GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Started Mar 4, 2009 | Discussions
OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: I'm not a Canon fan, Liza!

linuxworks wrote:

in my experience, the
only way to edit that is to expand it (like going mp3 to wav) then
edit, then recompress again.

I edit MP4 all the time, directly.

this is NOT any kind of 'HD' that I consider useful! if its not
really editable then its a toy. an add-on to a stills cam but NOT a
really GOOD video camera.

Your criteria for "really good" video camera seem to be all about the format, which you don't really seem to understand.

What makes this a fantastic video camera is it captures images of a quality no video camera for less than $18,000 can.

people seem to forget that shooting original video usually means
editing it. with DV, its pretty close to lossless source (close) but
with higher layer compression being the NATIVE file format, I'm not
sure this is true video cam 'replacement'.

The entire industry, from consumer to professional uses a compressed format. And you're wrong, DV was also a compressed format. Some people are working on fancy cameras that capture RAW HD, but they are at least $15,000 or more.

solid state flash cards are just NOT going to fly for quality video.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

this is one reason why it does not justify such pro-level (entry)
pricing.

LOL! Yeah, $1,500 is too much because it doesn't do what a $150,000 camera does!

-- hide signature --
OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Lens weight correlates to manufacturing cost

Ehrik wrote:

Well, if comperable lenses are cheaper, then I guess people can use
them.

Lens weight is a good first indicator of what a lens should cost,
since big optical elements quickly goes up in price. The Oly 7-14 and
the Nikon 14-24 both weigh a lot more than the Lumix. The Lumix must
be the by far most expensive 300g DSLR lens not literally handmade in
Germany.

Of course, as you hint, since there is no competition in this mount,
they can take whatever they want, no matter what the lens costs to
manufacture.

No, my point is, if there's a better lens out there, you can use it on THIS CAMERA.

Just get an adapter.

DjarumBlack Senior Member • Posts: 1,444
Re: The whole purpose _is_ the proper video

Arn wrote:

DjarumBlack wrote:

Martin Datzinger wrote:
because people who don't want video can just buy the normal G1.

Yes, but you get raked over the coals if you want the 14-140mm lens
as well, and thats what many folks, like me, want.

Exactly. Like I said, I don't find the price of the body or the kit
that outrageous, but the fact that the lenses bought separately are
so overpriced. It seems quite unreasonable to buy the G1 + 14-140 +
7-14. Such a high priced set suddenly isn't an appealing low cost and
light weight solution, when it's priced as high as semi pro DSLR
systems. There's a lot of high quality options with that money.

I may have to take a hard look at the samsung offering.

My original intent, if I purchased the G1, was to use the kit lens when traveling or just general photography. If I was hiking or something like that, or I felt I needed the zoom, I'd just take a 14-140mm lens, which would still be as small as some 3x type apc-s lenses.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Do you need/want video--really??!

To me, being able to shoot stills is a nice little feature on my Cinema Camera.

Really, moving pictures are the primary thing I make, and this is the best camera out there for that... I looked long and hard before finding this camera. The other DSLRS are really compromised for video, even though they don't have to be.

Of course, in a couple years things will be better. I might buy another camera then. But this should easily last me 2 years.

Diane B wrote:

LizaWitz wrote:

For photographers, the G1 makes a lot more sense.

For videographers, the competition for this camera starts in the
$5,000 range.

snip>

But given the state of the market right now-- and if you aren't using
the video feature, then this isn't the camera for you anyway--
there's really not much of an alternative.

I do think people need to assess their need/want for video. When the
5DII came out I first thought of how I could use it 'creatively' (I
knew I wouldn't shoot narrative driven videos) and finally decided
that though it would be fun for awhile to experiment, it was highly
unlikely I would ever really use it for more than that--and would
grow tired of it quickly and go back to what I really enjoy--stills.

So--I'm very happy that, for now, Panasonic has decided to offer both
the G1 and the GHD1--and those of us that don't want video won't pay
the premium for it. I also don't think that the upgrade for now will
offer that much for those of us shooting only stills. Wait
awhile--if this is successful, there will be a G2.

Diane
-----------------------
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic

DjarumBlack Senior Member • Posts: 1,444
Re: Lens weight correlates to manufacturing cost

LizaWitz wrote:

Ehrik wrote:

Well, if comperable lenses are cheaper, then I guess people can use
them.

Lens weight is a good first indicator of what a lens should cost,
since big optical elements quickly goes up in price. The Oly 7-14 and
the Nikon 14-24 both weigh a lot more than the Lumix. The Lumix must
be the by far most expensive 300g DSLR lens not literally handmade in
Germany.

Of course, as you hint, since there is no competition in this mount,
they can take whatever they want, no matter what the lens costs to
manufacture.

No, my point is, if there's a better lens out there, you can use it
on THIS CAMERA.

Just get an adapter.

If you read my previous post, you will see why this is NOT attractive, as a consumer. Sure, there are bettter or less expensive lenses, but they aren't as small or lightweight, and that is the intent and goal of owning this camera.

We can only hope that Sigma, Oly, or Tamron get on board to make competitive lenses. My guess, however, is that the focusing system is patented, and this may prove to be difficult.

If I wanted larger lenses and better lenses, I would purchase a Canon or Nikon.

angelo_sellers Junior Member • Posts: 31
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Some things for every one to keep in mind.

1) You're not just paying for manufacturing costs or the cost of glass. You're paying for the R & D that went into developing these lenses. Over time, this premium will go away. It's like the old pharmaceutical joke, "How can you charge so much for a $0.10 pill? Answer - the 2nd pill cost $.10. The first pill cost $100,000,000."

2) You're essentially replacing two devices with this camera (assuming that both perform well). Even if you don't see yourself utilizing the video a lot, ask yourself if you would take your camera and cam-corder on vacation. Last summer the entire fam damily went to Alaska. My mom was walking around with an old FZ for stills and a Canon camcorder. Brand new, those 2 devices cost her 1500 or 1600 and she doesn't even get HD video nor can she take a picture above ISO 100.

For the same amount, I can theoretically get 1 device that will take better pictures and full 1080p movies. It will take some saving and budgeting, but I would buy that just for the convenience of carrying one device when the wife and I go to Europe. Again, this is assuming that the reviews for the camera indicate the image/movie quality that we're all expecting.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: The whole purpose _is_ the proper video

The 14-140 was designed for HD video. If that wide a range is valuable to you, then pay the price.

If you think its overpriced, and you know a better lens, then buy that lens and use an adapter.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

John wood wrote:

Then they have nothing to complain about because they can get the G1.

Arn
Arn Veteran Member • Posts: 3,589
Re: The whole purpose _is_ the proper video

LizaWitz wrote:

The 14-140 was designed for HD video. If that wide a range is
valuable to you, then pay the price.

If you think its overpriced, and you know a better lens, then buy
that lens and use an adapter.

That kind of takes the point away of buying a new and small body for hiking/travelling? Especially if the adapter removes AF (I'm assuming that AF doesn't work with the adapter?). No offence, but you're sounding awfully defensive about this GH1 / lenses announcement. As a Panasonic user, I would take it as a compliment that so many DSLR users are interested in the product in the first place and are discussing it here.

-- hide signature --
 Arn's gear list:Arn's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Samsung NX20 Sony a7 Samsung NX1 +27 more
OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Found a cheaper lens? Buy it!

Dayd3 wrote:

I don't understand those who say - "buy G1 if you don't need video".
It's not problem with camera bodies prices but with new lenses
prices. Both new lenses are by far too expensive for most of us who
just needs good and smaller photocamera and not videocamera.

Then buy a Leica M lens, they are rangefinder sized and great quality. Oh wait, they're expensive too? Hmmm... I wonder why?

If you want a cheap lens the canon FD series are high quality and inexpensive since they are "obsolete". You can buy them for this camera with an adapter. They're just not small and light.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Folks have different ideas about affordable

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

The G1HD looks like a video buffs dream come true, it's probably a
bit saucy cost wise for most folks, esp those coming from superzooms
etc. One for video folks..more than photographers IMO

Absolutely, and it allows the G1 to go down in price.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

ecaton wrote:

Maybe affordable to many (despite the economy), but still very
steeply priced. For those not caring about video, there will be much
"more affordable" alternatives, some of which outperforming the GH1
and lens (eg Nikon 90, Oly 620, Canon 450 etc).

Silly to compare the GH1 to those other cameras as the GH1 is a video camera.

Get a G1 or get the other cameras if you wish.

But for what the GH1 does, there is no comperable camera on the market anywhere near the price.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

DriftForge wrote:

Yes, likely around $3k in Australia.. for that money you can get D300
or E3 with a good lens. Not saying the camera is overpriced, but you
best be placing real value on the video capability for it to be
worthwhile.

IF you didn't place value on the video feature, then why not get a G1?

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
What is this G1 you speak of?

Nobody here has apparently heard of it.

JortS29 wrote:

ecaton wrote:

Maybe affordable to many (despite the economy), but still very
steeply priced. For those not caring about video, there will be much
"more affordable" alternatives, some of which outperforming the GH1
and lens (eg Nikon 90, Oly 620, Canon 450 etc).

Umm..for those not interested in Video, Panasonic offers the G1 as a
more affordable alternative. As for the lens, we don't have a clue
how it performs, so let's not assume too much there.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: The street price of G1 w basic kit is under 700 dollars

This zoom lens has a focusing technology that's never existed before, in any lens, and you think it should cost the same as a third rate plastic knockoff lens?

antoineb wrote:

add 200-300 for the big zoom, add 50-100 (max) for video,

you get a kit GH1 below 1'000 dollars for sure, actual price.

which is still far from cheap or affordable - but is certainly
competitive.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Probably, and I might do that since I will probably be shooting with primes.

I expect it will be just a bit more than the G1 in body only.

Those will work fine with video- the thing about the HD lens is that the focusing is silent....these other lenses are louder when they focus, and that silence adds to the cost of the lens.

IF you use an extrernal mic (Eg: one not mounted right above the lens) you may not have any issues with the noise of the lens when it focuses.

Or you can lock focus before you start shooting video.

newpentaxfan wrote:

Will it be possible to buy this camera without the kit lens?

I'd be interested in the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 as a two-lens kit. Will
those primes work with video?

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Very true, and that casual video you shoot will compete with video from cameras costing $5,000 or more.

I really don't think $1,500 is that much for this camera-- I'd expect to pay that much for this quality of a still camera with that lens. Essentially getting the video for free.

angelo_sellers wrote:

Some things for every one to keep in mind.

1) You're not just paying for manufacturing costs or the cost of
glass. You're paying for the R & D that went into developing these
lenses. Over time, this premium will go away. It's like the old
pharmaceutical joke, "How can you charge so much for a $0.10 pill?
Answer - the 2nd pill cost $.10. The first pill cost $100,000,000."

2) You're essentially replacing two devices with this camera
(assuming that both perform well). Even if you don't see yourself
utilizing the video a lot, ask yourself if you would take your camera
and cam-corder on vacation. Last summer the entire fam damily went
to Alaska. My mom was walking around with an old FZ for stills and a
Canon camcorder. Brand new, those 2 devices cost her 1500 or 1600
and she doesn't even get HD video nor can she take a picture above
ISO 100.

For the same amount, I can theoretically get 1 device that will take
better pictures and full 1080p movies. It will take some saving and
budgeting, but I would buy that just for the convenience of carrying
one device when the wife and I go to Europe. Again, this is assuming
that the reviews for the camera indicate the image/movie quality that
we're all expecting.

John wood Senior Member • Posts: 1,662
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

LizaWitz wrote:

John wood wrote:

Then they have nothing to complain about because they can get the G1.

-- hide signature --

They can get the G1 at the moment yes,but in the future?

I understand the HD video argument,but if Panasonic drop the G1 in favour of the GH1 it will IMHO be a disaster for them simply because the majority of their customers don't actually want/need HD video.
That then leaves Panasonic down another dead end aka L1,L10.

Thats why I think its not worth it to "most" of Panasonic's (stills photography)customers which it is clearly aimed at.

My opinion is just that.

andyrox Contributing Member • Posts: 956
Re: GH1 is going to be Affordable!

Dayd3 wrote:

I don't understand those who say - "buy G1 if you don't need video".
It's not problem with camera bodies prices but with new lenses
prices. Both new lenses are by far too expensive for most of us who
just needs good and smaller photocamera and not videocamera.

Agree. The proposed price of the 14-140 sets it out as a HD video lens for the impressive GH1, not as a reasonable option (pricewise) for many, even most G1 users who want a versatile walkabout lens.

The pricing of the 14-140 seems to mean that the 'lens' appears to have deserted the G1, which wasn't really the first impression when the lens was originally unveiled.

Andy

Dayd3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,034
Re: Found a cheaper lens? Buy it!

LizaWitz wrote:

Dayd3 wrote:

I don't understand those who say - "buy G1 if you don't need video".
It's not problem with camera bodies prices but with new lenses
prices. Both new lenses are by far too expensive for most of us who
just needs good and smaller photocamera and not videocamera.

Then buy a Leica M lens, they are rangefinder sized and great
quality. Oh wait, they're expensive too? Hmmm... I wonder why?

IMO Panny is comparable to Oly and Zuiko and not to Leica. That's why I don't expect Leica prices here.

If you want a cheap lens the canon FD series are high quality and
inexpensive since they are "obsolete". You can buy them for this
camera with an adapter. They're just not small and light.

Good, inexpensive and small lenses are main factors which can attract me to m4/3 standard, not small camera with extraordinary costly small lenses and ability to manualy focus dSLR lenses. For big dSLR lenses I don't need small camera body. If lens weights 1kg or even more what's the advantage of small and light camera body?

 Dayd3's gear list:Dayd3's gear list
Olympus E-PL7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Sigma 19mm F2.8 DN | A Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads