"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Hi I started a thread about this yesterday but got no replies :/ here is my issue:

So my GF1 seems to be stuck on RGB colour. I originally had it on sRGB and for some reason I changed the setting. I then read a few articles which suggest RGB is more hassle. I switched it back and on the camera it says sRGB in the settings. But when I check the TIFF files from the RAW files on my laptop they still say RGB.
I have checked older ones (i.e., before I first changed it) and they are sRGB. I think this may be a bug, I can't seem to find any info online about it.

I don't want someone to test it on theirs and then have it get stuck either. But if you have a GF1 and shoot RGB, could you see if it lets you go to sRGB.

I suppose I can just convert it to sRGB, but this just means an extra step I have to do. I tried to look in ACR if I can make a TIFF export with sRGB but I don't think it has that option.

Also while people are reading this do you shoot RGB or sRGB and why?
Click to expand...

Hope people have some good suggestions. I may try resetting the camera later.
 
If you are seeing RGB and not sRGB in the TIFF, it is the conversion process you are using that is at error. Download exiftool and look at the data in the raw image and I'm 99.9% certain it will say sRGB...

As to shooting in which: I always use sRGB. All my output devices (print, screen, internet) are sRGB calibrated, so I shoot in sRGB accordingly.
 
arad85 said:
If you are seeing RGB and not sRGB in the TIFF, it is the conversion process you are using that is at error. Download exiftool and look at the data in the raw image and I'm 99.9% certain it will say sRGB...

As to shooting in which: I always use sRGB. All my output devices (print, screen, internet) are sRGB calibrated, so I shoot in sRGB accordingly.
Click to expand...

Firstly thanks for suggesting the software, it is pretty good. Unfortunately it is telling me the file is Adobe RGB (1998), which is what the setting on the camera was at before I changed it back. Since I've not change my converting method (using ACR) I don't understand how that could be at fault. So I'm back to square one.
I was told that while RAW has no assigned colour profile the output of the TIFF will use what the camera was set too. Which makes sense with how things were before and when I changed it to RGB. However, since changing it back it doesn't seem to want to use sRGB :/

Similar to you I much prefer sRGB for what I do.
 
G.T. said:
Unfortunately it is telling me the file is Adobe RGB (1998),
Click to expand...
OK. Time to triple check the settings. You aren't using a custom setting are you (where it could be saved as AdobeRGB)?
 
arad85 said:
OK. Time to triple check the settings. You aren't using a custom setting are you (where it could be saved as AdobeRGB)?
Click to expand...

I actually thought you might have gotten to the bottom of it this time. Around the same time I was switching profiles I changed the q.menu to one of the B&W settings so my LCD was in B&W, allowing me to see what it would be like but knowing that since it is RAW I have the full colour image to edit and can convert it if it looks better that way. I've just took a couple images of something with this selected and with the original standard. I double checked the camera space and it still says sRGB. But when looking at both RAW files ACR identifies them as RGB. I did however find out how I can assign the sRGB profile in ACR for when I export to TIFF. So the problem still persists :(

update: ok so I rechecked older files, I could have sworn they said sRGB but they don't. I used the program too which tells me adobe RGB (1998). Maybe I inspected a JPEG which I used for upload :confused:, odd, though this makes sense since looking in Aperture the jpeg export is set to use sRGB. Anyway, it seems then that this isn't a recent problem but something that goes back further. I suppose if I have managed to cope until now with this problem maybe it isn't so bad. At least I know now how to change the colour space in ACR before saving the TIFF files.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify things - the colour space setting in the camera (sRGB or Adobe RGB) has no effect if you're shooting RAW and converting in 3rd party software such as ACR (I don't know if even SilkyPix cares about it). RAW files don't have a colour space. The colour space of the converted TIFF file is entirely down to the conversion software. The setting in the camera only affects JPEG output (including the embedded JPEG in the RAW file used to view the file in-camera).
 
gcogger said:
Just to clarify things - the colour space setting in the camera (sRGB or Adobe RGB) has no effect if you're shooting RAW and converting in 3rd party software such as ACR (I don't know if even SilkyPix cares about it). RAW files don't have a colour space. The colour space of the converted TIFF file is entirely down to the conversion software. The setting in the camera only affects JPEG output (including the embedded JPEG in the RAW file used to view the file in-camera).
Click to expand...
This is very true!
 
gcogger said:
Just to clarify things - the colour space setting in the camera (sRGB or Adobe RGB) has no effect if you're shooting RAW and converting in 3rd party software such as ACR (I don't know if even SilkyPix cares about it). RAW files don't have a colour space. The colour space of the converted TIFF file is entirely down to the conversion software. The setting in the camera only affects JPEG output (including the embedded JPEG in the RAW file used to view the file in-camera).
Click to expand...

arad85 said:
This is very true!
Click to expand...

Hi, thanks I've realised this only this morning.

So if I understand correctly now, since I shoot RAW there is no assigned colour profile because it is RAW. When ACR opens the files it must default to Adobe RGB (1998) to get the most colours when saving a file to something like TIFF or JPEG, would this assumption be correct?
I think this may be where user design could help, if I select RAW on my camera it should grey out the colour profile selection since it is irrelevant, this is what caused me confusion.
I think my issue is solved now.
 
I've never used my GH2 for video but tried last night - stuck in my 16GB Sandisk HD video 20mb/sec card and the blighter refused to record on 720p, which was the quality I was after.

Used the card before on my wife's Panny ZS7 with no probs.

What cards do members use to video at 720p or better?

Sorry if asked before, but there's a lot to wade through.

Regards
H
 
Just received my Panasonic G5 body today...
Now awaiting the olympus 45mm and panasonic 20mm lenses :)

Camera isn't much fun without lenses :-D
 
due to lack of funds to spend on new stuff i've bought myself a couple of old MF lenses and an M42 adapter. here are the results. i was amazed. the colour, sharpness, contrast, bokeh etc.

i have to say it is quite nice to focus manually too, my first camera was manual focus back in the olden days and it's just like getting back on a bike after along time, tricky for five mins then not half as bad as i thought.

both lenses are super takumar, one 35mm f3.5 and the other 135mm f3.5

8051454347_a4253cf083_z.jpg


8051448114_b275ff4ab8_z.jpg


8051441955_6b630e0d97_z.jpg


8051461408_1d8351cfe1_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
G.T. said:
Hi, thanks I've realised this only this morning.

So if I understand correctly now, since I shoot RAW there is no assigned colour profile because it is RAW. When ACR opens the files it must default to Adobe RGB (1998) to get the most colours when saving a file to something like TIFF or JPEG, would this assumption be correct?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. You should be able to change the default colour space in ACR, I think, although I use Lightroom so I'm not sure.
 
rugeyes said:
due to lack of funds to spend on new stuff i've bought myself a couple of old MF lenses....
Click to expand...

Great pics :D

I've been looking at Minolta 135mm f3.5 but I noticed that there's a f2.8 version too and the slightly faster aperture may give it the edge but does the f3.5 have any advantages?
 
woof woof said:
I've been looking at Minolta 135mm f3.5 but I noticed that there's a f2.8 version too and the slightly faster aperture may give it the edge but does the f3.5 have any advantages?
Click to expand...

i suppose it depends on the lens, the f3.5 gives me great bokeh on both and it tends to be quite sharp, but that is why i chose the super takumars. from what i have read (and i'm no expert) when there is the same focal length lens but one has a fast aperture than another it usually means that the quicker lens was a later edition of the lens. however alot of the faster lenses tend to be sharp corner to corner from f3.5.

bear in mind that the focal lens doubles, 135mm is nice but on m43 it becomes 270 which is pretty long.

i'd recommend them though, the shots above are only play about test shots from the first day too. i'm just hoping i've not peaked with them!
 
I love my Carl Zeiss Jena 135 F3.5 on m4/3rds. Here's this morning ;

Webs_E1-40150_SOOCJpeg2.jpg


The f2.8 are just that bit bulkier, not so svelte ...
 
Driving me mad this. Can I ask is the gx1 better than Sony nex range? What noise like at 1600 low light evening?
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
I love my Carl Zeiss Jena 135 F3.5 on m4/3rds. Here's this morning ;
Click to expand...

i can understand why. i was so surprised by the contrast, the colour and the clarity when i first took some pics. i did go after a couple of CZJ's before i plumped for the takumars. its looks a really nice lens
 
rugeyes said:
...bear in mind that the focal lens doubles, 135mm is nice but on m43 it becomes 270 which is pretty long.
Click to expand...

I've used 150mm on APS-C and 300mm on FF so I know what the FoV will be like.

I've seen a few Minolta 135mm f3.5's for sale but I've only come across one f2.8 and TBH I didn't know they did one, from Googling it looks like the f2.8 is actually the older lens but if anyone has any info I'd be grateful.

Some pictures from today, all are Minolta 55mm.

_1090614-C.jpg


_1090603-C.jpg


_1090570.jpg


_1090599-C.jpg


Where these were taken...

_1090542.jpg
 
Last edited:
Don't encourage me :D

_1090531-C2.jpg


_1090553.jpg


_1090619.jpg


I took this one just as an extreme test and there's really no way I could have got this first time with my 5D without blowing the highlights (no blown highlights here...) or making the shadows dark...

_1090549.jpg
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
I love the 20mm pancake - great bokeh and focal length on the 2x crop m43 bodies
Click to expand...

Me too, I just wish they would come out with a mark 2 of that lens that focuses faster.

Having said that, I'm thinking of getting another copy as I'm currently without one.
 
Steelfish said:
Me too, I just wish they would come out with a mark 2 of that lens that focuses faster.

Having said that, I'm thinking of getting another copy as I'm currently without one.
Click to expand...

I can work around the sluggish focusing to be honest - yes it should be as fast as my 14mm or other panny lenses, but I'd still rather have one than not (y)

There is at least one in the classifieds I think at the mo
 
bl0at3r said:
I can work around the sluggish focusing to be honest - yes it should be as fast as my 14mm or other panny lenses, but I'd still rather have one than not (y)

There is at least one in the classifieds I think at the mo
Click to expand...

Yes I spotted that one earlier and was tempted. I think it's up for more than I sold my last 20mm copy for though, so psychology is telling me not to buy it.

I'm currently a bit torn between buying more lenses for my Nikon 1 system, or investing more in m4/3. Oh and congratulations by the way!
 
Say 'hello' to Boris the Golden Eagle.


Sion_Hall_081012_P1100571 by srhphoto, on Flickr

Taken with a GH2 + Tokina 300mm f2.8 AT-X lens and 2XTC at the Sion Hall Falconry Centre in North Yorkshire. Will have to go back when the light is better, as it was tough going having to go up to ISO1250 to get a shutter speed of only 1/100s at that equivalent focal length.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
Racing RC model airplanes is my bag these days, gon back to this disaplin that I used to persue as a 'young man' . . . The models weight 2.25lbs, have a 90cm wing span and toch 100mph around a closed triangle cource. Had to find something to take the place of my fishing and boats that my poor mobility no longer permits . . . Fishing and boats was a nice tag for photgraphy.

The weather was superb driving through Cambridgeshire on Sunday morning at 7.30am, the mist was rising, great light, problem, I was late, so no time to stop:shrug:

However, the G1 did its bit in the evening. Almost 6pm, 14-45mm lens, fadeing light, I had to go to ISO 320 to get a decent shutter. Simple basic shot of the guys at the end of their race day with trophies and some models.

The G1 is old hat now but I am happy enough:

1000C2000grouprw.jpg


CJS
 
Nice to see people enjoying MFT... and the G1 :D

People have liked this one...

_1090591t-1.jpg


I wanted to capture the changes in colour and the harsh lighting changes and let the DoF drift out quite quickly and although I did get the shot I wanted I really didn't expect other people to single it out :D I know that front to back DoF wide angle shots are in vogue for "landscape" but I like to see the DoF drift out for a more natural look.
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
I can work around the sluggish focusing to be honest -
Click to expand...
My 17mm focuses the same way, but I find just mashing the shutter button and allowing the pause gets me decent pictures 9 times out of ten. I use bursts of two or three.

The new mZuiko 17mm might make a lot of sales : new fast focus and a nicer aperture.
I doubt Panasonic will do a new 20mm ... just a feeling.

Oh here, some G1 pictures with old manual 45mm.

mamsonlaughingg1yash100.jpg


tombstoneg150mmcosinon.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top