Reading mode: Light Dark

G3, the modern take on a rangefinder.

Go to last post
B

Brian Mosley

Forum Pro
Messages
20,742
Reaction score
169
Location
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England, UK
It appears to me, that Panasonic have pretty much delivered a camera with inbuilt EVF to the left corner. Consider the G3 vs G2 :



by shaving the left of the camera down, the EVF appears much further to the top left corner. For those with the G3, does the camera now allow you to compose with your right eye, while keeping your left eye visible?

Also, the grip has reduced to something which looks more like an add on to a rangefinder than a shrunken DSLR.

Am I missing something? this appears to be a modern take on the rangefinder style camera.

I understand the retro beauty of the E-P3 - but in terms of consumer grade practicality, the G3 seems to be a success, and let's face it... any digital camera is consumable these days.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
 
I'd say that anything with a viewfinder hump will always visually look more like an SLR than a rangefinder, no-matter how thin you make it (think Olympus OM, you wouldn't call them rangerfinder styled even tho they're considerably thinner than contemporary SLRs)
 
Hi Brian, yes you can definitely compose with your right eye and keep the left open with full viewing.

--
Mark.
 
No way. I remember I had a Panny FZ-8 with a similar FF, and while very light the cruciform shape took a lot more space than a Pen.

I think the design problem which is still not solved is how to design a flat Leica like shape a' la X100 with ILS and a flat viewfinder. The NX10/20 comes closest, but it has a small, poor EVF. The X100 VF can survive because it has an optical part

It seems therefore that the EVF technology is not mature enough to offer a flat camera with a powerful EVF, unless you go seriously beyond the Pen's size.

Therefore I don't mind an add on EVF to keep a camera both flat and small. But if I had to make a prediction I would hear Epson first, on how far they can still miniaturise. But I suspect it's not a matter of months.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
mark1000 said:
Hi Brian, yes you can definitely compose with your right eye and keep the left open with full viewing.
Click to expand...
So, in terms of practical use (granted it is not a 'retro-styled' design) Panasonic have delivered a heck of a lot in a tiny package.

That's my point - if you're not looking for a camera with 'Soul' then the G3 seems to be a very practical solution.

Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a romantic as well as an engineer... so I'm likely to want both!

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
 
Brian Mosley said:
I'll have to try one first. I'll organise some more Safari Group outings and will no doubt get the opportunity soon!

I've also been thinking about the Lumix 7-14mm f4... I sold my ZD 7-14 a while ago, and I miss the 7mm perspective.





Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
Missed your landscape stone wall shots Brian.

--
Mark.
 
it will keep my nose off the back of the camera.
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
 
Brian, you make a very valid point. The G3 comes very close to what people have been asking for some time. The problem is that people will always find reasons for complaint. What if Olympus/Panasonic came up with a built-in but smaller EVF? People would complain that the EVF was too small, or that this or that button had been removed, or that it doesn't have the shutter speed dial a la old cameras and X100, or whatever.

Personally, I find the G3 an astonishing piece of photographic gear. All that functionality and performance in such a small body. That was unthinkable until a few years ago!

I can see how the bump (and mostly the way it extends to the back) limits the pocketability of the G3. But let's not forget that its basic body size is similar to the PEN E-PL2, and that the X100 is bigger than that. So whichever way you do it, the EVF adds some bulk to the camera.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
Brian Mosley said:
So, in terms of practical use (granted it is not a 'retro-styled' design) Panasonic have delivered a heck of a lot in a tiny package.
Click to expand...
Brian Mosley said:
That's my point - if you're not looking for a camera with 'Soul' then the G3 seems to be a very practical solution.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of 'soul'. The hump makes it substantially bulkier than the flat body of the same footprint, which is disastrous for pocketability. That's a very practical consequence.
 
The X100 may be flat but still isn't really a pocket camera. I've come the the conclusion that the best solution for a pocket camera is something like the X-Z1. You get a useful focal length range with a very fast lens. If it truly needs to be pocketable that is what will go with me.

I think the smallest lens you will see for the system is the 14 that we already have.

Attach that to the X100 body and you are still at the same size. I also don't see going smaller than the X100 unless we move backwards and go for a smaller LCD. Any smaller than X100 size without a smaller screen means cramped controls or touch screen....we see the feedback from getting rid of buttons or the feedback on this forum about the NEX.

Don't forget the little Leica CL/Contax/etc. film camera that were so small didn't have to deal with the buttons associated with electronics or image review on an LCD. You could shrink everything down by putting in an EVF and getting rid of the LCD - how would that fly?

There is a practical limit on usability/big sensor/lenses needed.
fermy said:
Brian Mosley said:
So, in terms of practical use (granted it is not a 'retro-styled' design) Panasonic have delivered a heck of a lot in a tiny package.
Click to expand...
fermy said:
That's my point - if you're not looking for a camera with 'Soul' then the G3 seems to be a very practical solution.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of 'soul'. The hump makes it substantially bulkier than the flat body of the same footprint, which is disastrous for pocketability. That's a very practical consequence.
Click to expand...
--
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com
 
The DMC-L1 had the boxy style. the far left positioned viewfinder, and traditional analogue controls. But it was still TTL which to me omits one of the most compelling advantages of a rangefinder - being able to see outside the frame. Still it was clearly manufactured to look like a rangefinder.

The G3 while a promising camera (I have one on order to replace my G1) looks like a miniaturized DSLR to me. And like many compact (D)SLRs it "prism hump" is higher than the body and slightly left of center, which allows you to see with both eyes.

But a Fuji X100 it isn't. Still has SLR styling queues. TTL viewing. No traditional analog controls. Hope Pany and others come out with a compact interchangeable lens rangefinder styled compact. But I don't think the G3 is it.

--
Regards
Jim
 
TEBnewyork said:
The X100 may be flat but still isn't really a pocket camera. I've come the the conclusion that the best solution for a pocket camera is something like the X-Z1. You get a useful focal length range with a very fast lens. If it truly needs to be pocketable that is what will go with me.
Click to expand...
TEBnewyork said:
I think the smallest lens you will see for the system is the 14 that we already have.

Attach that to the X100 body and you are still at the same size. I also don't see going smaller than the X100 unless we move backwards and go for a smaller LCD. Any smaller than X100 size without a smaller screen means cramped controls or touch screen....we see the feedback from getting rid of buttons or the feedback on this forum about the NEX.
Click to expand...
I disagree on size. First, there are plenty of P&S cameras with decent controls. LX-3/5 spring to mind. Or just take E-PL2 and add a narrow thumbwheel, that will provide enough controls for an excellent UI. Then, take a look at the back of E-PL1. If they moved the flash under the hot shoe, removed the screen bezel and moved the LCD to the very bottom and left, there would be enough room to fit an EVF and a thumbwheel (Fn and magnification buttons have to move a bit). So I see at least two very attractive pocketable possibilities.

1) EPL-3 sized camera v/o VF, but with thumbwheel.
2) EPL-1 sized camera with an EVF.
TEBnewyork said:
Don't forget the little Leica CL/Contax/etc. film camera that were so small didn't have to deal with the buttons associated with electronics or image review on an LCD. You could shrink everything down by putting in an EVF and getting rid of the LCD - how would that fly?
Click to expand...
One could do that as well, however IMO that wouldn't be very popular. My thinking is that as LCDs and antireflective coatings improve, EVF would become unnecessary.
TEBnewyork said:
There is a practical limit on usability/big sensor/lenses needed.
Click to expand...
I think we are far away from this limit yet. For example, I think 3 inch LCDs are not needed, 2.8 high resolution LCD with good anti glare would do. Here's the camera that I did use extensively and was quite happy with controls.



I can see myself being completely happy with usability of the camera of the same size. Pared with 14/20/45mm lenses, that would be a very pocketable solution.
 
Interesting to see where it will all fit. Here are the dimensions we are working with...the Canon (which I own as well) doesn't leave a lot of space for an EVF even with it's smaller screen and even if you lose the bottom buttons and it isn't much smaller than the current m4/3 cameras. here are all the dimensions (no lens on m4/3's)

Canon.........108 x 72 x 47 (lens retracted)
G3..............115 x 84 x 47
E-PL2..........114 x 72 x 42
E-P3............122 x 69 x 34
X100...........126 x 75 x 54
--
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com
 
that form should follow function, not the other way around. the leica is beautiful only because it is designed with this principle in mind - you can take nothing from its design without compromising it.

in this sense - doing without an EVF altogether in order to mimic a certain look or shrinking it in order to make it fit to size while compromising its functionality is an assault on usability, aesthetics and common sense. according to the modernist dogma, it is ugly.

what makes a beautiful sports car? is it not it's low profile and streamlined contours? well - they serve a purpose as well: keeping the center of mass as close as possible to the asphalt and improving aerodynamics. the same applies to the human body and that of animals - it is beautiful because it is well adapted to its environment and to the functions it should perform.

i'm glad that the panasonic industrial designers have more sense than the ones employed by olympus. the retro / RF chic fad is the probably the reason olympus has come up so far with crippled, impractical and uninspired design.

if you are a leica fan do yourself a favor and get a leica m9, X1, fuji X100 or what not. the rest of us (even though sometimes it may seem i'm the only person on that camp) would prefer cameras that are a joy to use and look at because they are designed with purpose in mind.

--
Jonathan
 
Unnfortunately for your contention the first Leicas were very similar in shape to the Pens, as a user, Peter, remarked here,.

The goal of Barnack was to make them as pocketable as possible. Therefore the viewfinder was an add on. Only later, when Leica found a way to integrate a viewfinder without ruining the FF, they had a built in one.

Which presumably will happen too in time with the Pens. That of course doesn't prevent people enjoy faux-dSLR, this has been discussed already.

However after a poll it emerged that people here prefer the compact shape. Perhaps people have not lost 'the modernist dogma' after all, whatever it may mean to you.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
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