GH1 is going to be Affordable!

LizaWitz · Mar 3, 2009

Reported on fourthirdsphoto forum from someone at PMA who talked to the reps.

The price isn't yet determined, but:

"All I got out of them is that it will be on shelves before Summer and under $1499."

Thus the claims of over $2,000 etc, as reported in germany aren't applicable to the US.

Reading between the lines here, I see it as about $1200-$1400, which seems totally reasonable-- representing a camera price of $700 and a lense price of $500-$700.

A steal for this fancy new lens design.

Also, this is MSRP, who knows what street price will fall to.

theranman · Mar 3, 2009

"A steal for this fancy new lens design. "

Yes, and most owners will have to steal them indeed.

LaFonte · Mar 3, 2009

Afordable? If you really want this particular model, but for that money it is an oxymoron. This was supposed to be somewhere between PS and DSLR for people who likes more control, but yet not sure they want DSLR.

And now it will cost like most full DSLRs...that is really, really strange idea.

John Carson · Mar 3, 2009

LaFonte said:
Afordable? If you really want this particular model, but for that
money it is an oxymoron. This was supposed to be somewhere between PS
and DSLR for people who likes more control, but yet not sure they
want DSLR.

And now it will cost like most full DSLRs...that is really, really
strange idea.

Before talking about relative prices, you need to price DSLRs with a superzoom lens, not with their usual kit lens. That pushes up the price considerably.

Further, indications are that the GH1 is a serious video camera, whereas the video on DSLRs is little more than a gimmick. The GH1 has a combination of other features (e.g., articulating LCD and 100% coverage in the viewfinder) that you won't find in any DSLR.

The G series is meant to combine the advantages of DSLR and compact technology. That doesn't mean it has to be priced inbetween them.

--
john carson

DjarumBlack · Mar 3, 2009

1200-1400? Thats steep. That is what I think killed some of pannys other dslr offerings. I really want to get the G1, but I want a small compact 10x zoom lens that doesnt have to do video. The lens will cost more than the g1 kit, so, no dice. I don't care about video. It is as expensive as other offerings. Even if it can do what they say, I think owning a video camera seperatly and photo camera won't come to that price.

Dj

RRJackson · Mar 3, 2009

John Carson said:
Further, indications are that the GH1 is a serious video camera,
whereas the video on DSLRs is little more than a gimmick.

Actually, it's kind of a mixed bag, IMO. You can only use the motion jpeg capture at 720p. The 1080p24 setting is in reference to internal processing, but the camera has to store it in AVCHD at 1080i, so it's interlaced capture. Now, I can't stand interlacing artifacts, so to me this is a 720p60 camera. Which is cool, but on paper there's already a good reason for people serious about video to prefer the Canon 5DII. The autofocus doesn't really play into it much, since very few people shooting video for a living would be likely to use autofocus.

It's still really cool. I wish Panasonic had a proprietary shoe interface like Canon has on their little consumer cameras that allows their condenser mic to connect without cables. That's a nice touch. I have one of those Canon mic setups and it's really nice, IMO:

http://flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/3010524040/

NumberOne · Mar 3, 2009

LizaWitz said:
Reported on fourthirdsphoto forum from someone at PMA who talked to
the reps.

The price isn't yet determined, but:

"All I got out of them is that it will be on shelves before Summer
and under $1499."

Thus the claims of over $2,000 etc, as reported in germany aren't
applicable to the US.

The German site (digitalkamera.de) mentioned for the GH1&14-140 bundle a price of €1550, reporting the lens alone was about €900; for the 7-14 lens, €1250.
Maybe my German (understanding) is different from others...

LizaWitz said:
Reading between the lines here, I see it as about $1200-$1400, which
seems totally reasonable-- representing a camera price of $700 and a
lense price of $500-$700

A steal for this fancy new lens design.

Also, this is MSRP, who knows what street price will fall to.

As usual, prices will fall quickly in the first six month selling period. ;-)

Best regards,
Pedro

Ehrik · Mar 3, 2009

LizaWitz said:
Thus the claims of over $2,000 etc, as reported in germany aren't
applicable to the US.

I don't know where that number came from. Someone ignorant about European--American price level differences, perhaps?

The US price looks affordable (as it often is) and the point about the video capabilities being extraordinary is well taken.

It's the 7-14 price that is harder to justify, since it isn't an HD lens.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

John Carson · Mar 3, 2009

RRJackson said:
John Carson said:

Further, indications are that the GH1 is a serious video camera,
whereas the video on DSLRs is little more than a gimmick.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's kind of a mixed bag, IMO. You can only use the motion
jpeg capture at 720p. The 1080p24 setting is in reference to internal
processing, but the camera has to store it in AVCHD at 1080i, so it's
interlaced capture. Now, I can't stand interlacing artifacts, so to
me this is a 720p60 camera. Which is cool, but on paper there's
already a good reason for people serious about video to prefer the
Canon 5DII. The autofocus doesn't really play into it much, since
very few people shooting video for a living would be likely to use
autofocus.

Very few people buying this camera will be shooting video for a living. The 5DII also has bad rolling shutter effects. I don't know yet if the GH1 avoids this but I am hopeful.

--
john carson

John Carson · Mar 3, 2009

DjarumBlack said:
1200-1400? Thats steep. That is what I think killed some of pannys
other dslr offerings. I really want to get the G1, but I want a small
compact 10x zoom lens that doesnt have to do video. The lens will
cost more than the g1 kit, so, no dice. I don't care about video. It
is as expensive as other offerings. Even if it can do what they say,
I think owning a video camera seperatly and photo camera won't come
to that price.

I think to get comparable quality from two cameras would cost a lot more, plus you have the inconvenience.

Superzoom lenses on large sensor cameras always cost a lot of money.

--
john carson

Pixelizer · Mar 3, 2009

Seems to me when Canon 10MP DSLR's are advertised every week in the papers for $599-699 with prime lens AND a 70-300mm zoom (equivalent to, what, 450MM in 35mm terms?), $1,500 for this rig isn't exactly what I'd call affordable!

The video is going to appeal only to some ... most of us don't do video, especially with our still cameras. So if I wanted a DSLR (which I don't), I'd grab one of the Canons the market is awash with and trade a couple of MP's for a big CMOS sensor. Then I'd have the rest of the money to put in the bank ...

Affordable? Hmmmm.

Mike

--
Digital imaging has introduced a whole new generation to the joy of photography.

Jay Gloab630253 · Mar 3, 2009

John Carson said:
I think to get comparable quality from two cameras would cost a lot
more, plus you have the inconvenience.

Superzoom lenses on large sensor cameras always cost a lot of money.

Seems pretty steep to me. Leave aside for the moment the video capabilities of the HD lens and compare it to the Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3 OS, or the Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 VR. The Sigma costs about $300, the Nikon is $700. Both cover a greater range, a little wider at the wide and and a little longer at the tele end. Both are a little faster at the wide end and the Nikon is (slightly) faster at the tele end as well, while the Sigma is only slightly slower at full zoom. Neither is perfect optically, but that's no surprise in a superzoom, and given the optical compromises Panasonic made in the 14-45 lens (e.g. barrel distortion), does anyone expect the 14-140 to be any better?

Consider also that the Sigma and Nikon must include larger glass to illuminate a larger image circle, so that adds to the cost.

How much does the technical wizardry of the continuous aperture and focus capability add to the cost? Add me to the list of folks who hope Panasonic makes a non-HD version of this lens.
--
-Jay

http://flickr.com/photos/48504267@N00/

LizaWitz · Mar 3, 2009

RRJackson said:
Actually, it's kind of a mixed bag, IMO. You can only use the motion
jpeg capture at 720p.

You can capture 720/60p using AVCHD, or 720/30p using MJPEG.

RRJackson said:
The 1080p24 setting is in reference to internal
processing, but the camera has to store it in AVCHD at 1080i, so it's
interlaced capture. Now, I can't stand interlacing artifacts, so to
me this is a 720p60 camera.

You're mistaken. The 1080/24p is really 1080/24p. Its just stored in a 60i stream, which means you do a lossless pulldown before editing. You get real 1080/24p, with NO interlace artifacts. Its stored in the 60i stream to give you live HDMI out while capturing (without having to put two codecs in there doubling the workload of encoding to both formats.) It does this by splitting the progressive frames into fields and then duping one of them to fit the 60i timing-- but the images are captured all at once, not interlaced, and so when they are recomposited, you have no artifacts.

RRJackson said:
Which is cool, but on paper there's
already a good reason for people serious about video to prefer the
Canon 5DII. The autofocus doesn't really play into it much, since
very few people shooting video for a living would be likely to use
autofocus.

I see no reason to prefer the 5D, as it gives you no control over exposure, aperture, framerate while shooting. Plus people who are serious want to do things like focus follow so the actor stays in focus as they move around the scene-- the GH1 does this automatically, while the 5D doesn't make it easy.

LizaWitz · Mar 3, 2009

John Carson said:
Very few people buying this camera will be shooting video for a
living. The 5DII also has bad rolling shutter effects. I don't know
yet if the GH1 avoids this but I am hopeful.

I'm buying this camera specifically to shoot video. Stills are a nice side benefit.

This camera blows away every camcorder on the market in image quality and every DSLR in the ability to capture good footage for filmmaking purposes, and the ability to control exposure, etc.

There's good reason to believe that this camera won't have shutter effects because they built this new sensor to fix that, and put two CPUs in to pull data off of the sensor faster.

LizaWitz · Mar 3, 2009

NumberOne said:
LizaWitz said:

Reported on fourthirdsphoto forum from someone at PMA who talked to
the reps.

The price isn't yet determined, but:

"All I got out of them is that it will be on shelves before Summer
and under $1499."

Thus the claims of over $2,000 etc, as reported in germany aren't
applicable to the US.

Click to expand...

The German site (digitalkamera.de) mentioned for the GH1&14-140
bundle a price of €1550, reporting the lens alone was about €900; for
the 7-14 lens, €1250.
Maybe my German (understanding) is different from others...

I don't know if the price is going to be higher in germany or not. But there are multiple independent reports of people at the announcement giving the price I quoted.....

John Carson · Mar 3, 2009

Jay Gloab said:
John Carson said:

Superzoom lenses on large sensor cameras always cost a lot of money.

Click to expand...

Seems pretty steep to me. Leave aside for the moment the video
capabilities of the HD lens and compare it to the Sigma 18-200
f3.5-6.3 OS, or the Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 VR. The Sigma costs about
$300, the Nikon is $700. Both cover a greater range, a little wider
at the wide and and a little longer at the tele end. Both are a
little faster at the wide end and the Nikon is (slightly) faster at
the tele end as well, while the Sigma is only slightly slower at full
zoom. Neither is perfect optically, but that's no surprise in a
superzoom, and given the optical compromises Panasonic made in the
14-45 lens (e.g. barrel distortion), does anyone expect the 14-140 to
be any better?

Consider also that the Sigma and Nikon must include larger glass to
illuminate a larger image circle, so that adds to the cost.

How much does the technical wizardry of the continuous aperture and
focus capability add to the cost? Add me to the list of folks who
hope Panasonic makes a non-HD version of this lens.

Taking account of the fact that 900 is the list price of a newly released lens and 700 is the street price of a lens that has been out for more than 3 years, I don't find the pricing surprising.

--
john carson

LizaWitz · Mar 3, 2009

Ehrik said:
It's the 7-14 price that is harder to justify, since it isn't an HD
lens.

Well, if comperable lenses are cheaper, then I guess people can use them. I'm not sure about the pricing for that lens.... but I don't think it not being HD will be as much of a problem as focus will be less of an issue at those angles, I am guessing.

LizaWitz · Mar 3, 2009

Why is it there's always canon fans bashing whatever other camera there is out on the market?

If you don't want video, get the G1, it doesn't have video and goes for about $650 with the kit lens.

Pixelizer said:
Seems to me when Canon 10MP DSLR's are advertised every week in the
papers for $599-699 with prime lens AND a 70-300mm zoom (equivalent
to, what, 450MM in 35mm terms?), $1,500 for this rig isn't exactly
what I'd call affordable!

The video is going to appeal only to some ... most of us don't do
video, especially with our still cameras. So if I wanted a DSLR
(which I don't), I'd grab one of the Canons the market is awash with
and trade a couple of MP's for a big CMOS sensor. Then I'd have the
rest of the money to put in the bank ...

Affordable? Hmmmm.

Mike

--
Digital imaging has introduced a whole new generation to the joy of
photography.

John Carson · Mar 3, 2009

Pixelizer said:
Seems to me when Canon 10MP DSLR's are advertised every week in the
papers for $599-699 with prime lens AND a 70-300mm zoom (equivalent
to, what, 450MM in 35mm terms?), $1,500 for this rig isn't exactly
what I'd call affordable!

Now quote the price with a Canon superzoom lens and you will be halfway to a relevant comparison. Add in video, an articulating LCD and a few other things and you will be all the way.

Pixelizer said:
The video is going to appeal only to some ... most of us don't do
video, especially with our still cameras.

Then don't buy it.

--
john carson

Jay Gloab630253 · Mar 3, 2009

John Carson said:
Taking account of the fact that 900 is the list price of a newly
released lens and 700 is the street price of a lens that has been out
for more than 3 years, I don't find the pricing surprising.

Fine, but what about the Sigma? $300 vs. $900 is a huge difference.
--
-Jay

http://flickr.com/photos/48504267@N00/

GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts