Panasonic says blurry images issue solved on Lumix GX1 with G X Vario PZ 14-42mm

[gardenersassistant]

A couple quick questions. Have you tested the lens on distant subjects, shooting at 175mm, with no close-up lens attached, at the troublesome shutter speed ranges?

Yes. All my tests were done with the bare lens. The camera is a G3.

I constructed a test scene with lots of sharp edges. This is how it looked at 45mm focal length. (It looks a bit soft actually, and that mirrors my experience with out of the camera images from the 45-175. I use JPEG rather than RAW, with the settings for sharpening, contrast, saturation and noise reduction all turned down to the minimum. I was initially rather disappointed with the comparison with 45-200 out of the camera images with the same minimum settings. However, I always post process my images, which is why I use those settings, and I found images from the 45-175 responded very well indeed to post processing and after PP looked better, in terms of visible details, rendition of textures and colours, than images captured with the 45-200. This is an impression, not a carefully tested result, but not only does it seem that way to me. My wife is my harshest critic when it comes to IQ, especially the aspects just mentioned, and on seeing the first (processed) non-test images from the 45-175 volunteered the view that they looked better than what I had previously achieved. So I don't think it is just my imagination.)



Here is what the full frame covered in one of the test images captured at 175mm focal length.



These are obviously reduced sized images. I examined the test images at full size (i.e. pixel peeping).

In the series from which this one is taken the camera was on a tripod, and I used a remote (wired) shutter release. The focal length was 175mm. OIS was off. I captured five images at each of the following shutter speeds, with several seconds between shots: 1/320, 1/160, 1/80, 1/40, 1/20 sec. I did a number of other test captures, hand-held and using the tripod, with and without OIS, but many of them were in the context of comparing the 45-175 with the 45-200, and significant proportions of them were outside the troublesome ranges. But that said, in or out of the troublesome ranges, I did not spot any of the problems you and others have unfortunately experienced.

This is where it is easiest to see if your lens has a problem. Firing off three shots at 1/40 - 1/320 each should, if the lens has a problem, be enough for it to show up (in my case, about 30% of the time). It seems possible that a heavy close-up lens like the Raynox might dampen the shakey elements enough to avoid the problem, as does shooting at less than 175mm.

Also, what camera do you use? It generally appears to work well on GH2's and some of the later Olympus models, but not on the G, GF, and sometimes GX1.

If you have a good copy that passes the above test, bravo! What is the serial number range?

HN2EB

I was unable to get one and gave up after four tries. I'm putting up with the blur until I buy another camera with a shutter known not to cause this problem, as I do like the lens and use it as my primary walkaround lens most of the time.

Yes, I have been reading about the bad times you have been having. I do hope you can get this sorted out.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/

 

[gardenersassistant]

O.K. Point taken, and I'm happy (and a bit envious) that you got a good lens. The reason for my suspicion in general is that I noticed that the majority of reports of problem-free results were showing small uncropped photos as evidence, and of course problems like this are difficult to see without looking closely at full-resolution. Then there would sometimes follow the counter argument that goes something like "who cares about pixel-peeping, I don't normally blow up pictures that much", which I'm sure you'll agree does not amount to careful testing.

I do agree. 100%.

Anyway, I decided that I cannot take the time, expense and aggravation of hunting for a good copy, noticing that a number of users had tried unsuccessfully two or three times.

Understood. I was extremely cautious, preparing the way for a return before committing to a purchase. I had decided incidentally that if I found the problem I would go for money back rather than getting into further attempts. To be honest, I wasn't really expecting it to be ok, but for reasons I'll explain in another response below about macros, I had very strong motivation to at least try it.

Sorry to have offended anyone, my intent was to caution potential buyers that Panasonic's claim to have fixed the problem are certainly not true,

I agree. I rang Panasonic UK and got to talk to an engineer. He said there had been problems, which they had been able to replicate, but said that the reports I had read would have been old reports as the problem had been fixed with a firmware upgrade. He did not respond when I pointed out that I was currently (this was last month) reading ongoing reports of the problems. I did not press the point because I didn't see me getting anywhere with him presumably giving me the company line and somewhat stuck in a corner as it were. It was following that unconvincing conversation that I decided to be very careful about getting the returns policy clear prior to purchase.

and that buying the x lenses (in my view) is at least a risky proposition, assuming that one expects high image quality in gear that costs this much.

Absolutely.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/

 

[phototransformations]

My copies, including the one I kept, we're all in the HH series. Yours is likely later, so maybe they did create a fix they are not announcing. Irritating, but not likely to prompt me to send it in as dealing with Panasonic Service with my G3 was a nightmarish process.

A couple quick questions. Have you tested the lens on distant subjects, shooting at 175mm, with no close-up lens attached, at the troublesome shutter speed ranges?

Yes. All my tests were done with the bare lens. The camera is a G3.

I constructed a test scene with lots of sharp edges. This is how it looked at 45mm focal length. (It looks a bit soft actually, and that mirrors my experience with out of the camera images from the 45-175. I use JPEG rather than RAW, with the settings for sharpening, contrast, saturation and noise reduction all turned down to the minimum. I was initially rather disappointed with the comparison with 45-200 out of the camera images with the same minimum settings. However, I always post process my images, which is why I use those settings, and I found images from the 45-175 responded very well indeed to post processing and after PP looked better, in terms of visible details, rendition of textures and colours, than images captured with the 45-200. This is an impression, not a carefully tested result, but not only does it seem that way to me. My wife is my harshest critic when it comes to IQ, especially the aspects just mentioned, and on seeing the first (processed) non-test images from the 45-175 volunteered the view that they looked better than what I had previously achieved. So I don't think it is just my imagination.)



Here is what the full frame covered in one of the test images captured at 175mm focal length.



These are obviously reduced sized images. I examined the test images at full size (i.e. pixel peeping).

In the series from which this one is taken the camera was on a tripod, and I used a remote (wired) shutter release. The focal length was 175mm. OIS was off. I captured five images at each of the following shutter speeds, with several seconds between shots: 1/320, 1/160, 1/80, 1/40, 1/20 sec. I did a number of other test captures, hand-held and using the tripod, with and without OIS, but many of them were in the context of comparing the 45-175 with the 45-200, and significant proportions of them were outside the troublesome ranges. But that said, in or out of the troublesome ranges, I did not spot any of the problems you and others have unfortunately experienced.

This is where it is easiest to see if your lens has a problem. Firing off three shots at 1/40 - 1/320 each should, if the lens has a problem, be enough for it to show up (in my case, about 30% of the time). It seems possible that a heavy close-up lens like the Raynox might dampen the shakey elements enough to avoid the problem, as does shooting at less than 175mm.

Also, what camera do you use? It generally appears to work well on GH2's and some of the later Olympus models, but not on the G, GF, and sometimes GX1.

If you have a good copy that passes the above test, bravo! What is the serial number range?

HN2EB

I was unable to get one and gave up after four tries. I'm putting up with the blur until I buy another camera with a shutter known not to cause this problem, as I do like the lens and use it as my primary walkaround lens most of the time.

Yes, I have been reading about the bad times you have been having. I do hope you can get this sorted out.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/

 

[SHood]

Thanks for the interesting results. Have you tried using a UV filter to see if the extra weight helps reduce the vibrations?

 

[gardenersassistant]

I'm guessing that you use a close-up lens for your macro work with the 45-175. If so, which one do you use? Do you like it?

I have used the Raynox 250 (8 diopters), Raynox 150 (4.8 diopters) and Canon 500D (2 diopters) for several years.

Very shortly before buying the 45-175 I bought a Raynox MSN-202 (25 diopters). This is very powerful. On both the 45-200 and the 45-175, at maximum zoom it covers a scene just over 4mm wide.

I tried using it on the 45-200, but it was monstrously difficult.

As you doubtless know, with a close-up lens you have to get the distance to the subject within a certain range, and the more powerful the close-up lens the less latitude there is about the distance. With the MSN-202 the latitude is (as best I could measure it) about 3mm. The front of the 202 has to be between 32 and 35mm from the subject.

As you will also know, with a close-up lens you change the magnification (and hence the framing/composition, and also the quality of the background - "bokeh") by altering the amount of zoom. I often use most or all of the available zoom range, exploring magnification/framing/background rendition options. Unfortunately, the 45-200 extends about 35mm between minimum and maximum zoom. In the context of a latitude of 3mm in the distance to the subject, this is a non-trivial issue. I'm used to using close-up lenses, and the 250 is fairly powerful, and I used it ok with the 45-200, but the 202 was near enough impossible to use on the 45-200. In fact, it was worse than I have described so far, because unless you are pretty close to that 3mm range of distance to the subject, you can't even see the subject - it just disappears into an undifferentiated/featureless haze across the frame. Changing the magnification/framing is a very slow and tedious business, to put it politely.

The 45-175 does not extend as you change the amount of zoom. Using the 202 on the 45-175 is a completely different proposition. I can't honestly say it is easy, but given my setup ("interesting" tripod, and focus rail) and several years' experience with the 250, it is proving to be definitely usable, indeed pretty much "just another close-up lens", albeit with tighter tolerances than the others, but no longer an "untamed beast from another planet". For example, this fly, captured with the 202 on the 45-175, is by my calculations about 2.5mm in length. As these things go, it was not especially difficult to capture.



With the 45-200, the Raynox 150 was my "go to lens" for insects etc, unless they were too big or small for it, in which case I would use the 500D or 250. Since starting to use the 45-175 I have noticed that I reach first for the (more powerful and more difficult to use) 250, which seems to have become my "go to lens". It is not a conscious thing - the 250 too is significantly easier to use than with the 45-200, and I think that is coming out in my unconscious choice as to which lens to reach for first.

So, do I like the 45-175 with close-up lenses? Oh yes. Very much indeed. Better image quality. Easier to use. Makes practical some things that were previously impossible, or at least so much hassle that it really wasn't worth the bother.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/

 

[gardenersassistant]

My copies, including the one I kept, we're all in the HH series. Yours is likely later, so maybe they did create a fix they are not announcing.

Hmmm. That is possible. But I wonder. I think (not sure though to be honest) that I've very recently read (on another site I think) of someone finding the problem and sending it back. It might have been the 14-42 X, but with regards to this problem I'm not sure that makes a difference.

Irritating, but not likely to prompt me to send it in as dealing with Panasonic Service with my G3 was a nightmarish process.

I can understand that.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/

 

[kenw]

Great test and data William. That's a good way to measure more subtle softening when the effect isn't an obvious double image. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for the rest of the review as well.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 

[William Castleman]

Thanks for the interesting results. Have you tried using a UV filter to see if the extra weight helps reduce the vibrations?

Not yet. I'll repeat the tests with several bodies and will try the UV filter variation. Thanks for the suggestion.
--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[Flycoop]

Thank you very much. This has been very helpful. I really don't have any idea what I'm doing but would like to play with macro. I've got a 45-175 lens. Would you recommend that I try the Raynox 250 or 202?

 

[Flycoop]

BTW, that is a great shot!