billbourd: I'm surprised Leica chose not to machine the camera out of titanium instead of the cheaper, softer aluminum. If it were titanium I might have had to invest in one. :)
However, anodized aluminum is harder than either.
REDred Photo: Lately, I've been downloading full size jpg portrait samples from the new cameras and comparing them in Photoshop. The goal is to see how well the images will perform at large print sizes so I up the resolution to 40 inches on the short edge at 240 dpi. I then view all the different images at about 42% so that my monitor is displaying almost exactly actual print size. Then I compare to a portrait I scanned from 6x7 medium format slide film roughly equivalent to 60mp.
Generally, all the digital camera files tend to look a little too plastic smooth, especially in areas where the image subject is a single color. When up-resed to 40x60, digital noise looks chunky and artificial. The film has a very random fine grain that shows even in smooth, same-color textures such as the whites of the eyes... this fine texture, although not as "clean" as digital, just looks so much more natural and organic. These observations are not surprising to anyone familiar with high resolution film.
This is the beauty of the 6 x 6 grid more so than anti moire. Most people don't seem to notice this, but to me the X files have always had a more film like quality to them. You should look at RAW files after processing in a good (Capture 1, PN, etc.) processor, rather than just the jpgs—although in fairness to the other cameras you looked at, one of Fuji's real strengths is their jpg engine.
Al Valentino: As an owner of this lens I can say the IQ is fantastic. I did a few quick tripod tests stopped down against my old Nikon 70-200 VR I and they tied. Shortly after sold the Nikon lens and began selling off the rest of my Nikon gear. I use Capture One 7 Express when I shoot RAW but jpegs are often good enough.
Where do you read "very very poor lens" in the review?
supeyugin1: What an overpriced hype full of bugs and slow AF! I guess people buy this camera just because of retro look. The image quality is average, compared to the best mirrorless cameras around.
If by best, you mean M9, then this is a fair statement. But if you mean Nex 7 or m43, I don’t think that you’re really looking at the images.
Overpriced is difficult to prove or argue, other than to watch what the market will be. It’s more than the current run of m43, but less than the current run of FF dslr that it’s images can be compared to.
chrohrs: I've been using a GX1 since December, and it is indeed a fine camera. The camera feels solid, and the IQ and AF are just great. Plus I'm really impressed by the selection of high-quality, small MFT lenses. I like the combo so much that I sold off all my Canon SLR gear.
My only complaint is the inability to stop down during video. Shooting wide open with primes can be challenging because there's so little DoF. In fact, I ended up getting the slower 14-42 power zoom just for video. (More discussion at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1075963.) My guess is that Panasonic could change this with firmware, but they're protecting the GH2.
Still, I really love this camera. Don't let the small size fool you; it's a serious machine.
I’ve found my GF1 to be the first digital camera I’ve really enjoyed using. I still use my Canon 5 mk II for very limited outings; and yes, there is a quality difference—but it is not as noticeable as you would think, unless the lighting is tricky. And overall, I would rate the Panasonic lenses better than the Canon L glass. (But then, one of the things I love most about the GF1 (and I will most likely get the GX1) is the way it mates with Leitz glass.) This line of cameras is very solid, and very responsive, with great RAW quality.