Differ-Me

After reviewing Panasonic's Lumix GX9 two weeks ago, it is time I look through the hundreds of image files I shot with this delightful M43 camera, archiving what I need and thrash what I do not.



In the process, I opened a few GX9's RAW (RW2) files with Affinity Photo, my Adobe DNG Converter (10.2) is not able to convert the "new" file yet.

My usual workflow when I review a camera is to shoot BOTH JPEG and RAW files.

The RAW are converted to DNG and open in Adobe Camera Raw, so are the JPEG and both are adjusted in ACR where necessary.

This time round I notice something strange between the JPEG and RAW that I cannot explain and I think it is worth some investigating!




I took a shot of this landscape where half of the top were brightly lit and the bottom half were in deep shadow.  I was going to use these files to test the dynamic range and the integrity of the files after they are adjusted. The top image was from JPEG and the bottom from RAW.


Both images went through Adobe camera Raw where details were reclaimed and colour adjusted. As you can see, the JPEG's colour did not react that well to the heavy adjustments and the road is still with blue bias.

The RAW responded beautifully from the post processing and I got a very accurate rendition of the scene!

But WAIT!

Notice the RAW file is showing MORE of the landscape than the JPEG?

Checking their image size...

JPEG    5,184 x 3,888 pixels    17.28x12.96"
RAW    6,200 x 3,904 pixels    17.333x13.013"

The Image Size clearly show the RAW file have MORE PIXELS than the JPEG!

Why?

Photo and Video Theory claimed "The image size window confirms that there are no difference between a RAW and a JPEG when it comes to their weight in MB."

But my finding showed this is NOT true. The RAW is nearly 2MB MORE than the JPEG!

What about the INTEGRITY of both files? 

Are JPEGs so good now that, fussy photographers do not need to shoot RAW and thus saving LOTS of space?  What if your image have a very wide range of brightness and shadows, like the one I was showing you?

These are the 100% cut from the lower left of both files...


I think the crops above give you a good idea that the RAW image deliver better detail than the JPEG , you want the best? Shoot RAW!




This also go to show how good the 20.3 MP sensor is!!

Not forgetting these were shot with the "cheap" 12-32 kit lens!  Now you know how good it is!

Coming back to the size difference, could it be Infinity Photo doing it right with the RAW file and ACR screwing up the JPEG?

The plot thickens!

Famous Last Words...

I just opened BOTH RAW and JPEG with Infinity Photo and the RAW is still larger than the JPEG.

Look like the fault is with the JPEG Engine in the GX9!

Will get an answer from Panasonic.

If you still do not believe me, take a look at this Panasonic G camera History Tree that I created with reference to a low quality snap of the same chart from Japan.



As you can see from the chart, the GX9 is, to Panasonic Japan, the GX7 MarkIII and our GX85 is their GX7 MarkII because BOTH model came from the SAME family.

The GX8 is by itself, a stand alone model and still NOT replace by a new camera.

So WHY are some reviewers keep comparing the GX9 with the GX8?

May be we should blame Panasonic for their naming game?  :)

Now that we understand each other, let us take a look at this new Lumix offer...

Put the GX9 and GX85 side by side, it is easy to realise both cameras came from the same family.

The main external difference is that the GX9 have a two tier dial on top, which I find a bit harder to adjust because of the  smaller size. The exposure compensation lower dial, being too close to the top dial, is actually slower to change, compare to the GX85's press and adjust dial where your thumb sits!

Both cameras came with the same rear screen, the GX9 is of high resolution and it show.

EVF on both are not very exciting, a far cry from the INCREDIBLE one that came with the GX8! The EVF of the GX9 is able to tilt, that is the only feature similar yo GX8.

Both the GX85 and GX9 came with a little pop up flash that you can tilt and bounce.





Surprisingly, a NEW feature on the GX9 that no other Lumix camera have is the little door where the charging and HDMI ports sit. Give the door a push and it disappeared, like magic, reviewing the two ports, minus the dangling door!

It is much harder to extract the SD card from the GX9, the ejected card sits too near to the wall and I can imagine those with big fingers struggling to remove it!

Extraction of the GX85 SD card is a breeze :)

Oh.. personally, I hate to charge my battery IN CAMERA, both the 85 and new 9 came with the same charger WITHOUT an external battery cradle, I bought my own so I can charge OUTSIDE the camera. May be that's just me?








Famous Last Words...

In April, 2016 when I reviewed the GX85, I asked this question...

"LUMIX GX85 Did Panasonic GET IT RIGHT?"

Personally, I think they did, they updated the very popular GX7, put in the best stabiliser and a 10% sharper filterless 16MP sensor... it came with everything a keen and FUSSY photographer (like Moi) could ever want!  IT was an overnight success!

I was so impressed, I bought one myself!

Now, with a new name, the GX9 try to have the same success, but instead, getting some negative response from Lumix fan!

These comment from a forum sums up some of the frustration some Lumix user feel...

"The camera itself is not all that bad. But slapping a highly anticipated premium label on a more so refreshment product is what's ticking people off!  

To make it worse, they named it properly as GX7 Mk3 in the JP market, so they knew this is not a step up in the high end model in GX line going into the marketing campaign."

Well, everyone are entitled to their own opinion, for me, my GX85 is still able to provide what I want and I don't see I will upgrade to another "Got It Right" Lumix with 20MP sensor.

On the other hand, if you are new to the game and looking for a "Got It Right" Lumix, this is the best camera to go for!

The last time I check, the LUMIX GX9 (Body Only) is going for NZ$1,398 at our local Photowarehouse.