I'm doubting the G1 will be a success ...

[rkhpedersen]

Why would you look at only the height when an image clearly is an area. Your math is correct but your conclusion is wrong.

It is clearly wrong to say that the Canon 50d sensor is only 10% bigger.

That said, I do think the G1 is one of the most exiting cameras to come out in a long time and awaiting the reviews I might just get one.

And really - there is no need for name calling.

 

[TEBnewyork]

It's beyond my mind why people consider lens interchangeability as a
con.

Because of the dreaded dust on the sensor.

I would rather have dust on a sensor that I could access/clean than one you can't. A number of compacts over the past year have had problems with with dust getting in and having to be sent to the manufacturer. Dust on the sensor with a cleaner is NOT a problem. You are making this a con that just is not a problem.
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

 

[SirSeth]

... and maybe even down on the universe to consider the G1 is going to flop. Unless you are reading through a very negative filter, nearly all that I have heard about the G1 is overwhelmingly positive. I'm skeptical that it will pull me away from DSLRs completely, but I'm very interested to try it and see if the AF and VF are as quick as folks have described.

DPReview considers MicroFT to be one of the most exciting developments in digital photography recently. I think the interest from the users is pretty high as well.

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[SirSeth]

But I believe you need to broaden your perspective.

1DS Mk III (35mm) = 864mm squared.
Nikon D60 (aps-c) = 373mm squared.
Canon 40D (aps-c) = 329mm squared.
Sigma DP1 (aps-c) = 286mm squared.
Oly E-3 (4/3rds) = 243mm squared.
2/3" digicam = 58mm squared.

Yes, 4/3rds is smaller than APS-c, but even APS-C varies quite a bit in size between companies. But really, check out the FF sensor (35mm) if you want to see a drastic increase in size. Then check out the 2/3" digicam sensor if you want to see a drastic decrease in size (and this is the largest of the digicam sensors). The "High End DSLRs" that your talking about are APS-C which vary and are in the same ball park as 4/3rds. 4/3rds is smallest of the group, but still very solidly in the middle group and significantly larger than any digicam sensor. All crop sensor DSLRs are much smaller than 35mm which I would consider the "High end" of DSLRs both in price and sensor area.

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[GregGory]

Yes I am sure that there is a market for smaller cameras, not so sure
that most will want the lens change, but that is a moot point ;-)

Changing on everyday basis and once every 2nd year when you upgrade the body is a different story... Eg. the R1 line would still be alive and doing well if there had been some threads that would have enabled the owners to remove that excellent piece of glass.

--

 

[GregGory]

because back in the film days we had nice small inexpensive compact
cameras that fit easily into a small bag or jacket pocket that took
exactly the same film as the most expensive 35 mm SLR (or leica).

and so if you wanted you could get a $50 olympus stylus epic with
it's sharp little fixed focal length lens and rival the sheer image
quality of a multi-thousand dollar setup.

True, because you were effectively upgrading every second week... Yes, back then the mechanic part + lens didn't get obsolete, because only films were improving. Lenses, like today, lasted decades, but so did the bodies so bolting them together was sensible, since they aged at the same pace. This is not true today, bodies become outdated in 1-2 years.

digital has yet to produce anything like that. oh, there are cameras
that may come close to the specs (DP2). but not for the price. i
don't know if digital will ever come near that price. those sorts of
cameras in the digital era don't appear to have enough market to
justify the design (though it'd largely be a parts bin camera, the
electronics are already paid for and a simple fixed focal length lens
wouldn't be expensive to design).

Because it's not viable for the mass market... Not many people can afford to buy a new body AND lens every 2nd year.

the R1 failed because it was SLR size and SLR price without a
compelling feature set. people dropping 2 grand on a camera in late
2005 had more capable options for less money. maybe if it had come
out a few years earlier than it did it might have made it. maybe if
it had been half the price (or less) that it was it would have made
it. the fact that you could buy a rebel xt and a couple of good
lenses and accessories pretty much killed it.

It failed because the hugely impressive lens was bolted to a body that was almost obsolete when it hit the market. Had Sony added a mount, or some threads, the owners could have removed the lens and slapped it on a new R2 body, that would have been very much competitive with the entry level DSLRs.

--

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

It failed because the hugely impressive lens was bolted to a body
that was almost obsolete when it hit the market. Had Sony added a
mount, or some threads, the owners could have removed the lens and
slapped it on a new R2 body, that would have been very much
competitive with the entry level DSLRs.

The body was never that good anyway! It was ok, but performance wise not too amazing, esp AF..ok normal light slow old dog low light. It also looked ugly and as many said, the EVF was not a substitute for a real viewfinder, not to knock it now, as the IQ and lens were and still are good.

But, you do know that you can get the equivalent lens for the sony alpha DSLR range, ok it's not cheap..but you have other options.

I don't mind bridge cameras, but it's obvious why sony dropped it..with their DSLR range out there, and selling so cheap at the A200 level..who would buy an R2??

 

[GregGory]

It's beyond my mind why people consider lens interchangeability as a
con. Please, explain WHY? Nobody says you have to change the lenses...

One reason that I reject DSLR is weight.
Having a mounting adds weight.

Please, how much weight does at plastic mount add? You might say

'plastic-only' but especially if you do not intend to change lenses 30 times a day, it's perfectly acceptable solution. Btw, weight and bulk is also a major parameter for me.

Nobody says you have to change the lenses.

But the other reason I rejected DSLR is discontent.
When I used to shoot with a film SLR, I managed to
acquire 5 lenses. It was handy for getting to know the
characteristics of various primes and stuff like that, but
in a sense, it was more than I needed to know.

You have to have a lot of control not to be tempted by
another lens.

I'm not following, are you advocating for a fixed lens camera cuz you have too many options with interchangeable? Super glue is the perfect fix.

I'm not sure that dust is as relevant as it used to be.
At camera dealers in Japan, I see two-or-three year-old used
compacts for sale with 'dust in sensor' or 'dust in lens': the
ability to able to open the camera for cleaning and the ability
to replace the lens may be a good thing.

But, for the time being, technological advance is going to
have you wanting a new camera every three years or so,
anyway.

Panasonic came late to digital still photography and is using its
company resources to make products that it hopes will sell.

The people involved in product design, which means making a
product targeted at specific consumers and a specific niche in
the market are testing themselves against the market and against
competing companies. They are not being judged by the God of
Photography, but by people with discretionary income who think
they want to take photographs.

The technicians who make the designs real certainly do not want
to cheat the consumer.

The G1 is first camera in an evolutionary line of cameras.

I think that the concept is quite exciting, especially the articulating
LCD on a larger format camera. About three years from now,
I reckon the descendants of the G1 will be very tempting indeed,
and not just to the current target of female consumers.

Panasonic may be onto something there. In Japan women are
extremely conscious of weight and size. For example, chop
sticks, tea cups and rice bowls come in male and female sizes.
Young men who heft cameras might be happy to build their
biceps, but there are still plenty of women who would be concerned
about developing bulges in what they would consider inappropriate
places.

Panasonic are bold enough to explore new territory in the
market. Good luck to them and to other makers. Every year
the amount of compromise between image quality and
portability is likely to keep on decreasing.

I don't think that the G1 yet offers a big enough step up
in image quality to tempt me to carry one around, but the
next few years are likely to more interesting because of it.

That's a fair choice, if the G1 is still too large for you, but some people for some reason don't consider the F100fs, FZ50, R1 too large, but the G1, yes...

--

 

[GregGory]

It's beyond my mind why people consider lens interchangeability as a
con.

Because of the dreaded dust on the sensor.

Urban legend. Having an effective dust buster, it really is a non-issue, and once in a while when you get sticky dust, it's not the sensor you are cleaning, but the dust filter.

--

 

[GregGory]

I think Panasonic sees the G1 as the true expression of what 4/3 was
intended to be from the beginning, while Olympus sees it as an
opportunity to bring true DSLR quality to a sophisticated pocket
camera. I think they are both headed in profitable directions. There
is plenty of room for both cameras in today's active market, in my
mind.

Exactly, the m43 system has to 'take off', this can be done by demonstrating the potential. Launching two very different offerings is an excellent way of doing this.

--

 

[Martin Frost]

(1) I say, there is a huge difference between DSLR-sized sensors and typical Bridge-cam-Sensors, but a small difference between DSLR-sized sensors.

Regarding Noise the pixel densisity counts.

5.0 MP/cm² (G1) versus 4.5 MP/cm² (50D) versus 35 MP/cm² (Canon SX10).

According to dpreview.

Now saying the G1 would have a to small sensor is simply nonsense ( just 10% difference in pixel densitiy, is that the decision between good and evil ), but its an easy way to put down the 4/3 sensors, so you can have an easy effect on the forums. I do not believe that the sensors area is "linearly" important because in theory on smaller sensors you can apply more expensive technology ( see the astonishing Fuji bridge cameras ) , but the size has some impact, so I only counted one dimension in my first reply. I think when you count only one sensor dimension, you are more close to the effect that the size has on noise in theory.

(2) If the G1 is not up to the 50D noise-wise then thats a question of technology, not a question of the so extremely small G1 sensor size. So the micro4/3 is ok, its just a few generations away from very good noise. But I dont only look at noise at Iso3200 when I buy a camera , so for me the noise of the G1 is already ok

(3) regarding name-calling, no one knows which name is behind a nick like "pixelizer", but I even did not call the name "pixelizer". I wanted to say, there is not much value seeing posts which always hit into the same argument, Canon-APS would be great and 4/3 to small and the reason would be size.

cheers
Martin F.

 

[Anton A Tongue]

One reason that I reject DSLR is weight.
Having a mounting adds weight.

Please, how much weight does at plastic mount add? You might say
'plastic-only' but especially if you do not intend to change lenses
30 times a day, it's perfectly acceptable solution. Btw, weight and
bulk is also a major parameter for me.

Whatever the material, a mount is always going
to add weight and, especially, bulk.

I'm not following, are you advocating for a fixed lens camera cuz you
have too many options with interchangeable? Super glue is the perfect
fix.

As I said:

You have to have a lot of control not to be tempted by
another lens.

It's not the options that bother, it's the temptation to
buy lenses that I only think I need. I am often not as strong
and rational as I would like to be.

--
No rocks impede thy dimpling course.

 

[Lee Jay]

In other words, not a real threat to their
DSLR establishment. Elitism is at work here, and it's a powerful
factor in marketing.

It's not elitism, it's a wish to get the shots you want to get.

A dSLR viewfinder uses no power, provides an image with zero latency, and has very high resolution. An EVF has none of those, with only the resolution issue capable of being eliminated by technology.

Having a mirror allows phase-detection autofocus, and all the huge benefits that brings in speed and tracking.

Having access to larger format sensors allows, in this case, 2-stops of extra performance in high-ISO and shallow-DOF. If you want/need those stops for the type of photography you enjoy, this system will prevent you from getting to them.

So, micro 4/3 will prevent me from framing fast-moving subjects as reliably as I do now because of the low-res and latency issues with its viewfinder, will prevent me from getting those subjects in focus if I do manage to frame them, and prevent me from getting access to two extra stops of performance that I commonly use. Therefore, I'm not interested. That's not elitism, it's just a desire to get the shots I like to get.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[GregGory]

One reason that I reject DSLR is weight.
Having a mounting adds weight.

Please, how much weight does at plastic mount add? You might say
'plastic-only' but especially if you do not intend to change lenses
30 times a day, it's perfectly acceptable solution. Btw, weight and
bulk is also a major parameter for me.

Whatever the material, a mount is always going
to add weight and, especially, bulk.

Look at the 39mm RF leicas (and their clones). The mount adds virtually nothing to the bulk.

I'm not following, are you advocating for a fixed lens camera cuz you
have too many options with interchangeable? Super glue is the perfect
fix.

As I said:

You have to have a lot of control not to be tempted by
another lens.

It's not the options that bother, it's the temptation to
buy lenses that I only think I need. I am often not as strong
and rational as I would like to be.

Get the 14-140 + 2 drops of superglue. Your 'temptation' sorted, and I don't have to buy a new lens when I upgrade the body.

--

 

[Gregm61]

TEBnewyork wrote:
All anyone has talked about is focus tracking, which is great, but
what happens while you're tracking that moving subject when you press
the shutter button to take that first image in a burst? Will you
still be able to follow the subject or will the finder freeze, ever
so little momentarily and kill any chance you have of continuing an
accurate bust?

What, just like a DSLR blacks out, obviously killing any chance you
have of doing the same thing with a DSLR anyway?

You've obviously never used a DSLR to do what I'm talking about. This isn't the 1950's when a DSLR's mirror had to be reset to open the screen back up. That "blackout" is so short it doesn't affect viewing at all.

An Electronic finder, on the other hand, will freeze when you press the release down to lock focus and exposure, making it impossible after the first image to track a subject in the finder and get an accurate second shot. It's not even real time as you view. The G1 will evidently focus track without having to press the release down, but you do have to eventually press the release down to take a picture, and unless Panasonic has designed this camera for continuous streaming video in the finder (doubtful), it will freeze momentarily when you do this and you will "lose" the ability to follow the subject just like you do today with any other finder of this type.

 

[Gregm61]

... and the DSLR will black out longer, since it has to physically
flip a mirror around and then wait for the vibrations to die down
before it can get accurate AF tracking data again. The G1 still has
to do switching, but it's all electronic.

I've used both types. It is impossible to shoot continuous bursts of action with EVF's of today as well (actually, at all) as you can with a DSLR. Again, unless Panasonic has designed this finder with continuous, zero delay video up to and through the time the release is actually pressed to take the picture, the momentary freeze every EVF goes through the moment a picture is shot, combined with the delay already there because it's still a video view, will make following and continuously shooting a moving subject impossible.

This new finder of the G1 is obviously going to be the very best of it's type ever built, but this isn't the holy grail of finders many think it's going to be.

 

[Martin Muehlemann]

... and the DSLR will black out longer, since it has to physically
flip a mirror around and then wait for the vibrations to die down
before it can get accurate AF tracking data again. The G1 still has
to do switching, but it's all electronic.

I've used both types. It is impossible to shoot continuous bursts of
action with EVF's of today as well (actually, at all) as you can with
a DSLR. Again, unless Panasonic has designed this finder with
continuous, zero delay video up to and through the time the release
is actually pressed to take the picture, the momentary freeze every
EVF goes through the moment a picture is shot, combined with the
delay already there because it's still a video view, will make
following and continuously shooting a moving subject impossible.

This new finder of the G1 is obviously going to be the very best of
it's type ever built, but this isn't the holy grail of finders many
think it's going to be.

Thing that i have no really read in any review/preview so far. Is it really going to be that way?

--
Sony Alpha 300 | 17-50/2.8 | 55-200
http://www.muehlemann-pix.ch

 

[Lee Jay]

Thing that i have no really read in any review/preview so far. Is it
really going to be that way?

The dpReview video shows slow AF, classical contrast-detect overshoot, and a very long blackout.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1/page10.asp
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Jay Gloab630253]

Thing that i have no really read in any review/preview so far. Is it
really going to be that way?

The dpReview video shows slow AF, classical contrast-detect
overshoot, and a very long blackout.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1/page10.asp

Two things:

1. I would characterize the AF as very fast, particularly compared with any non-DSLR;

2. That video does not show the continuous shooting mode. The blackout may be related from the camera switching from Live View to the 3-second review of the image after the shot. During continuous mode there is no review. It remains to be seen whether there's an appreciable blackout between shots in continuous mode. If so, it can't be much and still be able to shoot at 3 fps.
--
-Jay

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

 

[Lee Jay]

Thing that i have no really read in any review/preview so far. Is it
really going to be that way?

The dpReview video shows slow AF, classical contrast-detect
overshoot, and a very long blackout.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1/page10.asp

Two things:

1. I would characterize the AF as very fast, particularly compared
with any non-DSLR;

It's no faster than my little Canon S3IS, which I don't consider fast at all.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)