gasrocks wrote:
I just saw mention of also using Leica M mount lenses on this body. Sounds very interesting but I also see the crop factor is 2x, which kinda kills many ideas for portrait lenses perhaps.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but I would think it opens the doors for a lot of portrait shooting. Makes my 28mm lens a 56 (short portrait) and my 50/1.4 a 100/1.4 (should be able to shoot a portrait or two with that).
Now, portraits lenses on full frame might be a little unwieldy as they turn into full blown telephotos...
It's a shame the camera is as large as it is with and expensive as it is. I'd be interested in playing around with one, but it sounds like it's about $1k for the camera and an adapter which is a bit much. Unless I'm mistaken on prices.
kidtexas wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand you, but I would think it opens the doors for a lot of portrait shooting. Makes my 28mm lens a 56 (short portrait) and my 50/1.4 a 100/1.4 (should be able to shoot a portrait or two with that).
Now, portraits lenses on full frame might be a little unwieldy as they turn into full blown telephotos...
It's a shame the camera is as large as it is with and expensive as it is. I'd be interested in playing around with one, but it sounds like it's about $1k for the camera and an adapter which is a bit much. Unless I'm mistaken on prices....Show more →
That's about right. But it's still the cheapest way to M mount digital since the other reasonably priced option (An RD-1) is still $12-1500.
kidtexas wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand you, but I would think it opens the doors for a lot of portrait shooting. Makes my 28mm lens a 56 (short portrait) and my 50/1.4 a 100/1.4 (should be able to shoot a portrait or two with that).
Now, portraits lenses on full frame might be a little unwieldy as they turn into full blown telephotos...
It's a shame the camera is as large as it is with and expensive as it is. I'd be interested in playing around with one, but it sounds like it's about $1k for the camera and an adapter which is a bit much. Unless I'm mistaken on prices....Show more →
I'm no expert on this stuff but you can't simply double the focal length (50x2 = 100mm) and keep the same aperature (1.4). There's a notion of 'equivalence' out there that says the apparent aperature (think bokeh etc) is actually higher as well. This is one of the biggest problems for the 4/3rds system. See http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ for details if you're interested.
I don't worry about it because that's what my FF DSLR is for. I actually want a maximum DOF with my hiking camera (usually).
You are right, DOF is more complicated than that, I was just thinking that using M lenses on this is going to double their effective focal length, meaning that you are going to be mostly limited to the normal - telephoto range, and not so much the ultrawide - wide range.
Vern Dewit wrote:
I'm no expert on this stuff but you can't simply double the focal length (50x2 = 100mm) and keep the same aperature (1.4). There's a notion of 'equivalence' out there that says the apparent aperature (think bokeh etc) is actually higher as well. This is one of the biggest problems for the 4/3rds system. See http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ for details if you're interested.
I don't worry about it because that's what my FF DSLR is for. I actually want a maximum DOF with my hiking camera (usually).
Aperture relates to actual focal length. That's it, that's all. An 50mm f1.4 lens is always a 50mm f1.4 lens no matter what the sensor size (and crop factor in relation to 35mm format)
DoF effectively relates to format size as well as focal length/aperture. Smaller format gives more apparent DoF with the same lens/aperture.This is what's happening with 4/3rds and what makes shallow DoF work harder to achieve.
Yep - the intensity of light gathered by each lens is similar but the results after exposing the sensor to it are different, and that's what concerns most people... Isn't this stuff FUN?!
Of course it's about more than just DOF - ISO and noise enter into it too. I usually just take pictures and try to be creative with whatever system I happen to be using but for some uses the 4/3rds system is less ideal (for me).
Does anyone have photos of any Leica M stuff actually mounted to a G1? I know the flangeback difference is there, so I'm curious to see what it looks like...
Vern Dewit wrote:
Yep - the intensity of light gathered by each lens is similar but the results after exposing the sensor to it are different, and that's what concerns most people... Isn't this stuff FUN?!
That's a winner of a sentence there!?
Probably the easiest way to describe format differences is in terms of the image circle emitted by a given lens. Different formats sample different amounts of that circle of light, in effect cropping to greater or lesser amounts. Ignoring vignetting, in all formats the light intensity per square mm of the sensor remains constant.
Different sensors have different sensel densities, which, along with evolving technology deliver differing peformances in noise, dynamic range, and demands on the optical performance of the lens. Assuming a constant MP count, smaller sensors demand higher resolution within a smaller circle, larger sensors demand lower resolution over a larger circle, for an equivalent result.
The typical "noise equivalence factor" argument, used to berate smaller sensors; that stopping down while increasing ISO will yield equivalent DOF and exposure duration without increased noise; assumes linear improvements in performance in step with sensel size. This may or may not be borne out in the real world, as manufacturing efficiencies allow more noise mitigation technology to be incorporated into smaller sensors without undue cost.
Thanks for posting those pictures... an M-lens on a micro 4/3rds isn't too bad - nice lens on a compact rangefinder like body.... must think about this one... has potential.
Since there tends to be a typical "red dot" version of most Panasonic Camera's (LX-3 = D-Lux 4), is it possible we may see a Leica version of the G1.
Obviously Leica has something to do with the current 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens and the 45-200mm micro 4/3rds zoom available now. Plus you have the ability to mount M-lenses on the G1. Why wouldn't Leica themselves not want to release their rebadged version of the G1. They have done it before with most of the Panasonic digital camera's.
pascal03 wrote:
Thanks for posting those pictures... an M-lens on a micro 4/3rds isn't too bad - nice lens on a compact rangefinder like body.... must think about this one... has potential.
(...)
Obviously Leica has something to do with the current 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens and the 45-200mm micro 4/3rds zoom available now.
You have some more images of interesting M lenses on the G1 here including a Noctilux.
Problem is that there is no alternative fast 'normal' lens given that to achieve normal you have to use a 25mm and a fast version will be big enough to negate a lot of the advantage. I don't count the oly 25mm pancake, it's kit lens quality and not actually that fast.
Beni wrote:
Problem is that there is no alternative fast 'normal' lens given that to achieve normal you have to use a 25mm and a fast version will be big enough to negate a lot of the advantage. I don't count the oly 25mm pancake, it's kit lens quality and not actually that fast.
How true.
There is a 20/1.7 coming from Panasonic but noone seem to know when. For "serious amateurs" there is a real lack of µ4/3 lenses. For people coming from P&S cameras in general seeking a bigger sensor, the newest stuff and a camera rumored to have better image quality the 2 consumer zooms are probably OK.
Will this hold? The coming wide normal is a clever move. So is the coming 7-14mm zoom.
Maybe the sale of G1 cameras to the happy amateurish masses (I got one for example) will keep the new standard floating until Panasonic releases new lenses and perhaps more advanced camera models as well.
The G1 is the first EVIL. The sensor is small. But... I can tell you it is nice to have a very good viewfinder with regards to manual focusing, good DOF preview (not having to interpret stuff barely seen in the darkness), no clacking mirror, no misaligned focusing screen and a light meter metering the light correctly regardless of what aperture the lens is set to. If the system takes off I can see other similar cameras with larger sensors coming in the future.
I would love a mirror-less electronic rangefinder with m-mount or even nikon f-mount Small, light, great for day to day shooting. I think a fullframe, 12-18 mpix, high-iso capable rangefinder with m-mount would rock most people's socks.
It would not have superfast AF, it would not have 10fps, but it would be small, light, sexy!
I guess I'm dreaming of a zeiss digital ikon, fullframe 15mpix with a classic build quality and feel.
olyacme wrote:
That's a winner of a sentence there!?
Probably the easiest way to describe format differences is in terms of the image circle emitted by a given lens. Different formats sample different amounts of that circle of light, in effect cropping to greater or lesser amounts. Ignoring vignetting, in all formats the light intensity per square mm of the sensor remains constant.
Different sensors have different sensel densities, which, along with evolving technology deliver differing peformances in noise, dynamic range, and demands on the optical performance of the lens. Assuming a constant MP count, smaller sensors demand higher resolution within a smaller circle, larger sensors demand lower resolution over a larger circle, for an equivalent result.
The typical "noise equivalence factor" argument, used to berate smaller sensors; that stopping down while increasing ISO will yield equivalent DOF and exposure duration without increased noise; assumes linear improvements in performance in step with sensel size. This may or may not be borne out in the real world, as manufacturing efficiencies allow more noise mitigation technology to be incorporated into smaller sensors without undue cost.
sweet looking rig (except for the red colour, what were you thinking?). Please post some images you have taken with this. I am tempted to get one of these as my travel cam, and an affordable way to use my M lenses on a digital camera.
you2 wrote:
Will the olympus 12-60 work on the G1? (I suspect not from what I have read but maybe there is a work around for the contrast focus issue)
It should once the firmware update comes out for it. But that is one massive lens, I don't see much value in sticking it onto a G1 just due to the size difference.
Jonas B wrote:
"Obviously"? Where from comes that information?
Look at the lenses that come with Panasonic SLR's (L1, L10, and G1) - the fact that they have Leica stamped on them may be the first clue.
Panasonic has not been a lens manufacturer. They are in some sort of joint venture with Leica.
Apart from that, there are enough press reports and web pages that support that fact that Panasonic lenses are Leica design and while they may not be 100% manufactured by Leica, they are held to Leica design and quality standards. What it ends up meaning is that the lenses are really really good.
pascal03 wrote:
Look at the lenses that come with Panasonic SLR's (L1, L10, and G1) - the fact that they have Leica stamped on them may be the first clue.
Panasonic has not been a lens manufacturer. They are in some sort of joint venture with Leica.
Apart from that, there are enough press reports and web pages that support that fact that Panasonic lenses are Leica design and while they may not be 100% manufactured by Leica, they are held to Leica design and quality standards. What it ends up meaning is that the lenses are really really good.
Panasonic is indeed a lens manufacturer and designer, and has been for quite a while (Decades in fact). They've partnered with Leica for a number of their lenses over the last few years in return for providing Leica with viable Digital P&S's, but by all reports the relationship is somewhat strained over the entire 4/3rds thing. There is no reason to believe the m43 lenses are anything but in-house designs, possibly derived from Oly designs (as indeed at least the original 14-50 f2.8-3.5 OIS was, although Leica gave that a thorough going over)
[Please post some images you have taken with this. I am tempted to get one of these as my travel cam, and an affordable way to use my M lenses on a digital camera.
Here is a flickr set taken with G1 and Leica lenses.
Small, light, great for day to day shooting. I think a fullframe, 12-18 mpix, high-iso capable rangefinder with m-mount would rock most people's socks.