you, until I dhoot awhile with it. Time is getting quite close one would think.

 

[Pelao]

I'm hanging on to the G1 until I get to wring-out the G3. I want to see how the menu-driven controls effect shooting. I owned an Olympus E-410 and didn't mind the menu controls because you didn't have to go down through multiple layers to get at key functions.

Hi

Having to dive through menus for key functions is something I cannot live with either. In fact, I would prefer, for those functions, no menu at all> dials for aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be very pleasant.

Depending upon what you regard as crucial, when I handled the G3 recently I found that it follows the standard Panasonic pattern for key things like ISO, aperture, exposure comp etc: press an assigned button and then navigate to your choice via the thumb wheel, the 4-way buttons (with the camera to your eye or via the main screen) or via touch screen. It worked well.

I see the G3 as having great potential for the easy-carry kit: the camera plus, say, 4 lenses would fit in a small bag and be very light. The lenses on offer are a great strength to the overall system, in my view: the 14, 20 and 45 making a nice prime set-up.

Depending on your final output image quality seems likely to be somewhere between more than good enough to excellent.

I am interested to see what the EP3 brings. if it does not have a built-in VF it is dead to me. If it does, I will look, but I did not like the EP2: it was simply more difficult to configure than the GF1.

I am also interested in the likely Nex 7. Rumour (for what it is worth) mentions a built-in EVF and more direct buttons for things like ISO etc. The Sony sensors are simply great, and this camera looks interesting. However, it is only the camera, and the Sony range of lenses just does not, in my view, match what I can get for M4/3.

This always swings me back to looking carefully at the whole system. A camera body might be very good, but are the lenses available to my quality expectations and shooting needs?

 

[RichA]

That's my plan too. In fact probably won't sell the G1 at all but use it as a second body and pass my GF1 to my husband if I can persuade him he'll like it better than his G9 LOL. To be truthful the G1 is just about the right size and ergonomics for me except for the front dial so the GH2 would likely be closer to what I'm comfortable shooting for the last almost 2.5 years but I've been told I will probably like the touch screen and think the grip will be alright so I won't know, like you, until I dhoot awhile with it. Time is getting quite close one would think.

The G1 body skin was a mistake, since it wore in specific areas, but even so, I find the G1 easier to hold onto than the GH2 which is slippery. A friend of mine sold his and kept the GF2 just because of the size.

 

[Tesselator]

For me the G3 looks mest.

But I don't give a ..... on JPEGs OOC, I always do RAW!

Me too. But I wonder at what point we'll all have to concede and just say frak-it? I mean besides for creative processing and/or major surgery...

When the jpegs look as good or better than processed RAWs which they're getting close to now, I wonder how many of us will still spend the time - and it is very time consuming if you want a result that bests the current jpegs.

Even the GH1 was approaching jpeg perfection under certain conditions. I recently did a series where I shot the first 100 shots in RAW, then the next 100 in full sized JPegs, and then the next 100 in medium sized jpegs, and then the last 100 in small jpegs.

I was pretty astonished to find that the small Jpegs looked almost exactly like what I was ending up with after post processing and scaling the RAWs for the web. Below were all shot Small Jpeg:

Unless I wanna do selective sharpening and selective NR I can't get the RAWs to look any better than that - even the tone curves are approximately perfect. And selective edits are way time consuming.

As I see it the GH1 represents Panasonic's second try at in-camera jpeg processing. It goes like this (in my mind anyway) if we start the revisioning from their first M4/3 offering:

G1 = 1st try.
GH1 = 2nd try.
G2 = 3rd try.
GH2 = 4th try.
G3 = 5th try.

And the GH3 when it arrives will be their 6th try at getting it right. I dunno how "scientifically accurate" or even reality based that is but that's kinda how I see it.

RAW on the other hand unless they're offering up massively pre-processed RAWs, doesn't change much without changing the sensor type or the sensor size. The G2 and the G3 should look just about identical if they both have the same size sensor with the same pixel density. I'd say the G1 and G3 should be identical too but the G2 got a boost in pixel density thus changing it up a little. This would indicate to me anyway, that the advantages of RAW processing will diminish even as Jpegs surpass them at some point (for general photography). Currently I think we're just bout at that point right now.

It should be the case (again unless Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw) that every modern APS-C camera produces less noise at any given amplification (ISO Gain), than all M4/3 cameras. There are some factors like the quality of the components, and the board level layout, and etc, that can influence the amount of noise that ultimately ends up in our images but as I understand it the main factors are hard physic oriented aspects of the sensor itself - mainly size and pixel density.

So.... when I read someone saying that the G3's RAW image is so much better than the G2 or that it directly competes with higher end APS-C models the only things I can think of are:

1. The tests they're looking at are flawed or rigged.
2. They're just wrong. Or,
3. Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw - which I guess is about the same as #1

If Panasonic's RAW's are like fat, partially processed jpegs I'm OK with that - it means less PP for me and more time shooting! But it seems somewhat disingenuous to credit the sensor or to credit Panasonic for anything other than better in-camera processing.

When I read them saying the same things about the in-camera JPeg results it's obvious (to me anyway) that they like the new processing better - period. Well besides the possibility for flawed or fudged tests anyway.


.

 

[m3photo]

Re: RAW vs JPEG

When the jpegs look as good or better than processed RAWs which they're getting close to now, I wonder how many of us will still spend the time - and it is very time consuming if you want a result that bests the current jpegs.

Been thrashed to bits time and again, but here goes:

OK, but it's not always a case of saving time in a conversion; if you just shoot and print, so-to-speak, fine.
If you want the best "negative" to work on when you capture that special image there's nothing like being able to extract all the juice from a basic 16bit file instead of grappling with a pre-cooked 8bit set of ones and noughts.

It's always a case of us fishermen having the best gear in the boot* just in case we catch the big one - that's what RAW's for.
Yes, there's a little button on the side of a Pentax, for example, that let's you have a RAW image when you're in JPEG mode - you know, the button you'll never remember to press when the time comes ...

*For you odd people across the pond who speak strange English it's "trunk".

 

[Pelao]

Me too. But I wonder at what point we'll all have to concede and just say frak-it? I mean besides for creative processing and/or major surgery...

When the jpegs look as good or better than processed RAWs which they're getting close to now, I wonder how many of us will still spend the time - and it is very time consuming if you want a result that bests the current jpegs.

Even the GH1 was approaching jpeg perfection under certain conditions. I recently did a series where I shot the first 100 shots in RAW, then the next 100 in full sized JPegs, and then the next 100 in medium sized jpegs, and then the last 100 in small jpegs.

I was pretty astonished to find that the small Jpegs looked almost exactly like what I was ending up with after post processing and scaling the RAWs for the web. Below were all shot Small Jpeg:

Unless I wanna do selective sharpening and selective NR I can't get the RAWs to look any better than that - even the tone curves are approximately perfect. And selective edits are way time consuming.

As I see it the GH1 represents Panasonic's second try at in-camera jpeg processing. It goes like this (in my mind anyway) if we start the revisioning from their first M4/3 offering:

G1 = 1st try.
GH1 = 2nd try.
G2 = 3rd try.
GH2 = 4th try.
G3 = 5th try.

And the GH3 when it arrives will be their 6th try at getting it right. I dunno how "scientifically accurate" or even reality based that is but that's kinda how I see it.

RAW on the other hand unless they're offering up massively pre-processed RAWs, doesn't change much without changing the sensor type or the sensor size. The G2 and the G3 should look just about identical if they both have the same size sensor with the same pixel density. I'd say the G1 and G3 should be identical too but the G2 got a boost in pixel density thus changing it up a little. This would indicate to me anyway, that the advantages of RAW processing will diminish even as Jpegs surpass them at some point (for general photography). Currently I think we're just bout at that point right now.

It should be the case (again unless Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw) that every modern APS-C camera produces less noise at any given amplification (ISO Gain), than all M4/3 cameras. There are some factors like the quality of the components, and the board level layout, and etc, that can influence the amount of noise that ultimately ends up in our images but as I understand it the main factors are hard physic oriented aspects of the sensor itself - mainly size and pixel density.

So.... when I read someone saying that the G3's RAW image is so much better than the G2 or that it directly competes with higher end APS-C models the only things I can think of are:

1. The tests they're looking at are flawed or rigged.
2. They're just wrong. Or,
3. Panasonic's RAW's aren't really raw - which I guess is about the same as #1

If Panasonic's RAW's are like fat, partially processed jpegs I'm OK with that - it means less PP for me and more time shooting! But it seems somewhat disingenuous to credit the sensor or to credit Panasonic for anything other than better in-camera processing.

When I read them saying the same things about the in-camera JPeg results it's obvious (to me anyway) that they like the new processing better - period. Well besides the possibility for flawed or fudged tests anyway.


.

A very interesting post. I am a hard-core RAW person, but I also am prepared to question my assumptions.

I too have seen jpegs improving steadily. It's not always the case, or across the board with regards to the subject or light, but often the jpeg will be very, very good.

Output plays a part in this. If you are shooting for the screen, and the conditions are not too challenging, jpeg may well be what you need.

I had an EP2 for a while, and I do agree with the much touted Olympus jpeg look: natural and very pleasing. I think Panasonic are working hard to meet this challenge.

For now I will continue to shoot RAW or RAW + jpeg, but I think your point is well made. When I shoot both and the jpeg looks like what I had in mind, I will use it.

 

[kit laughlin]

A question to those that have handled a G3:

Does the touch screen allow you to move the focus point with a single touch, or a 'click and drag' kind of gesture? On the G1, you click the L button on the 4-way, then the bottom one, then move the focus point, all of which takes time.

This is the only thing I'd use the touch screen for, but if it could do that, I'll get one.

Those JPEGS look good—but with memory so cheap (I'm using two of the 16GB cards that I use for video here while in Italy) why wouldn't you shoot Raw plus JPEG as a matter of course (assuming the G1/2/3 can do that? I too only shoot Raw, for now.

 

[Diane B]

Kit, I saw a video of using the G3 with the touch screen for sort of the equivalent of "pulling focus" but using an AF lens instead of using an MF lens. I'll have to see if I can find a link for it. I don't really have an interest much in video but this demonstration convinced me that touch for focus will be useful for me. It was a surfboard shop I think. They would touch the front board in the line of boards, then the next--and the next all in the foreground. Then the far background, back to one of the boards in the foreground. Very good demo of choosing focus with the touch screen. I'll look for the link and add it here.

Found it.. The one I'm referring to is the last clip and its a snowboard shop not a surfboard--a bit of difference LOL.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_G3/video_review.shtml

Diane

 

[Riley]

Be very careful using this to compare. There are different areas of the image that can vary wildly, sometimes due to lens DOF. This happens a lot. There's a guy around that likes to compare for example the playing came card hearts/queens whatever but he has been way off when you look at the general shot.

- Raist

PS: And to be clear, not saying the G3 doesn't look good- it does but I find that you just can't take an image slice and conclude. I would still for example expect a K-5 to do better high ISO than the G3, overall.

theres another guy around that inserts 'K5' into every thread on the planet

 

[hot]

video with G3

http://vimeo.com/24267793

 

[kit laughlin]

Ah; thank you all. I didn't mean use the touch screen to focus, I meant use the touch screen to move the focussing point (and then use the shutter half depress to actually focus)...

I am thinking that the only change I make regularly is when moving from landscape to portrait; I move the focussing point to the top third of the frame, where the eyes might be.

It's late here in Italy; I hope this makes sense. Thanks everyone