I was pretty interested in the Micro 4/3rs mirrorless system and got one to play around with yesterday. I'm a Canon/Nikon shooter so I've spent most of my time hunting through the manual so far but did take a couple of back-yard shots if anyone's interested. First impressions:

1) The EVF is really pretty good. It still seems unnatural to me to compose with the LCD, but through the viewfinder is fine - I don't notice any lag as I move around or zoom, but there is some noticeable image noise that lets me know its an EVF and not an optical viewfinder. Its not distracting, just noticeable. The one big difference is after a shot there's a very noticeable 'freeze' while the image processes before the viewfinder goes live again that I don't think I'll ever get used to.

2) The LCD and liveview is a lesson to others how it should be done. Sweet. You can flip the LCD around anyway you like, including flat panel on the back of the camera, the menus on it (once I figured out the Panasonic Icons) is clear and unobtrusive, very nicely done.

3) Its small, about the size of a large P&S and I have big hands so it feels rather cramped. But given there won't be large lenses on it, and its purpose for me is a 'just in case' travel camera, that's OK.

4) As anyone would expect ISO 800 is the max. 1600 might be sort of usable with noise reduction and a web-sized shot. 3200 is for the marketing department only. ISO comparisons are here and here

5) The MegaIS system works quite well with the included 14-45 kit lens, certainly comparable to the Canon 17-55.

Anyway, for purposes of a "better than P&S interchangeable lens camera that I can carry in my briefcase" I'm pretty impressed with it. A few 100% jpgs are at

http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/panasonicg1

Thanks for the brief review, I'm very interested in this camera as a "take everywhere" sort of camera. Love my D700's but they're big and heavy and overkill for casual shooting.

Any more observations you'd like to share?

Sam,
I spent this last weekend playing with the A900 so I haven't picked up the G1 again. Right now with just the 'kit' lens its a little limiting. I'm hoping to get an adapter and try some other lenses soon. I'm hopeful with some better lenses mounted I'll get better images - no way to really compare but I'm not too impressed with the kit lens.

Personally - I find the G1 a very capable camera. It's not perfect but for a small, carry anywhere camera it competes very favorably with other small DSLRs like the Olympus E410/420, Canon 450 and Nikon D40/40x. I haven't done any formal testing but I did do one late season hike with it: http://www.verndewit.com/p103875348

Here's some other samples (it was a cloudy, dull sort of day):

That's looking very good for a light carry camera.

Beautiful shots Vern!
I'm hoping this camera (or the Olympus version when it comes out) is going to be a great walk around cam.

I did manage to get an adapter ordered today, so hopefully over the holiday weekend I'll be able to play with some standard 4/3 lenses. Looks like I'll have to manually focus some of the better ones, but with the nice LCD on the Panasonic that shouldn't be much problem.

How easy is it to track movement shot-to-shot? I've heard there's quite a bit of lag, making it difficult to follow action.

There's about a half-second of EVF freeze while a shot is processed. It really threw me for a loop the first time it happened - I was shooting a still and started moving to reframe through the viewfinder, but nothing moved.

At any rate its not going to work well for action shots unless there's a software fix that lets the e-viewfinder go live while the shot is processed. So its much like a point-n-shoot in that way.

Bummer. Does the LCD suffer the same issue?

mawz wrote:
That's looking very good for a light carry camera.

Especially when you factor in the 45-200 (90-400mm) IS lens that's supposedly coming out one of these days and will easily fit on a hip belt.

V.

I'm not sure I would recommend the G1 for sports either but for just about anything else I've been very pleased with it. Extremely lightweight in the hand and to carry. The little 14-45 kit lens is very light and sharp, plus the IS works very well. Here is a small gallery I've put up on my flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dokkalfar/sets/72157609058708960/

My favorite shot so far, showing the encroachment of winter:

I'm definitely not looking to shoot sports with one, but I often take several shots close together when trying to capture expressions in a portrait, etc. My wife's Fuji F20 has always really frustrated me in that department.

It's more than fine for quick shooting. The only issues are going to be with fast sports. I can take lot's of in-focus shots of my kids running around no problem.

V.

I got my adapter yesterday and have been playing around a bit. The only Olympus lens I have that will autofocus is the 9-18mm f4-5.6. It worked quite well, except for a tendency to overexpose about 1/3 stop, but I felt the IQ was perhaps a bit better than the kit lens. I posted some 100% jpgs HERE Nothing exciting just a few quick shots out of the house.

Cool - how bulky does the whole setup become with the adapter and that lens? I'm not sure when Panny is coming out with a wide angle lens for that camera but that's what I'm the most interested in...

Vern Dewit wrote:
Cool - how bulky does the whole setup become with the adapter and that lens? I'm not sure when Panny is coming out with a wide angle lens for that camera but that's what I'm the most interested in...


The excellent Olympus 4/3rds mount ZD 7-14mm f4.0 is supposed to be made available for the Micro 4/3rds system. I doubt it could get any better than that.

pascal03 wrote:
Vern Dewit wrote:
Cool - how bulky does the whole setup become with the adapter and that lens? I'm not sure when Panny is coming out with a wide angle lens for that camera but that's what I'm the most interested in...


The excellent Olympus 4/3rds mount ZD 7-14mm f4.0 is supposed to be made available for the Micro 4/3rds system. I doubt it could get any better than that.

From what was announced, the m43 7-14 f4 will not be the same optical design as the ZD version. It will be a Panasonic and much, much smaller. I'd suspect the optical designs will be related but very defnitely not identical.

The posted full-size pics are pretty unimpressive IMO. You could probably get better-quality shots from some pocket cams.

jvarszegi wrote:
The posted full-size pics are pretty unimpressive IMO. You could probably get better-quality shots from some pocket cams.

Well, the 4/3 sensor is going to be limited, and these aren't careful shots: I'm shooting it the way I would intend to use it, as a near pocket-cam with interchangeable lenses for snapshots, not for primary photography. Its certainly better IQ than my G10, but just as certainly not as good as a 5D, especially given the limitations of the lenses I'm shooting with.

I had a chance to do some quick shots with the 50-200 SWD f2.8-3.5 too (not the best Oly lens, but pretty decent). Again, just grabbing a few handheld shots of the pond out back in borderline conditions (shutter speed is a bit slow, lighting not great no IS with this lens on the adapter). They're added to the link above and I've included a 25% crop with 100% insert below shot at 200mm. This lens doesn't autofocus with the adapter so I had a chance to use the Panasonic "Manual Focus Assist" system: basically when you set to MF and move the focus ring the view through the viewfinder gets magnified greatly to help you autofocus. A few thoughts:

1) The manual focus assist is pretty accurate although at telephoto length the image is jittery in the viewfinder. Also you'd better have the subject centered before you hit the focus ring - I lost the ducks more than a few times.

2) The tiny camera on a fairly large lens is pretty clumsy - I found myself hitting a number of buttons unintentionally. A monopod would have been a great help, but my wife was already yelling at me to stop playing with the stupid camera, we've got things to do :-)

3) No question (and no surprise) both the 50-200 and 9-18 were a bit better lenses than the included kit lens. Assuming the Oly version of the camera is going to keep IS with an adapter (I'm not sure, but I think its supposed to) I'd probably wait for that one.

4) Not very important, but no way to use the onboard flash with even a small lens like the 9-18 and the adapter: it leaves a big lens shadow.

5) For me personally I'm going to reevaluate this when the Oly body and the 55-200 Micro lens are available. I don't see myself using an adapter and lens very often - not much sense having a pocketable camera with a large lens on the front.

Roger - How does the EVF size feel? Like a 40D, 5D? One of the previews I read somewhere said that the EVF had a very large view, but I didn't know how to interpret that. Big to compared to what? Any other comments regarding the G1 versus the Canon G10 would be interesting too.

John Black wrote:
Roger - How does the EVF size feel? Like a 40D, 5D? One of the previews I read somewhere said that the EVF had a very large view, but I didn't know how to interpret that. Big to compared to what? Any other comments regarding the G1 versus the Canon G10 would be interesting too.

The size is pretty much the same as the 5D viewfinder. But, and this is interesting; the G1 EVF makes focusing much easier than it is with the 5D, also if the 5D has an Ee-s screen.

The G10? Hmm... The G10 is a small P&S sensor camera. The 4/3 sensor in the G1 beats it in just about every aspect except of size. I think another very cool small camera beating the G10 is the Panny LX3.

John Black wrote:
Roger - How does the EVF size feel? Like a 40D, 5D? One of the previews I read somewhere said that the EVF had a very large view, but I didn't know how to interpret that. Big to compared to what? Any other comments regarding the G1 versus the Canon G10 would be interesting too.

I love the manual focusing on the G1. As soon as I turn the manual focus ring the image is magnified in the view finder making it extremely easy to get bang-on focus.

jvarszegi wrote:
The posted full-size pics are pretty unimpressive IMO. You could probably get better-quality shots from some pocket cams.

You know, it's funny how many people praise 'pocket cams'. Even the G9/G10 is being praised as 'DSLR'-like and I just don't see it. I took the G9 hiking and only used ISO 80. When I printed the pictures at 10x15 inches they don't even come close the quality of my Olympus E410/E420 pictures which can easily be printed at double that size. My Sigma DP1 pictures also turned out MUCH sharper and clearer than the G9 at large print sizes.

Pocket cams look great at small sized pics on the internet but try printing something and you'll quickly realize how deficient they are compared to a DSLR - even a cheap one. Not that surprising when you think about it...

Vern Dewit wrote:
jvarszegi wrote:
The posted full-size pics are pretty unimpressive IMO. You could probably get better-quality shots from some pocket cams.

You know, it's funny how many people praise 'pocket cams'. Even the G9/G10 is being praised as 'DSLR'-like and I just don't see it. I took the G9 hiking and only used ISO 80. When I printed the pictures at 10x15 inches they don't even come close the quality of my Olympus E410/E420 pictures which can easily be printed at double that size. My Sigma DP1 pictures also turned out MUCH sharper and clearer than the G9 at large print sizes.

Pocket cams look great at small sized pics on the internet but try printing something and you'll quickly realize how deficient they are compared to a DSLR - even a cheap one. Not that surprising when you think about it...

I know many things can affect quality. I am basing my assessment on owning the G9 (which I'm selling as I don't use it all that often), and the pixel-level sharpness in the posted pics. I'm not knocking the G1-- but there are pocket cams out there that can give equivalent quality to pics like these, at least in decent light outdoors. I'm not touting the superb quality of pocket cams; I'm just surprised that these pics are so soft (no offense to the OP or his technique meant in the slightest). You may have had different results with your E-410, which is of course an entirely different camera, and you are different, and you shot in different conditions, with a different subject.

It is worth noting that the more stunning pictures here are posted at a small size. They may also have been shot with different lenses, I wouldn't know. Note also that if you put a telephoto on the G1, it isn't nearly so small any more. It's already not much smaller than a small DSLR body.