GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Started Mar 4, 2009 | Discussions thread
OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
You want something for nothing?

Wait, you're telling me that a camera whose sole purpose for existing is to shoot video, with a lens-- that no other manfuacturer can match-- for shooting video, is overpriced because you can name a bunch of cameras--- which don't shoot video-- that are cheaper?

And then you say that video isn't important to you?

If that's the case, why do you even care to comment about this camera? Buy the G1 or talk about it.

But to say that video is worthless and this camera is overpriced because you don't need video, is like saying a bus is overpriced because you only need to drive one person around.

Arn wrote:

Martin Datzinger wrote:
With the features added to the G1 it should be about 1000€ maximum.
And it gets even more ridiculous if you add the price for lenses that
provide at least a bit of selective focus at normal FL: 900€ for the
25/1.4, 2000€ for the 14-35/2, 500€ for the 50/2. Plus adapter. And
does any of these actually support contrast AF*? Or do they even
work? What's that continuous aperture control nonsense for which
they've had to come up with a new lens?

Yes, it sure is overpriced. You can get a Canon 450D with a 18-200 IS
lens for less than the GH1+14-140. Also, you can get a Sigma 10-20
EX HSM for about 490€, which is significantly less than what's been
suggested for the 7-14 (1250€...). The New Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 will
also be a LOT cheaper than the 7-14. Also, Canon's own 10-22 lens is
significantly cheaper. I can see absolutely no way that Panasonic can
justify that much higher prices than Canon / Nikon / Sony / pentax.
"Fancy" lens design definitely will not be a good enough reason for
most.

Of course right now it is the cheapest HD video camera that allows
interchangeable lenses and quick AF during filming and supposedly
proper manual control this side of the XL2 and the first usable
compact HD camera of such a kind. And early adopters always have to
pay stupidly high prices. And of course I really would like to have
one - if it turns out to be resistant against vertical blooming
artifacts when pointed to the sun.

Well, it's a nice package, but video has never been so important for
me, that I would pay the premium price. I can get some sweet glass to
my existing bodies with the money. Within a year Canon and Nikon will
have proper video in consumer class DSLRs and it'll be cheaper than
this.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Arn
Arn
Arn
Arn
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow