Re: Gave The GX7 MkII Another Go...
Jacques Cornell wrote:
MrALLCAPS wrote:
Jacques Cornell wrote:
MrALLCAPS wrote:
Jacques Cornell wrote:
MrALLCAPS wrote:
Jacques Cornell wrote:
MrALLCAPS wrote:
So after a discussion where I stated the four thirds sensor has no "3-D Pop", I went out and picked up a GX7 MkII (I refuse to call it anything else) and the Tiny 15mm f/1.7.
I must admit, amazing camera, with its only minus is the sensor. Sure, I could nitpick and wished for weather sealing and a better, Larger Evf, but it is what it is.
But man, the size with that 15mm on the front is cool. Much smaller than my X-Pro2, I was just firing away on my evening commute, without a care. I tried zone focusing, but as soon as the camera goes to sleep when not in use, its gone and I'd have to reset.
And for "ME" the Noise is too much compared to my fuji's. The Fuji's have a very fine noise grain, while the MkII's noise was very harsh.
Fuji bakes NR into the RAW files, unlike pretty much everyone else, and in the process it gives up detail at high ISO (as do pretty much all sensors), so comparing Fuji output from RAW to output from other RAWs is apples-to-oranges unless you also apply significant NR to those as well. Try processing your Panasonic RAWs with DxO PhotoLab 2 Elite and applying PRIME NR. I think you'll be surprised at how clean they can be. It was a game-changer for me. I now have no hesitation about delivering well-exposed ISO 6400 images from my GX8 & GX9 to corporate event clients.
You can't beat physics. The noise coming off a Four Thirds sensor is much more harsh than a APS-C one.
It's only 2/3 of a stop.
You mean a 1-1/3 stops.
No. An APS sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2/3 of a stop higher.
Now you're moving the goalposts.
No, I'm not.
A larger sensor can gather more light, at matching settings, matching iso's, the larger sensor will have cleaner image.
What I said above can be put another way: the MFT sensor will deliver "2/3 of a stop" more noise than the Fuji sensor at the same ISO. Point is, the difference is only 2/3 of a stop, not what I'd call "much more harsh".
We disagree, you think it's less, I think it's more. Luckily I have a few camera systems, so I can make the judgement for myself.
Same goes for an APS-C to a Full Frame sensor.
That's 1-1/3 stops.
You mean close to 2 stops, right? Because that's what reviews and photogs say... saying it less is quite a reach, huh?
No. A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as APS when the former is at an ISO setting 1-1/3 stops higher.
A 35mm sensor typically delivers the same noise as MFT when the former is at an ISO setting 2 stops higher.
This reflects the differences in sizes of the sensors' light gathering area, which you can read and compare here.
You cant beat size. Sure you can use software to reduce it, but its still bad. Color noise from a Four Thirds sensor is even harder to get rid of, which is why I mainly shot B&W with M43.
I take it, then, that you have not followed my advice and actually processed MFT files with PhotoLab 2 Elite and applied PRIME noise reduction. You can talk theory all you want. Reality is often not so clear-cut.
I use Capture one and Lr, even still again, you can't fight physics.
Of course you can. Sensors and software have improved vastly over the past decade.
The noise is much harsher than my fuji files, even in Lr, which isnt too friendly with XTrans files. I have a GX7 MkII, X-H1, X-Pro2, and Z6. I can see a clear difference, in files, raw or jpeg, before and after processing.
Capture One and LR are not as good as PhotoLab for noise reduction. Look, if you want better results from your Panasonic, as you claim to do, then why are you ignoring my main recommendation? It seems like you're just committed to experiencing that camera as inferior and promulgating that opinion.
So lets say that its better, what about Dynamic Range?? What about pulling detail from Shadows? You just can pull more details out of dark areas in a M43 image than a APS-C image. You just can't!
You may be right, but it depends on the specific sensors in question. APS does not always deliver better DR. Just look at the DR differences between 35mm sensors from Sony and Canon. FWIW, I'm quite confident that the blocked up blacks in your sample images could easily be pushed to reveal detail if you haven't grossly underexposed the images. Your experience simply doesn't match mine, and I shoot low-light corporate events with MFT and Sony 35mm professionally.
Now you're pitting the Best sensors (Sony) against easily the worst (Canon). Im talking about M43 & APS-C. what's next? You're going to use Canon 7D sensor vs the latest M43 sensor?
And sure, I underexposed my shots, but I always Underexpose my shots on the street, to squeeze out a little more speed to capture what I want and pull detail later in post. If I didn't, all of those pics would've been blurry. All those images were shot on the move. I would like to see some samples of your street photography.
Thanks for your recommendation, but I'll stick to Capture One.
OK. But, understand that if you're not using the best possible noise reduction, you're not making a fair comparison between what's possible with Fuji and MFT.
I can, based off what initially comes out of the cameras I own. I don't mind Post Processing, but I don't need to get Another program, just to eek out a bit more detail, to match the detail I easily get out of my Fuji or Nikon kit.
It was a short experiment, but I'll be returning the MkII. Maybe I'll keep the 15mm in the hope that I can get a GX9, cheap on the used market. It's an amazing little lens.
Dynamic Range was an issue as well, trying to bring out detail in the peoples dark clothing. Separation was not on par with my Fuji's either, it didn't break up subjects well.
That's a function of lens aperture, not sensor size.
Wrong. Its the Sensor.
"Separation", AKA DoF, is a largely a function of the physical size of the aperture. You can cite "circles of confusion" all you want, but f3.6 on my Sony and f1.8 on my Panasonic yield the same DoF and represent apertures of the same physical size.
I'm talking about Dynamic Range, pulling detail out of shadows. It's much more difficult to do so with M43. Separation is also an issue I've seen. That does have something to do with the aperture of a lens.
Um, yeah. To put it mildly.
That I would agree.
I can't comment on DR, as I've not downot downloaded and processed directly comparable Fuji and MFT files to test this. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us by doing so with DPR's Studio Test image files.
http://www.imatest.com/solutions/dynamic-range/
But all in all, this isn't about bashing the kit. I looked at it next to my X-Pro2 and laughed at how much more discreet it was and the advantages it had being so on the streets. It has a ton of features that would keep me busy for days. The 15mm f/1.7 is an amazing little lens that was made for the streets. The flat top I love. Handling is okay, but at its size, it's manageable. The size of the Evf didn't really bother me and I wear glasses. It's only real knock to me is the sensor size.
Try the GX9 (AKA GX7 MkIII) - you might love the tilting EVF for street.
I would if Panasonic NA would've sold a Body only version or pack it with the 15mm f/1.7 instead of a zoom nobody wants.
Nobody wants an excellent 12-60 for almost no money? Really? Maybe you don't want it, but I hardly think you speak for everyone.
I don't, but from numerous people here as well as other forums, the consensus is why pack a kit zoom with a ragefinder styled body, most popular with street shooters? Why is there no body only option as most street shooters already have their fave prime already to shoot with? Why not kit it with a Prime lens like Fujifilm does?
From my experience, most of the people I know who shoot M43 and RF styled bodies use only primes.
And how many people is that? Have you done a poll on this forum?
No but I could. In fact, maybe I should, and do one for Fuji as well.
Good idea. Much better than making unfounded assertions based on a tiny data set.
Fujifilm at least sold the X-Pro2 with a Zoom, prime and body only options.
-Waiting on a Full Frame L-mount GX7.
That sensor will not fit in that body. OTOH, I don't see why Panasonic couldn't make a 35mm-format version of the GX8, which is roughly the size of the A7x bodies (but much lighter).
I should've been more acurate, I meant a FF Version of the GX7 MkIII. Make it the size of a GX8 and a pancake 40mm f/2 would fit the bill.
I'd drop my X-Pro easily for it. Or, Fuji could just knock off the GX7 and use it on the X-E series.
