Lens or body defect?

olrett wrote:

drj3 wrote:

The blurred bush looks like what happens when you use DXO Deep Prime and it interprets something with little detail as noise and which it then completely blurs to remove the noise.

That blurred bush looks like it's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotinus_coggygria

No wonder it looks blurred.

I assumed it was a smoke bush.  We had one for several years, before it was removed when we started converting the garden to native plants.  Photos of it should still show some detail with the blur, though the f11 along with noise reduction and the distance are probably sufficient to blur limited detail.

So many user mistakes that will lower image quality.

1.  Higher ISO will reduce image quality.

2.  To high of a f-stop above the limits where diffraction will start reducing image quality.

These two are leading reasons for the low resolution photo

The sky is a little over exposed. The large red bush look very smudgy but this could be movement of fine red foliage ( there certainly bushes with a very fine red foliage/ floweer/ seed pods that would look like this with a breeze and then fudged by the cameras processing).

Using f11 on M43 (where DOF is much deeper compared to FF) was unnecessary, dropping to f5.6 would obviate the need for ISO400, use: ISO200, -2/3EV, resulting in a higher shutter speed and the jpeg processing should be better.

This album has circa 350 images using the 14-140mm lens on G7, G80 and G9 - all have EXIF so you can see what settings were used https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157659779708109/with/26080591500/

* dirty lens.

* heat haze.

* wind.

* OIS causing lens elements to wobble. (Some lenses take a while to settle if moved quickly.

* dust/smoke in atmosphere.

* ... And probably many other possibilities.

olrett wrote:

drj3 wrote:

The blurred bush looks like what happens when you use DXO Deep Prime and it interprets something with little detail as noise and which it then completely blurs to remove the noise.

That blurred bush looks like it's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotinus_coggygria

No wonder it looks blurred.

Good find. We are observing the interaction of a botanical defect, with the phenomenon of light diffraction

rogerstpierre wrote:

Electuur wrote:

A friend of my has a Panasonic G7 and a LUMIX G VARIO 14-140/F3.5-5.6 lens. Often she gets bad photo's, like this photo:

What is wrong?

We think there is a defect in the lens or body.

Or the photographer. A little explanation as to what you find upsetting migh be helpful. What is wrong? Is that a trick question?

Yes, it is a trick question.

It is called "trolling".

Tedolph,

Formerly, "King of Trolls"

Gnine wrote:

The thing that stands out like dogs balls to me, is f/11 @ ISO 400. You've killed most fine detail right there

Funny, a dog's balls never stood out to me.

Anybody else?

Tedolph

Finally I was able to make photos with the DMC-G7 with my Panasonic 45mm f2.8 macro lens. After making some photos in the neighborhood, I discovered a strong colour aberration. So I decided to make a picture of a test card I copied and printed on a A3 printer. Below you see the full image and a detail image:

Full size image photographed in RAW with DMC-G7

Detail of imaage above

The numbers on the image are not valid because I didn't pay attention to the correct scale of the photo.

Electuur wrote:

Finally I was able to make photos with the DMC-G7 with my Panasonic 45mm f2.8 macro lens. After making some photos in the neighborhood, I discovered a strong colour aberration. So I decided to make a picture of a test card I copied and printed on a A3 printer. Below you see the full image and a detail image:

Full size image photographed in RAW with DMC-G7

Detail of imaage above

The numbers on the image are not valid because I didn't pay attention to the correct scale of the photo.

Any reason for shooting at f8?  Was OIS on?  Was this CAF or on a tripod with MF?

Andrew

Round 2 of the guess what is wrong with this image game?

The problem is that the photos my friend and me make with the G7 are not as we think they should be. But it is hard to determine what the problem is. To check the effect I saw in my previous post I made new photos of the test chart. This time with tripod and flash inside my house. Also with a G5. I could not detect any fault. I plan to make more photos to get photos with correct camera settings and showing the problem we have more pronounced.

Electuur wrote:

The problem is that the photos my friend and me make with the G7 are not as we think they should be. But it is hard to determine what the problem is. To check the effect I saw in my previous post I made new photos of the test chart. This time with tripod and flash inside my house. Also with a G5. I could not detect any fault. I plan to make more photos to get photos with correct camera settings and showing the problem we have more pronounced.

The photo you posted is outside the house?

You have experienced a problem now with two different lenses.  I'd do a full factory reset on the camera and use a different SD card next.

Also I'd use settings that are appropriate to test the camera.  Don't shoot with such an unnecessary deep DoF.  Try both AF and MF.  Using a tripod is good but switch IS off and use a timer for the shutter.

Andrew

2 points to my attention:

1) From the EXIF (I use the free PIE: Picture Info. Extractor), I saw your posted sample had been processed by PS.

If I would like to look at the real performance of my setup (I take the SOOC JPG, an output created by Panny's own standard if we do not customized the JPG setting), I shall not miss out the SOOC JPG. This could eliminate any factor from the compatibility of RAW converter (on default of the converter) or our own RAW conversion technique.

If would be helpful if you could also post the SOOC JPG (unedited version) for us to have a closer look at it vs the processed sample.

2) As per reviews (I use DXO because it has a good reputation and OpticalLimits which has very simple easy understanding MTF score to compare), the PL 45 f/2.8 should be as below:

Center Sharpness

• OL: @f/4, then f/2.8 and f/5.6, then f/8...;
• DXO: f/4 and from gradually weakened from f/5.6 all way down.

CA:

• OL: f/5.6;
• DXO: f/2.8 and go all the way.

Therefore test at f/8 you were not at the sweetest spot of the lens, nor under the best controlled CA of the lens.

https://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/490-leica_45_28?start=1

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Panasonic/Panasonic-Leica-DG-Macro-Elmarit-45mm-F28-ASPH-OIS-mounted-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---Measurements__1136

I might do the test again, use a slower shutter speed (since you are on a tripod), IS switched off or not is never important IMHO, set f/stop to f/3.5~f/5.6 for the best of the lens, shoot in RAW + JPG and compare the result again.

Back to your first posted sample, IMHO the contrast would be your major issue which making the red foliage appearing mushy(?). This happened to the 12-32 under poor lighting condition sometimes (on GX85), but never on 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 mk-I. I therefore replace 12-32 by the 12-35 f/2.8 and problem never happened again.

My 2 cents.

"Please help us out here."

It's the OP that asks for help.

But the OP in his rude manner didn't give one iota of response to all the competent replies he got from people who had spent time on his riddle, but rather just threw out a new riddle. Some may find this game funny. I don't.

Electuur wrote:

Finally I was able to make photos with the DMC-G7 with my Panasonic 45mm f2.8 macro lens. After making some photos in the neighborhood, I discovered a strong colour aberration. So I decided to make a picture of a test card I copied and printed on a A3 printer. Below you see the full image and a detail image:

Full size image photographed in RAW with DMC-G7

Detail of imaage above

The numbers on the image are not valid because I didn't pay attention to the correct scale of the photo.

How can anyone take this nonsense seriously? The OP’s “friend” has a problem? Seriously? Doctors hear this misdirection all the time. “Doc, my friend has this funny blemish “. And then the OP “decided to make a picture of a test card he/she copied and printed on a A3 printer.” On an inkjet!!

And this is a valid test of what…exactly? Oh, I know - it is a test of the credulity of the members of this forum, who are only trying to help.

Electuur wrote:

A friend of my has a Panasonic G7 and a LUMIX G VARIO 14-140/F3.5-5.6 lens. Often she gets bad photo's, like this photo:

What is wrong?

We think there is a defect in the lens or body.

I note the following

1. The JPEG image viewed at full size shows that the bare branches of the tree with the purple leaves in the center seem quite well defined.

From this I draw the conclusion that camera movement and shutter shock are not causing a problem.

Also that camera had focussed on the tree with the purple leaves

2. I note that foreground grasses and the background tree seem indistinct. Most of the Ieaves, even in the cente, seem indistinct I would have expected better with a small aperture.

Its odd that the bare branches are sharp but the leaves are not as sharp.

I wonder if there was breeze moving the leaves, and 1/500s wasn't fast enough to get a sharp image.

3. At F11 you are loosing a little bit of sharpness due to diffraction

I think you might have got a better image by using F8 at 1/1000s

Perhaps check noise reduction settings of the camera and reduce them slighty. If the noise reduction is too heavy. it results in blurred details.

I will typically use a RAW file for this kind of image, as the JPEG compression (in the camera) will blur some of the fine detail and reduce the dynamic range.