Reading mode: Light Dark

Real Life Pics: GF1 vs NEX 5

Go to last post
Unfortunately, I find that Picasa overly sharpens images and makes it hard to get a real sense for how the original image looked. It was one of the major reasons that I left Picasa.
 
The exposure differences between cameras makes comparison not possible. The GF-1 images are consistently slightly underexposed which keeps one from being able to do reasonable judgments.

Based on resolution, it appears that the GF-1 images are more detailed. What lenses were used on each?

Dan
--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?
 
To me, the Sony tends to overexpose, resulting in a more "washed out" color palette, but the sensor must have more dynamic range than the Panny, it's especially noticeable in the last two pictures with the dark room and light on the door.

Where were you at when you took the pictures? Looks like Vail (or another Colorado ski-town)
 
Hi Dan,

I have used the kit-lenses, the 14-45mm panasonic and the 18-55mm sony.

I understand that an experienced user can sail around many camera-flaws,

for me it is important to know how a camera behaves in auto-mode, because i often have no time or mood to change major settings. A camera with the tendency to over- or under-expose, the tendency to produce highlight-clipping or to soften images because of the of the kit lens makes my pictures noticeable worse.

I think the whole panasonic-package GF1 and kit-lens does a better job in daylight-situations, in the dark the sony rules.

Have a good night, Oshee
 
(though not perfect, of course) of different approaches to color rendition.

The way Panasonic does it looks much more comfortable for a long gazing, and the pictures from Sony cameras look to "brittle" to my eyes.

Let me repeat, it is to my eyes, and your milage may certainly very!

--
'Life is something that happens to you while you're making other plans'.
M. Millar
 
ET2 said:
yeah, looks like one of these lenses is crap but it isn't sony
Click to expand...
graphs are not the holy grail, just look at his comparison pictures, and you will notice, that the sony lens is much softer at the borders than the panasonic lens, even stopped down like this you get horrible softness that starts at 1/3 from the center, this is not acceptable. sony's pancake is even worse.



the sony sensor is definitely good and i also like the size of the NEX, but it is missing vital controls. so as a real photographic tool the NEX sucks IMO. and sony should finally come up with some really good lenses!
 
mjohnston said:
Unfortunately, I find that Picasa overly sharpens images and makes it hard to get a real sense for how the original image looked. It was one of the major reasons that I left Picasa.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to know what alternative for pictures and videos (with music) do you have-
especially able to deal with m2ts files.

Adam

http://www.pbase.com/adam3544
 
With a quick browse through the set, I noticed the following:
  • Differences in exposure. In most of the outdoor images, I prefer the exposure of the GF1. The NEX has blown highlights in many of those shots, and seems to overexpose. OTOH some of the GF1 pictures look a little underexposed. But on the whole, I think the GF1 metering is doing a better job.
  • Indoor lowlight pictures: I prefer the WB of the GF1. It preserves a little of the warm incandescent lighting, and looks more pleasing to my eyes. The NEX pictures look very cold to me (too blueish)
  • Distortion: In some of the pictures, the NEX lens shows noticeably much more distortion than the GF1 pictures. In the GF1 they are corrected in-camera; which pays off in a straight auto-mode jpeg comparison like this.
Like I said: I didn't pixel peep at the detail in the outdoor shots (corner sharpness etc) or the noise performance in the low-light shots. What your comparison shows is that those details are not the most important part of the IQ comparison anyway. Metering, WB, colour (tonality and saturation) are what matter for the first impression of a picture.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
The Panasonic system is a little sharper at that position in the frame in the tests, but it's not as bad as that. Actual images can be very misleading unless great care is taken since different cameras have different levels of sharpening, and CA can make images look blurred.

Here's the same pair of images, but with lens correction applied, and a little sharpening. Ideally this would be done from RAW, rather than sharpening an already compressed image.





Also the NEX lens is at its worst at the edges at 18mm. Look at the focal lengths where the NEX kit is at its best, and it's a different story, even in the corners.

--
A rose by any other name is still a chicken.
 
seachicken2000 said:
The Panasonic system is a little sharper at that position in the frame in the tests, but it's not as bad as that. Actual images can be very misleading unless great care is taken since different cameras have different levels of sharpening, and CA can make images look blurred.

Here's the same pair of images, but with lens correction applied, and a little sharpening. Ideally this would be done from RAW, rather than sharpening an already compressed image.





Also the NEX lens is at its worst at the edges at 18mm. Look at the focal lengths where the NEX kit is at its best, and it's a different story, even in the corners.
Click to expand...
There is still an enormous difference to my eyes, even at the small size you've posted - despite applying lens correction and sharpening, the NEX image is very obviously worse in this case.

I'm sure with a better lens attached, this wouldn't be a problem.
 
Interesting that the Sony can nail the WB in the dark room; I've yet to own a 4/3 sensor that can get an appropriate light temperature in anything but full sunlight.

I borrowed a NEX 3 for an hour a month ago; it's nice to shoot - more responsive than my E-PL1 and more ergonomic (the placement of the "movie record" button on the E-PL1 - bah!). I was only shooting in iAuto mode; the weird interface and lack of control was immediately noticable. I noted a tenancy to overexpose in bright light, as you can see in your comparison. Sadly, the Sony 18-55 lens IS terribly soft in the corners at wide angle and that's where I usually shoot. I can fix WB, can't fix softness - I couldn't print any of those pics at more than about 8X10".

Overall a favorable impression, though. Next iteration of this camera, Sony could get it right if they're willing to do what's needed; they need to improve their lenses as much as they need to re-think the interface, tough and expensive to do.
 
Look at that smoke stack on the metal roof. Even at the pictures smallest size it looks terrible. The trees to the left look even worse.

Sony's problem is they put the sensor too close to the lens. You will never get sharp corners with wider angle lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top