Panasonic GX series

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

The GX8 should've had a whole different name, like the X-Pro/X-E Fujifilm lines.

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. I think the GX7 MkII is where Panasonic should stay, unless they'll rethink their strategy and make a GXX Rangefinder camera with the L-Mount and all the bells and whistles with a Tilt screen "hint-hint" Panasonic...

Click to expand...

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

.....

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. ....

Click to expand...

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

...And you didn't answer my question: Is your rant comment based on actual experience with recent cameras or on theory which you might not completely master? Just asking...

Click to expand...

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

...And you didn't answer my question: Is your rant comment based on actual experience with recent cameras or on theory which you might not completely master? Just asking...

Click to expand...

Actual experience and more than just that.

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

...And you didn't answer my question: Is your rant comment based on actual experience with recent cameras or on theory which you might not completely master? Just asking...

Click to expand...

Actual experience and more than just that.

Click to expand...

Any comparison testing examples?

Click to expand...

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

...And you didn't answer my question: Is your rant comment based on actual experience with recent cameras or on theory which you might not completely master? Just asking...

Click to expand...

Actual experience and more than just that.

Click to expand...

Any comparison testing examples?

Click to expand...

No, I've never been masochistic enough to do that, and the idea sickens me, so you'll have to do it yourself, or at least look at the countless complaints around forums about artifacts by cameras that lack anti-aliasing. Anyway, I have to go, long day ahead. Do yourself a favor and don't listen to people who claim they've "never seen it", and you definitely don't need to "trust me" either (or anyone else who has at least a basic grasp of digital sampling), you should try stuff yourself, especially because forums are full of an insane amount of misinformation regarding this subject. Later.

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

...And you didn't answer my question: Is your rant comment based on actual experience with recent cameras or on theory which you might not completely master? Just asking...

Click to expand...

Actual experience and more than just that.

Click to expand...

Any comparison testing examples?

Click to expand...

No, I've never been masochistic enough to do that, and the idea sickens me, so you'll have to do it yourself, or at least look at the countless complaints around forums about artifacts by cameras that lack anti-aliasing. Anyway, I have to go, long day ahead. Do yourself a favor and don't listen to people who claim they've "never seen it", and you definitely don't need to "trust me" either (or anyone else who has at least a basic grasp of digital sampling), you should try stuff yourself, especially because forums are full of an insane amount of misinformation regarding this subject. Later.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've seen it all right; I'm a video engineer... It's just that it's still not clear to me if you've seen it on recent (2017/2018) cameras or older copies. Your anger seems to overwhelm your logic. Give us examples, pictures, camera models, etc. Otherwise, you're just ranting and not contributiing.

Click to expand...

Adielle said:

Adielle said:

Keith-pictures

Click to expand...

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

.....

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. ....

Click to expand...

Tsk tsk.... The jury is still out on this one. I for one really appreciate the fully articulated screen because a) I can close the damn thing and protect the screen and b) it's just covers more situations when I do need it.

Click to expand...

JakeJY said:

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

The GX8 should've had a whole different name, like the X-Pro/X-E Fujifilm lines.

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. I think the GX7 MkII is where Panasonic should stay, unless they'll rethink their strategy and make a GXX Rangefinder camera with the L-Mount and all the bells and whistles with a Tilt screen "hint-hint" Panasonic...

Click to expand...

The S1 and S1R has a 3-axis tilt screen that I think can work well as a midpoint. Still doesn't support Selfie screen, but does support portrait tilt.

I think the most ideal is a hybrid tilt/FAS like the A99 screen.

Click to expand...

peppermonkey said:

JakeJY said:

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

The GX8 should've had a whole different name, like the X-Pro/X-E Fujifilm lines.

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. I think the GX7 MkII is where Panasonic should stay, unless they'll rethink their strategy and make a GXX Rangefinder camera with the L-Mount and all the bells and whistles with a Tilt screen "hint-hint" Panasonic...

Click to expand...

The S1 and S1R has a 3-axis tilt screen that I think can work well as a midpoint. Still doesn't support Selfie screen, but does support portrait tilt.

I think the most ideal is a hybrid tilt/FAS like the A99 screen.

Click to expand...

...that take videos seriously, I think the grand majority would hate a screen that doesn't fully swivel.

Click to expand...

hexpoll said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

WhiteBeard said:

Adielle said:

Keithpictures said:

In its favor, it improves upon the GX8 by losing the anti-alias filter

Click to expand...

That's not "in its favor" at all, it's in its detriment. I despise this attitude. I'll take "10% less resolving power" over aliasing artifacts / "moire" any day. Cameras that lack an anti-aliasing filter are absolutely useless for me. I run into those artifacts all the time, especially because of the inability to properly handle the detail from the fabrics of people's clothes.

Your fake "extra-detail" in the form of disgusting aliasing artifacts trumps any slight "resolving power" that your AA-filter-less camera MAY have.

I despise this idiotic trend. Omitting the anti-aliasing filter is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do in an analog to digital sampling product, and it's not even disputable, it's a plain fact.

Cue the BS comments against anti-aliasing.

Click to expand...

Just curious if you're basing your rant on 3 year old theory or real experience with the latest cams without AA filtre? My understanding is that the extra processing power of the latest gear somewhat corrects some/most/all aliasing artefacts.

Click to expand...

There is no way to "correct" aliasing artifacts. Once aliasing happens, it's there to stay. Any POST-processing does not "correct" it, it only MAY somewhat mask the artifacts, and it will ALWAYS result in a MUCH worse result than you would ever have gotten had there not been aliasing artifacts in the first place. You and most people here don't seem to understand a single thing about the absolute basics of digital sampling, and that's how the camera companies are able to get away with crap like this. The only way to actually reduce aliasing artifacts is to include a low-pass filter, oversampling, or ideally (as has been done in audio for many many years) BOTH. There is no magical "state of the art" "computational photography" BS that can get around the basics of digital processing. I'm sick of this stuff.

Click to expand...

...And you didn't answer my question: Is your rant comment based on actual experience with recent cameras or on theory which you might not completely master? Just asking...

Click to expand...

Actual experience and more than just that.

Click to expand...

Any comparison testing examples?

Click to expand...

No, I've never been masochistic enough to do that, and the idea sickens me, so you'll have to do it yourself, or at least look at the countless complaints around forums about artifacts by cameras that lack anti-aliasing. Anyway, I have to go, long day ahead. Do yourself a favor and don't listen to people who claim they've "never seen it", and you definitely don't need to "trust me" either (or anyone else who has at least a basic grasp of digital sampling), you should try stuff yourself, especially because forums are full of an insane amount of misinformation regarding this subject. Later.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've seen it all right; I'm a video engineer... It's just that it's still not clear to me if you've seen it on recent (2017/2018) cameras or older copies. Your anger seems to overwhelm your logic. Give us examples, pictures, camera models, etc. Otherwise, you're just ranting and not contributiing.

Click to expand...

There is a good current thread on the Photographic Science forum that explains this in detail.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61997568

Adielle is correct in terms of aliasing. The issue is that, without bringing outside knowledge of the scene, it is impossible to actually fix aliasing artifacts. How do you know that your Moire is not actually a photograph of a Moire pattern? How do you know that leaves shouldn't look jagged and visually bright? It is mathematically impossible to reconstruct the original image after aliasing occurs. If you find a true way around it you can collect your Nobel prize.

Modern algorithms degrade image quality to remove the obvious signs of aliasing, but are not able to correct the subtle signs.

Click to expand...

Harold66 said:

WhiteBeard said:

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

.....

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. ....

Click to expand...

Tsk tsk.... The jury is still out on this one. I for one really appreciate the fully articulated screen because a) I can close the damn thing and protect the screen and b) it's just covers more situations when I do need it.

Click to expand...

Yes , fully articulated screen is a plus, ESPECIALLY for photogswho shoot a lot of vertical. I was lik many others I am sure , reluctant to consider GX8 because of all the shutter shock comments. If panasonic was to make a GX8 mark II of this camera without this shutter shock issue and the two sd uhs II card slots of the G9 , i would most likely buy one

Harold

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

MrALLCAPS said:

The GX1/GX7 was when Panasonic got it right. To this day, I want to point blame to whoever changed the name outside of Japan for the following cameras.

.....

Even with the GX8, I felt that that full swivel screen was the kiss of death for a lot of GX owners. ....

Click to expand...

Tsk tsk.... The jury is still out on this one. I for one really appreciate the fully articulated screen because a) I can close the damn thing and protect the screen and b) it's just covers more situations when I do need it.

Click to expand...

WhiteBeard said:

If you have a GX8 with one of the best EVF out there, why should the choice of the back screen be a "kiss of death" since most owners might use it only a fraction of the time?

Click to expand...