What’s on the Horizon for LUMIX?

[GeorgeHudetz]

Sorry, I ought to have prefaced my post by saying that I want a decent 28-200 The Panasonic 28-200 is not a good performer. The Tamron 28-200 is really rather good.

It would be interesting to see what the real-world impact of the OIS in the Panny would have on IQ. If you assume it's worth 2 stops at 200 mm, and are talking about ISO 100 with the Panasonic vs 400 with the Tamron, then I suspect the Tamron would still have better IQ, unless you are heavily lifting shadows. On the other hand, a blue-hour shot that requires ISO 1600 with the Panasonic would require a faster shutter on the Tamron and thus push the ISO to 6400.

Not sure how that would turn out in an IQ contest, but I could simulate that with my existing lenses, I suppose. And, if there is some shadow raising needed, etc. Especially on an S1R. This is of course all theoretical, as the Tamron isn't available on L-mount, but a fun little mental exercise.

Anyway, I'm stretching things a bit, but I certainly have to disagree that the Panny is not "good." I think it's an excellent performer up to 180mm. And the stabilization can pay dividends, especially at 200mm, which is where the Panny needs help.

I'm not sure which I would buy if they were both available on L-mount. If it were my only lens (other than maybe an UW zoom) then I'd probably pick the Tamron. But if I had better lenses to fall back on when IQ was considered crucial, then I think I'd prefer the smaller & lighter Panasonic. To me travel zooms are "fun" (or convenient) lenses, so I'd rather have the smaller lens, particularly since it has OIS, which just adds to the "frame it and shoot it" nature of this kind of lens.

But it is too bad we don't have the choice.

I’m really not looking for a system switch, but I did a comparison of the A7CR plus 16-35 PZ and Tamron 28-200 versus the S5 plus 14-28 and 24-105. It’s notably smaller and 350g lighter, and offers 200mm reach vs 105. I could also drop my S1R as well. It’s very tempting. But, no Live Composite, and the EVF experience isn’t as good.

Nikon Z is nice, but I did run a Z7 system for a while a few years ago. I found the lack of zebras for stills a major limitation for how I use a camera (although I’m told there is a workaround that I was unaware of at the time). I also found that the camera felt a bit old fashioned in its firmware and operation compared to Olympus, which I was using at the time. Panasonic cameras are just as modern feeling as Olympus, and in some ways better.

Thanks for your notes on the above.

 

[pdk42]

Anyway, I'm stretching things a bit, but I certainly have to disagree that the Panny is not "good." I think it's an excellent performer up to 180mm. And the stabilization can pay dividends, especially at 200mm, which is where the Panny needs help.

I seem to be a bit of an outlier on the 28-200. I have experience of using three copies:

- One was a demo copy on the booth at a show in the UK that I stuck onto my S5. I took a bunch of shots in the exhibition hall, but they were all at high ISO and I just grabbed them without any preparation or structured testing - so I couldn't form any firm conclusions. However, My impressions were that it was excellent at the wide end but with increasing loss of contrast and a sort of "halo" effect at the long end.

- The second was a used copy that I bought from MPB that was described as being in "like new" condition. For sure, it was pristine. I was able to do controlled tests on it and it was really, really poor at the long end. Wide open at 200mm it was shocking - worse than an old Tokina 70-210 zoom I have in OM mount - mushy, low contrast, halo-effect. By f11 it sharpened up a lot, but it still was pretty awful.

- The third was a copy in a local camera store. I stuck it on my S1R and took it outside to take a few shots. Again, it was a bit of a rushed test, but like the first copy, I found the same loss of contrast and halo effect at long focal lengths. With appropriate application of the dehaze tool in LR and some sharpening boost I could get it to be more or less acceptable, but I really don't want a lens that I'm suspicious of every time I take it out of the bag.

Now maybe the used copy I got from MPB was a lemon so I should discount that. And maybe up to 180mm it's OK. I guess I should try another throw of the dice. Maybe I'll buy another copy from a reputable on-line retailer with a good return policy and try again. For sure, the overall proposition - focal length, size, weight, OIS, f-stop range is fine for what I'd use it for (mostly landscape). But I still think it's overpriced!

 

[pdk42]

Well, I went back to look at the shots I've taken with the 28-200 and also looked at some samples on the web (so with other copies). I'm really seeing the same problem. I can also see that at shorter focal lengths that things are better. For example, I found these two examples on DPR - the first at 150mm, the second at 200mm:

I downloaded the raws and processed them in LR with zero changes from the import default. Here are 100% crops:

150mm:

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2X
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• 150.0 mm
• ƒ/6.5
• 1/640 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 1600

200mm:

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2X
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/320 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• 1
• ISO 1600

Now there are exposure differences for sure, but it's clear that the 150mm shot is decent - sharp and good contrast. The 200mm shot shows softening and loss of contrast.

I don't know where the deterioration would get to the point that I'd be unhappy with it - I guess somewhere between 150mm and 200mm. But that's really a poor proposition. The 24-105 is really great and will take some cropping (esp on an S1R), so I'm not going to win much by adding a 28-200.

 

[pdk42]

Meanwhile, this shot from the Tamron 28-200 at 200mm:

reveals this crop (at the same res):

• SONY - ILCE-7RM4
• E 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 A071
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• -0.3
• ISO 125

There is evidence of atmospheric interference in this shot too - yet there is none of the loss of contrast/halo that the Lumix lens shows.

Now, I'm not trying to be a Sony/Tamron fanboy here (and I not going to be changing systems!). I don't want to unreasonably trash the Lumix lens. In fact, I really wanted the 28-200 to be stellar and I wanted to buy it. But I need to call out the reality - that Panasonic have prioritised size and weight over IQ. Maybe the 28-200 works for many other photographers, who perhaps accept that its size/weight can make up for the optical compromises - but for me I don't want to spend all this money and end up having to make excuses for the final output.

 

[xaviergut]

Panasonic have prioritised size and weight over IQ.

I think that Lumix is aiming to hybrid shooters when they put a lens in the market.

But my question is: if Lumix makes a lens with no focus breathing, that is parfocal, that focuses perfectly accurate and fast, that has barely any CA, minimal distortion and good flare control, that has macro capabilities, all of them very good things for video, will all this be negative for photography in terms of final IQ? Is an excellent video lens bad for photo and an excellent photo lens bad for video?

Ist the Tamron 28-200 as good for video as the Lumix 28-200?

 

[pdk42]

I think that Lumix is aiming to hybrid shooters when they put a lens in the market.

But my question is: if Lumix makes a lens with no focus breathing, that is parfocal, that focuses perfectly accurate and fast, that has barely any CA, minimal distortion and good flare control, that has macro capabilities, all of them very good things for video, will all this be negative for photography in terms of final IQ? Is an excellent video lens bad for photo and an excellent photo lens bad for video?

Ist the Tamron 28-200 as good for video as the Lumix 28-200?

That's a good point Xavier. I don't do video so things like parfocal, focus breathing, etc are not really relevant for me. I get your point. Maybe it's best I just say that it's a lens designed for a different class of photographer/videographer than me.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

That's a good point Xavier. I don't do video so things like parfocal, focus breathing, etc are not really relevant for me. I get your point. Maybe it's best I just say that it's a lens designed for a different class of photographer/videographer than me.

Ouch. That came off as at least somewhat elitist. Now had you said a different class of photography, I would 100% agree.

To that end, one of the things that has taken me longer to understand than I would like to admit is that for most of my photography, pixel-level IQ matters not. It's an common story that has been told before, but once I reduce my image down to resolutions I commonly publish at, most of the lens flaws I see at the long-end of the 28-200 - which has the lowest pixel-level IQ of any of my modern lenses (again: at the long end) - disappear. You just don't see those aberrations anymore when reducing the long end to 3k or 4k resolution, particularly when you use output sharpening.

Now, I totally "get" the desire to use the best lens one can afford, particularly when using the S1R. I have a 12mm image I took of Bryce Canyon using the S1R's hires mode, and I marvel at it's pixel-level detail. And I'm proud of the techniques I used to capture it. Same is true when I focus-stack, or create a pano - both methods of course allow one to create pixel-level IQ that surpasses what a single-image can create for even the best lens/sensor combo. So I understand the "craftsmanship" angle of this, and still pursue this type of photography, for which the 28-200 isn't well suited.

But the simple truth is, for most of the work I do - other than when cropping to overcome the focal length limitations of a given lens - pixel-level IQ just doesn't matter. Not every image needs to be worthy of a giant print. I've had some very memorable walkabouts with the 28-200. A single lightweight lens on the body, no camera bag to speak of, and no lens swaps. Yet so much flexibility in the framing. Yes, when I get home and zoom in 200% on those long shots, the craftsman in me cringes, but then I reduce it to publishing resolution and just move on. Half those images I probably never would have got because I wouldn't have bothered with a lens swap.

The 28-200 has really taught me the freedom & value of not caring about pixel level IQ. But I understand if you can't get past the cringe.

As for price, yes, there's a cringe factor there as well. I can at least partially justify that because of OIS, but the simple fact is Panasonic has us over a barrel here, so I just move on.

If there is one aspect of the Tamron lens I wish the Panny had, it's the close-up capabilities.

Cheers.

 

[pdk42]

Ouch. That came off as at least somewhat elitist. Now had you said a different class of photography, I would 100% agree.

I was using "class" in the sense of a mathematical set, not a value-laden social grouping !!

To that end, one of the things that has taken me longer to understand than I would like to admit is that for most of my photography, pixel-level IQ matters not. It's an common story that has been told before, but once I reduce my image down to resolutions I commonly publish at, most of the lens flaws I see at the long-end of the 28-200 - which has the lowest pixel-level IQ of any of my modern lenses (again: at the long end) - disappear. You just don't see those aberrations anymore when reducing the long end to 3k or 4k resolution, particularly when you use output sharpening.

I can totally understand that. Moreover, post processing can change a lot things. I often add (using Nik Color Efex) a diffusion/glow to my images which is not unlike the loss of contrast I see in the 28-200. So, I can definitely see that, for most practical purposes, I could get decent images from the 28-200, especially since I seldom print above A3+ and the images I upload to Flickr (my main "publishing channel") are at 4000px long edge.

Now, I totally "get" the desire to use the best lens one can afford, particularly when using the S1R. I have a 12mm image I took of Bryce Canyon using the S1R's hires mode, and I marvel at it's pixel-level detail. And I'm proud of the techniques I used to capture it. Same is true when I focus-stack, or create a pano - both methods of course allow one to create pixel-level IQ that surpasses what a single-image can create for even the best lens/sensor combo. So I understand the "craftsmanship" angle of this, and still pursue this type of photography, for which the 28-200 isn't well suited.

That's the thing. Having big and expensive gear is a choice we make in order to get high quality IQ. So sticking a low-performing lens on a (at launch) £3500 camera is very counter-intuitive.

But the simple truth is, for most of the work I do - other than when cropping to overcome the focal length limitations of a given lens - pixel-level IQ just doesn't matter. Not every image needs to be worthy of a giant print. I've had some very memorable walkabouts with the 28-200. A single lightweight lens on the body, no camera bag to speak of, and no lens swaps. Yet so much flexibility in the framing. Yes, when I get home and zoom in 200% on those long shots, the craftsman in me cringes, but then I reduce it to publishing resolution and just move on. Half those images I probably never would have got because I wouldn't have bothered with a lens swap.

The 28-200 has really taught me the freedom & value of not caring about pixel level IQ. But I understand if you can't get past the cringe.

I guess that "cringe" is a good word to use. But of course, it's a value judgement based on our expectations and that of course is linked to the gear we use and we're back to the previous points we've both made. But here's the rub ... if "decent" is the yardstick then by far the best solution here is a G9ii or EM1.3 or OM1 with the Olympus 12-100. That is a far better lens than the 28-200 in terms of the IQ it delivers. And most of the time the 12-100/m43 combo will deliver images more than good enough for on-line posting and prints up to A3+ - even though it's "only" m43. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the 12-100 on a 20Mp m43 body will definitely deliver a technically better result than the 28-200 on a 24Mp FF body, so long as it's shot at low ISO.

As for price, yes, there's a cringe factor there as well. I can at least partially justify that because of OIS, but the simple fact is Panasonic has us over a barrel here, so I just move on.

Panasonic pricing is very weird. The current Black Friday deals are all over the place. I saw an S5 + 18-40 deal at under £1000 - that is really an excellent price. But then, the 70-200 f4, a very old lens, is still at £1750; and you can find used copies at £700 all day long.

 

[Travis Butler]

That's the thing. Having big and expensive gear is a choice we make in order to get high quality IQ. So sticking a low-performing lens on a (at launch) £3500 camera is very counter-intuitive.

And I think that's where a lot of the differing opinions come from - because while I like to have as high IQ as I can reasonably get, as long as the IQ meets a minimum standard, there are things I put a higher priority on. Size and weight is a big one - witness the fact that I use the Sigma fp far more often than my S5. Ergonomics is another - and the weight of the S1 is an absolute deal-killer for me given what it does to the ergonomics for hand-held shooting. (My arms aren't as strong as they used to be; the S1 at 1017g is more than double the weight of the fp at 422g, and a good bit more than the S5 at 714g. I already have occasional problems with shaky hands when using the S5; there's no way I would use a camera that much larger and heavier, no matter how good the IQ is.)

I don't currently have much interest in the 28-200, mostly because I very rarely shoot over 135mm, and spend most of my time in the 20-80mm range. But if I do find a need for something in that range, I will absolutely prioritize size/weight over IQ, because a larger/heavier lens is too much for me to manage handheld.

 

[xaviergut]

... maybe, and only maybe, one day of 2028, we L-mount users will get a flagship camera like the Sony A1/ii, Canon R5ii or Nikon Z8 /Z9...

maybe a S1ii, ideal for both photo and video for about 4.000/5.000 €...

 

[pdk42]

... maybe, and only maybe, one day of 2028, we L-mount users will get a flagship camera like the Sony A1/ii, Canon R5ii or Nikon Z8 /Z9...

maybe a S1ii, ideal for both photo and video for about 4.000/5.000 €...

I reckon we'll see the S1ii in Feb 2025. And that's already a year too late. If Panasonic delay it further, they can kiss goodbye to being a serious FF system to compete with Nikon, Canon, and Sony.

 

[Oíche]

... maybe, and only maybe, one day of 2028, we L-mount users will get a flagship camera like the Sony A1/ii, Canon R5ii or Nikon Z8 /Z9...

maybe a S1ii, ideal for both photo and video for about 4.000/5.000 €...

By 2028 I'll still be learning every feature on S5ii, TBH I doubt I ever will

 

[Pete_W]

If Panasonic delay it further, they can kiss goodbye to being a serious FF system to compete with Nikon, Canon, and Sony.

I am not sure that Panasonic tries or wants to go head-to-head with Nikon, Canon and Sony. I think they just do their own thing, striving for success withing their target market.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Such 135s were a thing back in the film days often right up to the beginning of DSLR. I actually still have 3x f3.5 lenses, they are or were so cheap on Ebay £15 or something
I even tried the Pentax-M one with an extension tube for video on Pentax DSLR. I have the CZ Jena Electric too, maybe worth a try sometime on S5ii.

As you say they are compact and could nowadays be made very light. No need for f1.8, as Matt Granger said even the portrait photographers ended up selling them (probably just stuck to the usual 85mm). I don't think there is much demand for them, even slower aperture lenses when you have the 28-200 zoom.

Yes, I can understand that slower tele-zooms took over the part of the market that 135mm primes used to inhabit, but having tried various of both (mainly as a tele option for travel) I prefer being limited to 135mm to having a slower, poor quality tele-zoom. There are fast, much higher quality tele-zooms of course, but they're big and heavy. A good 135mm prime would get me a travel telephoto option without poor image quality and in a small and light package, and even if I have to crop or stitch (a bit) to make up for it being a prime I still prefer that.

 

[pdk42]

I shot some landscape shots today with the Sigma 105mm macro. The IQ is notably better than the 24-105 at 105mm and f8.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

... maybe, and only maybe, one day of 2028, we L-mount users will get a flagship camera like the Sony A1/ii, Canon R5ii or Nikon Z8 /Z9...

maybe a S1ii, ideal for both photo and video for about 4.000/5.000 €...

I think the S1HII will probably the next camera from Panasonic. It will probably have a very fast read out sensor to get at least 4k 120fps without a crop. It may also will have 6k 120fps. The question is, if they will go for a higher resolution sensor that also can offer 8k or stuck with 6k. That means around 45 Mpix or 24 Mpix again. There is a potential sensor with 45ish Mpix in the Sony semiconductor offering, where the last full frame sensors in Panasonic cameras came from. The IMX366. But of course there also could use some totally different sensor. However a S1H successor would only make sense, if it gets a fast read out sensor. I don't think a S1HII limited to 4k 30fps in full sensor read out wouldn't make sense and even 60 fps would be probably be to less.

At the moment I tend to believe the S1 and S1H will be merched in to one body that will compete with the Z8, R5II and A1II. Because it would make sense for a company that has it's DNA in video and hybrid shooting to also offer 8k when everyone else does. And if it can do fast frame rates for video, it also can do for photo. Panasonic even does offer 30fps for Photo in the S5II and gave the user the maximum the sensor can offer and also will do so in a S1H successor. Also Panasonic usually doesn't hold back with features like pre capture and so on. However it probably will get a heavier body than most of the competition and it probably will get a fan.

All that said, I think there will be no S1R successor but a S5R. I think Panasonic will offer that 61 Mpix Sensor in a more compact body.

 

[pdk42]

I think the S1HII will probably the next camera from Panasonic. It will probably have a very fast read out sensor to get at least 4k 120fps without a crop. It may also will have 6k 120fps. The question is, if they will go for a higher resolution sensor that also can offer 8k or stuck with 6k. That means around 45 Mpix or 24 Mpix again. There is a potential sensor with 45ish Mpix in the Sony semiconductor offering, where the last full frame sensors in Panasonic cameras came from. The IMX366. But of course there also could use some totally different sensor. However a S1H successor would only make sense, if it gets a fast read out sensor. I don't think a S1HII limited to 4k 30fps in full sensor read out wouldn't make sense and even 60 fps would be probably be to less.

At the moment I tend to believe the S1 and S1H will be merched in to one body that will compete with the Z8, R5II and A1II. Because it would make sense for a company that has it's DNA in video and hybrid shooting to also offer 8k when everyone else does. And if it can do fast frame rates for video, it also can do for photo. Panasonic even does offer 30fps for Photo in the S5II and gave the user the maximum the sensor can offer and also will do so in a S1H successor. Also Panasonic usually doesn't hold back with features like pre capture and so on. However it probably will get a heavier body than most of the competition and it probably will get a fan.

All that said, I think there will be no S1R successor but a S5R. I think Panasonic will offer that 61 Mpix Sensor in a more compact body.

Based on various rumours I've read, as well as thinking that Panasonic will likely take a "path of least resistance" route, I think the first S1 ii we'll see will be an interpretation of the SL3 - 60Mp sensor with a relatively slow read-out speed.

 

[Travis Butler]

Yes, I can understand that slower tele-zooms took over the part of the market that 135mm primes used to inhabit, but having tried various of both (mainly as a tele option for travel) I prefer being limited to 135mm to having a slower, poor quality tele-zoom. There are fast, much higher quality tele-zooms of course, but they're big and heavy. A good 135mm prime would get me a travel telephoto option without poor image quality and in a small and light package, and even if I have to crop or stitch (a bit) to make up for it being a prime I still prefer that.

Out of curiosity, did you ever use the Pentax-M 75-150/4?

Found a copy yesterday at an estate sale for $20, figured I'd give it a shot; it seems to get good reviews.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I was using "class" in the sense of a mathematical set, not a value-laden social grouping !!

Perfect! Makes sense.

. if "decent" is the yardstick then by far the best solution here is a G9ii or EM1.3 or OM1 with the Olympus 12-100.

Yes indeed, and every once in a while I contemplate one of those systems to compliment my FF gear. However, the 28-200 & 14-28 have basically relieved me of that burden-of-choice.

The way I look at it, pick the parameters you want to optimize around and then accept the remaining compromises. For me, my main parameters are excellent IQ for landscape-ish stills and astro. So I shoot FF. But I'd like a light/small system some of the time. Sure, the 28-200 isn't the best lens of it's class, and I could save even more weight with another system, but I'm good with it in both regards and it allows me to skip getting a u4/3 or crop system. Yay!

If I wanted to optimize around size/weight - especially for wildlife - I might have gone a different way.

Cheers.

 

[Oíche]

Out of curiosity, did you ever use the Pentax-M 75-150/4?

Found a copy yesterday at an estate sale for $20, figured I'd give it a shot; it seems to get good reviews.

I have two of these, they are typical legacy early 1980s zooms when zooms sucked and primes were required for good IQ.

The M series zooms were mehhh, I have probably the best zoom in the series, the M35-70 f2.8-f3.5. In the following A-series the zooms got better and bigger. The M-series was the miniature idea along with the small MX camera which was rather good

TBH besides being beer money and the legacy look I've no idea why you'd want to use these. The push-pull is pretty horrid to use also. I'll be surprised if you like it, I would have given you both of mine for free and an M-135 f3.5 prime which is better.

I remember trying it once in the mountains one evening and note the once. Sorry

They're good for what they were designed for... 35mm film.