Lens or body defect?

Hello Albert,

I made new pictures and discovered that RAW images converted with the wrong RAW converter result in pictures of less quality then the jpg from the camera.

It seems pictures from my tripod are ok.

I made a number of pictures with the same settings of the same balcony without tripod. I zoomed in with Photoshop and got these three detail images:

Why are these pictures different. Can it be explained by the movement of the camera?

Below a picture of the whole photo:

.jpg

I forgot to mention that not all pictures of the G7 are below expected quality. Quit often they are ok. So it is hard for me to get a good photo showing the problem clearly.

Electuur wrote:

Hello Albert,

I made new pictures and discovered that RAW images converted with the wrong RAW converter result in pictures of less quality then the jpg from the camera.

It seems pictures from my tripod are ok.

I made a number of pictures with the same settings of the same balcony without tripod. I zoomed in with Photoshop and got these three detail images:

Why are these pictures different. Can it be explained by the movement of the camera?

Below a picture of the whole photo:

.jpg

I forgot to mention that not all pictures of the G7 are below expected quality. Quit often they are ok. So it is hard for me to get a good photo showing the problem clearly.

What are these, photos of your computer screen?  If your kit can take even one single good shot, then the gear is not to blame, it works, but your technique (including PP) on the other hand the likely source of your disappointment.

Electuur wrote:

Hello Albert,

I made new pictures and discovered that RAW images converted with the wrong RAW converter result in pictures of less quality then the jpg from the camera.

It seems pictures from my tripod are ok.

I made a number of pictures with the same settings of the same balcony without tripod. I zoomed in with Photoshop and got these three detail images:

Why are these pictures different. Can it be explained by the movement of the camera?

Below a picture of the whole photo:

.jpg

I forgot to mention that not all pictures of the G7 are below expected quality. Quit often they are ok. So it is hard for me to get a good photo showing the problem clearly.

Dear friend, thank you for your following up.

Regarding RAW and SOOC JPG, IMHO RAW can bring the output to another level (sometimes might be minimal) only if we can have 3 musts:

• a compatible and capable RAW converter,
• we have the technique to do it, and
• the time/patience to do it.

Lack of any one of the above, SOOC JPG might be easier for a better output. RAW is better not unconditionally.

In case of looking into the hardware performance, I shall pay more attention on SOOC un-touch JPG since RAW might apply some degree of correction/made up which might or might not originally offered by Panasonic. This might hide any shortage of the combo (camera and lens).

Before going deeper to your new sample, I shall ask a basic question: to what degree you will happy with your gear? To me, IQ on 100% view of the image should best represent the pixel level of our gear can offer.

Lower that that, the scaling down of viewing software/monitor might hide up the shortage. Higher, will involve enlargement of the image that can add undesirable effect /amplification artifact etc (similar to digital zoom?).

Regarding your above sample, under 100% view (use FastStone on my 1080 minitor), it is not sharp as I shall expect on my recent Panny setups (not to mention those no AA filter sensor GX85 and G85, I believe my GX7 can do it sharper). It should be closer to my sharpness expectation on GX1.

This might be a result of no big enough target around the focusing area (tiny targets like small flowers etc is not the best for this. I might shoot closer to have larger targets to examine).

2nd, it is a relatively flat lighting condition. Try to shoot having the sun behind you to increase the contrast of the frame. It might let you judge easier.

Finally, most importance above all, the point of examination ("4") is at the edge of the frame. It might never be the best for every lens. If you wish to target on "4", place it at the center of the frame or nearby and focus on it.

Further to the above, under your cropping version of "4" , could see the edge were not formed by a single line of pixels (CA has played a role on the first two crops, a tiny change in angle of shooting, or change in lighting condition might cause it). It is also in line with my expectation on shutter shock (did you use e-shutter?), or stability issue (did you use delay shutter/timer on a tripod?) on top of the expected optical (correction aldo) distortion on edge of the frame.

My 2 cents.

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.

What if you sent your camera to a service center for evaluation? You've spent more than three weeks trying to get help in this forum and are unsatisfied with the replies. Take it to a professional!

A few shots using 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 mk-I on various Panny bodies, nothing to write about them, but might show the sharpness of this lens on various bodies (generations of sensor technology) I would expect, for your references:

On GF3 (12Mp first generation Panasonic sensor)

on GX1

On GX7, and this snapshot had opened up my mind on the performance of a 10x zoom lens which my stone age knowledge told me to avoid them. The performance of G7 should be close to GX7 IMHO.

On GX7

On the no AA filter sensor of GX85

As said, I had similar disappointed experience as your first posted image on my GX85 & 12-32 (result, I downgraded the 12-32 as my backup lens, replaced it with 12-35 f/2.8 as my general standing walking around lens).

The following snapshot (mushy foliage on the flame tree while trees around it were captured without problem) was I first spotted the problem (a few more in next few shooting sessions) to share:

The problem area cropped as below:

I suppose it could be the lens' quality plus under certain lighting condition might produce above result. It is never found on my other lenses, e.g. 14-45, 14-42PZ or 14-140 making me to look for a replacement. Of course, under improved lighting condition this is a good compact lens, just never be a all time reliable tool that I needed.

For my copy of 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 mk-I, I never doubt it throughout my last 7 years ownership (on GF3, GX1, GX7, GF9, GX85 and G85).

alcelc wrote:

A few shots using 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 mk-I on various Panny bodies, nothing to write about them, but might show the sharpness of this lens on various bodies (generations of sensor technology) I would expect, for your references:

As said, I had similar disappointed experience as your first posted image on my GX85 & 12-32 (result, I downgraded the 12-32 as my backup lens, replaced it with 12-35 f/2.8 as my general standing walking around lens).

The following snapshot (mushy foliage on the flame tree while trees around it were captured without problem) was I first spotted the problem (a few more in next few shooting sessions) to share:

The problem area cropped as below:

I suppose it could be the lens' quality plus under certain lighting condition might produce above result....

All it takes is a small breeze; cameras can't eliminate weather. 1/160sec is not a fast speed and if it were me I wouldn't drive myself crazy blaming my equipment unless I repeatedly see the same defect in all my images at the same location.

My 2 nickels... don't have pennies anymore in Canada

Not to disagreed on that shutter speed but my issue is why the foliage around that flame tree can be resolved more normally (including the pine leafs just next to it)?

A mystry to me so far, but one thing I know, it never happens to 14~45 nor other lenses I have. It is quit similar to the first image posted by OP that only a section of the picture had issue.

Not saying 12~32 a bad lens, just have to watch out for its limitation.