[Closed] Camera quality query

Yes

No

Maybe, and maybe not in that order.

Firstly, what do you mean by this:

photos with it (especially on grey days) are a bit flat, poor contrast, a bit of a yellow sheen. The prime lens is much better, and MrsDoris’s Nikon D3100 (with standard lens) is slightly better again

Do you mean they look better on the camera's own screen, on your iPad's retina screen, on your TV, printed on your home printer, or printed on a fancy printer at a photo place. It may well be that they are all good enough, but you're not giving them the best chance for comparison/viewing.

on my macbook with with a retina screen. (13").  So it's a reasonable screen, i think...

wow.  just looking on MPB - some people sell DSLR cameras with a shutter count of like 1500.  I take more than that on an average holiday!

That little pancake lens is exceptional, FWIW.

The Lumix 14-42 lens is usually pretty good. Though there could be a bit of variation, some could be a bit worse, especially older models. Or maybe yours is a bit dirty/scratched?

There are several better zoom lenses, eg the Lumix 12-35, though its a lot more expensive. Not really worth it on an old camera.

Maybe more worthwhile upgrading to a new Micro 4/3 camera. eg Lumix G5 or G6? It still has the 14-42 kit lens, but could be a newer/better version?

Or maybe yours is a bit dirty/scratched?

this is quite likely.  How do i check, and how do i get it cleaned up if so?  just take it down to Jessops?

Should probably have thought of that more than 2 days before i go on holiday.  hmm

M4/3 cameras are much maligned... I think they are fantastic little tools myself!

Some suggestions for lenses... depending on budget:

Olympus 12mm f2.0 (£549ish) - my favourite lens on the OM-D
Panasonic 14mm f2.5 Pancake (£299ish)
Olympus 45mm f1.8 (£209ish) - absolutely stunning portrait lens for the money
Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro (£360ish)

I have a couple of zooms I use too, an ultra wide, standard and tele.  The only one that gets much use is the Olympus 100-300, but that is just for reach.  I tend to use the primes on this one.

Prime lenses often have characteristics that appeal. Zoom lenses are compromises, this shows up at the lower price points.

We have all of those lenses mentioned. The 12-35 / 35 - 100 are terrific zoom lenses but have a price to match.

Why not consider adding more prime lenses to your kit?

The original 14-45 metal mount kit lens is much better if you can find one.

I took that camera, and a G1 as backup, on a trip to the Himalayas. Now I have a print from the trip about 1m wide on my wall. If you look closely you can see some blown snow highlights, and the resolution isn't perfect, but nobody ever comments on those things 🙂

Just a thought, but could it be that the Nikon has more aggressive jpg processing? Obviously this depends on what filetype you're shooting on both cameras.

photos with it (especially on grey days) are a bit flat, poor contrast, a bit of a yellow sheen.

These don't sound like the lens, more how it is post processing the image into a jpg. You'd need to compare the RAW files from both cameras to see how the sensors / lenses differ between the two.

The G2 uses a very old sensor (the 12 MP one) and there was a big step up in quality to the 16 MP micro 4/3rds sensor in (if I remember) 2012/2013. Why not get a newer Lumix or Olympus micro 4/3rds, then you can continue using your existing lenses. You could easily pick up e.g. an Olympus Pen or EM-5/EM-10 used.

Might also be worth checking the white balance settings if you're getting a yellow cast. Olympus auto WB is usually very good; not sure about Panasonic.

I took that camera, and a G1 as backup, on a trip to the Himalayas. Now I have a print from the trip about 1m wide on my wall. If you look closely you can see some blown snow highlights, and the resolution isn’t perfect, but nobody ever comments on those things

Well this is it! The best pic I've ever taken (which is on the wall in the downstairs bog) was taken with a 3 megapixel compact camera, on 'standard quality' mode because i didn't know there was a 'high quality' mode.  I'm a firm believer that you don't need top kit to get good results (mainly from my years as a musician).

They are RAW files, I know that much.

Thanks for all the tips though - the white balance definitely sounds like something to try tinkering with.

These don’t sound like the lens, more how it is post processing the image into a jpg. You’d need to compare the RAW files from both cameras to see how the sensors / lenses differ between the two.

I did a little test the other day, taking the same pic with both lenses, same aperture and same ISO, and the kit lens definitely came out more yellow-y.  So I do think there's a difference in how colours are affected by the lens.

Ah the world of lens envy when you start seeing the difference between them 😀

To achieve close to prime lens quality typically takes a lot of money with a zoom lens. Particularly getting the glass count down but keeping the zoom factor and a wide aperture / low 'f' stop at all zoom lengths (aka a fast lens). Hence a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 costs £thousands vs an 18-200 f3.5-5.6 which is in the few £hundreds. If I want something with prime quality though I'd rather dig out the prime than spend silly money on the zoom (e.g. got a 300mm f/4 prime. Not as "fast", but damn good quality for not so much silly money. Just it's a fixed lens).

But it's subjective when it comes to the shots and not all about lens quality, except in photography circles when they'll get anal about bokeh, and while there's a noticeable difference between lenses you can also get some stunning photos from cheaper kit. Back in the days where Flickr was popular I was getting top rated/viewed photos that I'd taken with older and cheaper camera kit, and even had phone photos featured in Flickr Explore (is that still a thing?).

While my old SLR and a good lens is a bit night and day, I've been amazed by some of the phone photos I've taken. Crop the photo and you see the limitations, but as nothing I shoot ever gets printed, only viewed on a PC or more likely a phone screen, then it's fine. I also find the colours from a RAW shot on my SLR flat and needs editing with a fair bit of hassle compared to phones and modern cameras that do a lot more in-camera processing.

They are RAW files, I know that much.

Thanks for all the tips though – the white balance definitely sounds like something to try tinkering with.

If they are RAW then the WB is (or should be) irrelevant....

I don't know the specific LUMIX but if its showing a different cast with one lens then you can process that out.  Depending what RAW processing software you use (and the camera) you could save this preference and a lot more.

I have lots of lens profiles set up... and in the SW I use (now bought by Corel) they are automatically defaulted to from the lens detection.  I use this more on more complex corrections though correcting spherical aberration etc. from lenses as WB is usually something I prefer to set on a batch of photo's taken close together.

If I want something with prime quality though I’d rather dig out the prime than spend silly money on the zoom

I hadn't really thought of it like that, but I suppose it makes sense (ie prime quality lenses tending to be inherently better quality in a similar price range).

What's your phone? I find on my Samsung A3 that pictures look amazing on the screen - way better than the G2 on its own screen - but when you get them onto the laptop, it's clear that the 'proper' camera pics are actually better quality. But then that's a low-ish model phone - I guess phones are catching up quickly.

But yeah I can see how this lens envy could become a bit of a wormhole! Must avoid! ha. It always used to rankle when i'd go to the music studios of a hobbyist who had preamps costing more than my whole studio, but who never made any music because they were always obsessing over the next piece of kit. It's like, just crack on and use the damn stuff...

You’ve stumbled on the Photographers curse, GAS !! Gear Acquisition Syndrome !!! Plenty of cameras with less than a 1000 shutter activations out there.

I don’t know the specific LUMIX but if its showing a different cast with one lens then you can process that out. Depending what RAW processing software you use (and the camera) you could save this preference and a lot more.

Is Lightroom suitable for that? I can get it free but I've always just used iPhoto (or now the irritatingly ungoogleable 'Photos')

What does a sensible process look like? Import everything into your processing software, delete all the chaff, process the remainder, then import into your Photo library software?

o I do think there’s a difference in how colours are affected by the lens.

There absolutely is, but most people who are just taking snaps would be unlikely to notice or care about the differences. Once you start really paying attention and caring about the quality of your printed or displayed images, you learn very quickly that it is the quality of the lens that has the bigger impact on the final image quality (and it's not about the bokeh!) Keep in mind that the glass inside a lens is designed to bend and converge light into a point that can be focused on the sensor. Different wave lengths of light behave differently during this process, which is why  lenses render different colour quite differently.

What does a sensible process look like? Import everything into your processing software, delete all the chaff, process the remainder, then import into your Photo library software?

That's pretty much what I do, except my RAW converter is also my library, which is also what Lightroom does. I also tend to print my best shots and keep them in respective folders.

he white balance definitely sounds like something to try tinkering with.

Yes white balance or just colour balance overall, is both the easiest thing to get wrong and the hardest thing to get right. In Lightroom you will have an 'eye dropper' tool that will let you select a neutral colour on the image (grey or off white works best) by which to set the balance but even that will be fooled by variations in how the scene is lit. It's worth experimenting with but don't be surprised if the initial results look dreadful. I've been processing for ten years+ and still struggle to get it right with some images.