Reading mode: Light Dark

I'm not sure I get the GF1

Go to last post
Yup, the G1 is a pretty compact camera. When I first encounted it I was very excited by the m43 possibilities but not so excited with the design (SLR-like, but tiny, didn't seem very appropriate for me - just too small to function like an SLR). To me it seemed like a bit of a misapplication of the promise of m43rds; a design which was really more appropriate for larger formats ported to the smaller format. The E-P1 took this small format and matched the camera design to it.

I think the reason the E-P1 and GF-1 are relatively low on features is that Oly & Pana didn't want to invest too much into the new format in the event that it flopped; history is full of technological dead ends. I think it was smarter to put out these relatively low-spec'd bodies at first to see how they fare. I love mine.

Eventual refinements will make this form factor really impressive. For now I've bought into the E-P1 because I'm excited about the form factor and I think it's very good camera, and even in areas where it has some deficiencies its more than good enough for my needs.
 
BTW I am almost certain that the big players are at least considering designs for similar cameras, probably with larger format sensors. While they no doubt will be reluctant to shake up their dominance by obsoleting their own lens lines, it would be foolish of them not to take notice, and I'm sure they're all least conducting some feasibility and preliminary design studies.
Walter A23 said:
Yup, the G1 is a pretty compact camera. When I first encounted it I was very excited by the m43 possibilities but not so excited with the design (SLR-like, but tiny, didn't seem very appropriate for me - just too small to function like an SLR). To me it seemed like a bit of a misapplication of the promise of m43rds; a design which was really more appropriate for larger formats ported to the smaller format. The E-P1 took this small format and matched the camera design to it.

I think the reason the E-P1 and GF-1 are relatively low on features is that Oly & Pana didn't want to invest too much into the new format in the event that it flopped; history is full of technological dead ends. I think it was smarter to put out these relatively low-spec'd bodies at first to see how they fare. I love mine.

Eventual refinements will make this form factor really impressive. For now I've bought into the E-P1 because I'm excited about the form factor and I think it's very good camera, and even in areas where it has some deficiencies its more than good enough for my needs.
Click to expand...
 
Yup, I'm looking at the GF-1 as a supplement to my DSLR. For days I run two cameras, I've been experimenting with using LX3 or EP-1 as my secondary. Unfortunately neither has been entirely satisfactory, I think main issue is start up and operation speed. I'm using two cameras because I want the speed of switching to the secondary for wide angle and instantly having it available, running and focusing by the time I have it up to aim. But I'm not as young anymore, slinging a 40D and 350D all day is becoming a chore.

The other use is a carryaround and travel camera. The LX3 and EP-1 work well for that. They are small and light enough to carry pretty much wherever. Not pocketable, but easy to just grab and go. I've even used the LX3 to carry while snowboarding or mt. biking, but I'm switching to a ruggedized cam for that.
 
I think the OP did a very good idea of framing his ideas and arguments. For me, I think a little differently, coming from what I believe is Panny's target market for the GF-1.

I am a serious amature photographer. I've done a couple weddings and a funeral and had a couple small exhibitions. Nothing major and I don't claim to be a professional.

I have had many, MANY digicams over the past 12 years or so, some of them very good, always progressing in capabilities from model to model. I have always looked at the cost of a digital camera versus having to buy and process film. To me, within reason, the digicam almost always justifies its purchase based on this argument alone.

My first dSLR, a Pentax K10D was a disappointment. Not because it didn't take good images (any camera can, in the right hands), but because it didn't deliver on what I wanted, which was a camera that could use faster legacy glass to get better results indoors. The problem is always the crop factor, so get any lens that approaches a fast, full-frame prime is very expensive. I wanted to be able to use fast 50mm lenses, but they're portrait lenses on a digital body. That issue and the size. The camera/lens combo is just too big for my tatses and use. YMMV.

Fast forward to the G1 and now the GH1 and GF1. Since I have no vested interest in ANY system of bodies or lenses, I am free to choose what works best for me. And right now, I'm thinking that it may be either a combo of the GH1 and GF1 or G1 and GF1. That gets me two different sized bodies for different puroses and 2-3 lenses for what is to me a new system out of the gate. The deciding factor will be how badly I want video. Do I settle for "okay", mono video of the GF1 and get the G1 for the larger body with EVF and articulating LCD, or do I spend a lot more and get the better video and much better zoom of the GH1?

Those are questions that only I can decide, but I put roughly $1200 each into two videocams in the past, one a full-sized VHS and the other a mini-tape unit of which format I can no longer remember. That's way more than the GH1. The thought of that full-sized VHS videocam on my shoulder now makes me shudder... What I would have given then for something like the GH1.

I think the GF1 is the right camera for someone like me, but not necessarily someone who has a vested interest in a system. I've thought of the GH1 and the not-yet-released Canon G11, but the GF1 will two stops faster than the G11 with the f1.7 20mm lens and that is worth a lot to me.

My dream kit would be:

GH-1 body + 14-140 HD zoom lens
GF-1 body + 20mm pancake + 7-14mm zoom + 14-45 zoom

That gives me two very capable bodies and full coverage from 14mm to 280mm.

Anybody agree, disagree?

Tony
 
and GF1 for me would be 5D minus minus minus period :), but I'm still ordering it, because it is a different purpose tool.

Renat
 
I have two Victorinox Swiss Army "knives", one of which is can do anything, and another that is more limited, but smaller:



Guess which one goes in my pocket and which one goes in the backpack?

Now I know, all analogies have flaws, but the point is, the camera is simply a tool. No one camera will suit everybodies needs, just as no one socket set can.

If you've got the G1, EP-1 or Whatever-1, the GF-1 may or may not be the right tool for you. But for me it just may be.

Tony
 
maenju said:
sacundim said:
One thing you're perhaps not appreciating is that the looks of the camera can make a difference in how people react to you, and that makes a different in people photography. The G1 with the kit zoom looks like a "serious" camera, while the GF1 with the 20mm looks like a regular compact (except for the size). Many people who would notice you with the G1 + kit lens will hardly pay you attention if you're using the GF1 and pancake. This matters to many people.
Click to expand...
that's a fair point, but the real question is if this point would still stand if the 20mm pancake was attached to the g(h)1. the kit would still be a bit bulkier, but I wonder if the difference in size and form factor would be enough to make people react differently. any guesses/experiences?
Click to expand...
It's not an all-or-nothing deal. The G1 with the pancake would be less noticeable than with the kit zoom, but a GF1 would be even less noticeable, because it really just looks like a regular compact camera, if only somewhat oversized.
 
What your analysis says is that the GF1 is likely not the right camera for you. And that's just fine: you want the features of the G1 class model.

But size and shape does matter to some. There is work I can do with a smaller camera that I find more difficult to accomplish with the G1. The E-P1 and GF1 fit a size/shape model that works well for a certain class of my work, and they support use with my entire lens kit if I so desire. So while it's not as feature rich as the G1, it will most likely be a very useful addition to my kit. I look forward to seeing one.

"For all things a place under the sun." No one has ever said that every new camera has to suit every person's needs.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
Harveydad said:
Just curious...who are these "people" who react to you and your camera? Why does it matter?
Click to expand...
I was going to ask the very same question. Except for a few looks from a group of Japanese tourists when I got the Panny LX2 hot off the shelves early after release, no one ever cared what camera I carried, including a Nikon D3. Even on commercial jobs, no one has ever questioned my choice of gear.

I guess it could matter to other DPreviewers maybe ;-)
 
I would gladly give up the articulating LCD and the built-in EVF just to get the size of the GF1.

I've seen some posts above question the reaction of people to the size of gear you carry - I guess you guys must shoot only flowers, or if you do shoot people then it's either you shoot only people you know or you stand in some street corner sniping with a long lens thinking you look really cool with your large-ass DSLR.

Size is very important, especially for street and social photography. I'd rather have the GF1 + the 20mm f/1.7 than my Nikon and a 35mm f/1.8 when shooting in an extremely crowded wet market in the streets of Manila for example, well I did have my Nikon and I did get great photographs, but they would have been a lot more candid had I had a GF1.

Or what about shooting a nice dinner out with the wife and kids? Are you really going to bring your huge-ass DSLR? Or an office party? Well, be the cool guy with the awesome DSLR then if you want.

I lugged around a D1H for a number of years. It's not something I ever want to do again. The GF1 is I think one of the most innovative and most usable (on paper so far) camera's I've seen in the digital age. Image quality and speed in a compact package? Count me in.
 
I heard this from many amateurs that the small camera makes you less visible.

Frankly it isn't so, save for some huge white 2 feet zooms. I work with other technical professionals and it is commonly all about the attitude and body motions that make other people uncomfortable or alarmed.

A good pro is invisible with most equipment, a bad amateur is annoying even with a cellphone.

Now the invisible part - it is not that people don't see the photographer because he is hidden behind the bush (such motion would actually register as highly alarming), but the photographer naturally fits to the environment and use the surrounding space distractions such way so the brain doesn't register it as something out of ordinary and the result is people don't remember it.
 
ShowMeTheMoney said:
Image quality and speed in a compact package? Count me in.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you know this is something that many have criticised the LX3 for: fast lens, but narrow zoom range. This camera has the best of both worlds, speed and the ability to use longer zooms. It's looking better and better all the time.

Tony
 
Tony Reynolds said:
I think the OP did a very good idea of framing his ideas and arguments. For me, I think a little differently, coming from what I believe is Panny's target market for the GF-1.

I am a serious amature photographer. I've done a couple weddings and a funeral and had a couple small exhibitions. Nothing major and I don't claim to be a professional.

I have had many, MANY digicams over the past 12 years or so, some of them very good, always progressing in capabilities from model to model. I have always looked at the cost of a digital camera versus having to buy and process film. To me, within reason, the digicam almost always justifies its purchase based on this argument alone.

My first dSLR, a Pentax K10D was a disappointment. Not because it didn't take good images (any camera can, in the right hands), but because it didn't deliver on what I wanted, which was a camera that could use faster legacy glass to get better results indoors. The problem is always the crop factor, so get any lens that approaches a fast, full-frame prime is very expensive. I wanted to be able to use fast 50mm lenses, but they're portrait lenses on a digital body. That issue and the size. The camera/lens combo is just too big for my tatses and use. YMMV.

Fast forward to the G1 and now the GH1 and GF1. Since I have no vested interest in ANY system of bodies or lenses, I am free to choose what works best for me. And right now, I'm thinking that it may be either a combo of the GH1 and GF1 or G1 and GF1. That gets me two different sized bodies for different puroses and 2-3 lenses for what is to me a new system out of the gate. The deciding factor will be how badly I want video. Do I settle for "okay", mono video of the GF1 and get the G1 for the larger body with EVF and articulating LCD, or do I spend a lot more and get the better video and much better zoom of the GH1?

Those are questions that only I can decide, but I put roughly $1200 each into two videocams in the past, one a full-sized VHS and the other a mini-tape unit of which format I can no longer remember. That's way more than the GH1. The thought of that full-sized VHS videocam on my shoulder now makes me shudder... What I would have given then for something like the GH1.

I think the GF1 is the right camera for someone like me, but not necessarily someone who has a vested interest in a system. I've thought of the GH1 and the not-yet-released Canon G11, but the GF1 will two stops faster than the G11 with the f1.7 20mm lens and that is worth a lot to me.

My dream kit would be:

GH-1 body + 14-140 HD zoom lens
GF-1 body + 20mm pancake + 7-14mm zoom + 14-45 zoom

That gives me two very capable bodies and full coverage from 14mm to 280mm.

Anybody agree, disagree?

Tony
Click to expand...
Completely agree! This is what I am building up too. I am not sure about 14-45 but the rest are right on. I have sold 450D and the system, just to consolidate this into single system for still and video with great glass.
 
Actually, I'd say you you do get the G1 , you just came to the conclusion that it's not the right camera for you. That's the great thing about choice!

BTW, I read your reasons for preferring the the G1 over the GF1, and think that you came to a very well reasoned conclusion.

--



Kristian Farren
 
Tony Reynolds said:
Tony Reynolds said:
Image quality and speed in a compact package? Count me in.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The ability to use any lens I want or need is a key strength.

I see the GF1 in much the same way as my Rollei 35S, Leica CL and Robot Star II in film days: not as versatile or as suited to all day shooting as my Nikon F3/T, but very compact, well made, and capable of making pictures of identical quality.

Those three compact 35s traveled with me all over the world, all the time, where the Nikon kit was simply too much to carry a lot of the time.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
so I've not had the opportunity to become expert with the G1.

I never shoot landscapes, if I have a choice, but sometimes they bump into me.

I spent a sunny afternoon in a beautiful public garden in Tokyo with the G1. I enjoyed using it. I learned a lesson when a air number of shots were ruined with blown highlights, even in raw. I've not done any tests, but I've not had problems like this with a FF Canon. If you're careful about the highlights, this will not happen, of course. But there does seem to be less latitude.

The Canon gives me 4x the sensor area and 4x the photons hitting it. Cropping is much more forgiving on image quality.

The 1dsIII focuses much faster and more accurately (when it works right.) This makes a big difference in street shooting, but would not matter in landscape.

Firing consecutive shots with the G1 is a nightmare, because the viewfinder freezes. I've adapted, but it's not the same as the Canon.

Colors do not seem quite as true or appealing. I am actually moving from 100% raw to 95% jpg on the Canon.

The G1 is perfectly useless at night.

That said, the G1 is an intriguing camera with tons of usability and produces adequate results much of the time. Remember that Diane does not use the kit lenses very much, so her experience is different, and she knows the camera much better than an occasional user such as I.

I have bought some Canon FD lenses to see how they work out, but the adapter is on a slow boat from China --but again, that is a different experience.

If the G1 were the only camera I had, I could operate with it. But I feel much more comfortable with the Canon for serious shooting.

--
Frank
http://www.sidewalkshadows.com

ego sum via et veritas et vita
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top