GF2_a bad joke

[tommi_gr_nlund]

<p>The first sample is from "entry level" under 80€ pocket camera Lumix DMC-F2<br />http://g-n.fi/Lumix-test/LumixDMC-F2_auto_f8-160s.jpg<br /><br />the second one is Panasonic's latest 3/4 sensor 650€ model Lumix DMC-GF2 with 14mm wide angle lens<br />http://g-n.fi/Lumix-test/LumixDMC-GF2_auto_f5.6-500s.jpg<br /><br />I just bought GF2 for my trip to latin America and feel so pissed off and angry. I would have returned the camera hands down but now it will be used when I get back home.<br>

Look at these samples. Both shots are taken with full auto-mode.<br />For me F2 looks sharper, exposure and colors look much better.<br /><br />How is this possible Panasonic guys?<br />I think me and other not-yet-fooled people need a very good explanation.<br>

Thank you.</p>

[tommi_gr_nlund]

<p>check this out:<br>

http://g-n.fi/Lumix-test/NokiaC6_auto_2.8-1000s.jpg<br>

for me it looks like my mobile phone is beating both Lumixes<br>

:-)<br>

Luckily I took proper 6x6 film camera with me.</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>The picture in the link looks average for a point and shoot pocket size camera.<br>

Do not try to compare to a 6x6 camera.<br>

Do not even try to compare with a DSLR with a full 35 mm sensor size.<br>

The Lumix 4/3 has 2x crop factor small sensor size, and therefore dynamic range perhaps cannot meet your higher standard of picture quality threshold. Try other than automatic mode and explore how to maximize the camera capabilities.<br>

I suppose the HD video AVCHD could be great from your new camera?</p>

<p>Welcome to Photo.net.</p>

 

[parv]

Could it be that JPEG engine is worse in Panasonic GF2 than in others? That is to ask, have you compared a GF2 raw file converted to JPEG?

[dbcooper]

<p>Maybe you want to take another look. I'm viewing on a calibrated 27" iMac using a color-managed web browser. The shadow detail, contrast, and dynamic range with the GF2 pic are clearly superior (compare the shadow areas and look inside the garages at 1:1 size). The GF2's sharpness is better, IMO - look at the chain link fence in your crops, but you also took both shots at different f/stops...had you stopped down the GF2 it might have appeared sharper. Speaking of sharpness, did you shoot hand-held? Exposure-wise, it's not apples-to-apples...1/500 @f/5.6 should equate to 1/250 @f/8, not 1/160, and even then the F2 pic looks underexposed. Seems to me the GF2 is more responsive to light, has a more accurate meter, a better sensor, and is at least as sharp (if not sharper). If you want to increase the color saturation of the GF2, I'm sure you know how. I don't have a dog in the hunt - don't own either camera - just saying what I see.</p>

[mdma]

<p>I think DB Cooper has summed it up pretty well. The colours are more saturated on the <strong>F2</strong>, but other than that the <strong>GF2</strong> picture has qualities that are preferable. Im also using a 27" iMac (but with no fancy colour calibration of any kind).<br>

I thought the <strong>GF2</strong> was the camera Panasonic loaned to me for a day, but after looking back at the photos it was the <strong>G2 </strong>- My word is their naming convention confusing! I used the G2 on "intelligent auto" and everything came out perfectly exposed with a good degree of saturation, and supposedly its a step below the <strong>GF2</strong> in their range.</p>

 

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I just bought GF2 for my trip to latin America and feel so pissed off and angry. ... For me F2 looks sharper, exposure and colors look much better. ... How is this possible Panasonic guys?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every camera performs similarly under bright sun, i.e., anytime you can reasonably shoot hand held with a film camera loaded with 100ISO film. I'd bet that for the scene you posted, even the file from my mobile phone camera would look just about as good that from the F2 and GF2. However, it would definitely be incorrect to conclude that the three cameras are equal performers.</p>

<p>What you're buying in the GF2 is a much bigger performance envelope. Try comparing the GF2 and F2 side by side again when the scene lighting level starts to go down. Try it again on a scene where the brightness range is large.</p>

<p>Lastly, you really want to be recording to raw on the GF2 (I'm guessing that's not even an option on the F2.) The raw sensor file is a digital equivalent of the negative. In this respect, digital capture is no different from traditional film photography. Pressing the shutter button is only half the work. Getting an excellent print requires craftsmanship in the (digital) darkroom. In-camera conversion to JPG is no different than handing over film negatives to an automated 45 minute minilab for 4x6 prints. </p>

[steven_f1]

<p>The only picture you posted is from a cell phone? How can we help you if you don't post a photo from the GF2?</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Nah - the OP put in text URLs for the Panny pics. You can copy/paste them into a browser window's address area and get the pics. If you open tabs to put in the addys, you can open them both and toggle between them.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Comparing the license plate of the CRV, it is fairly clear in the GFY photo, still fairly good but with lots of chroma noise in the F2 photo, and barely readable in the cellphone photo.

 

What have we learned here? Expensive cameras are not much better than cheap ones nowadays.

[roger_smith4]

<p>The cell phone camera looks better than I would expect. It's similar to P&Ses from just a few years back (lots of smeared detail but okay in small sizes.)</p>

<p>I think the GF2 looks very good with clean and crisp detail and realistic saturation. This shot may be slightly overexposed which is why the color's somewhat washed out. The F2 looks okay but notice some of the missing detail in the pavement and in the brick wall. I'd definitely take the GF2 over the other two cameras and if it were mine I'd shoot raw to get the most out of it.</p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Tommi,</p>

<p>Thanks for your post. Your experience saves me lot of time to convince my friends NOT to buy it. I really don't believe this cheap plastic could produce good or sharp photos, given the cheap plastic lenses. Leica lens! you are right: a bad joke!</p>

[tommi_gr_nlund]

<p>Thank you for your comments!<br>

Now when I have some more shots from GF2 I dare to state that its sharpness is in fact very close to my ex pocket camera Leica D-lux 3 (=Lumix LX2). Unfortunately I cannot make any comparisons since I drop it and the lens mechanism got stucked. Costs more to repair the lense than to buy a new d-lux5, Leica Finland said. I was slightly wondering why d-lux3 and two generations later d-lux5 are still having the same 1/1.63" sensor. I read carefully many tests and reviews and decided to get an improvement to my leica and go for a 4/3"-sensor machine. What a failure!</p>

<p>My first disappointed reactions came from the expectations that there was some technical improvements in past 4 years in Leica/Lumix-cameras. Ok, video function is far better on GF2 than on D-lux3. I am talking about still picture quality and mainly the sharpness of the image.<br>

GF2 against D-lux3 is much larger and heavier, not so pocket camera anymore. GF2's sensor is claimed to be modern and about 5 times bigger. GF2 has a fixed focal legth of 14mm Lumix-lens against Leica's own zoom. D-lux3 has more advanced adjustment functions.<br>

All I read last autumn about Nex-5, Olympus Pen, Ricoh GXR and Lumix GF2 etc seemed to emphasize the big improvement that 4/3" or aps-c sensors make against smaller 0.6"-sensor range. And I stupid believed that! Somehow it starts to smell like a marketing gimmick from 2011-view.<br>

My conclusion is that Lumix 14mm lens must be so incredibly bad that even the entry level Lumix-F2 or cheap Nokia-phone camera can almost catch up the lead that bigger sensor gives to GF2. Can you guys think of any other explanation?<br>

I uploaded here another set of comparisons<br>

http://g-n.fi/Lumix-test/</p>

<p>Please have in mind that:<br>

Lumix DMC-GF2 street date was in January 2011 and it costs at the moment around 650€ with Lumix 14mm wide angle lens.<br>

Lumix DMV-F2 is hard to find anymore since it's a couple of years old beginners' model. But if you are lucky you find it for 75-85€.<br>

Nokia C6 came out in August and has disappeared from the market by now since it's absolutely useless as telephone. If you find it costs around 150-200€. Its camera makes to my taste superior exposures to any of our family's digital cameras.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I just looked at the new pics, and IMO the image quality order is GF2, F2, Nokia. The rendering of the details is much better with the GF2, particularly in the shadow areas - look especially on the left side of the planter. What I said above about exposure and sharpness earlier still holds true. Things like the plant stem, the pattern in the planter's galvanized coating, the planter base, dark to light transition areas, etc. make that clear.</p>

<p>Whether the cost difference is worth the image quality gain is a matter of choice that only you can decide. I'm not sure what your expectation was for any small pocket digital camera. Miniaturization of anything comes at a cost. At 650€, though, I think it's very much diminished returns. YMMV.</p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>650grand compares to F2 and Nokia mobile phone and it still worths it! What kind of nonsense that you are talking about!<br>

GF2 is supposed to make at least good or sharp image on its bigger sensor. But it fails to do the job. Since GF1 was slightly successful in sales and marketing, then again, the successer GF2 could be produced in lesser quality that results in lower cost and then bigger profit. It is shit Japanese method to get money.</p>

[phule]

<p>The GF2 is not a successor to the GF1. The GF2 is like the E-PL1/E-PL2.</p>

 

[peter_roberts4]

<p>If GF2 is not a successor to the GF1, then you are not the son of your FATHER. HA HA</p>

[phule]

<p>edit: on second thought, it's better to not feed the troll.</p>

[tommi_gr_nlund]

<p>Did you get my question about the sharpness factor of the sensor size vs lens quality? My suggestion was that the lens quality may be afterall much more important of those two. And I keep protesting that GF2's 14mm pancake kit lens may be the worst lens I have seen for years. But because the sharp lens is also far more expensive to make than try to do some seeming improvements like a bigger sensor for example, manufacturers and their "trusted reviewers" keep fooling us.<br>

Am I on the right path :-)</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Well, yes. One reason the Nokia N8 is the best cellphone camera, and better than most P&S cameras, is its Zeiss lens. It uses a Sony BSI sensor just like many new P&S models. DCresource slammed the Panny 14mm in their GF2 review, although the graph at slrgear.com shows it is not too bad, though they might have had a great sample. Basically the 14mm is no good until stopped down, so you might as well use the 14-45, which has better quality and zoom capability.

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Tommi,<br>

you mentioned 650Euro to buy your GF2. Is it a double lenses kit or just come with a 14mm lens?<br>

By cost calculation, it should be a double lenses kit. I guess the cost of camera dealer for this camers is 650Euro x 0.8 and then the cost of sales company in Europe is 650Eurox0.8/1.25. What is the list price in your city? By this formula : List price x 0.8 /1.25, you can almost know the cost of Panasonic sales company in your city. And of course, you need to put VAT in calculation.</p>