My Sony A200 versus Panasonic LX5

[petersboulton]

I have a Sony Alpha a200 with assorted lenses and recently my wife bought a Panasonic LX5 (high-end) compact. Guess what? I'm thinking that her photos have better image quality than mine!

I've uploaded the original images as taken off the cameras of some comparable pictures - please see http://goo.gl/ztvvO. I've captioned each image so you can tell one from t'other.

The Sony images were taken with the stock lens, apart from the butterfly which was taken with a Minolta 'beercan' (70-210mm).

To my eyes the Panasonic images are sharper! I have tried my utmost to make best use of all the Sony settings and to get the right exposure / minimise shake etc. but the images you see are broadly representative of the a200 vs. LX5 results.

So what's occurring? Is the Panny doing more in-camera sharpening etc. which are making the results appear superficially better? I know the Sony 18-80mm stock lens is not that great and it's true that from time to time I get truly outstanding results, especially from the beercan, but in general the superficial, first impression, is that the LX5 takes more impressive pictures!

I've tried a limited amount of RAW vs RAW comparison and again, the LX5 is very comparable (but probably not better than) the Sony. To some extent though, my view is that comparing RAW is irrelevant as I don't wish to use RAW and ideally I don't want to spend a long time in my 'digital darkroom'. Therefore the better the pictures are, as taken, the better for me.

Surely the Sony should always take better pictures as it's a DSLR and therefore has a bigger sensor etc.? (I've tried to ignore the possibility that I'm just a crap photographer!)

I'd be grateful for any comments / advice. I'm totally torn between turning my Sony gear back to cash and getting an LX5 or making a promise to myself never to use the Sony stock lens again and buying something like a Sigma 10-20mm zoom for it! (I don't necessarily think the stock lens is all of the difference though.)

TIA!

Pete

 

[srichards]

If you have differing fields of view you can get completely different results with metering and such like. Which metering method do you use on the sony? I've found the wide area evaluative metering gives radically different results and can lead to over exposure and washy pictures in high contrast situations eg backlighting.

The A200 is nearly 3 years old now so it is probably just showing its age.

I'd do the test again but with the Mrs with the sony to rule out crap photography on your part

I'm not sure it is the lens that is the issue. I'd say the sony body might be the problem. DSLRs do take more effort to get consistently good results from. I was disappointed with mine (A350) when moving from a pansonic bridge camera as that just took flipping good photos all the time with zero effort on my part. It took a while to get the hang of it and it produces better pictures now than the panasonic did.

I wouldn't change the lenses. I'd get a more up to date sony body once you've ruled out exposure and white balance issues

 

[BacktotheFuji]

It might help to understand what is better about the Panasonic pictures than the Sonys. I was deeply unimpressed by the 18-70mm kit lens...at its widest the lens was very soft in the borders and corners. The a200 itself is still a fab camera (at ISO 100-400) although it is very noisy at high ISO.

 

[petersboulton]

It might help to understand what is better about the Panasonic pictures than the Sonys. ....

I think the Panasonic pictures are generally sharper and more 'vibrant'.

Perhaps the first step for me is to stop using the 18-70mm and see whether I still think the same. (Unfortunately I like wide-angle so it's hard to give up!).

I agree that the a200 is a fab camera - the ergonomics and range of settings for an entry level camera are great. I just need the photos to be as good / better than the LX5 to make lugging the weight worthwhile!

Pete

 

[petersboulton]

If you have differing fields of view you can get completely different results with metering and such like. Which metering method do you use on the sony? I've found the wide area evaluative metering gives radically different results and can lead to over exposure and washy pictures in high contrast situations eg backlighting.

The A200 is nearly 3 years old now so it is probably just showing its age.

I'd do the test again but with the Mrs with the sony to rule out crap photography on your part

I'm not sure it is the lens that is the issue. I'd say the sony body might be the problem. DSLRs do take more effort to get consistently good results from. I was disappointed with mine (A350) when moving from a pansonic bridge camera as that just took flipping good photos all the time with zero effort on my part. It took a while to get the hang of it and it produces better pictures now than the panasonic did.

I wouldn't change the lenses. I'd get a more up to date sony body once you've ruled out exposure and white balance issues

Thanks for the reply. I like to think I understand the basics of exposure etc. having 'grown up' in the film days with a 35mm SLR. However, in an attempt to eliminate the 'clueless user' option I did buy a book off Amazon specifically on the a200!

Doing a temporary swap with the Mrs. is a good idea if she'll wear it! (She also grew up with 35mm film SLRs!)

When you say the a200 is 3 years old and "showing its age" I assume you mean that technology has advanced rather than my a200 is now taking inferior pictures to what it took when I first got it.

The great thing about the a200 is it gave great access to affordable used Minolta AF lenses. I don't think I would want to spend what it takes to get an improved body and range of lenses to match. Therefore the decision for me is to stick with the existing setup, maybe junk the kit lens and get a Sigma 10-20mm or, as in the original post, turn the existing kit back to cash and 'downgrade' to an LX5 (and spare my shoulders the weight!).

Thanks for taking the time to respond! Appreciated!

 

[srichards]

I did mean things have moved on

The newer kit 18-55 lens is pretty good. About £70 s/h max. I have never used the kit 18-70 that came with my a350!

I have had pretty good results with an old tamron 28-300. Can pick them up for less than £100. Weighs a ton though.

I did buy a sigma 19-35 thinking it would be noticeably better than the 18-55 IQ wise but it isn't.

I'd ditch the 18-70 and get an 18-55 if it were me.

 

[evo456]

From personal experience, the beercan isn't super sharp wide open. At f5.6 in the butterfly shot I'm not convinced it will deliver crisp, sharp results. The bokeh though is smooth and creamy

 

[Faldrax]

Looking at the three pairs of shots, the only one which there is a clear 'better' one of the pair is the butterfly - where the much smaller sensor on the compact will give greater DOF, and so greatly improve your chances of getting the subject in focus.

The other pair that show a difference is the final one of the forest - where there is a noticeable colour difference (look at the tree trunks) - both could be 'right', which one seems more accurate (from your memory, having been there)?

The type of shot where an DSLR should 'win' is where you have a subject you want to isolate with an OOF background - you might want to try taking that (with both cameras) and see which you prefer.

I still keep my A200 as a back up body to my A700, or as a 'light' option with the 18-70 when wanting 'family snaps' on days out (rather than A700 + VG + CZ16-80), and find it still gives great results - but for more challenging situations the A700 wins every time.

It might be worth you picking up a s/h Minolta 50 f/1.7 and trying that out - fairly cheep, but the large aperture should give the A200 a chance to shine vs the LX5.

 

[petersboulton]

Looking at the three pairs of shots, the only one which there is a clear 'better' one of the pair is the butterfly - where the much smaller sensor on the compact will give greater DOF, and so greatly improve your chances of getting the subject in focus.

That's an interesting point - I hadn't thought of the variation in DOF based on sensor size. Guess the compact has the advantage of being more likely to be sharp and the DSLR will have the nicer blurry background (bouquet?).

The other pair that show a difference is the final one of the forest - where there is a noticeable colour difference (look at the tree trunks) - both could be 'right', which one seems more accurate (from your memory, having been there)?

Probably the Panny, but I'm more bothered by the relative sharpness. Do you think the Panny shot is a little sharper?

The type of shot where an DSLR should 'win' is where you have a subject you want to isolate with an OOF background - you might want to try taking that (with both cameras) and see which you prefer.

That's one of the reasons I really like the beercan. When you get a good'un it's REALLY good. Though what motivated my original post was that, in general, the Panny ones seem superficially nicer / sharper. I wasn't clear how much in camera tweaks were going on. Since I posted I've been experimenting on my Sony shots with RawTherapee and upping the saturation and applying a fair amount of sharpening does improve the Sony shots quite a lot.

I still keep my A200 as a back up body to my A700, or as a 'light' option with the 18-70 when wanting 'family snaps' on days out (rather than A700 + VG + CZ16-80), and find it still gives great results - but for more challenging situations the A700 wins every time.

It might be worth you picking up a s/h Minolta 50 f/1.7 and trying that out - fairly cheep, but the large aperture should give the A200 a chance to shine vs the LX5.

I have one of those Minolta primes too. It's a nice portrait lens. On IQ it's second to the beercan in my eyes due to the beercan's greater versatility.

Thanks for your reply - it was most helpful!