Provocative interview with Panasonic Marketing Mgr at CES (lengthy but not too much so)

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Arthur Etchells talks cameras with Imaging Resources. Why he says Panasonic likes 4/3 sensor size vs APS-C (lens to camera size ), the heavy R and D that has been put into the smaller sensors software, result in image quality, the future dynamics of two eager yet disparate markets, a) the stills only and don't- care- about-that- video and b) the keen video only and how can we soup it up gang... How company will <em>try t</em>o please both and will watch as stills folk creep to a video- is -nice- to have red button segment. Surprised at acceptance of not so skimpy priced GH2 and its adaptability to the like of boom mics, live monitors, and a pleaser for video wedding shooters kit, ( "trashable" without great liability of assets) The rationale for some of its now and in the mill and prototype lens due out in micro 4/3 size at different prices. And a little hint of what may be in store for this market without giving away secrets.<br>

Naturally assurance its production facilities are not slowing down in JA or SEASIA.<br>

A tantalizing glimpse in the 'more than rumors only' opinioneering.</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/01/15/panasonic-learning-from-the-fringe-taking-small-steps</p>

[Greg M]

<p>I love that red button on my Olympus. Gives me another button to assign to do something else, primarily in my case to toggle between AF and MF.</p>

<p>With two constant f2.8 lenses coming from Panasonic (14-35 and 35-100) there's definitely a lot of positive news going on.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Yes, the target audience videographers insist on having constant aperture and are not cheapskates- like yours truly:-). Are used to having exotic glass on their beasts. I just did a seaerch for " PL zoom from Canon" for videocams- PL is I guess one of the pro mounts in the trade- and for Canon DSLRs, the recent HD video capable ones. Really beautiful exotic aspherics and crystal elements galore, yes, only $45,000 dollars. And only the lower end zoom range, so it says....</p>

[laur1]

<p>He claims they are building better lenses due to the small sensor size and mentions barreling among other aspects they handle better - but as photozone shows, their lenses have a pronounced amount of barreling that gets corrected by the software. Things are not as rosy as he makes them.</p>

[wayne_murphy8]

<p>Yet another con job. WHEN will the mock-up 2.8 lenses become reality? Next week, next month, next year? Never? It's just another PR exercise to try to pump up Panasonic when they actually do very little. <br>

Am I cynical? You can bet on it. When Panasonic actually delivers some quality pro quality zoom lenses, let me know. I will be the first to say thanks. WM.</p>

<p> </p>

[Greg M]

<p>Photozone is showing nothing that anyone with any knowledge of this system doesn't already know. Micro four-thirds lenses are designed with the software corrections in mind and are not meant to be used as Photozone does in "exposing them". Sensible third-party software, like Adobe Camera RAW and most others, uses the in-camera settings and applies the corrections to the files when opened in raw converters....... LIKE EVERYONE IS SUPPOSED TO DO.</p>

<p>Only an idiot would use a micro four-thirds lens like Photozone does. The system is designed to be used with the software corrections. The software corrections are a big reason how they are able to make the lenses as small as they can. Anyone not able to comprehend this or use them that way just needs to skip the micro four-thirds system. There are only a couple of lenses that are virtually fully corrected optically, the 45mm f2.8 Macro and 25mm f1.4, and the vast majority of lenses going forward will include those same types of corrections.</p>

[Greg M]

<p><em>"Yet another con job. WHEN will the mock-up 2.8 lenses become reality?"</em></p>

<p>I have made this same type comment myself...</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40298666">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40298666</a></p>

<p>I think they showed mockups of these same lenses last year, but with no markings on them. It does APPEAR they are further along towards releasing them, but until they havem they have not.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Greg, when in-software corrections are applied instead of just designing lenses that don't exhibit these optical shortcomings, it ends up degrading the image. That is why the Panasonic 14mm and Olympus 17mm have relatively poor performance for a prime lens (especially in the borders/corners, where this software magic is bending and pulling the image around). The Panasonic 20mm exhibits this to an extent, and for a properly-designed lens with border-to-border performance, you end up with an astronomically expensive normal lens like the $600 Panasonic 25mm. Heck, with Lightroom, ANY camera system's optical deficiencies can be corrected, so having software corrections isn't really an advantage of m4/3, just a trick they use, despite the theoretical advantages of a telecentrically-designed system. In practice, it just isn't playing out. Also, please don't tell me what I'm "supposed" to do with my camera. I'll do whatever I damn well please. You do whatever you want with your own equipment.</p>

<p>Wayne, I agree with you. How long ago did Panasonic release these mock-ups? August of last year? And back then, they didn't even release the aperture range, to make people discuss it and bring news about them, even though they had nothing to report. Panasonic is just stringing people along. They and Olympus have a bad habit of doing this, using the rumor mill to keep people from making a purchasing decision. The 14-42mm X Panasonic lens still isn't in stock anywhere in the US, and it's a lens that already exists! Also, how long was there a "rumored" m4/3 version of the Olympus 12-60mm, and when it was released, it was a 12-50mm with a joke f/3.5-6.3 aperture (the 4/3 version has an aperture of f/2.8-4.0). The rumor was released conveniently just before the Thanksgiving holiday and Black Friday, the lens was officially announced in mid-December, and the lens is still barely available. So, please don't buy in or feed rumors, especially from the m4/3 consortium. You're just confusing yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.</p>

<p>Gerry, two years ago the House, MD season finale was shot using 5D Mk II's. They have used the equipment intermittently since on the show. They exclusively use Canon's EF lenses, so you don't HAVE to use PL lenses to successfully shoot video. Here's a link at dvxuser:<br>

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?209668-House-5D-Finale-first-2-minutes-posted-online<br>

If you want a solid collection of primes and constant-fast-aperture zooms, the Canon EF mount is the way to go, by far. Once you start throwing Zeiss, Arriflex, PL, etc. into the mix, it's a wash, as both Canon and Panasonic can use them.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Absolutely, you should do whatever you damn well please with your equipment, Just don't go complaining when you don't apply corrections that were designed to be used with the lenses and then go complaining they aren't working like they should when the problem is you using the equipment as you damn well please.</p>

<p>The EVERYONE is referring to company raw converters, not any one individual, including you. If all converters applied the intended software corrections, Photozone or anyone else would not be able to show those wild distortions.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Still, those silent/behind-the-scenes corrections degrade the image. So, when Darin Pepple makes comments like:<br /> "With this size system, we don’t have to degrade edge detail. When you start getting into the APS sensor size, to compress the lens down to the size we’re at you do suffer some on edge detail. It softens up. You get a little barreling, especially on a zoom lens--although not so much on a pancake lens. And I think that’s one of the things that we’ve done well. We’ve been able to match the lens technology to the sensor technology without having to really compress the lens too much. And at the same time, we're able to maintain a really wide aperture on several of our lenses."<br /> The image quality isn't coming from the lenses. If you compare apples to apples, applying those same software corrections to APS-C, then you continue to see superior performance with the APS-C cameras. The APS-C companies at least give us the option of whether to apply these corrections or not. With my Panasonic G2's photos, I get what Panasonic decided is best for me. With my Nikon D200, I can go into Lightroom, and decide whether I would prefer to preserve the border sharpness, instead of fixing distortions. Mr. Pepple makes it sound as if their choice of m4/3 sensor inherently has improved border performance and less distortion, when this isn't true at all. m4/3 lenses have weaker border performance and more distortion compared to APS-C lenses, from what I've seen. I'd put any APS lens from Nikon, Canon, or Pentax up against any comparable m4/3 lens in a heartbeat; his allegations can be easily refuted. Also, really wide apertures, are they kidding? Let's not even start with those comparisons, because it would make m4/3 look like a bunch of harlequins, claiming "really wide apertures."</p>

<p>Theoretically, making m4/3 a more square-ish format SHOULD make the lenses perform better, because you're using more of the middle of the lenses, it hasn't worked out this way in practice. At all. So, what I'm complaining about isn't that the image looks bad without those corrections. It's that those corrections are necessary to provide a usable image, and that those necessary corrections (due to serious optical deficiencies with the lenses) are destroying my photographs' border quality and sharpness.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I can sympathise with those videographers asking for a constant zoom lens becuase it is what filmers had forty/fifty years ago as with my Angeniuex 12-120 f/2 lens for my 16mm Bolex HR. Sadly with my conversion to digital and lack of interest in doing video properly [ I was a film/video editor/cameraman for 26 years] I disposed of all my film gear ... then less than a year later I became interested in and bought M4/3 ... URRRGH! </p>

<p>I do wonder how that f/2 lens would perform on my new camera as I 'make do' with the 014140 f/5.8 at full zoom [Yuk!]as I attempt to duplicate with a larger sensor what I have with my FZ50. [f/3.8 at full zoom ... not as good as the FZ20 though ... f/2.8 constant]</p>

<p>It seems we take two steps forward and one step backwards so often.</p>