"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

AFAIK, the legal responsibility for faulty goods lies with the retailer in UK law (Sale of Goods Act and various distance selling regs).

Warranties are largely a mechanism for manufacturers to assist retailers of their products in honouring their obligations to consumers and as a marketing tool.
 
Musicman said:
AFAIK, the legal responsibility for faulty goods lies with the retailer in UK law (Sale of Goods Act and various distance selling regs).

Warranties are largely a mechanism for manufacturers to assist retailers of their products in honouring their obligations to consumers and as a marketing tool.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob, so does that mean that in case of a fault it's up to the retailer to make good even if an item is not in the hands of original purchaser? That's what I sort of imagined. I never bither filling out warantee cards. (Don't often buy new kit:))
 
Afraid not. The retailer's contract is with the original purchaser, and it is that contract to which the SoGA applies.

If you buy second hand your recourse it via the person from whom you bought the item. However, as that is most likely a private sale, you're not covered by consumer law, and it would be a civil action.

If it were from a shop like LCE you have some protections, but they may be diminished as the goods are not new. You should be still covered for right of return of the goods by distance selling regs if you'd bought over the phone or internet, though.
 
I am hoping someone can help, I purchased my OH a GF1 (off here) and the 200mm zoom lens. He tries to zoom in real close to something, but as soon as he attempts the shot the camera pulls the lens back and won't allow the zoom. What is he doing wrong?
 
Samphire said:
I am hoping someone can help, I purchased my OH a GF1 (off here) and the 200mm zoom lens. He tries to zoom in real close to something, but as soon as he attempts the shot the camera pulls the lens back and won't allow the zoom. What is he doing wrong?
Click to expand...

This sounds very odd.

What lens are you using?

I don't know of any lens that can suddenly zoom out. Is it possible that what he's doing is calling up the magnified view rather than zooming?

The maginified view can be set to activate and show a highly magnified view when you move the zoom ring or when you press a button (or two.) I may be wrong but I think it's possible that he's not actually zooming but somehow calling up the magnified view which will then revert back to normal view as the shutter button is pressed. Is it possible that this is what's happening?
 
Last edited:
Samphire said:
I am hoping someone can help, I purchased my OH a GF1 (off here) and the 200mm zoom lens. He tries to zoom in real close to something, but as soon as he attempts the shot the camera pulls the lens back and won't allow the zoom. What is he doing wrong?
Click to expand...

I think that Alan (Woof Woof) has hit the nail on the head with magnified focus assist somehow being active.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
woof woof said:
This sounds very odd.

What lens are you using?

I don't know of any lens that can suddenly zoom out. Is it possible that what he's doing is calling up the magnified view rather than zooming?

The maginified view can be set to activate and show a highly magnified view when you move the zoom ring or when you press a button (or two.) I may be wrong but I think it's possible that he's not actually zooming but somehow calling up the magnified view which will then revert back to normal view as the shutter button is pressed. Is it possible that this is what's happening?
Click to expand...

Alan, I will check as this sounds like what is happening.

He zooms out to an object and will move the focus ring and the object is huge in the view finderBut, as he presses to take the photo the lens pulls back to the normal view.

Thank you :)
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest to do a factory reset when you buy a 2nd hand camera. Some people select some strange setup options... :)
 
Samphire said:
He zooms out to an object and will move the focus ring and the object is huge in the view finded. But, as he presses to take the photo the lens pulls back to the normal view.
Click to expand...
Heh, yeah : the lens isn't doing anything, it's just the optional magnified view. Go into the menus and switch it off.
Leter, when he realises how awesomely useful it is for manual focus, he can switch it back on again.
 
Thank you, will look for this on the menu with him and turn it off :)
 
Last edited:
Saltburn cliff in the distance, shot from the lead up to the gardens.

Rokkor 24mm.

 
Last edited:
I am getting strange file numbering on my newly acquired G2 and cant find anything in the menu to correct it, ie to change the way the files are numbered.
Files are numbered very oddly such as _1020195 and the next _1020196 but then the next in the sequence as shot will be P1020197 then back to _1020198 then again P1020199 meaning that when I load them onto my computer all the files are mixed up and not continuous, takes an age to find all the files in the correct order, why is it doing this and is there a work around?
 
Can't give you a reason why, but arrange the files by date rather than name and that should mean it displays correctly.
 
Joe of Loath said:
Can't give you a reason why, but arrange the files by date rather than name and that should mean it displays correctly.
Click to expand...
I have tried that and it makes them even more jumbled up. Ive tried all the options to view the files even grouping them etc but nothing works. I need to change the way they are labelled in the first place.
I really want to like this camera but locating a single file in with 100s of others is proving to be a nightmare.
 
@c22w1 According to the interwebs, files beginning with an underscore are AdobeRGB colour space, the others are sRGB. One of your modes presumably is set to use Adobe.
 
Last edited:
Happy new year !

Disappointed to see this thread has slumped to page 11 :(

Has the Lumix bubble burst? Have people moved on to other things? Or is it just winter blues ?
 
I hope not. Here's one taken with the GX1 few days ago - got to love a system that allows you to cover 24-400 millimiters in FF terms, plus a f1.4, in less than a third of a small backpack (with quite acceptable image quality)!


Piazza della vergogna by Cadenela, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
Happy new year !

Disappointed to see this thread has slumped to page 11 :(

Has the Lumix bubble burst? Have people moved on to other things? Or is it just winter blues ?
Click to expand...

I've moved to A7 but I still have my G1.

For me what's killed it is the 1/4000 sec max shutter speed / ND issue + the EVF on my G1 and the reluctance of Panny to make a GF1 with EVF until very recently. If Panny or Oly had made a camera with the ability to shoot raw at ISO 100 with a max shutter speed of 1/8000, with a good EVF and the intent to be at the cutting edge of IQ I'd have bought it but they didn't and still haven't.
 
martsharm said:
Nice bit of landscape there... but Ouch! Look at that chromatic aberration!
Click to expand...

There isn't any significant CA.

What you're probably seeing is the result of two things, partly the harsh background lighting against the branches - and you'll get that to an extent with pretty much any lens in these sort of conditions - and mostly all the strangulation done to the shot to get it to appear on this site via Photobucket and then on to your screen. On my screen it looks quite nice, apart from the difficult northern light.
 
woof woof said:
There isn't any significant CA.
Click to expand...

"Chromatic aberration manifests itself as "fringes" of color along boundaries that separate dark and bright parts of the image"

11982719973_4be2209d5b_o.jpg


Sorry old chap, but unless the tree has been painted cyan on the left and a sort of orangey-magenta on the right, you've got a nasty case of CA, much worse than one would ideally want. Can't see how Photobucket can just "invent" CA out of nothing. It might be exaggerated by overzealous sharpening, I'll give you that, but not invented out of thin air. The lens is the source. But don't feel bad, just click the "remove chromatic aberration" box next time, assuming you have one, and maybe keep the sharpening down a bit.
 
When it comes to adapting lenses, I prefer to stick to telephoto use only. Adapting film-era wide-angle lenses (with a deep lens mount, probably retrofocus designs) to become a normal on a small sensor has always struck me as curious, given the proliferation of affordable native designs which suit the sensor much better. Excessive chromatic aberration would be one rather obvious consequence of their use. I understand there may be practical usage advantages such as proper manual focusing, although I've always been of the opinion that results take precedence over process. Not so for 50mm and above though, which seem to work extremely well as telephotos on m4/3, and are far cheaper than the native option with similar focal lengths and aperture (I'm thinking here Olympus 45mm f/1.8 = legacy 50mm f/1.8, or Olympus 75mm f/1.8 = legacy 85mm f/1.8). Well worth a try to see if one likes the look before splurging for the native option at a far higher cost.

The Canon FDs are my legacy lenses of choice; they're really sharp, contrasty and saturated.

This is with the 50mm f/1.4, on a dull day:


Howdon bridge Canon FD 50mm-1100302 by martsharm, on Flickr

Click through for the full-res version from an Olympus E-PM1

And the Canon 135mm f/2.8 is pretty stellar too. I spotted one from this lens further up the thread and it really does deliver the goods for a 270mm equivalent.


Robin at Gibside Panasonic G6 Canon FD 135mm f2.8-1180142 by martsharm, on Flickr
 
martsharm said:
Wow, what a collection. That Tokina is insane! Can just imagine that with a tiddly little Pen on the end of it. Which is your favourite / used the most?
Click to expand...

Most used is the big Tokina for motorsport. Favourite is without doubt my 100mm f2.8 on the far right.

Focus peaking on the G6 coupled with magnified view makes focusing very quick and easy :-)

Cheers,

Simon.
 
Nice set of lenses Simon, I have a similar set although I have a tokina 400 f5.6, I thought about the 300 f2.8 but may add that later :D The 100 f2.8 is a corker of a lens and one I am pretty fond of too. I have a 35mm and 50 f1.4 also, gotta love legacy lenses. :)
 
I've recently swapped over from a Canon 7D to a GX7 and I'm glad I made the change. I had a GX1 briefly to see if I liked it, but I found it a little small for my liking and the lack of EVF or a tilting screen was an annoyance. After a few weeks with the GX7 I'm loving it - the combination of size and weight, along with the metal body make for a really nice camera to use. It feels like a quality piece of kit - even the sound of the shutter is just right. I'm currently using the kit zoom and the Oly 45 f1.8 - when funds allow I'll probably get a 12-35 f2.8.

Here's one from the weekend. It's a 7 shot HDR taken handheld using the auto bracketing feature, and combined in Photomatix:



Twistleton Scar
 
Last edited:
Another with the 14-42 kit lens. Slightly cropped, but pretty much straight from the camera as RAW, converted in Aperture 3.

 
Last edited:
martsharm said:
Sorry old chap, but unless the tree has been painted cyan on the left and a sort of orangey-magenta on the right, you've got a nasty case of CA, ....
Click to expand...

Just about any lens will display CA especially in a shot like that... towards the edge of the frame... against a brighter background... Get the idea.

As I said, it isn't significant and the lens isn't a bad lens, Leica thought it was good enough to badge.

What you're looking at in the Saltburn shot is just a worst case thing.

PS. And no, it isn't oversharpened.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just about any lens will display CA especially in a shot like that... towards the edge of the frame... against a brighter background... Get the idea.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Lenses vary in quality of design, manufacture, and longevity. I try to use lenses which don't have CA. I don't think you're correct in saying every lens ever made will behave as in this example. What would be the point in Zeiss making their Otus range, for example? I think this is an important discussion, because it means you can't just slap on any old legacy lens and have it looked fully corrected like you can with the native options.

This is at 100% from a Canon 50mm f/1.4:


CA demo Canon 50mm 1.4-1180086 by martsharm, on Flickr

It simply doesn't display the cyan-magenta shift of your 24mm. And this is a 100% crop, not at web sizes like your example. Get the idea?

woof woof said:
PS. And no, it isn't oversharpened.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
and mostly all the strangulation done to the shot to get it to appear on this site via Photobucket and then on to your screen
Click to expand...

I was saying that if you don't know what's involved in Photobucket's "strangulation", then it's *possible* that it has become oversharpened. If you're sure it's not, then fair enough.
 
Last edited:
MarkLG said:
I've recently swapped over from a Canon 7D to a GX7 and I'm glad I made the change. I had a GX1 briefly to see if I liked it, but I found it a little small for my liking and the lack of EVF or a tilting screen was an annoyance. After a few weeks with the GX7 I'm loving it - the combination of size and weight, along with the metal body make for a really nice camera to use. It feels like a quality piece of kit - even the sound of the shutter is just right. I'm currently using the kit zoom and the Oly 45 f1.8 - when funds allow I'll probably get a 12-35 f2.8.

Here's one from the weekend. It's a 7 shot HDR taken handheld using the auto bracketing feature, and combined in Photomatix:



Twistleton Scar
Click to expand...

Great image Mark. HDR done how it should be done i.e. you can't tell!

Cheers,

Simon.
 
martsharm said:
Well, no. CA demo Canon 50mm 1.4-1180086 by martsharm, on Flickr

It simply doesn't display the cyan-magenta shift of your 24mm. And this is a 100% crop, not at web sizes like your example. Get the idea?
Click to expand...

Groooooooan.... OK, I'll bite... mostly to clarify what's going on for the sake of others reading this thread.

You yourself said that CA manifests at the boundaries of light and dark and that's what is visible in the 24mm shot I posted. I'll add that it's probably going to show up more towards the edges of a shot taken with a wider angle lens and the point is still valid despite the crop factor. Just like the shot I posted. As I said this is a worst case thing.

Are you getting the idea now?

You also stated that it's just a matter of ticking a box to remove and that's true with this sort of CA...

100% crop from the image as processed and saved...



So what's the problem?

Like I said, there is no significant CA in the shot.

Final image when processed and saved on my pc...



And based on a 800 wide image posted on line you then quesation the sharpening? It's not oversharpened.

It's been sharpened in the CS5 raw processor and it looks good to me on my screen. I could even add some more sharpening by additionally running it through Smart Sharpen at 70% radious .3. These images aren't specifically processed or sharpened for the web, I never bother, I just squirt them through Photobucket and they will be mangled a bit by the process but even so you should be able to see that there is no oversharpening even with the additional Smart Sharpen on top of the raw processing.

Centre at 100%...



Top left at 100%...



Top right at 100%...



There just isn't an issue.

I posted the original image as an example shot from a (newly bought old) lens and I accept that work was done to produce the final image but producing the final image from the raw took less than 2 minutes and consisted of loading my defaults, fiddling with the exposure and fill light, contrast, saturation and vibrance and crop which may sound a lot but in reality it isn't and took about two minutes max, hardly heroic measures and no more than I'd do for any other shot.

I'm happy with the performance of the lens. It's pretty much in line with what I'd expect to see from any of my wider lenses especially in a shot like that which is a severe test even with the crop.

Even on my FF camera the lens performs well and on FF there's still no significan CA.

I'm just amazed that you can make so many judgements based on a 800 wide image posted on a forum :help:

IMVHO it's a decent lens with no significant issue :D
 
Last edited:
martsharm said:
Right, so you've got rid of the CA that was clearly present in the first example you posted. Good. It looks a lot better now.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a question of what point of view you take.

Personally if I'm posting an example shot from a lens that's what I'll do. An example of a processed image is a different thing and we are in the gear section here not the image critique or software sections.

You could post a final processed image as an example of what a lens does, but you could also think that doing that is a little less than 100% honest.
 
G1 + x2 tc + Tokina 70-210mm at 210.

Security light...



Can't really say why, but I like it :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top