Raw vs. jpeg GF1
Just want to commend dpreview on the incredible work reviewing everything they do so well.
I have two GF1 cameras, one with a 20mm pancake and one with a 14-45 (kit lenses).
It's a long story, I inherited one.
I recently have shot both both lenses extensively, in raw and jpeg, and have found little difference in the the two formats. In fact, the jpegs were awesome. I shot the raw files and worked with SILKYPIX (the camera supplied software) to manipulate every aspect I cared about, but with the right correct camera settings, only the "enthusiast " really cares about the differences. The point is;; the jpegs are great, and shooting RAW maybe great to tweak this and that, but why? If jpegs can be this good I'm buying a EP2 (or facsimile). The point is, after manipulating many RAW files and comparing the in camera jpegs, you have to be obsessive compulsive to to want to deal with the manipulation at this level.The JPEGs are that good.
I have worked with. D3, D700, 300, 1Ds, and all professional level lenses. If you get a camera that performs at this level with jpeg, and you're not happy, get a better camera. Tweaking the images in RAW is not going to be satisfactory. FYI, I'm now looking at a Pentax K5 with the hot new lenses (if I can find any that might be sharp), I've worked with the iconic 6x7, 6.45, and the lenses were never very sharp, back in the day.
|_F0A5334-Edit_small by Dester Wallaboo|
from Open Air Fashion Photography
|Feed me, me, me, me, me by Denjw|
from Attention-Seekers in Nature