brainiac wrote:
It seems to me that there is no great difference between zooming the viewfinder/LCD on the G1 and using the Liveview zoom feature on the 500D. Both cameras can be critically focussed in more or less the same way. I am not one of those puny FMers who struggle to support a small light camera when using liveview. When it comes to the unzoomed use of the viewfinder, I don't believe the G1 is more accurate than a practiced SLR user. Admittedly the 500D offers no zoom VF mode through the optical VF, but bearing in mind the 1.6 crop advantage and access to a remarkable number of Canon lenses, it's a tough choice. My point really is that m4/3 look very attractive to me now that m4/3 primes are starting to appear, but I don't see it as compelling for off-brand lens use. Perhaps my attitude will change once I have an EOS->m4/3 adaptor and an EP1/G1....Show more →
The G1 is a bit easier to manually focus with the EVF than a 5D with an EE-S screen. VF size rivals the 5D, not the much smaller 500D VF, and focus pops quite noticeably when achieved. I'd rate it as about as easy, if not marginally better, than a Nikon FM2n with a E3 or B3 screen for focusing (which is the other setup I use on a very regular basis). There's an odd but useful interference effect with the G1 finder and in-focus objects which makes critical focus easier to detect than on an optical finder of similar size. The 500D is probably as easy to focus in LV mode as the G1, aside from the limited viewing range due to the fixed screen, but the G1's EVF simply walks all over the 500D's VF for ease of focus, and you really do need the VF in bright light, the LCD gets far too washed out. That said, I generally find myself using the rear LCD flipped-out as a waistlevel, I nearly never use the LCD folded-up P&S style.
mawz wrote:
The G1 is a bit easier to manually focus with the EVF than a 5D with an EE-S screen. VF size rivals the 5D, not the much smaller 500D VF, and focus pops quite noticeably when achieved. I'd rate it as about as easy, if not marginally better, than a Nikon FM2n with a E3 or B3 screen for focusing (which is the other setup I use on a very regular basis). There's an odd but useful interference effect with the G1 finder and in-focus objects which makes critical focus easier to detect than on an optical finder of similar size. The 500D is probably as easy to focus in LV mode as the G1, aside from the limited viewing range due to the fixed screen, but the G1's EVF simply walks all over the 500D's VF for ease of focus, and you really do need the VF in bright light, the LCD gets far too washed out. That said, I generally find myself using the rear LCD flipped-out as a waistlevel, I nearly never use the LCD folded-up P&S style....Show more →
I'll have to give it another look. It was mainly the lack of standard primes that put me off. How is the EVF's latency? I find the Canon Liveview is nearly fast enough, but the Nikon version is irritatingly late and I lose pictures as a result.
brainiac wrote:
I'll have to give it another look. It was mainly the lack of standard primes that put me off. How is the EVF's latency? I find the Canon Liveview is nearly fast enough, but the Nikon version is irritatingly late and I lose pictures as a result.
The latency is excellent except in very low light. Unfortunately when the gain ramps up, latency does as well so very low light (think 1/30 @ f1.4 and ISO 3200). In good to merely poor light it's quite good.
One caveat though, there's a ~1 second delay in the VF feed after a shot. It's the biggest aggravation in using the G1 that I've found.
mawz wrote:
One caveat though, there's a ~1 second delay in the VF feed after a shot. It's the biggest aggravation in using the G1 that I've found.
That's my biggest fear with the E-P1 - shot-to-shot performance. I don't care much about FPS per se, but being able to see moments and capture them effectively is essential. If I can't shoot with the E-P1 at least as effectively as I can with a D50, I'll likely skip it. I'm primarily a people shooter, so being able to capture the nuances in expressions, etc. is essential to me.
Sam Bennett wrote:
That's my biggest fear with the E-P1 - shot-to-shot performance. I don't care much about FPS per se, but being able to see moments and capture them effectively is essential. If I can't shoot with the E-P1 at least as effectively as I can with a D50, I'll likely skip it. I'm primarily a people shooter, so being able to capture the nuances in expressions, etc. is essential to me.
Part of the issue is the LV feed can't resume until the sensor and shutter reset. But with a 3fps capable body it should not be nearly as long as it is on the G1. Hopefully the E-P1 will be better for this.
That said, I've found the G1 to be an excellent people camera. You just need to be a little more careful, much like using an old manual-wind camera.
It seems like the G1 would make a better people/portrait camera than the E-P1 due to the flip out, rotatable lcd screen. Nothing like holding a camera at waist level and not having the thing come between your eyes and your subjects. Some people are much more at ease with eye contact.
The G1 is just too big to justify spending money on another system, but I know what you mean. I'm happy with my Nikon gear, the E-P1 would be a more casual camera I could take with me everywhere - so size is the thing. My combo would likely be the E-P1 and the 20mm f/1.7 if/when it's released so it can fit in a large pocket.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It seems like the G1 would make a better people/portrait camera than the E-P1 due to the flip out, rotatable lcd screen. Nothing like holding a camera at waist level and not having the thing come between your eyes and your subjects. Some people are much more at ease with eye contact.
That's the way I shoot a fair bit of my Candid work with the G1. It's very inobtrusive when used like that.
mawz wrote:
That's the way I shoot a fair bit of my Candid work with the G1. It's very inobtrusive when used like that.
Most portrait photographers will tell you that shooting people from waist-level is not recommended, unless you want nasal hair and the aggressive aspect of the dominator.
brainiac wrote:
Most portrait photographers will tell you that shooting people from waist-level is not recommended, unless you want nasal hair and the aggressive aspect of the dominator.
Mid-chest is probably a better description, I've never seen anyone actually use a waistlevel finder at waist level. Having a bit of a beer gut allows me to brace the camera at diaphragm-level and shoot from 5-10 feet away. I'm also fairly tall so mid-chest for me is chin-level on many women, and a few inches below that for many men.
I examined an E-P1 today. While it has many nice features, I don't think I will be getting one after all. The grip is quite comfortable but the camera is heavier than I would like it to be. I was really looking for a large sensor pocket camera, and this one is bigger and heavier than I had expected. The body cap sticks out about 5mm, but even so I couldn't easily get this camera into a pocket. I found myself yearning for a digital Contax T2 or T3, and this isn't it. I also found myself wondering whether the weight/size savings constituted enough of an improvement over a 500D/OM24f2.8, or even 500D/EF24f2.8 to justify the expenditure and the loss of features and image quality.
The collapsing zoom is a great idea and it's significantly more compact that the G1 kit zoom.
When you turn the manual focus ring the EP1 LCD immediately and automagically zooms in to 7x, and zooms out again as soon as you finish - a very nice touch, but I couldn't work out how to disable it. I didn't find the autofocus entirely unconvincing - slow if it hunts, or focus starts way off, but fairly quick to trim focus.
I also checked out the G1, DP1 and DP2. I'm afraid to say that the EVF of the G1 isn't going to do it for me. I don't accept that it offers better manual focus capabilities in its unzoomed state than a 500D. While VF zooming is a clever way around the problem, it's still an obstacle for me. I know from experience that I can focus an APS-C viewfinder adequately, if not perfectly, in quite low light, and shoot by feel without delays, covering for focus errors either by shooting volume or using depth of field. I didn't feel confident that I would be able to operate like that with either the G1 or EP1. In particular the lack of accessible distance scale focussing worries me. And again, the size savings of the G1 over APS-C seems quite little.
The revelation for me today was reconsidering the DP1 and DP2. They are significantly lighter and smaller than the G1 and EP1. The distance scale focussing method is well implemented and I decided today that of all these 4 cameras the DP2 would be the least frustrating to use, despite the speed issues. Pre-focus is quick and the camera is unobtrusive. I was just about able to get a DP1 into the back pocket of my jeans, which wasn't feasible with the m4/3 cameras.
Ultimately all of these cameras are great tools in their own ways, and my personal requirements aren't average.
I look forward to seeing what other m4/3 cameras emerge, but I would like to see something smaller and lighter than the EP1, if it's possible, because only a significant size/weight advantage makes it worth losing an optical viewfinder. Maybe that's why this market segment is still sparsely populated.
brainiac wrote:
Most portrait photographers will tell you that shooting people from waist-level is not recommended, unless you want nasal hair and the aggressive aspect of the dominator.
Most portrait/fashion photographers would also tell their subjects not to throw their head back so you could actually look up their nose! I have shot portraits for 25 years, most of them with a waist level Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. Many years back, I also assisted some of the worlds top fashion and portrait photographers. Most of them shot with the camera lower near waist level. Few of them shot with the camera on the ground pointed straight up into a subjects nose.
"Waist level" is indeed a misnomer. The camera is always higher than that.
brainiac wrote:
When you turn the manual focus ring the EP1 LCD immediately and automagically zooms in to 7x, and zooms out again as soon as you finish - a very nice touch, but I couldn't work out how to disable it. I didn't find the autofocus entirely unconvincing - slow if it hunts, or focus starts way off, but fairly quick to trim focus.
There's a CF for that on the G1, I have it disabled. Should be one on the E-P1 as well. On the G1, two button presses get me the MF assist when wanted. One to tw area selection, I can then move the area around, the second to zoom in.
I also checked out the G1, DP1 and DP2. I'm afraid to say that the EVF of the G1 isn't going to do it for me. I don't accept that it offers better manual focus capabilities in its unzoomed state than a 500D. While VF zooming is a clever way around the problem, it's still an obstacle for me. I know from experience that I can focus an APS-C viewfinder adequately, if not perfectly, in quite low light, and shoot by feel without delays, covering for focus errors either by shooting volume or using depth of field. I didn't feel confident that I would be able to operate like that with either the G1 or EP1. In particular the lack of accessible distance scale focussing worries me. And again, the size savings of the G1 over APS-C seems quite little. ...Show more →
There's two things with the G1 EVF that make it easy to focus with. The first is simply seeing what comes into focus. It's just like working with a matte screen on a 35mm SLR, except it's a little more obvious. It's clearly better than the OVF in a 500D. heck, it's visibly better than the OVF in the D300 (and yes, I did compare the two directly). I think you're overstating the 500D's OVF quality a fair bit here. You're talking about a VF that's larger (roughly the same size as the 5D's) and brighter than the 500D's (especially in low light). Tehy're simply not comparable. With practice you can focus with a 500D adequately, you don't need the practice to do so with the G1, you just need to get used to the finder (takes a couple hours at most).
The second is the real win, but it does take some getting used to. There's a bit of moire/interference effects on any texture that become obvious when you hit focus. You can actually focus on many textured surfaces with just this, something that would be nearly impossible with an OVF. The effects don't show up in the final shot.
mawz wrote:
There's two things with the G1 EVF that make it easy to focus with. The first is simply seeing what comes into focus. It's just like working with a matte screen on a 35mm SLR, except it's a little more obvious. It's clearly better than the OVF in a 500D. heck, it's visibly better than the OVF in the D300 (and yes, I did compare the two directly). I think you're overstating the 500D's OVF quality a fair bit here.
I really don't care so much about the image size in the viewfinder, I care more about viewfinder resolution. My impression is that the resolution of my 450D optical finder is way higher than the resolution of the G1 EVF. On the G1 I found myself asking "where is the detail?" When it comes to focussing wide aperture lenses (e.g. 20mm f1.7) accurately, the G1 EVF looks too low rez to me. I would need to use the electronic zooming feature, and that's too slow for general use. But hey, if it works for you - great - I'm glad you like it.
brainiac wrote:
I really don't care so much about the image size in the viewfinder, I care more about viewfinder resolution. My impression is that the resolution of my 450D optical finder is way higher than the resolution of the G1 EVF. On the G1 I found myself asking "where is the detail?" When it comes to focussing wide aperture lenses (e.g. 20mm f1.7) accurately, the G1 EVF looks too low rez to me. I would need to use the electronic zooming feature, and that's too slow for general use. But hey, if it works for you - great - I'm glad you like it....Show more →
Out of interest, where you trying it with the kit 14-45? It's a nice lens in many ways, but it's so lacking in anything resembling microcontrast as to be damned near impossible to manual focus without the zoom. Even the equally slow Zuiko Digital 40-150 works much better in manual focus.
brainiac wrote:
Granted, but even chest-level is too low, unless you want your subject to look dominant and aggressive.
Which is generally good for men, and at least for me (at 6'3"), most women are short enough that I'm not pointing the camera up if shooting a normal or short tele from that position.
mawz wrote:
Which is generally good for men, and at least for me (at 6'3"), most women are short enough that I'm not pointing the camera up if shooting a normal or short tele from that position.
I'm tall myself and would not suggest the worlds dwarf photographers start shooting at waist level. Most people would rather be photographed in a way that makes them appear confident and assured rather than bewildered and small, which is what you would get if you shot from above. People are of course of all different sizes and heights so that is certainly a consideration. Many of the worlds greatest portrait and fashion photographers prefer to shoot with the ability to maintain eye contact and quite often the camera is slightly lower.
mawz wrote:
Out of interest, where you trying it with the kit 14-45? It's a nice lens in many ways, but it's so lacking in anything resembling microcontrast as to be damned near impossible to manual focus without the zoom.
Yes - I tried it both with the Panasonic kit zoom and the Olympus kit zoom. The lens wasn't the problem. The EVF is nothing like as high resolution as even an APS-C optical viewfinder. With VF zoom I'm sure you can focus the G1 more accurately than with the 500D optical finder, but without zooming the EVF doesn't seem to have enough resolution to match an optical vf.
