Considering 4:3, but have some questions about IQ

Nirurin wrote:

Saying all this, my initial tests with the GX85 left me a little uncertain. I only tested with the 12-32 kit lens, and in very poor light, so it wasn't a fair test. Testing against the a6000, both RAW pictures seemed pretty much identical, but with the GX85 having significantly better colours. However there was just something... flat about it?

Could you post a sample or two to demonstrate your point? From the samples we might find a solution to it.

Flat or pop/3D generally is a matter of personal preference. It also relates to the so called characteristic of a camera (or a brand). Like some advance Nikon models, they have a flat mode allowing more room for PP. Not long ago a good member had posted some of his work here and a few of us felt them too flat, but to shooter's like. It is highly personal and has no standard. Very often +0.33ev or -0.33ev would give very different result. We are lucky to have a responsive live view giving us a visual guide to adjust to everyone's taste. Or once for all we may shoot in M & manual ISO ensuring everything be in our control.

Having the great live view of M43, I never concern metering mode and metering point. I shoot mostly in A but 100% ignore +/-0ev of the exposure meter. Before GX85 (the only camera I have Zebra alert) by the live view I would first watch closely at the exposure of my object, then white sectors of the frame and by reference to the histogram to push my setting ETTR (or give up some immaterial highlight if needed). I always trends to -ev slightly for extra saturation in color. Now GX85's Zebra just allow me to pay less care on the histogram and do it faster. I believe every camera can produce more or the same thing because I manage it, not managed by it. The tiny GM5 is something that I'm not confidence to control (I can, but not fast enough) and so I would not touch it.

samtheman2014 wrote:

Serguei Palto wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

Serguei Palto wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

Serguei Palto wrote:

The correctly measured properties of a lens can not depend on a camera body or the other equipment used with the lens.

A lens test in isolation is pretty useless , as far as I am aware we all use a lens mounted on a camera to take our photos . So the only test that makes any sense is indeed a "system" test. Lenses for m43 need to have double the resolution just to compete with a FF cameras assuming the same MP count , given that we are stuck at 16/20mp and FF has had 36mp for a number of years and more recently 42 and 50mp the comparative results are hardly surprising , well except to some members of the m43 fan club.

Invalid point of view.

If you know true properties of a lens then you know the best possible performance on any camera including that which will be produced in future.

The true properties of the lens are like a passport of a human. The data in the passport do not depend on a policemen who checks them, but provide a valuable information on a human.

With true data in the lens "passport" you can easily compare the optical quality of a lens independently on a camera platform it is produced for. One can also easily predict the best performance of an arbitrary system (camera+lens) with an arbitrary number of Mps on a sensor.

There is a concept of the ideal lens (which, of course, is independent on a system platform), and the true optical quality of a lens must be estimated on the basis of how large is the difference between the ideal and a real lens.

Contrary, if you measured just a performance of a particular system (body+lens) you can tell nothing on the true lens performance. As soon as a new camera bodies will be produced, all the data you measured for a particular body-lens system become just a garbage. A bright example are the data measured on the camera with the shutter shock.

The power of the concept of the interchangeable lens cameras is that lenses you bought can be used in future cameras. It is why only the true lens properties are valuable.

Again I take photos by mounting lens on camera as I suspect do you , DXO updates all it's lens tests to new bodies in each format{ eventually } so you can see how a given lens will work on your respective camera. Photography is camera + lens

I am not interested in DXO updates after the lens is bought. I have to know how a lens will perform on all the cameras (even on those which will be produced in future) before I bought it. And because the correct testing can be done, why not to do the job properly?

The test is done properly and the results posted relevant to how the camera +lens combination will be used,

And he already explained why that's not a particularly interesting result. At least not for him. And I 100% agree with him.

Other than increases in MP or tinkering with the AA filter what magic future camera do you expect to radically change.

Those two will do just fine. Neither different MP or changed/removed AA filter has anything to do with the lens. We want information about the lens. Information that can be applied to precisely different MP or changed/removed AA filter.

Have we now established that you do indeed use your lens attached to a camera ?

This is utterly besides the point. He already explained in detail why, so why don't you try to understand what he's writing? It's not really very difficult to understand, you should be able to do it. And I agree with him 100%!

Nirurin wrote:

alcelc wrote:

Nirurin wrote:

Saying all this, my initial tests with the GX85 left me a little uncertain. I only tested with the 12-32 kit lens, and in very poor light, so it wasn't a fair test. Testing against the a6000, both RAW pictures seemed pretty much identical, but with the GX85 having significantly better colours. However there was just something... flat about it?

Could you post a sample or two to demonstrate your point? From the samples we might find a solution to it.

Unfortunately today was another very cloudy day, and I was only able to take some snaps during my break at work. I put these through the usual quick processing in lightroom, but the light and the subject matter certainly didn't help. I also tried a couple macro shots with my raynox close up lens, but only one of them came out vaguely accurate - again, being rushed didnt help matters.

All with 14-140 f3.5.

With the Raynox 150

Thank you. In fact I have too strong sunshine in these 2 weeks and is difficult to take GX85 for more testing under 39°C...

Back to the business. I suspect it might be an issue with the raw processing. If you can add a bit more contrast to the first 3 images, you could have a less flat feeling. The last macro shot is fine.

When I try to check them in PS, a slightly reduction in saturation would yield a relatively more natural look (but it might not suit your taste).

Why not try a few jpg. As I have problem to find a suitable raw developer, I have to shoot mainly in jpg for the time being. I find GX85 could produce acceptable OOC image even under standard photo style (in its default setting).

2 OOC jpg from my recent testing on GX85:

Nirurin wrote:

Jpegs also don't give you any real ability to alter the photo afterwards.

That's not true at all.  You can enhance jpegs quite a bit with even the most basic processing software.  And you can do quite a bit with them in Lightroom.

You just don't have as much latitude as you do with RAW files.

Nirurin wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

The OP has a problem ;

Insisting on limited-aperture zooms is a huge barrier to enjoying both the Sony and the m4/3rds systems.

Get a decent bright prime or two!

(also Lightroom seems to be the worst starting/default choice for m4/3rds RAW-pocessing.)

I now have an Olympus 60mm macro. Though you still probably won't approve, as it's not a fast prime!

I do plan to get one fast prime as well, something that would work well when I know I'll be either indoors a lot or the light wont be good. Maybe a 'cloudy winter lens'. But I need to figure out what focal length would be best for me.

Unlike a lot of people on here, I don't have the bag space (or the musculature) to carry around a bag of 12/24/35/50/70 mm primes lol. Also don't have the money either.

I have also considered the relatively fast pro zooms, the 12-40 isn't very long but it might be enough. But then 2.8 still isn't that fast.

I think I will try and find a balance point of focal length, so that I can get a fast prime that can be used for multiple situations. Occasional 'sky at night' shots would be good (which is why I considered the rokinon 12mm f2), but 12mm might be a bit wide for indoor use.

For the short term though, the 14-140 and the 60mm macro should get me a few decent shots over the summer. I'll have to look into cloudy weather lenses.

You may want to start with kit lens, and soon (sooner that you think) you will find out what is going to be your second lens, third lens... Life is the best adviser.

For macros you do not want shallow DOF, for close-ups you probably need shallow DOF, for daylight shoot you do not need fast lens,

Just follow your way.

Nirurin wrote:

Since I started on ILC cameras I've tried to avoid Jpegs, as it seems like I should be using RAW now that I have the ability to! Jpegs also don't give you any real ability to alter the photo afterwards.

It may just be a matter of me needing to process the pictures slightly differently. I may try some OOC jpgs as tests too.

Yes, Raw would give us the biggest head room to PP. But Jpeg also allows us to manipulate it, at a not small scale.

It was very important to shoot in raw back in the old days when working with LC5 (the earliest panny-Leica advance compact), some FZ superzooms, to G1/GF3 etc when their IQ were behind from today's M43 standard. Relatively very limited DR, often have to push shadow a lot as they couldn't beyond ISO400... Not much option back then.

After more comfortable with digital cameras, and development in my personal storage/review method, I'll print a limited few to hang in my living room, whereas most of the remaining would be converted into a travelling video for easy playback/sharing. Since 6~7K photos would be an average minimum for every 6~8 days travelling, not to mention the time on proper fine tuning, just conversion all of them into jpeg from raw would take a considerably period of time before I could make use of them. So I shoot mostly in jpeg unless some difficult lighting condition that I know much PP needed.

If in-camera jpeg engine could deliver, under careful/more powerful raw program there should be no reason for us not to yield a better image than in-camera development. Try OOC jpeg to see could it produce something you like. If certain photo style could reach/close to your expectation, it might be a good point to start working on raw. Just my 0.02.

I'm with you on this one - photos taken with a particular lens tell me much more than "scores", with which I often disagree... Also, lens sample-variation is a reality I long ago discovered! More is at:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm 
--DR

I (very briefly!) owned an a6000, but for my use with native-mount and adapted lenses, I much preferred my Panasonic bodies. As we often must learn by trying it, higher pixel count isn't necessarily better. My comments on lens-checking (with some specifics that may interest you that you referred to) and brief lens reviews are here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm 
--DR