A problem with in camera corrections.

The simple answer here is if your not initially happy with the results from a new camera or lens . Then return it possible or sell it if not .. life’s to short to get wound up over something you cannot gel with .
That goes for cameras , lenses, cars and women …..
 
Musicman said:
FWIW I just downloaded the photo above

With my current version of LR Classic (v11.4.1) lens corrections are applied by default and, geometrically at least, the RAW appears identical to the JPEG version on DPR.

If you wanted to send me one of your problem files, Alan, I could see if corrections are applied on my setup.
Click to expand...

Thanks but it's just more hassle when I've already given up. If it's faulty then it needs to go back but I suppose if the problem is at my end I should pay a restocking fee but having said that I have asked the question and the shop seem as nonplussed as me and are happy to take it back.
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
The simple answer here is if your not initially happy with the results from a new camera or lens . Then return it possible or sell it if not .. life’s to short to get wound up over something you cannot gel with .
That goes for cameras , lenses, cars and women …..
Click to expand...

I couldn't in good conscience sell this on without explaining what issue I've come across and the buyer would have to be happy to buy it under these conditions so I think it's best to return it. The shop knows what I've found, they've seen the examples and agreed to take it back. If I just wasn't happy with it I'd happily sell it on as it's in as new condition, it was IMO a bit of a bargain and these things do seem a bit rare so someone might want it... but maybe not with this question mark hanging over it.
 
Respect Alan ..the best way to end it
 
the black fox said:
Respect Alan ..the best way to end it
Click to expand...

I'm still tempted to keep it despite everything as it's small and light and it does have a lovely EVF. I'll sleep on it and try and come to a decision as I suppose doing lens profiles isn't the end of the world :D

I am a bit suspicions that someone maybe hit the same issue as me as it was I think a bit of a bargain as there was quite a discount over a new one and it came with extras I didn't expect in the box including extra battery, that tripod thingy they come with and a base plate.
 
Last edited:
Have you considered downloading the free trial of Affinity Photo.
I believe the lens corrections will work for you and, if it doesn’t, or you don’t like it, it’s cost you nothing. If you decide to buy it, after trying it out, it’s less than £50. For the past 4 years, at least, upgrades have been free once you’ve bought the perpetual license.
i‘m trying to help - honest!
 
yzfmike said:
Have you considered downloading the free trial of Affinity Photo.
I believe the lens corrections will work for you and, if it doesn’t, or you don’t like it, it’s cost you nothing. If you decide to buy it, after trying it out, it’s less than £50. For the past 4 years, at least, upgrades have been free once you’ve bought the perpetual license.
i‘m trying to help - honest!
Click to expand...

I've thought of downloading something new but I'm worried about losing Nik Filters as I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that there are compatibility issues with different version or that it doesn't work at all but I suppose a trial costs nothing and I could keep CS5 just for Nik if need be. Thanks for the recommendation.

The situation is as above at the mo and possibly liveable. The problem with jpegs seems to have gone away and I'm left with the raw issue which I don't understand, the sticking point being that the raws from DPR look ok but mine don't. I can however correct the raws with a profile and for primes that's a doddle, it's the zooms that worry me.

I'll sleep on it and may well give your suggestion a go.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've thought of downloading something new but I'm worried about losing Nik Filters as I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that there are compatibility issues with different version or that it doesn't work at all but I suppose a trial costs nothing and I could keep CS5 just for Nik if need be. Thanks for the recommendation.

The situation is as above at the mo and possibly liveable. The problem with jpegs seems to have gone away and I'm left with the raw issue which I don't understand, the sticking point being that the raws from DPR look ok but mine don't. I can however correct the raws with a profile and for primes that's a doddle, it's the zooms that worry me.

I'll sleep on it and may well give your suggestion a go.
Click to expand...

I believe that some Nik filter collections work with Affinity, so as you say not 100%

As for corrections for zoom lenses, if you are doing hundreds of photos at a time, I can see it would be a nuisance, but in Affinity it takes just a few seconds to manually apply lens corrections, probably quicker than bringing up the list of profiles and choosing one.

Raw adjustment and processing is also very quick and easy, very intuitive interface.

Best value for money I have found, Better value than any of the free ones I have used :)

If you like the camera, it may be worth keeping if it does everything else you want, I find it hard to find a camera that does everything I want, trying to make up my mind between a GX8 and a GX9, and keep going back to the GX8, so if the 100 suits what you want it for, what is the alternative? Maybe there isn't one :)
 
Sangoma said:
I believe that some Nik filter collections work with Affinity, so as you say not 100%

As for corrections for zoom lenses, if you are doing hundreds of photos at a time, I can see it would be a nuisance, but in Affinity it takes just a few seconds to manually apply lens corrections, probably quicker than bringing up the list of profiles and choosing one.

Raw adjustment and processing is also very quick and easy, very intuitive interface.

Best value for money I have found, Better value than any of the free ones I have used :)

If you like the camera, it may be worth keeping if it does everything else you want, I find it hard to find a camera that does everything I want, trying to make up my mind between a GX8 and a GX9, and keep going back to the GX8, so if the 100 suits what you want it for, what is the alternative? Maybe there isn't one :)
Click to expand...
I'd avoid the GX8 as that camera can give shutter shock with susceptable lenses. I've had a couple of cameras which suffered from that and it can be a killer, for example taking indoor pictures can be a real problem as you can be in the affected shutter speed range and if you switch to the electronic shutter you can get banding under flickering artificial lights. The GX9 and GX80 have a new shutter and are shutter shock free. The GX9 has more physical controls than the GX80, has a tilting evf and is 20mp v the GX80's 16mp. The GX80 is a bit lighter and might be cheaper. My inverse snobbery means I use the GX80 more :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'd avoid the GX8 as that camera can give shutter shock with susceptable lenses. I've had a couple of cameras which suffered from that and it can be a killer, for example taking indoor pictures can be a real problem as you can be in the affected shutter speed range and if you switch to the electronic shutter you can get banding under flickering artificial lights. The GX9 and GX80 have a new shutter and are shutter shock free. The GX9 has more physical controls than the GX80, has a tilting evf and is 20mp v the GX80's 16mp. The GX80 is a bit lighter and might be cheaper. My inverse snobbery means I use the GX80 more :D
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is very helpful to know, I had read about the shutter shock, but it did not seem as big a point as the G7.
I missed one the other day that went for 370 with a 12-60 lens :(
Do you know if the firmware update for the GX8 allows you to manually select the shutter type at low speeds, or does if force electronic?

The main reason I like the GX8 over the GX9 is the control layout, also slightly heavier weight, weather sealed, shutter speed and burst speed.
I do want the 20MP sensor.

I will have to do more research into it,
 
woof woof said:
I've thought of downloading something new but I'm worried about losing Nik Filters as I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that there are compatibility issues with different version or that it doesn't work at all but I suppose a trial costs nothing and I could keep CS5 just for Nik if need be. Thanks for the recommendation.

The situation is as above at the mo and possibly liveable. The problem with jpegs seems to have gone away and I'm left with the raw issue which I don't understand, the sticking point being that the raws from DPR look ok but mine don't. I can however correct the raws with a profile and for primes that's a doddle, it's the zooms that worry me.

I'll sleep on it and may well give your suggestion a go.
Click to expand...
I could recommend a trial of DxO PureRaw, which gives the benefits of a DNG converter AND profiler. Or go the whole hog with DxO Pro, which is the software I would adopt if I weren't so heavily into Lightroom.
 
Sangoma said:
Thanks, that is very helpful to know, I had read about the shutter shock, but it did not seem as big a point as the G7.
I missed one the other day that went for 370 with a 12-60 lens :(
Do you know if the firmware update for the GX8 allows you to manually select the shutter type at low speeds, or does if force electronic?

The main reason I like the GX8 over the GX9 is the control layout, also slightly heavier weight, weather sealed, shutter speed and burst speed.
I do want the 20MP sensor.

I will have to do more research into it,
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know. Normally when in auto select for the shutter it only chooses electronic if the mechanical shutter has run out of speed. Indoors I suppose I'd typically be between 1/60 and 1/200 (if I'm lucky) and that's smack in the shutter shock speed range and of course if there are lights on you run the risk of banding with the electronic shutter but of course even then all this is only an issue if you're using a susceptible lens but the problem is knowing which lenses are and are not susceptible. For example my old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 showed the issue and who'd have guessed that would? More annoyingly for me my 14-42mm showed it and I wanted to use that lens.

Personally I'd just avoid the who thing and go for one of the cameras with the redesigned shutter then you don't have to worry about which lens you use at what shutter speed.

Maybe the GX9 is the one to go for but I don't see any significant advantage for the 20mp chip over the 16mp one but I suppose even if they were to be the same the extra mp's come for free with no downside.
 
woof woof said:
Sorry, I don't know. Normally when in auto select for the shutter it only chooses electronic if the mechanical shutter has run out of speed. Indoors I suppose I'd typically be between 1/60 and 1/200 (if I'm lucky) and that's smack in the shutter shock speed range and of course if there are lights on you run the risk of banding with the electronic shutter but of course even then all this is only an issue if you're using a susceptible lens but the problem is knowing which lenses are and are not susceptible. For example my old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 showed the issue and who'd have guessed that would? More annoyingly for me my 14-42mm showed it and I wanted to use that lens.

Personally I'd just avoid the who thing and go for one of the cameras with the redesigned shutter then you don't have to worry about which lens you use at what shutter speed.

Maybe the GX9 is the one to go for but I don't see any significant advantage for the 20mp chip over the 16mp one but I suppose even if they were to be the same the extra mp's come for free with no downside.
Click to expand...


Probably wise.
But it leaves me with one choice :)
The G90.

I don't like the layout of the GXs with the shutter release inline on the top, I want it in front.

I can see a difference between the 16 and 20 sensor, for instance there is a lamp post 105' from outside my drive, with the 20mp sensor I can read the 1/8" high writing on the dog fouling warning, where as with the 16mp sensor it takes a lot of imagination to do so. Also the 20mp sensor is less noisy in low light,
OK, extremes of use, and a heavy crop to see the differences, I agree.

The G90 will give me the G80 with the larger sensor, there is a big difference in weight between the G80 and G9 when walking, and all will have just about the same layout in use.

Very annoying to find that many of the online sellers don't give the shutter counts in their adverts, you have to ask them !!!
I've bookmarked just 4 that do.

Strangely, getting on and narrowing this down was prompted by your issues with the 100 :)
 
Sangoma said:
Probably wise.
But it leaves me with one choice :)
The G90.

I don't like the layout of the GXs with the shutter release inline on the top, I want it in front.

I can see a difference between the 16 and 20 sensor, for instance there is a lamp post 105' from outside my drive, with the 20mp sensor I can read the 1/8" high writing on the dog fouling warning, where as with the 16mp sensor it takes a lot of imagination to do so. Also the 20mp sensor is less noisy in low light,
OK, extremes of use, and a heavy crop to see the differences, I agree.

The G90 will give me the G80 with the larger sensor, there is a big difference in weight between the G80 and G9 when walking, and all will have just about the same layout in use.

Very annoying to find that many of the online sellers don't give the shutter counts in their adverts, you have to ask them !!!
I've bookmarked just 4 that do.

Strangely, getting on and narrowing this down was prompted by your issues with the 100 :)
Click to expand...

I like the RF style cameras but due to them trying to keep the size down the evf's aren't as nice. Generally speaking, the mini SLR style cameras have nicer evf's.
 
I have an update on the raw file issue with the G100.

I've bought quite a lot from Wex so I rang them and got to talk to a very nice and knowledgeable guy about my issue with uncorrected lens info and surprisingly he knew all about it and went into a lot of detail unfortunately using acronyms that I didn't understand. Apparently Panny have done things differently with this camera to keep the cost and weight down. I don't know how much firmware actually weighs or how big it is :D but maybe there's a processing cost or maybe just a firmware writing cost, I don't know.

So, I asked some questions...
Is this the only camera that does this? Yes.
To double check... No other Pannys do this? No.
Is this because the camera is more video orientated? No. It's just to keep the cost and weight down.
Can I tell from looking at the specs what cameras do it like this? No.
So if I was worried about this with another camera I'd have to ring up and ask you? Yes.
Would you mind? No. (That's nice of him.)
Does any software get over this? Not that I'm aware of.

I'm not sure he's right on that one as the DPR files show no distortion but at least I have an at least partial answer... It's not a fault it's just how they've done it to keep the cost and weight down. Thinking about this... I've never seen this mentioned in any review so I assume there is a software fix but, not with the software I have, DNG/CS5.

Oh well. Its been interesting.

Oh and a PS.
I forgot to mention to him that jpegs were initially uncorrected until I updated the lens firmware but I don't know how significant that is. Strange that raw and jpeg would be different but I'm not going to spend any more brain power on this.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I have an update on the raw file issue with the G100.

I've bought quite a lot from Wex so I rang them and got to talk to a very nice and knowledgeable guy about my issue with uncorrected lens info and surprisingly he knew all about it and went into a lot of detail unfortunately using acronyms that I didn't understand. Apparently Panny have done things differently with this camera to keep the cost and weight down. I don't know how much firmware actually weighs or how big it is :D but maybe there's a processing cost or maybe just a firmware writing cost, I don't know.

So, I asked some questions...
Is this the only camera that does this? Yes.
To double check... No other Pannys do this? No.
Is this because the camera is more video orientated? No. It's just to keep the cost and weight down.
Can I tell from looking at the specs what cameras do it like this? No.
So if I was worried about this with another camera I'd have to ring up and ask you? Yes.
Would you mind? No. (That's nice of him.)
Does any software get over this? Not that I'm aware of.

I'm not sure he's right on that one as the DPR files show no distortion but at least I have an at least partial answer... It's not a fault it's just how they've done it to keep the cost and weight down. Thinking about this... I've never seen this mentioned in any review so I assume there is a software fix but, not with the software I have, DNG/CS5.

Oh well. Its been interesting.

Oh and a PS.
I forgot to mention to him that jpegs were initially uncorrected until I updated the lens firmware but I don't know how significant that is. Strange that raw and jpeg would be different but I'm not going to spend any more brain power on this.
Click to expand...
Well at least you don't have a duff camera :)
 
Sangoma said:
Well at least you don't have a duff camera :)
Click to expand...

I think they should mention this somewhere in the blurb. The guy at Wex knew exactly what I was talking about and appeared to know all about it. I suppose this issue could matter to someone out there apart from me so I do think they should mention it somewhere just for people who'd understand what they're reading and be able to make their own minds up.

Just going back to the size and weight and cost saving issue I wonder how true this can be? I'd imagine that the firmware is written in various existing blocks or at least conventions and it would be a matter of paying someone and starting from scratch so I really don't know and can't imagine how much size and weight and cost can be saved from doing things differently for this model. From past experience doing things differently usually causes additional development costs simply because someone somewhere has to spend time doing it differently rather than just pulling something existing off the shelf. I think I'd be more willing to believe it's either a slight cock up or someone new not realising this isn't how we do things or hobbling.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think they should mention this somewhere in the blurb. The guy at Wex knew exactly what I was talking about and appeared to know all about it. I suppose this issue could matter to someone out there apart from me so I do think they should mention it somewhere just for people who'd understand what they're reading and be able to make their own minds up.

Just going back to the size and weight and cost saving issue I wonder how true this can be? I'd imagine that the firmware is written in various existing blocks or at least conventions and it would be a matter of paying someone and starting from scratch so I really don't know and can't imagine how much size and weight and cost can be saved from doing things differently for this model. From past experience doing things differently usually causes additional development costs simply because someone somewhere has to spend time doing it differently rather than just pulling something existing off the shelf. I think I'd be more willing to believe it's either a slight cock up or someone new not realising this isn't how we do things or hobbling.
Click to expand...
It's certainly a very strange explanation, or rather excuse. It's almost as if they deliberately crippled the camera, but why, and if it was an intended "feature", then why not be up front about it. Sounds fishy to me!
 
woof woof said:
I think they should mention this somewhere in the blurb. The guy at Wex knew exactly what I was talking about and appeared to know all about it. I suppose this issue could matter to someone out there apart from me so I do think they should mention it somewhere just for people who'd understand what they're reading and be able to make their own minds up.

Just going back to the size and weight and cost saving issue I wonder how true this can be? I'd imagine that the firmware is written in various existing blocks or at least conventions and it would be a matter of paying someone and starting from scratch so I really don't know and can't imagine how much size and weight and cost can be saved from doing things differently for this model. From past experience doing things differently usually causes additional development costs simply because someone somewhere has to spend time doing it differently rather than just pulling something existing off the shelf. I think I'd be more willing to believe it's either a slight cock up or someone new not realising this isn't how we do things or hobbling.
Click to expand...


I agree.

Probably a memory saving exercise if it is anything, as the look-up table for all the lenses probably is quite large.

How does this explain the fact that the samples from the same camera you downloaded from DPR are OK?
 
Sangoma said:
I agree.

Probably a memory saving exercise if it is anything, as the look-up table for all the lenses probably is quite large.

How does this explain the fact that the samples from the same camera you downloaded from DPR are OK?
Click to expand...
The DPR files are from a manufacturer's review camera?? But that doesn't, or shouldn't, make sense.
 
Stephen L said:
It's certainly a very strange explanation, or rather excuse. It's almost as if they deliberately crippled the camera, but why, and if it was an intended "feature", then why not be up front about it. Sounds fishy to me!
Click to expand...
Stephen L said:
The DPR files are from a manufacturer's review camera?? But that doesn't, or shouldn't, make sense.
Click to expand...

What surprised me was that he had chapter and verse on it, no pause to look things up, he just launched into it so he's either a hard core geek and across anything and everything or maybe he's come across this himself or encountered it before as a customer issue? I can't know.
 
Last edited:
Sangoma said:
I agree.

Probably a memory saving exercise if it is anything, as the look-up table for all the lenses probably is quite large.

How does this explain the fact that the samples from the same camera you downloaded from DPR are OK?
Click to expand...

Different software I suppose. I suppose it's possible that some software has lens profiles which either are or aren't visible to us as selectable profiles and are able to be applied either through selection or automatically? Who knows.

But he did seem to be saying that something isn't done in camera that is done with other cameras.
 
Last edited:
Sangoma said:
In the camera?

Have to edit after your edit :)

How did the profiles get onto the raw files on DPR?
Click to expand...

I updated mine to the latest firmware so it shouldn't be that. No, I was thinking that some software on the pc may be able to apply the corrections with whatever minimal information on lenses is still being supplied by this camera as I'd guess there must still be something about the lens in there somewhere.

With my software there are no visible profiles for Panasonic or Olympus lenses and yet the corrections are applied to files from other cameras just not this one so something must be in there somewhere and I'd guess that despite what the Wex guy said some software could well still do it. The strange thing being that if the DPR files have corrections in them why isn't it recognised by my software? I don't know.

It's been interesting :D
 
woof woof said:
What surprised me was that he had chapter and verse on it, no pause to look things up, he just launched into it so he's either a hard core geek and across anything and everything or maybe he's come across this himself or encountered it before as a customer issue? I can't know.
Click to expand...
Or he's good at bluffing :D
 
woof woof said:
I updated mine to the latest firmware so it shouldn't be that. No, I was thinking that some software on the pc may be able to apply the corrections with whatever minimal information on lenses is still being supplied by this camera as I'd guess there must still be something about the lens in there somewhere.

With my software there are no visible profiles for Panasonic or Olympus lenses and yet the corrections are applied to files from other cameras just not this one so something must be in there somewhere and I'd guess that despite what the Wex guy said some software could well still do it. The strange thing being that if the DPR files have corrections in them why isn't it recognised by my software? I don't know.

It's been interesting :D
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed, and the mystery deepens :)
 
woof woof said:
I updated mine to the latest firmware so it shouldn't be that. No, I was thinking that some software on the pc may be able to apply the corrections with whatever minimal information on lenses is still being supplied by this camera as I'd guess there must still be something about the lens in there somewhere.

With my software there are no visible profiles for Panasonic or Olympus lenses and yet the corrections are applied to files from other cameras just not this one so something must be in there somewhere and I'd guess that despite what the Wex guy said some software could well still do it. The strange thing being that if the DPR files have corrections in them why isn't it recognised by my software? I don't know.

It's been interesting :D
Click to expand...
Out of interest, if I PM you my mail address you could wing me a raw file and I'll see what DxO software makes of it. It usually asks to download a profile if it's not already on my machine, which yours won't be,
 
Stephen L said:
Out of interest, if I PM you my mail address you could wing me a raw file and I'll see what DxO software makes of it. It usually asks to download a profile if it's not already on my machine, which yours won't be,
Click to expand...

Can I email a file that big?
 
I have a G100 that I leave at one of my work places; I’m in on Friday, if you want any files?
 
yzfmike said:
Any progress on this topic?
I'm interested in the outcome.
Click to expand...
stickytape said:
I have a G100 that I leave at one of my work places; I’m in on Friday, if you want any files?
Click to expand...

Thanks guys but I sort of got to the bottom of this, as I posted above and as quoted here for ease of viewing...

woof woof said:
I have an update on the raw file issue with the G100.

I've bought quite a lot from Wex so I rang them and got to talk to a very nice and knowledgeable guy about my issue with uncorrected lens info and surprisingly he knew all about it and went into a lot of detail unfortunately using acronyms that I didn't understand. Apparently Panny have done things differently with this camera to keep the cost and weight down. I don't know how much firmware actually weighs or how big it is :D but maybe there's a processing cost or maybe just a firmware writing cost, I don't know.

So, I asked some questions...
Is this the only camera that does this? Yes.
To double check... No other Pannys do this? No.
Is this because the camera is more video orientated? No. It's just to keep the cost and weight down.
Can I tell from looking at the specs what cameras do it like this? No.
So if I was worried about this with another camera I'd have to ring up and ask you? Yes.
Would you mind? No. (That's nice of him.)
Does any software get over this? Not that I'm aware of.

I'm not sure he's right on that one as the DPR files show no distortion but at least I have an at least partial answer... It's not a fault it's just how they've done it to keep the cost and weight down. Thinking about this... I've never seen this mentioned in any review so I assume there is a software fix but, not with the software I have, DNG/CS5.

Oh well. Its been interesting.

Oh and a PS.
I forgot to mention to him that jpegs were initially uncorrected until I updated the lens firmware but I don't know how significant that is. Strange that raw and jpeg would be different but I'm not going to spend any more brain power on this.
Click to expand...

So. The way I understand it is that the lens corrections aren't as baked in as they are with other Panasonic cameras and instead a lens profile has to be applied by software either automatically or through a prompt you click on as confirmed by a poster above who checked one of my raws, his software asked him if he wanted to download a profile and when he said yes the profile was downloaded and the corrections applied. My CS5 didn't do this so I was stuck with uncorrected files and had to do the corrections manually and make my own preset.

I decided to keep the camera as I wanted something small and light with a nice evf but I don't know if I'd buy another camera like this as users are pretty dependant on post capture software corrections being available in their software. I haven't seen this way of doing it with any of my current or previous Panasonic cameras so I am disappointed that Panasonic have gone this way but I guess they were penny pinching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top