Engineering tradeoffs: a camera case study

Four cameras, from two companies. Similar at first glance. Quite different once you zoom in and ponder the picture a while. Which approach is superior? Share your opinions in the comments!

The way this is going, and to remain honest both with myself and all of you, I’m at least for now going to need to start referring to myself as a “camera collector” versus a photographer. I keep accumulating particularly noteworthy (therefore also rare) gear when I come across lightly used, but still reasonably priced, examples on eBay and elsewhere. But I can’t seem to find any spare time to actually use anything in my steadily expanding hardware inventory…at least not yet.

Will I ever be able to retire?

First World problem. I know. My latest examples of acquisition excess fall into the “pocketable” camera category. First off are two Pentax devices. As regular readers may recall from my past writeups, I’m nearing a half-century as a “Pentaxian”, a term originating on a t-shirt I snagged at the company’s CES booth a “few” years ago, prior to the brand’s acquisition by Ricoh. The new-to-me cameras are both members of the company’s “Q” product series: a first-generation Q:

and the successor Q7, skipping (at least so far) the in-between Q10 as well as the Q-S1 concluding iteration. I’d long known about the Q family, which originated a decade-and-a-half back, but enthusiastic reviews from folks such as Micro Four Nerds (the prior blog link is supplemented by the following video) tipped me over the acquisition edge:

Key differences between my two Pentax Q-series cameras include:

• Sensor size: 1/2.3″ on the Q, 1/1.7″ on the Q7, albeit both delivering 12 Mpixel resolution. By the way, the origin of this particular sensor dimension terminology is a story in and of itself, which I’ll save for another day; for now, see here.
• Body construction: Magnesium alloy on the Q, (still-rugged) plastic on the Q7

Note too, for comparison-to-come purposes, that neither model embeds an electronic viewfinder (EVF), although they both include both a pop-up flash and a hot shoe tailored for an optional external flash unit (which can operate in tandem with the pop-up) or a transmitter.

Potato, potahto (or tomato?)

Then I came across Chris Niccolls’ extensive writeup, “The Panasonic Lumix GM-5 Is the Greatest Digital Camera Ever Made”, along with an associated video, at PetaPixel:

Insert hook and reel me in. Regular readers may also recall I’ve been slowly-but-steadily collecting Micro Four Thirds (M43) gear in recent years, now spanning a “few” cameras from two suppliers (Olympus-now-OM System and Panasonic; the Blackmagic Design video cameras I own are both higher-end Canon EF mount-based models), one of which ended up as a gift for my wife. Well, my stable is now even fuller; I bought both a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1:

and the successor DMC-GM5:

both of which are also more than a decade old at this point. Here’s another Micro Four Nerds review writeup-plus-video combo, this time focused (bad pun intended) on the GM1:

along with a coverage content tandem on the GM5 (to be clear, I have no affiliation with Micro Four Nerds or any other “influencer” showcased here; I’m just a fan):

Notable differences between the two models include the following:

• Supplemental illumination: pop-up built-in flash on the GM1 (but no hot shoe), hot shoe (but no integrated flash) on the GM5, and
• Viewfinder: backside LCD only on the GM1, added EVF (electronic viewfinder, space-supplanting the predecessor’s pop-up flash) on the GM5

Sensor inconsistencies

Although the four cameras, from two manufacturers’ model lines, are conceptually similar (“pocketable”), their respective implementations are quite different. The inherent tradeoffs leading to each development team’s decisions and resultant product capabilities and limitations are interesting (IMHO at least) to ponder. Note that I have no company-representative insight, either quotable or off-the-record; what follows are just my educated guesses.

As already mentioned, my two Pentax Q variants’ image sensors are both 12 Mpixel in resolution, albeit with differing dimensions; the ~60% larger-area of the Q7’s sensor translates into improved low-light performance and wider dynamic range thanks to expanded pixel pitch and other factors. Conversely, the Panasonic GM1 and GM5’s image sensors are, as far as I can tell, identical, with 16 Mpixel resolutions. That said, M43 image sensors have roughly 9x the surface area of the 1/2.3″ sensor in the Pentax Q, and are still approximately 4x larger (again, surface area, not necessarily active image capture area) of the 1/1.7″ sensor in the Pentax Q7.

Stabilization tradeoffs

All four (total, including my two) Pentax Q family members also supported in-body image stabilization (IBIS), in and of itself a curious choice given the lightweight bodies and accompanying lenses, all of which would seemingly diminish the need for mechanical stabilization of any sort. To wit, neither Panasonic camera mentioned here implements IBIS, nor did any Panasonic-branded M43 lenses support optical image stabilization (OIS), at least at the time that the GM1 and GM5 were in production.

That said, M43 partner then-Olympus did have OIS-inclusive optics in its “glass” portfolio at the time, which could as-needed be used on Panasonic bodies given the two manufacturers’ lens mount compatibility. OIS is, generally speaking, inferior to IBIS, although as I’ve previously noted, it’s particularly effective with telephoto lenses. But it’s arguably better than nothing at all, or to interpolation-based digital image stabilization, for that matter.

Here are a couple of example videos discussing the similarities and differences between IBIS and OIS along with concept examples of both IS forms in action, as well as how they can collaborate:

This one from Canon has a Japanese audio track albeit with English subtitles:

Keep in mind, too, that given the Panasonic cameras’ larger-sized image sensors versus the Pentax alternatives, therefore larger pitch pixels despite the 33.3% higher resolutions, image stabilization was inherently less necessary in the M43 case given that improved light-gathering capability translated into the ability to operate them at blur-suppressing higher shutter speeds.

Space constraints

The added stabilization hardware surrounding the image sensor in the Pentax Q-family bodies, coupled with the desire to maintain their compact weight and dimensions, also compelled the company to dispense with a mechanical shutter, at least in the bodies themselves. Instead, a subset of the then-available eight-lens suite embedded mechanical leaf shutters in the lenses. More broadly, an “electronic shutter” implemented in the image sensor was available in all body-plus-lens cases, albeit with “rolling shutter” and other tradeoffs.

A hollow victory?

Ironically, in spite of these likely-difficult tradeoff decisions made by its development team, Pentax still ended up with Q-series camera bodies that were (slightly) larger than that of the Panasonic DC-GM1, as Robin Wong, another well-known photo enthusiast “personality”, notes in his Pentax- and Panasonic-themed blog posts and videos:

I’ve got more to say about the two companies’ contrasting approaches to the “pocketable” camera market, including the tradeoffs between multi-supplier standard and sole-sourced proprietary lens mounts …but I’ll save that for another day and writeup (or few). For now, I’ll wrap up my writeup and hand the keyboard to you for your so-far thoughts in the comments!

—Brian Dipert is the associate editor, as well as a contributing editor, at EDN Magazine.

Related Content

• The Godox V1 camera flash: Well-“rounded” with multiple-identity panache
• Scrutinizing a camera flash transmitter
• Multi-source vs proprietary: photography case studies
• SD card speeds: question your assumptions
• Tamron’s TAP-in Console: A nexus for camera lens update and control

The post Engineering tradeoffs: a camera case study appeared first on EDN.