Dpreview G1 Preview Revisited

[Ehrik]

Well, I can only confirm that the 'diffraction calculator' doesn't
apply fully to my findings on the FZ5 and FZ8. Maybe we have weaker
AA filters than the calculator assumes (suppose it's 'extrapolated'
from DSLR findings)?

What is the calculator supposed to predict?

As I said, the resolution will still improve with more megapixels at the
so called "diffraction limit", albeit slower.

And the sharpest setting for the lens will depend on both diffraction
and the aberrations of the lens.

This is purely an idea, I have no evidence what
so ever. But I don't expect I can 'play' with the aperture too much
with the G10 at 140mm without softening the image severely, so I
cannot use the extra MP, but lose some DR and burst.

It's not been demonstrated that there is a loss of DR.

Cameras ought to have hardware support for quick downsizing.
Then you could shoot in a low resolution setting at a higher speed.
Wait, don't the recent Lumixes do this? Maybe the G10 doesn't.

Yes, I've read and understand what
John S. has proven, but there is one question that remains to be
answered, Do his findings also apply to incremental differences among
small sensors?

That's a good point that I also would like to see investigated better.
I know he was unimpressed by the famous 6Mp Fuji sensor, in the S6500fd.

Less full-well capacity than the FZ50 despite larger pixels and less
quantum efficiency. And more read noise at low ISO. (So poor DR)
Only things it was better at was read noise at high ISO and less
1D noise (pattern noise).

Anyway, his (and others) measurements and demonstrations suggest
that smaller pixels don't give less image DR. So the onus is on those who
say they do, to demonstrate that. IMO.

The
'solution' would be to compare the LX3 RAW files and the FX150/ FZ28
raw files, which are from the same generation and manufacturer, but
'conservative' vs. 'pop' MP count. The electronics might be better on
the LX3,

So better not rely solely on that pair of cameras.

Unfortunately, few camera owners make the necessary raw files publicly
available. For DR you need blackframes (fast shutter speed with lens cap on,
preferably two per ISO) and a shot where all the channels are clipped,
preferably one per ISO to be sure it doesn't change.

And preferably reference shots to check the speed of the ISO against
a well investigated camera, like the FZ50, the G9 or a Canikon DSLR. Same
subject (something uniform), lighting and exposure; one shot with the test
camera and one with a reference camera.

Eg. I don't think the DR
is independent of the pixel density. The improved DR of the D3
compared to the D300 does suggest something. Yes, electronics could
be a factor, but still.

IIRC, the D3 uses eight components (working in parallel) in the circuitry
downstream the sensor that have a list price of $40 each. This to add as little

noise as possible. Obviously, this is only possible in a camera that sells for a lot
of money.

And John Sheehy says the 1Ds mark 3 has more DR than the D3, at equal
viewing size, e.g. if its pixels are downsampled to 12 Mp. (The D3 has a
bit better quantum efficiency though, meaning less midtone noise.)

Since even 'low' NR can take its toll on a pic, the
'optimum' sensor density would be the one that doesn't need NR at
base iso at all (maybe a slight chroma NR).

Well, I have to disagree there. For me it's no problem if the image is
noisy at 100% and I would not want a low resolution just to not have to
ever see noise. It's the consumer/reviewer fear of seeing noise at 100%
that causes the makers to destroy the JPEG files with far too much NR.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

 

[Ehrik]

Some wanted in body Image Stabization without realizing that the E210
already was reportedly too small to incorporate the same and also the
fact that in lens IS is essential for video unless you like to watch
the jiggles at high zoom ranges. I don't know of any camcorder that
doesn't use in lens optical IS system as a result.

bah! there is no good reason for why 'shaking the mass' is better in
the lens vs at the sensor.

There is one theoretical reason:

A certain shake dictates a certain needed sensor shift, that is proportional
to the focal length; you can't design around that. With lens IS, the lens
also has to shift, but you can design it so that it doesn't have to move as
fast as the sensor has to move, for the same shake and focal length.

There is somewhere an upper practical limit to the speed (and acceleration)
with which the IS unit (sensor or lens) can move. At some focal length,
this limit is reached for sensor shift, but lens shift can design around this.

So far theory. In practice, it will depend on the implementation, and if the
practical limit lands at a focal length of 2000mm, then it does not have
much practical relevance.

Personally, all else equal, I'd prefer to have a sensor shift DSLR because it
works with all lenses. All else wasn't equal so I had to make do with a Canon
for the time being.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

 

[Jay Turberville]

... time will tell. We'll just have to wait and see.

Keep in mind that most of the sports we see on TV is being tracked with video cameras that - as far as I know - use electronic video monitors for finders that use the camera's live sensor image.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

While I haven't formally tested my 50mm ZD macro, 17.5-45mm ZD,
14-50mm Leica, 40-150mm ZD, 14-45mm ZD, or 70-300mm ZD, my impression
from using them is that they all give "good" results wide open. I
never find myself thinking that I'd better stop down in order to get
good results.

So again, it's the definition of 'good'. Maybe my perception of
'good' glass is equivalent to 'excellent' for others... Maybe

I approach "good" from the standpoint of whether or not I might be able to tell the difference without needing a side-by-side comparison. In other words, would I look at the picture and say, "Hmmmm... that seems a bit soft." If you can't see a flaw without a side-by-side comparison, I don't think the flaw is significant enough to rate the performance as "not good."

In my experience, none of my Olympus lenses hardly ever show enough difference where I could make that determination. The one exception might be the 14-45mm lens show distinct vignetting that can be clearly visible in certain shots. Sometimes this is a negative effect and sometimes a positive one. But either way, at certain focal lengths you are stuck with it up to about f/8.

The reviews on DPReview specifically say "good" wide open, and the "sea of green" that you see in their interactive charts tends to support that.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

Fair enough. The E-520 is a better target for comparison. The
DMC-L10 is better still. But the E-3 is such a different kind of
camera - large, fast AF, waterproof and designed and marketed toward
a pro or semi-pro market that such a comparison really doesn't fit.

The L10 would be a closer comparison if it had a decent OVF, it
doesn't so for many many people, it doesn't compare. For those who
don't care about the OVF, it's close. The E520 doesn't have a decent
OVF nor a swivel LCD...

So which one you want to compare it to depends entirely from your
personal point of view, but my point is, comparing the G1 to the E3
is just as valid, as comparing it to the E520, L10, or E420.

If you run a checkbox list of features, the G1 ends up closer to the L10 and E-520. And if you look at how those different features added to the camera's cost, you can see why comparing the G1 to the E-3 from the standpoint of justifying price doesn't make a lot of sense.

The G1 bests the E-520 and L10 in some ways. It might fall behind in others (limited lens selection) and no optical finder would be two. And it seems clear that Panasonic is targetting a similar market. They won't sell many if the price is more than $1k. And I really think they have to be down around $800 or lower with a kit lens if they want to sell a LOT of them.

It will, save for the 6 months 'lag' in it's PLC. In the spring, 500
USD/Euro sounds realistic.

I'd buy one in a heartbeat at $500 US.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[SirSeth]

G1 HD Even Better. I'm looking forward to the next phase, but G1 looks to be a great step in the right direction.

As far as the comments/sentiment about Olympus scrapping parts off of Panasonic to come up with their own late rebadged Micro4/3rds offering in a year while Panasonic is right on top of things with multiple bodies in the wings... Well, the OP didn't say exactly that, but I do have a very different sentiment about what is going on between the two companies. I think they are cooperative competitors. Oly is a smaller company but has more experience in optics and DSLR production. I think it's similar to how Samsung is gigantic compared with Pentax, but who's doing the innovation, lens development for the K-mount cameras? I suspect Oly is allowing their "partner" to test this market. And I'll bet Oly is going for HD in the first release. They have a lot more invested in 4/3rds (the original) and have been occupied with the mid-tier DSLR and then likely the E-3 upgrade, plus the new lenses they produce.

While it seems that Panasonic has taken the lead in MicroFT because they are releasing first, we really don't know the level of cooperation/initiative from the two companies. But going off of history, I suspect Olympus has had their hand in the G1 coming to fruition under MicroFT standard.

I really am curious about further news and development with MicroFT. I hope it doesn't just do well, but is truly able to reshape how people look at the DSLR market. It's been the same old thing for too long. This is new and very exciting.

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[SirSeth]

That just because the G1 VF is very large doesn't make it a comparable camera to an E-3. The G1 VF may be large as a Leica S viewfinder. So what, that doesn't mean they should be priced the same or are in the same class. It certainly is a bonus for this new system though. Same goes for the flip screen.

I certainly agree with Jay that the G1 is jockeying against the entry level DSLRs in the market and should be priced accordingly. Course Panasonic could do something silly like bundle the camera with an expensive lens--what are they thinking?

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[TrapperJohn]

Don't know about video, I buy a dslr to take still shots. In body IS works great on my E3. Not really all that interested in video, and I have a nice little Panny GS320 for that if I do want video. C/N use in lens because it was developed for film, where you can't shift the receptor. As for sticking with it today, it's a good but also expensive route. Can't apply it to legacy glass, and it's one other advantage, stabilized viewfinder, goes away with the evf. M43 is well suited to in body IS.

I liked the G1, most interested to see how that VF works out. As for not being small, it has a folding LCD that adds quite a bit of thickness. Take that out, and it becomes quite a bit slimmer. Don't know why Pana went that route, but they did and it's a handy thing to have. The only thing that might go wrong with the G1 is Panasonic marketing. They harmed the L1 and pretty much killed the L10 by selling it only with an expensive lens. Turned a lot of potential customers off by not having a lower cost kit lens solution. As Oly has shown, kit lenses don't have to be rubbish.

Also like the Olympus approach, a minimalist optimized for size, though I'm not really sold on LCD framing only. That size, though... pretty tempting, a pocket camera that's worth carrying around.

 

[Bo Lorentzen]

Hello Long time no see (probably my fault)

They could not have made it less if they wanted Leica to be begging them to relable it. (smile) Im sure they made the best first camera to market.. can't wait to see it. Personally Im not too interested in entry level cameras, but much more in a advanced travel friendly camera... the G1 could well be that.

Bo

http://www.bophoto.com/panos

 

[Jay Turberville]

I certainly agree with Jay that the G1 is jockeying against the entry
level DSLRs in the market and should be priced accordingly. Course
Panasonic could do something silly like bundle the camera with an
expensive lens--what are they thinking?

They could have sold me a DMC-L10 body except for the fact that it was bundled with a lens I didn't need, they didn't offer it body only, and it was a tad overpriced. I'm really interested in the G1, but price point will be everything because I really don't need it.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

I really am curious about further news and development with MicroFT.
I hope it doesn't just do well, but is truly able to reshape how
people look at the DSLR market. It's been the same old thing for too
long. This is new and very exciting.

When it comes down to it, mFT is the system I envisioned when I first started thinking about the design of digital cameras. I looked at my Coolpix 995 and wondered why you couldn't add interchangable lenses and a bit larger sensor.

My thinking in this way was also one reason I didn't buy many 4/3s lenses. I knew that I would be enticed by a new system like this and there was no guarantee that Olympus would be the one to introduce it. But it seemed as though someone had to do it. In my mind, this was where digital cameras simply had to go. I'm only surprised that it has taken this long.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

The G1 may not as revolutionary as those examples
(well...maybe it is close to HD television), but I don't think
"overpricing" it by $200 to $400 at first release will do Panasonic
much harm.

Really? Well I think that doing just that was a HUGE factor in the market failure of the E-330. It is important that people perceive the new feature as being worthy of the extra cost. With so many people resistant to EVFs, pricing high is a bit of a gamble.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[John Carson]

again, you are trying to insult me or something?

this is not at all a technical issue even though you think that only
designers are able to discuss this.......

I am trying to suggest that you have excessive confidence in your opinions. Unless you are technically expert, you can't know whether or not there is a technical reason why lens-based stabilization may be better. I agree that sensor-based stabilization can work well, but many people with technical knowledge that I lack seem to think that lens-based stabilzation does offer some advantage.

To make an analogy: a car can have front wheel or rear wheel drive; either can work, but they aren't equivalent. With any given technology, you need to know the technical details before you can make a confident judgement.

--
john carson

 

[Jay Turberville]

I think the "dude" is Jay Turberville with whom you've had a few
exchanges
in this thread!

Lol, good to know that evidence is right at hand

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/DRtesting/drtest.html

Some of my DR testing results for various cameras.

In my experience, the Med-High threshold is the one that guarantees you good results. The Medium threshold is more marginal and may show more shadow noise than many people want to see. You can typically get an extra 2/3 to one stop fo DR from any of these tests by using so-called highlight recovery.

Canon 40D



Coolpix 5000

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/CP5000/Imatest/DR/INFO5000%20 (2) Step_2.png

Coolpix 8400



E-300



E-330



E-500



C7070



--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[John Carson]

The G1 may not as revolutionary as those examples
(well...maybe it is close to HD television), but I don't think
"overpricing" it by $200 to $400 at first release will do Panasonic
much harm.

Really? Well I think that doing just that was a HUGE factor in the
market failure of the E-330. It is important that people perceive
the new feature as being worthy of the extra cost. With so many
people resistant to EVFs, pricing high is a bit of a gamble.

Just for the record, I would like to see it priced as low as possible. However, I think there is enormous interest in the G1 and Pansonic will be able to sell them (and especially the next model with movie mode) at a solid price. As for EVFs, many existing DSLR users seem resistant to them, but DSLR users make up a small fraction of the market. One of the central selling points of this camera is live view, of which EVFs are a part. I think that a large, bright, high resolution EVF will help sell this camera rather than the opposite.

--
john carson

 

[Steve82]

The G1 may not as revolutionary as those examples
(well...maybe it is close to HD television), but I don't think
"overpricing" it by $200 to $400 at first release will do Panasonic
much harm.

Really? Well I think that doing just that was a HUGE factor in the
market failure of the E-330. It is important that people perceive
the new feature as being worthy of the extra cost. With so many
people resistant to EVFs, pricing high is a bit of a gamble.

I'll side with Jay on the importance of competitive price. The G1 offers no advantages over low-end DSLRs and still has sensor disadvantages vs APS DSLRs. There is no way that it will be successful at the rumored $1200 for a two-lens kit.

 

[John Carson]

I'll side with Jay on the importance of competitive price. The G1
offers no advantages over low-end DSLRs

It offers usable live view, a bigger viewfinder, a fully articulating LCD and reasonably silent operation. Plenty of people consider those to be significant advantages.

and still has sensor
disadvantages vs APS DSLRs.

Probably, though we have yet to get any definitive information on that.

There is no way that it will be
successful at the rumored $1200 for a two-lens kit.

That sounds high to me too on a long term basis, but Panasonic might make money with a high price for the first few months.

--
john carson

 

[amalric]

In fact if you see the Oly forum it's more around 900 $ with kit lens. In fact if you see the German aggregator, the same price in euros, which is a shame.

However I expect it to go down at least by a hundred, after the early adopters. And perhaps even less when the G10 comes out.

However I think that a much tougher nut to crack will be the lenses. Can someone imagine the 14-140 and the 7-14 being less than 1000 $?

If Oly succeeds in making its existing lenses fully adaptable to its µ4/3, then at least that side of the problem will be much easier.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7689141@N06/

 

[John Carson]

However I think that a much tougher nut to crack will be the lenses.
Can someone imagine the 14-140 and the 7-14 being less than 1000 $?

Well, I sure hope so. I'm looking to get the 14-140. Tamron's 14x zoom can be had for around $500. The 14-140 is supposed to be super-quiet for video and to support quick autofocussing but if it is more than $600 then I will be waiting for a price drop.

If Oly succeeds in making its existing lenses fully adaptable to its
µ4/3, then at least that side of the problem will be much easier.

A Panasonic representative (in a Photokina video at Imaging Resource) says that a firmware upgrade may extend autofocussing to other lenses (though old lenses will still autofocus slowly).

--
john carson

 

[Ehrik]

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/DRtesting/drtest.html

That article is very enjoyable reading.

I've found a dubious claim:

"You should lose about one stop for every ISO increase above the sensor's "native" ISO."

This is only true for cameras where the pre-amplification read noise sufficiently overwhelms the post-amplification read noise. Then the bulk of the read noise will scale with the signal and you lose one stop of DR per ISO stop as the raw data is pushed off the clipping limit of the AD converter. This is typically the case for CCD cameras, and the D2X.

For most CMOS cameras, like any Canon DSLR at least since the 20D, the Nikon D300, D3 and probably D700 and D90, the K20D and the A700, the pre-amplification noise does not overwhelm the post-amplification noise at base ISO. Since the post-amplification noise doesn't grow with the signal when increasing ISO, the total read noise increases slower than the signal. This means some DR is recouped at the dark end to compensate for what's lost at the bright end. E.g. the 40D loses virtually no DR when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200 and only 0.4 stops from ISO 200 to ISO 400.

At higher ISOs, the then-much-amplified pre-amplification noise will begin to overwhelm the post-amplification noise and you'll lose one stop DR per ISO stop, just like with CCD cameras.

Not sure how NMOS fits into this, but the E-510 seems to lose one stop from ISO 100 to ISO 400, then one stop per ISO stop.

Some of my DR testing results for various cameras.

What raw converter and settings did you use for the test files?

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden