the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Mr Giggles Contributing Member • Posts: 788
the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
1

I remember using an early version of the GH series and being really underwhelmed by the image quality.

there was a really boring   rending to the images which reminded me of the Oly SLR cameras from  15 years ago ......    which I hated

I had sworn  off m43  and then I  got an unbelievable  deal on a G9

I was started by the difference in quality .... while not quite up to FF it was fine for smaller prints up to 16 x 20 which is what I print anyway

now here is the thing

I could have been wrong

maybe the editing software was not optimal and to be honest I forget which RAW editing software I even  used ..... I always shoot raw so I know I was not seeing in camera JPEGS

so I am curious what you guys think - who have being using M43 forever

was the image quality ok for you ?

did  you discover a special raw editor which brought quality similar to the modern M43  ?

Adrian Harris
Adrian Harris Veteran Member • Posts: 6,844
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
21

I bought the very first m43 camera, a Panasonic G1. When using it within its dynamic range and ISO limits it produced fantastic images.

Had a book published, all feedback said images wonderful. So all I can say is, I don't think the early m43 cameras had a problem.

Lightroom certainly was not optimised for it, that's for sure

-- hide signature --
 Adrian Harris's gear list:Adrian Harris's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sony SLT-A77 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 +1 more
ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 8,874
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
7

Don't know about early Panasonic bodies  but there was a surprising step up in IQ between the 16Mpix Pansonic sensor in the EM1 and the 20Mpix Sony one in the EM1.2.

This is shooting RAW and processing in C1.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +29 more
Ab Latchin Senior Member • Posts: 2,020
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
6

Mr Giggles wrote:

I remember using an early version of the GH series and being really underwhelmed by the image quality.

there was a really boring rending to the images which reminded me of the Oly SLR cameras from 15 years ago ...... which I hated

I had sworn off m43 and then I got an unbelievable deal on a G9

I was started by the difference in quality .... while not quite up to FF it was fine for smaller prints up to 16 x 20 which is what I print anyway

now here is the thing

I could have been wrong

maybe the editing software was not optimal and to be honest I forget which RAW editing software I even used ..... I always shoot raw so I know I was not seeing in camera JPEGS

so I am curious what you guys think - who have being using M43 forever

was the image quality ok for you ?

did you discover a special raw editor which brought quality similar to the modern M43 ?

I always liked the 12mp sensor look. In fact, I liked it so much I just bought an EP3 used. I gave my youngest boy my EP2 to have fun with.

Personally I think sensors have "looks" rather like film. older E1 Kodak sensor output looks different to the 10mp E3, which is different to the 12mp EP2 and the 16mp Em5 etc.

Obviously newer software can get more from older sensors, I might put a quick test up as I have an E1, E3, EP3, EM10.3 and EM1.3 for each sensor resolution.

OP Mr Giggles Contributing Member • Posts: 788
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?

I remember what happened

I bought a GH2 or 3 because of the hype about its video prowess

so on the first outing I wanted to see what the photo quality was like

I took a number of different images using RAW and I downloaded the Panny raw editor - what ever that was at the time

I then loaded the images and processed them

I remember looking at them and being startled

" these look like crap " .... I thought

I turned up saturation and played with adjustments

now at the time I was using a Sigma SD15 and the difference in quality was dramatic

I panicked

I then got a horrible sick feeling in my stomach

the Panny went right back in the box

the next morning I got right back in the car and drove an hour to return it

there was an unbelievable sense of relief when the return credit card slip came out of the machine

as I left the store in my mind I thought

" I gotta stop screwing up "

( luckily my other photographic purchases have been extremely less dramatic )

Albert Valentino Veteran Member • Posts: 9,186
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
1

Mr Giggles wrote:

I remember using an early version of the GH series and being really underwhelmed by the image quality.

there was a really boring rending to the images which reminded me of the Oly SLR cameras from 15 years ago ...... which I hated

maybe the editing software was not optimal and to be honest I forget which RAW editing software I even used ..... I always shoot raw so I know I was not seeing in camera JPEGS

did you discover a special raw editor which brought quality similar to the modern M43 ?

For many of us the editor of choice for m43 isDxO PhotoLab . I invested in it when I moved over to m43 in 2016 and never looked back 👍

It would be interesting to hear how well your old raw images render in the latest version of DxO PhotoLab 4 - which you can download for a free trial. I suspect, with the right settings, including noise it will make a very tangible difference.

-- hide signature --

If you don't get older and wiser, than you just get older.

 Albert Valentino's gear list:Albert Valentino's gear list
Olympus E-M1 III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +10 more
OP Mr Giggles Contributing Member • Posts: 788
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?

Albert Valentino wrote:

Mr Giggles wrote:

I remember using an early version of the GH series and being really underwhelmed by the image quality.

there was a really boring rending to the images which reminded me of the Oly SLR cameras from 15 years ago ...... which I hated

maybe the editing software was not optimal and to be honest I forget which RAW editing software I even used ..... I always shoot raw so I know I was not seeing in camera JPEGS

did you discover a special raw editor which brought quality similar to the modern M43 ?

For many of us the editor of choice for m43 isDxO PhotoLab . I invested in it when I moved over to m43 in 2016 and never looked back 👍

It would be interesting to hear how well your old raw images render in the latest version of DxO PhotoLab 4 - which you can download for a free trial. I suspect, with the right settings, including noise it will make a very tangible difference.

I use dxo on my GH5S images now

lets me take night shots ...  I show proof with below image

those nasty GH2 raws are long gone so I cant try reediting them

if anyone has old M43 images and are now re editing them in the killer Dxo software I would love to see how it works

jalywol
jalywol Forum Pro • Posts: 11,122
Depends
35

I am the queen of the quest for better sensors, starting with my first M43, 10 years ago; an EPL1.

10+ years out, and lots of M43 bodies, and a few FF mirrorless, behind me, and what have I found out? Yup, the original 12MP sensors were noisy and had lousy DR, especially if the ISO crept up above baseline. The 16MP were better, but still problematic in some ways. The current 20MP are pretty darn good in those respects, even if you bump the ISO a little bit.

But then, I go back and look at some of my favorite images from the 12 and 16MP M43 cameras I have had over the years, and there's a funny thing that happens...I don't find myself looking at the sensor noise or the technical flaws related to early sensor behavior; instead I look at the images, and see some nice stuff that I had done back then.

Even now, when I am using both the 20MP M43 (GX8 and GX9) and a 24MP FF (S5), while I see the difference in output between the two, if I put up a good image from the M43 in amongst maybe some more boring, but perhaps technically superior, images from the FF, people like the M43 image better....In other words, it's about the photograph, not the camera technology that created it.

Some early photos from EPL1, G2, GF3 (12MP), and GH2, EPM2, and GM1 (16MP):

Holga toy lens

Holga toy lens

GH2 Panorama of Black River Falls, VT

Holga toy lens

Holga toy lens

bluevellet Veteran Member • Posts: 3,706
funny thing
1

Mr Giggles wrote:

I remember using an early version of the GH series and being really underwhelmed by the image quality.

there was a really boring rending to the images which reminded me of the Oly SLR cameras from 15 years ago ...... which I hated

I had sworn off m43 and then I got an unbelievable deal on a G9

I was started by the difference in quality .... while not quite up to FF it was fine for smaller prints up to 16 x 20 which is what I print anyway

now here is the thing

I could have been wrong

maybe the editing software was not optimal and to be honest I forget which RAW editing software I even used ..... I always shoot raw so I know I was not seeing in camera JPEGS

so I am curious what you guys think - who have being using M43 forever

was the image quality ok for you ?

did you discover a special raw editor which brought quality similar to the modern M43 ?

M43 sensor tech was behind, but the actual image processing/jpeg special sauce was awesome back in those early days. Especially on the Olympus side.

And when they finally moved to the 16MP generation, it was obvious the sensor was better, but i always found something missing compared to those punchy jpegs of the 12mp generation. I end up doing more post processing.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Nikon Z6 Olympus E-M1 III Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 +14 more
Michael J Davis
Michael J Davis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,697
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
4

I've used m43 since 2008 with the G1, and from the beginning I've had no qualms about quality, even with the original 14-45mm, 45-200mm & 20mm lenses.

Half the members of our Photo Soc bought m43 because of the quality of my pix; 16"x 12" prints and pixel level crops on projected images.

(I even still use the G1 + 14-45 or 20mm lenses to throw in my bag!)

Originally I use PS Elements, now I use LR + PS Elements.

HIH

Mike D

PS - look at the latest shot (Rochdale Landscape) on my Flickr pix (below)

Mr Giggles wrote:

I remember using an early version of the GH series and being really underwhelmed by the image quality.

there was a really boring rending to the images which reminded me of the Oly SLR cameras from 15 years ago ...... which I hated

I had sworn off m43 and then I got an unbelievable deal on a G9

I was started by the difference in quality .... while not quite up to FF it was fine for smaller prints up to 16 x 20 which is what I print anyway

now here is the thing

I could have been wrong

maybe the editing software was not optimal and to be honest I forget which RAW editing software I even used ..... I always shoot raw so I know I was not seeing in camera JPEGS

so I am curious what you guys think - who have being using M43 forever

was the image quality ok for you ?

did you discover a special raw editor which brought quality similar to the modern M43 ?

-- hide signature --

Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 60 years
www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

 Michael J Davis's gear list:Michael J Davis's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +6 more
richj20 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,788
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
2

Mr Giggles wrote:

...

was the image quality ok for you ?

More than OK for me!

I began 11 years ago with two Panasonic G3 cameras. I used several lenses:

14-45mm

45mm Macro

20mm f/1.7 (my favorite M43 lens)

Olympus 40-150

In 2015 the LCD became defective on one G3, and I replaced it with Panasonic GX7. Later I "retired" the other G3 in favor of the GX8 with Dual IS which I use with my Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm.

While the advance in sensor technology has improved lots of things - Dynamic Range, higher ISO usage, etc, I don't feel that I "take better pictures" with the newer cameras, and I still have a personal attachment to the photographs I made with the G3.

From time to time I take my remaining G3 out for a spin. Last year I photographed a series at our local park/lake with my 100-400 mounted.

-- hide signature --

Richard

ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 8,874
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?
4

Mr Giggles wrote:

I remember what happened

I bought a GH2 or 3 because of the hype about its video prowess

so on the first outing I wanted to see what the photo quality was like

I took a number of different images using RAW and I downloaded the Panny raw editor - what ever that was at the time

I then loaded the images and processed them

I remember looking at them and being startled

" these look like crap " .... I thought

I turned up saturation and played with adjustments

now at the time I was using a Sigma SD15 and the difference in quality was dramatic

I panicked

I then got a horrible sick feeling in my stomach

the Panny went right back in the box

the next morning I got right back in the car and drove an hour to return it

there was an unbelievable sense of relief when the return credit card slip came out of the machine

as I left the store in my mind I thought

" I gotta stop screwing up "

( luckily my other photographic purchases have been extremely less dramatic )

Lots of people have been shocked by the flat rendering of RAWs in their first processor, unless it uses something like the camera jpeg parameters as it’s starting point.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +29 more
joeletx Veteran Member • Posts: 3,643
Re: Depends
5

Well said. The pictures proved your points.

 joeletx's gear list:joeletx's gear list
Olympus E-500 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 III Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 18-180mm 1:3.5-6.3 +8 more
Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 20,053
QI vs. IQ
16

Decades ago I decided that most of the time worrying too much about IQ is a barrier to getting good photos. Years ago I wrote this about it:

Ramblings about Travel and Photography

http://www.bakubo.com/ramblings.html

In my opinion, a whole lot of people get way too obsessed about technical image quality (extreme sharpness, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic aberration, noise, etc.) and almost totally ignore making quality images. Personally, I also chuckle when I hear someone repeat the old saw about it being "all about the glass" or "all about the lenses." Spend time looking at photos over the past 50-100 years. Notice how many of those that are so wonderful are wonderful almost always because of subject, composition, timing, lighting, etc. and almost never because of the particular lens and whether it was marginally sharper, had slightly less distortion, and so on than another lens. Let the gearheads who do not actually take many photos worry themselves to death about that stuff. Take photos and you will get better. Obsess over gear and you will just end up being a gear fanatic. You just can't buy your way to good photos, but getting out there with the gear you have and taking photos, looking at other people's photos, and thinking will improve your vision and skills so that you can start taking good photos.

I do understand the attraction of quality gear, the aesthetics, the tactile feel, the perceived status conferred, and so on though. I just also understand that a lot of people get sidetracked in their hope to take photos they really like by getting on the gear track. Also, there are people who love cameras and gear as a hobby and are not all that interested in photography. Nothing wrong with that. It's your money and you can do with it what you want -- after you have paid all of your taxes to various government entities that demand the first cut, that is. All just my opinion, of course.

"I'm always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

And I posted this on 2007-9-14:

IQ = Image Quality (strictly on the technical aspects of the sensor, etc. -- noise, noise reduction artifacts, sharpness, and so on) and it should not be confused with the much more important QI = Quality Image. To have high QI you need to be a good photographer.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/24828803

Worry more about QI (quality image) than IQ (image quality) and your photography will be much better. And this applies to lenses too.

And that reminds me of something that I posted in 2013. In 2013 I went to see an excellent photo exhibition titled:

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

I wrote about it at the time (note the part I made bold below):

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G15 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO/ASA 400 B&W film was fast. [And ISO/ASA 32 color slide film was high speed.]

Here is the exhibition info:

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2013/radical-transformation/

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

MiguelATF
MiguelATF Regular Member • Posts: 409
Re: Depends

jalywol wrote:

I am the queen of the quest for better sensors, starting with my first M43, 10 years ago; an EPL1.

10+ years out, and lots of M43 bodies, and a few FF mirrorless, behind me, and what have I found out? Yup, the original 12MP sensors were noisy and had lousy DR, especially if the ISO crept up above baseline. The 16MP were better, but still problematic in some ways. The current 20MP are pretty darn good in those respects, even if you bump the ISO a little bit.

But then, I go back and look at some of my favorite images from the 12 and 16MP M43 cameras I have had over the years, and there's a funny thing that happens...I don't find myself looking at the sensor noise or the technical flaws related to early sensor behavior; instead I look at the images, and see some nice stuff that I had done back then.

Even now, when I am using both the 20MP M43 (GX8 and GX9) and a 24MP FF (S5), while I see the difference in output between the two, if I put up a good image from the M43 in amongst maybe some more boring, but perhaps technically superior, images from the FF, people like the M43 image better....In other words, it's about the photograph, not the camera technology that created it.

Some early photos from EPL1, G2, GF3 (12MP), and GH2, EPM2, and GM1 (16MP):

Holga toy lens

Holga toy lens

GH2 Panorama of Black River Falls, VT

Holga toy lens

Holga toy lens

A truly lovely (and nicely processed) series of images.

And you're right: it's really about the photograph, and not the gear which created it. Although in this case, obviously the eye of the photographer had something (quite a bit, I'm guessing) to do with it.

Thank you for posting these.

-- hide signature --

"I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."
~Garry Winogrand~
Ipernity: http://www.ipernity.com/home/1647950
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/migueltejadaflores/
Blog: http://migueltejadaflores.wordpress.com

 MiguelATF's gear list:MiguelATF's gear list
Fujifilm X30 Canon G1 X III Pentax Q Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Olympus PEN E-P5 +10 more
kcdogger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,395
Re: QI vs. IQ
1

I really like that, Henry.  Excellent points.  Thanks.

Peace.

John

 kcdogger's gear list:kcdogger's gear list
Olympus TG-6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +24 more
kcdogger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,395
Re: QI vs. IQ
3

Henry Richardson wrote:

Decades ago I decided that most of the time worrying too much about IQ is a barrier to getting good photos. Years ago I wrote this about it:

Ramblings about Travel and Photography

http://www.bakubo.com/ramblings.html

In my opinion, a whole lot of people get way too obsessed about technical image quality (extreme sharpness, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic aberration, noise, etc.) and almost totally ignore making quality images. Personally, I also chuckle when I hear someone repeat the old saw about it being "all about the glass" or "all about the lenses." Spend time looking at photos over the past 50-100 years. Notice how many of those that are so wonderful are wonderful almost always because of subject, composition, timing, lighting, etc. and almost never because of the particular lens and whether it was marginally sharper, had slightly less distortion, and so on than another lens. Let the gearheads who do not actually take many photos worry themselves to death about that stuff. Take photos and you will get better. Obsess over gear and you will just end up being a gear fanatic. You just can't buy your way to good photos, but getting out there with the gear you have and taking photos, looking at other people's photos, and thinking will improve your vision and skills so that you can start taking good photos.

I do understand the attraction of quality gear, the aesthetics, the tactile feel, the perceived status conferred, and so on though. I just also understand that a lot of people get sidetracked in their hope to take photos they really like by getting on the gear track. Also, there are people who love cameras and gear as a hobby and are not all that interested in photography. Nothing wrong with that. It's your money and you can do with it what you want -- after you have paid all of your taxes to various government entities that demand the first cut, that is. All just my opinion, of course.

"I'm always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

And I posted this on 2007-9-14:

IQ = Image Quality (strictly on the technical aspects of the sensor, etc. -- noise, noise reduction artifacts, sharpness, and so on) and it should not be confused with the much more important QI = Quality Image. To have high QI you need to be a good photographer.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/24828803

Worry more about QI (quality image) than IQ (image quality) and your photography will be much better. And this applies to lenses too.

And that reminds me of something that I posted in 2013. In 2013 I went to see an excellent photo exhibition titled:

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

I wrote about it at the time (note the part I made bold below):

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G15 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO/ASA 400 B&W film was fast. [And ISO/ASA 32 color slide film was high speed.]

Here is the exhibition info:

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2013/radical-transformation/

i should have highlighted this before.  Henry - a great bunch of wisdom and insight here. Should be read by all photographers and wanna be photographers.

Peace.

John

 kcdogger's gear list:kcdogger's gear list
Olympus TG-6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +24 more
kcdogger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,395
Re: Depends

jalywol wrote:

I am the queen of the quest for better sensors, starting with my first M43, 10 years ago; an EPL1.

10+ years out, and lots of M43 bodies, and a few FF mirrorless, behind me, and what have I found out? Yup, the original 12MP sensors were noisy and had lousy DR, especially if the ISO crept up above baseline. The 16MP were better, but still problematic in some ways. The current 20MP are pretty darn good in those respects, even if you bump the ISO a little bit.

But then, I go back and look at some of my favorite images from the 12 and 16MP M43 cameras I have had over the years, and there's a funny thing that happens...I don't find myself looking at the sensor noise or the technical flaws related to early sensor behavior; instead I look at the images, and see some nice stuff that I had done back then.

Even now, when I am using both the 20MP M43 (GX8 and GX9) and a 24MP FF (S5), while I see the difference in output between the two, if I put up a good image from the M43 in amongst maybe some more boring, but perhaps technically superior, images from the FF, people like the M43 image better....In other words, it's about the photograph, not the camera technology that created it.

Some early photos from EPL1, G2, GF3 (12MP), and GH2, EPM2, and GM1 (16MP):

Holga toy lens

Holga toy lens

GH2 Panorama of Black River Falls, VT

Holga toy lens

Holga toy lens

Beautiful pictures, well spotted.

Peace.

John

 kcdogger's gear list:kcdogger's gear list
Olympus TG-6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +24 more
OP Mr Giggles Contributing Member • Posts: 788
Re: QI vs. IQ
2

Henry Richardson wrote:

Decades ago I decided that most of the time worrying too much about IQ is a barrier to getting good photos. Years ago I wrote this about it:

Ramblings about Travel and Photography

http://www.bakubo.com/ramblings.html

In my opinion, a whole lot of people get way too obsessed about technical image quality (extreme sharpness, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic aberration, noise, etc.) and almost totally ignore making quality images. Personally, I also chuckle when I hear someone repeat the old saw about it being "all about the glass" or "all about the lenses." Spend time looking at photos over the past 50-100 years. Notice how many of those that are so wonderful are wonderful almost always because of subject, composition, timing, lighting, etc. and almost never because of the particular lens and whether it was marginally sharper, had slightly less distortion, and so on than another lens. Let the gearheads who do not actually take many photos worry themselves to death about that stuff. Take photos and you will get better. Obsess over gear and you will just end up being a gear fanatic. You just can't buy your way to good photos, but getting out there with the gear you have and taking photos, looking at other people's photos, and thinking will improve your vision and skills so that you can start taking good photos.

I do understand the attraction of quality gear, the aesthetics, the tactile feel, the perceived status conferred, and so on though. I just also understand that a lot of people get sidetracked in their hope to take photos they really like by getting on the gear track. Also, there are people who love cameras and gear as a hobby and are not all that interested in photography. Nothing wrong with that. It's your money and you can do with it what you want -- after you have paid all of your taxes to various government entities that demand the first cut, that is. All just my opinion, of course.

"I'm always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

And I posted this on 2007-9-14:

IQ = Image Quality (strictly on the technical aspects of the sensor, etc. -- noise, noise reduction artifacts, sharpness, and so on) and it should not be confused with the much more important QI = Quality Image. To have high QI you need to be a good photographer.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/24828803

Worry more about QI (quality image) than IQ (image quality) and your photography will be much better. And this applies to lenses too.

And that reminds me of something that I posted in 2013. In 2013 I went to see an excellent photo exhibition titled:

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

I wrote about it at the time (note the part I made bold below):

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G15 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO/ASA 400 B&W film was fast. [And ISO/ASA 32 color slide film was high speed.]

Here is the exhibition info:

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2013/radical-transformation/

everyone knows the most important thing is the photographer

(it amazes me that some folks think they have a special profound insight on this )

but this is a gear forum devoted to one small group of cameras

its literally the spot to have this discussion about M43 gear

kcdogger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,395
Re: the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?

richj20 wrote:

Mr Giggles wrote:

...

was the image quality ok for you ?

More than OK for me!

I began 11 years ago with two Panasonic G3 cameras. I used several lenses:

14-45mm

45mm Macro

20mm f/1.7 (my favorite M43 lens)

Olympus 40-150

In 2015 the LCD became defective on one G3, and I replaced it with Panasonic GX7. Later I "retired" the other G3 in favor of the GX8 with Dual IS which I use with my Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm.

While the advance in sensor technology has improved lots of things - Dynamic Range, higher ISO usage, etc, I don't feel that I "take better pictures" with the newer cameras, and I still have a personal attachment to the photographs I made with the G3.

From time to time I take my remaining G3 out for a spin. Last year I photographed a series at our local park/lake with my 100-400 mounted.

Very nice, and none taken with exotic nor high cost gear.

Peace.

John

 kcdogger's gear list:kcdogger's gear list
Olympus TG-6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +24 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads