M9 v Panasonic GF1

Now before everyone starts jumping up and down shouting 'unfair' let me explain the background to this post.

Basically I have been a committed Leica digital user since the M8 came out. Before that it was the film M7. Along the way I have always enjoyed having a quality compact at my side. In the days of film it was my Contax T3 which I still have and is fantastic. More recently it's a Dlux 4; a great camera but with no real DOF so frustrating for me in terms of portraiture.

So a couple of weeks ago, after talking to a few people on the forums (Jim & Jeremy), I decided to buy a GF1 which I am really happy with. I think it's a fabulous camera. For me the 20mm lens sits right between the 35 and 50mm lenses that I love using with the M9 (40mm with the crop-factor).

Anyway, out of interest and at Jeremy's request, I decided to do some test shots with the two cameras to see how the £500 GF1 compared with the £8,200 Leica combination (M9 plus 35mm Summilux ASPH). This is only for fun and by no means scientific so no jumping up and down please

The criteria were thus:

ISO 160
AE exposure
Auto WB
Jpeg fine
Saturation standard
No PP whatsoever
Tripod mounted about 1m away from the subject

Ignore the exif data regarding apertures. The title information is correct in that respect.

















































I found the results very interesting and I thing the GF1 holds up very well. I would be interested to hear other people’s opinions, and yes, before anyone asks, I do prefer the Leica images but I think the GF1 makes a great back-up camera especially as I can use it with Leica glass

Cheers,

Steve

Hi,

I had a GF1 before I had my M9 and sold it to help fund my Leica.

It's a brilliant camera and I regret selling it.... The M9 is a beauty though.

Happy shooting!

Howard

I have to agree that the GF1 + 20mm is an outstanding combination and I use mine as a backup for my M8.2.

I have the Novoflex "M" to 4/3rds adaptor so I can use my M lenses on the GF1 as I see fit, the results are great but not as good as the M series...........just!

The GF1 is one of the silent stars amongst the "Large compact" genre and is very capable of producing outstanding images that hold up well even to A3 size prints, it compliments the M series very well and reminds me very much of the Leica CL in terms of footprint.
--
http://www.Ianskyphotosite.blogspot.com

I have done a similar test, and you are correct

Thank you for sharing the results... very impressive!

I wish someone to repeat the same with the E-PL1/20mm Panasonic and NEX/25mm Biogon vs the M9/Summilux 35.. the outcome could be more surprising.

Bob

--
BobYIL

funny I was just about to say that IMO the out put from the E-PL1 + 20mm Panny lens

is better than from the GF1 although the GF1 is faster to use, the 14mm panny is also very good (although not as sharp as the 20mm)

BobYIL said:

Thank you for sharing the results... very impressive!

I wish someone to repeat the same with the E-PL1/20mm Panasonic and NEX/25mm Biogon vs the M9/Summilux 35.. the outcome could be more surprising.

Bob

--
BobYIL

Click to expand...

--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com

CutterUK said:

funny I was just about to say that IMO the out put from the E-PL1 + 20mm Panny lens

is better than from the GF1 although the GF1 is faster to use, the 14mm panny is also very good (although not as sharp as the 20mm)

Click to expand...

I chose the GF1 over the Oly for two reasons: 1. Faster AF. 2. Built in flash. Also the RAW output from the GF1 is IMO equal to the E-PL1

CutterUK said:

BobYIL said:

Thank you for sharing the results... very impressive!

I wish someone to repeat the same with the E-PL1/20mm Panasonic and NEX/25mm Biogon vs the M9/Summilux 35.. the outcome could be more surprising.

Bob

--
BobYIL

Click to expand...

--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com

Click to expand...

steveleicaman said:

CutterUK said:

funny I was just about to say that IMO the out put from the E-PL1 + 20mm Panny lens

is better than from the GF1 although the GF1 is faster to use, the 14mm panny is also very good (although not as sharp as the 20mm)

Click to expand...

I chose the GF1 over the Oly for two reasons: 1. Faster AF. 2. Built in flash. Also the RAW output from the GF1 is IMO equal to the E-PL1

Click to expand...

I have a GF1 and E-P1. I have unfortunately ran into some color issues with the GF1 which are not easily corrected. In shooting RAWs of outdoor scenes, the GF1 clips the blue channel before the other channels, this results in loss of fidelity in sky colors. I have not seen this with the Olympus, even shooting JPEGs. The sky is more washed out. Once the clipping happens, it is too late to rescue without introducing artificial looking results.

I have yet to see the GF1, either RAW or JPEG, that can match the colors from my M9 DNGs.

I took both the GF1 and M9 to India last March and there were quite a few scenes that showed the issue.

The GF1 is a fine camera in terms of AF and ergonomics, but when I saw the way it handled sky colors, I was definitely more hesitant to rely on it.

--
Ramesh

you should dial 2 more stops on the M9: f2 on GF1 compared to f4 on M9, f2.8 / f5.6, ...

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto

two totally different cameras, that shoot differently. While they both take pictures, the only similarity they share is size and file quality. It's like comparing the taste of a good lobster to a good wine. Both give a similar result in satisfaction but thats where the similarities end if one has actual experience shooting them.

adding to this, this is not comparing the 'cameras' but the 'sensors'....so no matter how much someone wants an M9, you don't buy the M9 cause of it's sensor, nor it's lenses. You buy it for it's rangefinder abilities....therefor a GF-1 is not a substitue

I have a G1 (same sensor as GF1), the Pany 20, an excellent lens, and a 28 2.8 Distagon and a Planar 50 1.7. I find the images on the G1 hold up quite well, except the jpg's are not very good. The Zeiss lenses do make a difference. To get what the camera can do, however, raw is a necessity. The one shortcoming I find is the more limited dynamic range of the G1. The new GH2 is supposed to be a considerable improvement over it, and I would be interested in seeing sometime in the future how it compares to the M9. No question the M9 images above are better, less noise, and smoother tonal transitions.

Michael

The E-PL1 has a built-in flash and with the lastest firmware the AF is just as fast or as others claim faster than the GF1

steveleicaman said:

CutterUK said:

funny I was just about to say that IMO the out put from the E-PL1 + 20mm Panny lens

is better than from the GF1 although the GF1 is faster to use, the 14mm panny is also very good (although not as sharp as the 20mm)

Click to expand...

I chose the GF1 over the Oly for two reasons: 1. Faster AF. 2. Built in flash. Also the RAW output from the GF1 is IMO equal to the E-PL1

steveleicaman said:

BobYIL said:

Thank you for sharing the results... very impressive!

I wish someone to repeat the same with the E-PL1/20mm Panasonic and NEX/25mm Biogon vs the M9/Summilux 35.. the outcome could be more surprising.

Bob

--
BobYIL

Click to expand...

--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com

it is not only the sharpness that counts.

i cannot say that skin tone on your m9 shots is particularly natural, but on gf1 pictures it is simply atrocious. unless, of course, the girl is indeed THAT purple.
--
Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en

the Leica obviously too expensive, and not showing any advantages over the Panasonic

Thanks for the thread - interesting and really worth posting

OK - you have tried to get the same FOV with the 35mm v the 20mm - but there is quite a difference in lens performance "rendering" between the two - as well as the colour differences, (but that could be a number of factors)

It really is very difficult to compare - the 1.3 and x2 crop factors, plus, plus - so many differences in the variables

Increased cost has never given the same incremental improvement in performance - it just does not happen that way

It is "horses for courses" - I have an M8, with expensive glass, a G1 and EP1 with the PL fixed and kit teles, plus a D300 with Nikkor and a S95 - I appreciate all the cams - this constant wanting to compare "apples with oranges" really does little good apart from creating polarised views which is not what "digital image taking" is about - just enjoy the stuff AND enjoy what you can afford - equipment is THAT good these days nomatter what it costs
--
Cheers

Bill
France

The focal planes are different for the Leica and the Pano, so hard to compare. The Leica seems to be back focused by quite a bit. Also DOF at the same aperture will be different for the lenses. The Pano would do for 99% of users I am sure. Differences in color rendering could be easily compensated in post. I looked at the pano as well- see how the lenses compare in regard of flares and highlights.

Hi Bill,

I agree mainly with what you say, I would just add that I quite enjoyed the comparison and I think for those that can't afford or don't want a Leica or have a GF1 it is an interesting and fun comparison, even if it isn't 100% scientific. I didn't find it contentious or polarising.

best

Howard

Hi Howard

yes I agree with you - such comparisons are fun and I am not saying that they should not be posted or that I dislike to read them - most take them in the "correct" spirit - I often do them and compare my M43 with the D300 and M8 - all that I usually conclude is that I just really appreciate good RF glass, the PL 20mm f1.7 and lots of legacy MF SLR lens.

A few people do, however, get really sensitive and up tight about any "anti Leica" comparisons - I wish that they would not as I think that it is a pity - I love my M8 - but it is the enjoyment that digital has brought to such a bigger photographic community (cf with film) that I applaud and your comparison is part of that enjoyment.

What I have realised since using digital cams is that all todays offerings are such good value and couple these with say, Lightroom 3, and you can have a "real good time"

Cheers

--
Cheers

Bill
France

how do you know that the RAW output from the E-PL1 is equal to the GF1 when you obviously haven't even used one.

your post and comments are obviously a joke and designed to ruffle feathers

steveleicaman said:

I chose the GF1 over the Oly for two reasons: 1. Faster AF. 2. Built in flash. Also the RAW output from the GF1 is IMO equal to the E-PL1

Click to expand...