PDA

View Full Version : Panasonic G1 photos



Caleb Murdock
10-23-2008, 11:43 PM
I'm very disappointed by the Panasonic G1 photos that Jeff just posted. I don't find them sharp at all. I loaded one into my photo-editing program, and it didn't sharpen well. At the same time that they look soft, they also look over-processed, as if too much contrast has been added. I'm very discouraged. I was hoping the photo quality would be good.

None of those photos were converted from RAW, were they? Maybe the RAW photos will look better.

Margus
10-24-2008, 02:54 AM
Yeah, I noticed it too that they are not very sharp. But if you check the EXIF data of the sample pictures then you can see that the pics have been taken at the default settings:
Contrast: 0
Saturation: 0
Sharpness: 0

Otherwise I was very pleased with the image quality produced by the camera and the lens.

Contrast added? Didn't notice that in any of the pics. On the contrary, I was impressed how well the camera can handle direct sunlight, there are details visible both in the lighted areas and in shadow areas. Very good!

SpecialK
10-24-2008, 06:07 AM
Could this be why?

"Panasonic has requested that any photos posted from this camera be 640 x 480 or lower, which I don't think are terribly useful. Thus, I'll save those for when a production model arrives."

It looks like they have been removed.

Jeff Keller
10-24-2008, 10:43 AM
Could this be why?

"Panasonic has requested that any photos posted from this camera be 640 x 480 or lower, which I don't think are terribly useful. Thus, I'll save those for when a production model arrives."

It looks like they have been removed.

Follow the link from the home page, not the preview...

SpecialK
10-24-2008, 08:46 PM
Follow the link from the home page, not the preview...


Ah, thanks. I thought I was missing something...

Caleb Murdock
10-25-2008, 12:32 AM
Perhaps contrast isn't what I'm seeing. All I know is that there is a muddy quality to the photos, and it isn't just softness. If it were just softness, the photos could be sharpened, but they don't sharpen well.

I've been looking to move up to a DSLR-quality camera for two years now, but I want it to be relatively small, and I want useful live view. The Olympus E-510 was disappointing because of its lack of a power adapter (I do a lot of product photography). The Sigma DP1 doesn't do macro well, and it had a host of other problems. And now the Panasonic G1 has terrible image quality. I'm never going to find a camera that suits me!

sheyingshi
11-02-2008, 01:08 PM
@Caleb,

I use a Oly 510 for product work, usually with the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 or the 50 f2 lenses and have had excellent feedback from my clients. My work doesn't appear above letter size on ads so 10 mpx is sufficient. I always shoot in RAW so color, white balance, etc is adjustable, but I find what comes out of the camera usually works well with possibly a small white balance adjustment and some USM. Jeff's review of the G1 looks very promising image quality wise and I was hoping that the G1 would be priced a little lower so I could use it for my carry-around camera and trade my 510 for an E3. With the adaptor i could use my Zuiko 70-300 f4-5.6 to reach out instead of buying the 70-200, especially as it focuses so slow on my 510 I always manually focus anyway.

Also, I've sold some Oly 510 photos enlarged to 15" x 20" and they work well even at that size. I don't know what you mean by muddy image quality but to me the Oly color, and when I had one, the Panasonic FZ-50 color was excellent. Have you profiled your monitor?

Bajie
11-02-2008, 11:06 PM
I'm also disappointed, especially when compared with the Nikon D90 with the same size sensor. The review had a heavily pp'ed RAW iso1600 shot from the G1, and it looked pretty good. Panasonic should ditch that Venus whatever and start over. The G1's jpegs didn't look that much better than the TZ5's.

maybe Olympus will have better luck with their micro 4/3. Would be interesting when Canon & Nikon hop on.

sheyingshi
11-03-2008, 08:23 AM
Well, the Nikon D90 has about the same resolution as the G1 but the size of the sensor is different. A 4/3 sensor is 18 mm x 13.5 mm, whereas Nikon uses an APS C size sensor which is 23.7 mm x 15.7 mm. Panasonic has gotten much better with their image pipeline as time goes on, and as I believe they are supplying sensors to Oly for their 4/3 system Oly is also. Jeff's inclusion of a processed ISO 1600 raw image shows what the system is capable of. It's a lot better than my FZ-50, or for that matter, my old Oly E-1 was at ISO 200. The Nikon is a much larger, heaver camera. If that's not a problem then the D90 would work well for you. My shooting style, when I'm out of the studio, tends toward telephoto so the 2x focal range crop suits me just fine.

Bajie
11-03-2008, 09:49 AM
Ah, thx for pointing out my #s mixup.
Seems like a lot of different sizes; the XSi has yet another sensor size at 22.2 x 14.8mm.
Panasonic knows to outsource a part (Leica lens) when they can't do it well themselves, but the same reasoning hasn't applied to the image processing engine.

Caleb Murdock
11-03-2008, 02:57 PM
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who feels that the JPGs from the G1 are poor. I also don't like the images from the Nikon D90 because they are so soft. However, the two or three RAW images that Jeff posted from the G1 give me hope. I asked Jeff if he would post at least one low-ISO RAW image to give us a contrast, but he didn't give me a clear answer. If the RAW images are good, then the G1 will be my next major purchase. Everything about the camera sounds fabulous. (When I say RAW, I mean converted-from-RAW, of course.)

My standard in judging image quality was changed this year by images that I saw from the Sigma DP1. That camera showed me what is possible with the right technology. Cameras with Bayer sensors blur images by default (because of the Bayer pattern and the antialiasing filter), and that's something I really don't like. To make matters worse, I think that camera manufacturers are adding a little extra blur to mask pixel artifacts. Too many reviewers -- and I'm including Jeff in this, as good as his reviews are -- are willing to overlook image softness as a defect. Clean and crisp is what I'm looking for. I'm hoping that the DP2 is improved enough (in its speed and operation) that I'll feel I can get it.

Caleb Murdock
11-09-2008, 01:20 AM
@Caleb,

I use a Oly 510 for product work, usually with the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 or the 50 f2 lenses and have had excellent feedback from my clients. My work doesn't appear above letter size on ads so 10 mpx is sufficient. I always shoot in RAW so color, white balance, etc is adjustable, but I find what comes out of the camera usually works well with possibly a small white balance adjustment and some USM. Jeff's review of the G1 looks very promising image quality wise and I was hoping that the G1 would be priced a little lower so I could use it for my carry-around camera and trade my 510 for an E3. With the adaptor i could use my Zuiko 70-300 f4-5.6 to reach out instead of buying the 70-200, especially as it focuses so slow on my 510 I always manually focus anyway.

Also, I've sold some Oly 510 photos enlarged to 15" x 20" and they work well even at that size. I don't know what you mean by muddy image quality but to me the Oly color, and when I had one, the Panasonic FZ-50 color was excellent. Have you profiled your monitor?

I should have responded to your remarks -- sorry.

The Olympus E-510 was high on my list when it was announced, and I think the image quality is adequate. But as Jeff pointed out (and no other reviewer mentioned this), it can't be used with a power adapter. I can't imagine being constrained by the use of a battery when working in the studio. If the batteries for that camera were priced a little lower, I might have gotten the camera plus a bunch of batteries, but they are expensive. Not only that, but Olympus ships the camera with a SLOW battery-charger. To get the fast battery-charger, you have to buy it separately. I just found that too offensive.

I don't think my monitor is the problem. It's a high-quality Philips monitor that got excellent reviews when it came out. If the monitor were the problem, then all photos would look poor, but they don't. Some photos look excellent and some look poor, so I know I'm seeing the actual photo quality. I was totally blown away by the images from the Sigma DP1 that were posted on DPReview. Compared to those, everything else looks like mud. So just at the time that the DP1 whetted my appetite for sharp, life-like pictures, all the manufacturers have started adding a little extra blur to their images to remove the artifacts of noise-reduction. In other words, they are going in the opposite direction of the clarity that I want. If I had the money (and the upper-body strength!) I would probably get a medium-format camera.

One of the reasons I'm seeing more defects than other people is that I have my monitor set to a lower resolution than most people (800 x 600). When you look at photos on a monitor set to a low resolution, you can really see all the defects. Those muddy G1 pictures that I didn't like look a little better when I switch to 1024 x 768 resolution.