Equipment Update and Lens Test

Since we last discussed hardware in the MFT Lenses post, I've had a few changes in my equipment. I sold the GM5 (and with it the 12-32mm collapsible lens). Also, I gave the 35-100mm f4 compact lens to my grandson. I also sold my GX7 along with the 14-42mm lens. On the plus side, I bought a GX8 because I coveted the 20 mega-pixel sensor. And I also acquired the new Panasonic Leica 100-400mm super-telephoto lens.

After a few months with the GX8, I miss the GX7. Here are some of the reasons. It's as large as my GH4 (minus the hump),  I really liked the tilt-up LCD on the GX7 though I know most people prefer the fully articulating screen of the GX8. The thumb pad of my hand constantly pushes buttons on the back of the camera; to the extent that I have had to assign Fn13 to toggle the cursor button lock feature. Beyond 4K video, the HD options are not very interesting. And I'd like a pop-up flash.

An then, along comes Panasonic with the GX85. It has a tilting LCD, is back to the size of a GX7, and no anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. It also has a pop-up flash. Of course, I bought one. Luckily, it is quite a bit less expensive than a GX8; under $800 with a kit lens (the 12-32mm again). I haven't sent the GX8 to eBay quite yet, but I probably will.

I am pausing this post for a short rant about Panasonic camera naming. GX85? And in Europe, it is the GX80. Why? In Japan, it is called a GX7 Mk II. The Mk II name is probably the most accurate because that is about where the camera falls, feature-wise. A good alternate might have been GX75. But GX85/GX80? C'mon, Panasonic. Also, why can't we buy the camera sans lens?

Speaking of the kit lens, it is the collapsible 12-32mm f3.5-5.6 zoom lens, first seen on the GM1. It looks good on the GX85 but it is all downhill from there. No focusing ring makes this lens a nightmare to use in manual focus mode. When manual focusing, you must first select the focus magnification zone on the LCD screen and then change the focus using either a slider on the screen or the left and right cursor keys. Good luck trying to manually focus on anything but a very stationary object. Lens stabilization also must be turned on and off in the camera, though that is a lesser offense.

So I was thinking: do I want to take the 12-32mm lens when traveling. It is small and light. It is also slow and difficult to operate in manual focus. I might be interested in traveling with it if it is sharp. So I decided to test the lens for sharpness. Not contrast, color, distortion - just sharpness. The test included three lenses: the Lumix 12-32mm f3.5-5.6, Lumix G 14-140mm II f3.5-5.6 (this is my normal travel lens), and Lumix GX 12-35mm f2.8 (my premier and most often used lens except for travel) and three cameras: GX85, GX8, GH4 (I wanted to see if the removal of the anti-aliasing filter was an improvement).

The test was outside in shaded natural light. I photographed a little display of items with a couple I would pay close attention to: the hedgehog and my pet baby cactus. All images were captured at a focal length of 23 mm (+ or - 1 mm), ISO 200, f5.6 (usually near the sweet spot of many lenses), with a shutter speed of about 100. The cameras were on a tripod and focusing was manual. Here's a picture of the layout.

Overall test view: Lumix GX85 and 12-35mm f2.8 - ISO 200 f5.6 1/100 sec.

After capturing the image with all of the combinations, I examined the jpgs and raw files in Lightroom. Since they were about the same in sharpness, I used the jpgs because they had better color than the flatter raw files. By the way, the text in the middle of the frame was easily readable in all lens/camera combinations.

The bottom line: the 16 MP sensor without an anti-aliasing filter in GX85 produced images that were virtually the same as those produced by the 20 MP sensor in the GX8. As for the lenses, the 12-35mm was the clear winner and both the 14-140mm and the 12-32mm were roughly the same as each other. So, the 12-32mm lens will go the eBay route and will not travel with me. The 14-140mm will go in the closet for now and I will experiment with traveling with the 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8 as a combined substitute for the 14-140mm. I have a couple of short trips coming up to help me decide between sharpness and versatility.

In these samples, first off is the 12-32mm. Not bad, but not near as sharp as the 12-35mm (not surprising, given the 4 to 1 price differential).

12-32mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Below is the 14-140mm version, very slightly softer than the 12-32mm version. This is somewhat disappointing to me as this is a versatile travel lens and now I may decide to leave it at home.

14-140mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Below is the 12-35mm version, easily the sharpest hedgehog in the lot. Look at the grey-black hair on the right and the two stray hairs near the eye.

12-35mm f2.8 1:1 crop

Looking at the cactus will show similar results. The needles on the top of the cactus almost look out of focus in this 12-32mm version.

12-32mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Here is the 14-140mm version, even softer than the 12-32mm version.

14-140mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Finally, the superb 12-35mm version. Look at how sharp the needles are (no pun intended) and look at the texture on the surface of the cactus - a world of difference.

12-35mm f2.8 1:1 crop

Both the hedgehog and the cactus were near the edge of the frame which probably exacerbated the softness in the 12-32mm and 14-140mm images. Edge softness might be perfectly fine in portrait photography; but, oftentimes in a travel photo, the most interesting part is near the edge.

This little test was enlightening to me, I hope you found it useful as well.