jvarszegi wrote:
d-intrigue wrote:
;[/IMG]

;[/IMG]

Now you're emphasizing how big the G1 is.


Err? It's essentially the same size as a G10, which is a common P&S choice for folks here.

Jonas B wrote:
jvarszegi wrote:
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.

Hi there,

...is the glass half full or half empty?

It's not that the G1 is not a great little camera. It's just not down to roughly the size of a pocketable point and shoot yet, which would be heaven. It certainly is small. I'm just asking how much functionality the smallness of m43 actually has added so far, in this very first implementation. I also look forward to the 20 f/1.7.

Jonas B wrote:
The ability to use all sorts of adapted lenses also make it possible to get a camera with the equivalent of a 100mm lens with the speed of 1.4 and the DOF of 2.8

It won't be truly equivalent to a FF mounted with a 100m at f/1.4, but with the DOF of f/2.8, because the sensor is one-quarter the size. However, it will certainly be nice. A stabilized body would help to offset the disadvantages of such a camera, and begin to make more event shooters sit up and take notice, especially if the AF is accurate and fast enough at such wide apertures.

The challenge will be to find fast lenses that are very small, so that one doesn't lose the advantage of small size. But isn't it true (sorry if I'm uninformed on this) that adapters for most non-m43 lenses will be fairly thick as well?

Jonas B wrote:
The image quality is what you get from a 4/3 sensor. It is not the best in the world but it will do just fine in many cases.

Yep. I am pleased by the quality of images the sensor can produce, and have been saving links whenever I find them. I should just buy one already. Still waiting to see what Olympus comes out with.

How small does it have to be, anyway?

mawz wrote:
Err? It's essentially the same size as a G10, which is a common P&S choice for folks here.

No, it is different in size because the G10's lens retracts into the body, making it just barely pocketable with a largish shirt pocket etc. This is really the single reason to prefer the G10 over the G1 IMO. (Note that I've sold my G9 and will probably pick up an m43 with at least one lens this year.)

Of course the G1 will be smaller than it is in the posted pictures with a pancake prime, especially a non-adapted one-- but an m43 body could be even smaller.

d-intrigue wrote:
How small does it have to be, anyway?



Hahaha. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate, but the differences are still there. Mostly just trying to delay my purchase as long as possible, I think.

But then of course a 5D is now FAR from the best image quality ever - also. Ya takes your compromises.

Is it just me? Or are any of the rest wondering about jvarszegi's angle here? Troll? Snob?

The thing is ... and I speak as someone who has been solidly in the canon, nikon and olympus camp for many iterations of their wares each ... the image quality of even some of the outdated Olympus stuff like the E-1 can be stunning. Sad to say that my experience is that people who harp on some kind of "ultimate" in image quality nonsenses usually those who also think that megapixel are some kind of differentiator as well in photography. Rarely good shooters, worse as artists and mostly into photography for the status or measurebator aspects of it all. fine ... whatever turns one's crank ... but get off this BS about image quality.

If the image quality in print of a lowly E-520 or the equivalent is not understood by you to be fantastic ... all it generally means is that you don't know how to use the gear. Deal with that fact - please.

The image quality of the Olympus stuff is first rate. Worse in some way than the 5D and D700's but completely competitive in skilled hands. It is also something that does not show to the customer or the observer - unless the said observer is one of the aforementioned measurbators.

The sensor in the 5D is better at low light. Sure. But now take those Canon L lenses and compare them to Olympus's offerings. Now who's laughing. The Oly lenses are so superior to the best of Canon and Nikon is several parameters that it turns the tables.

But there too it has to be said - so what. These minutiae make no difference when the ink hits the print. And it is about the print ... right? Right? So don't tell me any nonsense about how the 4/3 sensor in crap. Learn to use it. If it doesn't float your boat ... move on. Simple, no?

Well ... If you are just playing devils advocate ... I take my somewhat frustrated comments back.

Peace.

Pavel wrote:
Well ... If you are just playing devils advocate ... I take my somewhat frustrated comments back.

Peace.

Well, I am somewhat-- but I'm also making some good points. There are still differentiators between cameras; I think it's becoming a tired old saw to say "It's not the gear, it's the photographer!" whenever cameras are compared. Nowhere did I say the G1's image quality was poor.

Even much earlier in this thread, I merely said I was underwhelmed by particular images, but I have indeed seen many stunning images produced by the 4/3 system and didn't expect the max image quality of m43 to be any worse, at least. The single biggest thing I was interested in, when the OP's images were posted, was to what extent the non-phase-detect AF had impacted things. Still not having tried a G1 on a moving subject, I still don't know such things first-hand.

Now here I am going to go back into devil's-advocate-and-maybe-also-having-a-valid-point mode: I wouldn't personally use even full 4/3 for second-shooting weddings as I currently regularly do, although I could certainly do okay with it. The fact that I know how to shoot doesn't mean there aren't any differences. I could take good images, likely by just using more flash wherever possible, but I still wouldn't prefer it. The beauty of the upcoming fast pancake primes is that they will do a great deal to offset disadvantages inherent in the system, making it even more compelling to many-- including me.

Anyway, if I had lots of disposable cash at the moment I would have already bought a G1. It's just so cute.

Pavel wrote:

But then of course a 5D is now FAR from the best image quality ever - also. Ya takes your compromises.

Is it just me? Or are any of the rest wondering about jvarszegi's angle here? Troll? Snob?

The thing is ... and I speak as someone who has been solidly in the canon, nikon and olympus camp for many iterations of their wares each ... the image quality of even some of the outdated Olympus stuff like the E-1 can be stunning. Sad to say that my experience is that people who harp on some kind of "ultimate" in image quality nonsenses usually those who also think that megapixel are some kind of differentiator as well in photography. Rarely good shooters, worse as artists and mostly into photography for the status or measurebator aspects of it all. fine ... whatever turns one's crank ... but get off this BS about image quality.

If the image quality in print of a lowly E-520 or the equivalent is not understood by you to be fantastic ... all it generally means is that you don't know how to use the gear. Deal with that fact - please.

The image quality of the Olympus stuff is first rate. Worse in some way than the 5D and D700's but completely competitive in skilled hands. It is also something that does not show to the customer or the observer - unless the said observer is one of the aforementioned measurbators.

The sensor in the 5D is better at low light. Sure. But now take those Canon L lenses and compare them to Olympus's offerings. Now who's laughing. The Oly lenses are so superior to the best of Canon and Nikon is several parameters that it turns the tables.

But there too it has to be said - so what. These minutiae make no difference when the ink hits the print. And it is about the print ... right? Right? So don't tell me any nonsense about how the 4/3 sensor in crap. Learn to use it. If it doesn't float your boat ... move on. Simple, no?

For me, 4/3rds never offered a compelling argument. The compromises of the system (dinky finders, relatively high cost of entry, poor high ISO performance) have always outweighed its advantages (VERY good lenses, 4:3 aspect ratio) for my use. And the lens line is pretty much designed exactly opposite of my needs (Lots of slowish zooms, almost no fast primes). Of course I do shoot a lot of low-light handheld work which is where 4/3rds is at its weakest, and I use fast primes which don't play well with most of the 4/3rds body viewfinders (I also find the E-3 to be a UI atrocity, great basic body design, button layout by a blind monkey on crack).

The irony is this is the second thread I've ended up defending the 4/3rds line in response to jvarszegi. And I'm a guy who has a very well earned reputation in some fora as a 4/3rds skeptic (or hater)

I will note that while I think 4/3rds overall is a dead-end since it's never lived up to either of its promises (Smaller size or lower cost due to lower sensor costs), I do think m43 is brilliant and I seriously hope its successful, since it finds an actual niche for the 4/3ds format where it actually has some major advantages.

Well Mawz ... funny thing is that I too have been thought to be a 4/3rds hater. I used to be a mod at a 4/3 forum and decided to hang it up due to the thought that they had drunk too much of the Olympus Cool-aid. So, yeah ... it's a mixed bag and in a way I'm doing just what jvarszegi is doing ... kind of playing against the other sides - and in the process kind of overstating my point.

I don't know about the 4/3 stuff. As you said.... there were many downsides, but I really believe in the idea that it is good for all of us, irrespective of what we shoot, irrespective of what gear we use - to hope for a camera market full of diversity. Some don't seem to mind the failings of the olympus promise in regards to weight and sensor noise (and dR too) and work well with it. I found it disappointing enough to leave the platform. But this micro 4/3 version IS the promise made earlier. It IS light as can be with a fabulous (imho) tradeoff between minimal size and weight and very good image quality. Neither is the best. You can find weaknesses in the IQ, especially when used out of it's limits, compared against the best in class larger sensor gear. but IQ is where they were five years ago. And thus imminently useable in 98 percent of cases. Us shooters tend to overstate the importance of IQ. Especially fields like wedding or sports (been there .. done that) where most customers don't see the IQ even if you point it out. They see their daughter getting married and case if she is smiling ... not if there is barely detectable noise.

So what I'm saying is that to focus on the negatives in the micro 4/3 gear is to miss the forest for the trees.
It IS as good as it gets in such small gear. The D60 with a kit 18-55 lens looks like a truck next to a sports car. And the IQ here and the responsiveness next to a point and shoot is far more one sided than the IQ differences between the 5D mk 2 and the G-1.

In short, just like goldilocks would say .... the G-1is ... just right.

jvarszegi wrote:
There doesn't seem to be very much reason to buy the G series any longer, that's for sure, even if the lens does retract into the body. I always thought the Lensmate adapter was a mite silly, since you might as well tote a bigger camera.

I'm looking forward to the release of lenses like the 20 f/1.7, Olympus's first take on EVIL, and the first stabilized body.

I haven't been happy with the G9 since I bought it when it first came out. It was the first small cam I've had since the original G1. My husband has an F30 and i hate shooting with it. I took the G9 with me for size/weight comparison when I went to try out a G1 about a week ago. They were so similar--with the G1 being nicer to handle--and of course it has a VF, much larger sensor, interchangeable lenses and I had already dled, processed in L 2.2 and printed to about 11 x 17 quite a number of RAWs satisfying myself that the IQ was pretty doggone good. I bought a used 400D this summer to use instead of the G9 for casual, hiking and non-crtitical shooting. The G1 (I have one coming next week) will replace the G9 and 400D. I know it isn't a replacement for my 5D and lens lineup, but I have a feeling that I will be shooting with it more than I originally planned--esp. if we get wider and faster lenses (and I expect to dabble a bit in an alternative lens or 2).

Diane

I have been re-thinking my lens lineup myself. I've sold most of what I used for sports and now also more generic but versatile lenses like the 70-200 f 2.8VR. Don't miss it a bit because, despite how good it was, it was a case that unless it was a job I would not take it with me - and now my personal stuff is all I want to do; it's what has meaning for me.

I plan to, in fact have a "working" kit comprising of only my D700 (sold all the rest already) and five lenses - the 24 pc-e, the 45 pc-e, the 85 pc-e, 60 macro and the 300 f 4. Still a bear to carry but it will do what I want for a long term project.

I was going to keep a light kit consisting of a D80, the 24 f2.8, 50 f 1.4 and the 85 f 1.8. That should be of a size where it would actually be with me in all those moments where I want a camera but not look like some kind of officious, geek like photographer who stands out like a sweaty sore thumb carrying all his "just in case I need every ounce of the ultimate in IQ" stuff in the hot north carolina sun.

As you can guess.... my light weight kit is as of now - gone.

I'm going to soon (as soon as I can afford the last of it - the 85 pc-e and the 300, or perhaps sooner) get the G1 and both lenses. It's like an answer to a dream. For me, anyways. If it does not compare quiete with the D700 ... who cares! Because instead of the IQ it will simply be there. No fuss. No sweat.

Sweet!

Pavel wrote:
That should be of a size where it would actually be with me in all those moments where I want a camera but not look like some kind of officious, geek like photographer who stands out like a sweaty sore thumb carrying all his "just in case I need every ounce of the ultimate in IQ" stuff in the hot north carolina sun.

Snip and snip
I'm going to soon (as soon as I can afford the last of it - the 85 pc-e and the 300, or perhaps sooner) get the G1 and both lenses. It's like an answer to a dream. For me, anyways. If it does not compare quiete with the D700 ... who cares! Because instead of the IQ it will simply be there. No fuss. No sweat.

Sweet! :)

I fully understand about that hot North Carolina sun LOL--my home too. I also understand that 'just in case I need every ounce of the ultimate in IQ" LOL. No more--though I'm not selling anything off--only carrying it for specific purposes.

Diane

Pavel wrote:
I have been re-thinking my lens lineup myself. I've sold most of what I used for sports and now also more generic but versatile lenses like the 70-200 f 2.8VR. Don't miss it a bit because, despite how good it was, it was a case that unless it was a job I would not take it with me - and now my personal stuff is all I want to do; it's what has meaning for me.

I plan to, in fact have a "working" kit comprising of only my D700 (sold all the rest already) and five lenses - the 24 pc-e, the 45 pc-e, the 85 pc-e, 60 macro and the 300 f 4. Still a bear to carry but it will do what I want for a long term project.

I was going to keep a light kit consisting of a D80, the 24 f2.8, 50 f 1.4 and the 85 f 1.8. That should be of a size where it would actually be with me in all those moments where I want a camera but not look like some kind of officious, geek like photographer who stands out like a sweaty sore thumb carrying all his "just in case I need every ounce of the ultimate in IQ" stuff in the hot north carolina sun.

As you can guess.... my light weight kit is as of now - gone.

I'm going to soon (as soon as I can afford the last of it - the 85 pc-e and the 300, or perhaps sooner) get the G1 and both lenses. It's like an answer to a dream. For me, anyways. If it does not compare quiete with the D700 ... who cares! Because instead of the IQ it will simply be there. No fuss. No sweat.

Sweet!

Interestingly, the choice I'm considering is to sell the D300 to fund a new 35mm dedicated scanner (My SDIII packed it in a while ago and I'm suffering through flatbed scans) and possibly a G1. I'll be keeping my D40 and pair of DX lenses for now (16-85 and 10-20).

Of course, selling the D40 and 16-85 would fund most of a G1 too... ANd leave me with the D300 for now. I'm not shooting much digital of late, mostly 35mm film right now (it's a bit cold for MF work for me, I shoot more MF in the warmer months)

get rid of the hand grip and phony prism bulge, and mount a pancake prime lens on the G1 and you might have something quite useful, compact and very portable.

Lotusm50 wrote:
get rid of the hand grip and phony prism bulge, and mount a pancake prime lens on the G1 and you might have something quite useful, compact and very portable.



I'm kinda hoping Panny will do a L1-alike m43 body. They went conventional on the design due to getting burned by the L1, the styling was controversial but the real reason it didn't sell is that like its Oly sibling, it just wasn't that capable for the cost, and justifying the price of the (Superb) Leica kit lens was also difficult.

The handgrip is a good thing on the G1, it makes for excellent handling, unlike the grip-less Oly E-4x0's which handle poorly. I'd rather have a grip if I'm going to get otherwise stuck with modern ergonomics (the Oly Altoids tin m43 mockup looks awful, all of the handling problems of the P&S world in one body with the poor grip surface, chicklet buttons and no VF)

Lotusm50 wrote:
get rid of the hand grip and phony prism bulge, and mount a pancake prime lens on the G1 and you might have something quite useful, compact and very portable.

I don't know... The prism bulge isn't altogether phony as the electronic viewfinder has to be somewhere. The grip is practical. When there is a lens mounted to a camera a grip doesn't do much to lessen the portability.

I would like a grip that is a tad bigger but that is personal. No grip at all want me to wish for something to hold on.

What Panasonic should do, in my opinion, is move the front wheel. Now it is too easy to press it or turn it by mistake (and quickly release more lenses for everybody to get happy).

If we also can get a dedicated manual focusing button, open-source firmware, custom setting positions instead of scene modes on the mode dial, an advanced light metering mode, a pro series of lenses, a weather sealed model and... then all should be just fine.

Or nearly fine... now the battery and the 4/3 lens adapter both are too expensive. As is the remote release and so are probably the lenses gonna be as well.

But the grip makes it less portable, less compact, and less pocketable. As was pointed out, as it is it only marginally smaller than a small DSLR. We want qualtity in a "true" compact, not a somewhat reduced sized DSLR that isn't compact in the photographic sense of the word.

Sure it might handle a little better, but a compact is not about ultimate handling, but about pocketablity -- being able to have a camera where an SLR is not possible or practical. Leica M's, Contax T's, Ricoh GR1's, Leica Minilux's and CM's and similar compacts don't have big protruding grips on them. That didn't stop people from buying and using them and delivering excellent images from a minimal of volume and space. A hand grip like the one on the G1 is far from necessary or desired on a compact, in fact it almost defeats the purpose.

Lumping Contax T's, Ricoh GR1s and Miniluxes into this group is apples-oranges. Those are not interchangeable lens cameras. And Leica Ms are not really pocketable (and yes, lots of people use them with grips.)

mawz wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
get rid of the hand grip and phony prism bulge, and mount a pancake prime lens on the G1 and you might have something quite useful, compact and very portable.



. I'd rather have a grip if I'm going to get otherwise stuck with modern ergonomics (the Oly Altoids tin m43 mockup looks awful, all of the handling problems of the P&S world in one body with the poor grip surface, chicklet buttons and no VF)

I agree about the grip. With the G9 the lack of grip was a minus, not a plus. Many of us added a very nice, but not very large (so not as helpful) grip addition made by Richard Francois (?). Having handled the G1 I feel its quite small and would be difficult to handle (ala some of the little P & S) without the grip.

Diane