Panasonic GH2 - Zoom or Prime?

I've recently sold my Leica Panasonic 14-150mm Vario-Elmar Zoom. Wonderful lens, but big, heavy and bulky. I'm currently using an Olympus m.Zuiko 14-150mm f/4-5.6. There's a test at Dpreview - http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_m_14-150_4-5p6_o20/ Their conclusion is a bit luke warm. 

"Overall then the 14-150mm is superzoom that delivers a perfectly competent results in a small light package. Its image quality may not please the most critical of photographers, but unless you regularly examine your images at 100% or make large prints (A4 or bigger) its flaws are unlikely to be hugely apparent. In combination with a Pen-series camera it makes a highly flexible general-purpose package with image quality to match an SLR but without the associated bulk. So while it's perhaps not a lens for the purist photographer, for many others it will make a very agreeable travel companion indeed."

I've always thought its actually a pretty decent lens however, and yesterday I did some tests to compare it with what are generally regarded as the two best m4/3 prime lenses. The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro. 

These are pairs of shots taken on the same camera (A Panasonic GH2) at the same settings and the same focal length. If you click through to flickr there are full size images to view. (Though these are heavily jpg compressed, so expect a few artefacts.)

For some reason most of the pictures taken with the zoom are slightly darker than with the primes but what I see from this is how similar they are. Even when the zoom is wide open. I was certainly expecting to see much more of a difference with the primes producing significantly sharper results. They do look slightly sharper to me but not as much as I would have expected.

Not really a scientific test but one thats actually very useful for me. The primes obviously have other advantages such as wider apertures and macro facility, but for everyday use in good light there seems little advantage in using them. Certainly only a very slight sharpening in Photoshop for the zoom shots would be required to make them look identical.

I always had the feeling that the Olympus 14-150mm was producing good results and it was a factor in my decision to sell the Vario-Elmar. Certainly the Olympus zoom is a pleasure to use, being very light and it also has very fast AF on the GH2. 

So a very useful exercise for me and with a somewhat unexpected result.

Fuji X100 compared to Olympus E-PL2 plus Panasonic 20mm f/1.7

Here's a comparison between images shot with the Fuji X100 and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. 

As before click through to flickr for larger files.

These are a lot closer in terms of sharpness than with the Zeiss 18mm. Showing just how good a lens the 20mm f/1.7 is. These are out of camera jpgs with no adjustment whatsoever. The Fuji is on its Velvia setting and the Olympus is set to Vivid. There is still a different look to the images and the Fuji seems smoother and cleaner to me but there's so little in it as to be relatively insignificant. I also prefer the Velvia colour but thats personal choice. 

So does this mean that the the 20mm lens is better than a Zeiss 18mm costing 4 times as much? Well the answer is probably yes for m4/3 cameras. If I had shot at higher ISO's then the Fuji would have produced better files but at base ISO there's very little in it.

I'm not giving up m4/3 and in particular the 20mm lens any time soon. Its still an excellent system for what I use it for and interchangeable lenses is obviously a terrific advantage.

Fuji X100 compared to Olympus E-PL2 plus Zeiss 18mm

I did some tests of these two camera / lens combinations and also took them out together to see what they came up with.

Below are a series of tests of the different cameras taking the same picture. If you click through to flickr there are larger sizes available.

In terms of results I prefer the Fuji every time. They are sharper, less noisy and I prefer the "punchier" colour.

Its not as though the Olympus / Zeiss combination is bad, thats certainly not the case, its much more about how good the Fuji X100 results are. Really very impressive indeed, yet again. If Fuji ever decide to come up with an interchangeable lens version of the X100, with the optical viewfinder adjusting to the different lenses then, assuming those lenses are the same quality, it could prove to be the ultimate Compact System Camera. 

By the end of my "test" outing, I decided to use the Fuji exclusively, as I was missing shots by manually focusing the Zeiss. I decided to make the images black and white as it suited the content and the light.

So the X100 proves just how good it is yet again. I think the Olympus / Zeiss combination still wins the beauty contest though!!

Fuji X100 - User Experience 8 - Conclusion

A much less problematic day with the X100. Concerning the jpgs only problem yesterday I'm sure Corwin is right when he suggests I probably hit the RAW button, which changes from jpg to raw and vice versa. I did make sure that everything was as it should be before starting taking pictures yesterday, and everything went smoothly.

So after these few days, what are my conclusions? Well if you've read the rest, its going to be pretty obvious. 

PROS

Great sensor, really impressive high ISO performance.

Great lens, very sharp clean results.

I really enjoy using the optical viewfinder, and though not particularly essential for what I do, its a pleasure to use and very much preferable to just using a rear screen or some of the less than impressive viewfinders available for some of the CSC's I use.

Really impressive files, with great colour and clarity. No dust spots. Very impressive jpgs.

Has surprisingly good video output.

AF slow(ish) but accurate

Well put together (mostly) and certainly stylish with good handling (again mostly)

CONS

Less than ideal menu setup.

Some controls, particularly the OK button, difficult to use.

Confusing layout of function selection, and a tendency to reset parameters. 

A lack of thought about the camera software, which can make it easy to make mistakes. Probably the most "difficult" camera I've used. Not a camera you can pick up and start shooting with. It does need some understanding of its particular "quirks"

Using the camera assumes a fair bit of photographic knowledge and experience, though in some ways this could be seen as a PRO.

Starting up takes a while. Starting up from "sleep" is ridiculously slow and slower than starting up from scratch. To avoid missed shots I leave it on all the time, with consequent battery drain.

I do have some concerns about how the whole thing will hold up under prolonged heavy use. On a couple of occasions it has just become totally unresponsive and I've had to switch it off and on again. There are also reports from other sources of all sorts of other glitches.

(Please note I have made no comments about the manual focus performance. As I said at the beginning this is not a review, and since I have no intention of using manual focus on it I haven't even tried it. There are many other articles about it that discuss this.)

Though the CON list may seem somewhat long, much of it is different versions of the same thing, and involves the software. Hopefully Fuji can update the firmware soon to take account of the problems that many are experiencing. It is a shame that this is less than ideal, because if it was better then it would have been that rare case of a camera living up to the "hype".

In terms of results, it is a pretty special camera. It has changed my expectations of what an APS-C sensor can do. 12MP only, but the images are capable of substantial interpolation. Fixed lens only, but a very good lens indeed. Expensive, but quality usually isn't cheap, and this is a camera plus a fast prime lens.

Do I prefer it to a Leica X1? Yes I do. Its faster than the X1, more versatile, has more useful features (Particularly the viewfinder) and is better in low light. I also prefer the results from the Fuji lens.

Do I prefer it to m4/3 and other CSC's? Well allowing for the fact that its a single lens camera, the answer is probably yes too. Obviously not as useful or versatile as something like a GH2, but the pictures it produces do look wonderful. Sharp, beautiful colour, very little CA and fringing.

To me the high ISO performance is the outstanding feature. This is simply stunning. It allows quality images to be produced in all sorts of situations, previously impossible. When I realised it was producing images at ISO 800 that are sharper and less noisy than m4/3 can produce at ISO 200 I was completely sold on it. Where that leaves all my other cameras, I have no idea.

From the picture below you will see what I currently have. How many of these it makes reduntant I don't know.

Would I recommend it? Well yes but with some warnings. If you are thinking of getting one, you have to be sure that you can cope with the fixed lens. I know personally there are times when I'm going to find it restricting. As I, and others, have indicated, its not an "easy" camera and it can be very frustrating to use. Its also not particularly quick in use, though I'm quite happy with the AF performance as I prefer accuracy over speed.

For me the bottom line is always the image quality and the X100 is just superb in this regard. This quality, at all ISO's has previously only been possible in a large, bulky heavy DSLR. If you want the kind of results you get from a Nikon D3 in a compact camera body, this is for you, though don't expect D3 speed and functionality. The X100 isn't intended to be a camera that does everything. However it succeeds in its intention. Fuji have dubbed it a professional photographers compact camera, and while I'm not sure about how their software design can be described as professional, the results would I'm sure satisfy anyone who is interested in producing quality images. You certainly don't have to be a professional to enjoy the results the X100 produces, even though its sometimes harder work than it should be to get those results.

Fuji X100 - User Experience 7 - More Quality More Frustration

First the bad news. Somehow the X100 managed to stop me shooting raw files. I discovered on returning home that I had shot jpgs only. I'm quite prepared to believe I might have pressed something by mistake, but the one thing I didn't press was the menu item that selects jpg only! 

The good news. The jpgs are really excellent. None of this over noise reduced nonsense you get with other cameras. They are very good, actually they are better than that, they are close to perfect. Plus I took everything with the Velvia film mode, so the colours are great. However not every one was perfectly exposed, so it would have useful to have the raw files. I converted the jpgs to .dng files in Adobe Camera Raw for storage, which isn't perfect, but fortunately the quality of the images saved the day.

I really do not know what I did. It seems that before shooting I'm going to have to check everything is as I want it. With other cameras I just assume that the settings are as I left them. With the X100 it seems thats not the case.

So its more minus points for the menus / controls. However there are more plus points on the quality front. I took some shots at ISO 640 and the quality is excellent. As before, where is the noise? There isn't any, and the pictures look like they were taken on ISO 100 or 200. Also the shot above of the steam engine with the man underneath repairing it was underexposed. I pulled the shadows up quite dramatically with very little noise generated. This means the X100 has the same kind of low ISO dynamic range and elasticity that I saw in the Pentax K-5.

So once again this frustrating mix of brilliance and ineptitude from Fuji. If these menu and control faults can be fixed then I'll be using this camera virtually all the time. 

A further example of how it works well.

One of the advantages of the optical viewfinder is that it lets you see whats happening outside the frame. I was taking a picture of this duck on a bridge, and I saw the dog get very interested in it and start running towards it. I had already selected f/16 and I just fired the shutter when the dog was in the right place. (The duck escaped!) I'm very pleased with the shot. The duck on the edge of the bridge ready to fly off, and the low stalking position of the dog turn it into a nice little hunter and prey story. I'm not sure I would have got this right without the OVF, which is rapidly becoming something I love using.

So while I wait for Fuji to come up with a decent firmware fix, I'll have to work out some procedure that avoids this resetting that the camera does. I am going to try the new firmware today to see if it helps.

Though I'm still frustrated, and I was pretty annoyed when I realised that I had no raw files, the X100 is just so good in terms of what it produces that I'm prepared to make the effort. I don't think I should have to and I think its somewhat slack of Fuji to let the cameras go out like this, but this level of quality in lens and sensor doesn't turn up every day. It seems I can make no assumptions about the settings and having to make sure everything is as I want every time I use it is a PITA. Unfortunately however, at the moment, thats the way it is. Frustrating things, cameras!