 |
| G85 Could a full frame camera make a "better" picture of this scene? What would "better" look like ? This hand held picture was shot at f3.5, 1/60 second and ISO 640. Time taken to visualise the subject, prepare the camera and take the photo --two seconds. Equivalent depth of focus with full frame would require f11 which in turn would require ISO 6400. This would reduce the resolution and dynamic range available from the lens/sensor system. I see little opportunity here for a "better" picture with any kind of camera. |
For forty years in the second half of the 20thCentury and early part of the 21st Century I used film cameras.
The way you got a viewable image from film was to print from a negative or transparency or project a transparency onto a screen of some kind.
If you wanted to compare the “quality” of one film or one lens with another the procedure was to make prints and compare those side by side.
Nowadays we have this new entity called “image quality” which consists of technical analysis of the digital files produced by a camera sensor and its associated processor.
Characteristics reported by, for instance dxomark.cominclude color depth, luminance noise, dynamic range, signal to noise ratio and more.
This analysis is very interesting and you can read all about it on the DXO Mark website.
It enables, indeed encourages, reviewers and users to make judgements about the picture making capability of cameras without actually making pictures.
It also encourages reviewers and users to the view that a high score is better than a low score.
Of course in the technical sense that is true.
But there are two things missing from this type of analysis and they are both questions.
Unless an analysis of anything is directed to answering some question(s) meaningful to a particular user then it must inevitably be of unclear value.
So here are the questions I ask:
* The first question is —“Can this camera make pictures good enough for my purposes ?”
* The secondquestion is --- “What do pictures from this camera look like when output in the user’s chosen medium (print, social media, website, blog etc) at the user’s preferred size ?”
The technical approach to “image quality” also produces a fretful phenomenon which I call “measurbation neurosis” **. I see manifestations of this all the time on user forums. People work themselves into a froth because their chosen camera has a DXO Mark low light ISO number (or some other reported number) which is less than that of some other camera or some arbitrarily selected higher number deemed more desirable.
A bit of history
My favourite general purpose black and white film for many years was Kodak TRI-X.
But some users complained about the grain so after much research Kodak produced TMAX 400.
Apparently TMAX 400 tested better than TRI-X on technical analysis. Kodak said TMAX 400 had less grain and better resolution than TRI-X. I have to assume they knew what they were talking about and that this analysis was correct.
BUT Lots of film users myself included tried the TMAX, did not much care for it and went back to TRI-X.
Why? Because the best way to evaluate a film is to make prints and lots of people preferred the appearance of prints made from TRI-X.
The reasons for this are probably still being debated but it seems to me that:
1. The visible grain clumps in the TRI-X emulsion appear sharper in prints than the grain structure of TMAX 400. Call this pseudo-sharpness if you will but the cognitive impact on the viewer is of better sharpness.
2. More pleasing tonal gradation. TRI-X is easier to work with at the development and printing stage and enables prints with better separation of the critical mid tones.
3. TRI-X appears to have greater local contrast. I think of this as analogous to the “Clarity” slider in Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom.
Anyway the point of this little historical digression is that technical analysis does not automatically or always tell us which camera can make the best pictures.
This reference to TRI-X and TMAX film is not entirely random. There are similarities in the relationship between the output of Micro Four Thirds cameras and those with larger sensors.
Right from the start of the Micro Four Thirds system with the Panasonic G1 in 2008, I noticed that although the G1 fell behind its APS-C competitors on technical image quality analysis the camera produced pictures with very good local contrast and sharpness. A kind of visual “bite” if that makes sense. Panasonic M43 cameras still have this quality which in my view gives pictures from these cameras an appeal which goes beyond technical analysis.
And so we come by a somewhat circuitous path to the subject of this post, the Panasonic G80/85.
Question 1. I have been testing the output of this camera and in my assessment it can make pictures good enough for almost any purpose which any photographer might require. It certainly exceeds my humble requirements.
Question 2. Pictures from the G85 can, if the original file is technically satisfactory regarding exposure and focus, be printed up to almost any size which any user might require and still retain very good image integrity.
The files have far in excess of sufficient quality for posting on the internet, social media and similar.
There are plenty of cameras which have higher DXO Mark scores than the G80/85. For most practical purposes however this is irrelevant if the G80 makes pictures which are good enough for the user’s purposes.
Another question worth asking is:
Question 3: “What can the G80/85 not do ?
It seems to me the answer to that question is: “very little”.
But maybe professional sport/action is one photographic task for which larger and much more expensive equipment might be more suitable.
This is not because there is anything inadequate about Micro Four Thirds image quality. It has to do with
a) Follow focus capability on moving subjects particularly in low light and
b) Depth of focus characteristics. Cameras with a larger sensor can more easily render backgrounds out of focus. This is useful if the background is visually intrusive.
Yesterday I read a review of the recently released Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk3 (who on earth comes up with these confusing name designations ?). The reviewer wrote that the 16 Mpx sensor “is starting to look a little dated”, as if the thing was a fashion accessory, which come to think of it could be the case for some buyers.
In fact the 16 Mpx Micro Four Thirds sensor does an excellent job with very high resolution and very good dynamic range.
The entire congregation of makers, vendors and reviewers of cameras is dedicated to persuading you to buy more expensive camera gear.
In the real world the technical advantage of cameras with larger and/or higher pixel count sensors is infrequently able to be expressed in the actual output and is therefore redundant.
With a good lens mounted (and there are lots of these available in the M43 system) the G80/85 is able to meet almost any photographic challenge.
** Neurosis: Excessive and irrational anxiety or obsession.
Measurebator (in photography): Someone who gets so caught up in the technical specifications of a camera to the point of endlessly repeating stats in numerous online forum postings and arguing which camera is better solely on specs; who conversely almost never takes any pictures.
In other words they get so caught up in the numbers that they miss the obvious – in the case of photography that a camera is for taking pictures.