EVF on the G1

<p>Godfrey, I am sure if you had the test bench equipment that Dpreview has you could turn in even better reviews because your inclinations on what works is spot on.<br>

For me the wide end of the U4/3 is the place where my great legacy fast glass is not wide enough. My 25mm Zeiss Biogon is one of the best M mount lenses ever but its max f2.8 and my 21mm Voigtlander is f4.0 but very tiny. My fast glass starts at 28mm f2.0, 35mm f2.0, 50mm super fast f1.2 and 85mm f1.4. I never worried about speed indoors because my flash covers at least the 24mm field, and outdoors F4.0 is no problem. It would be nice if they could make a 12mm f2.0 prime but how many people would buy it?</p>

<p>For ultrawide FoV, the solution will be simple: buy the Lumix G 7-14/4 when it appears. High speed is rarely all that desireable for ultrawide anyway, and f/4 is pretty fast for a lens with that FoV range. </p>

<p>That, and the other three lenses I mentioned above, are just about all I need/want for the G1, my FourThirds SLR lens kit notwithstanding. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>I forgot I have a Pentax Takumar 135mm f/2.3 that would become a 270mm with SMC coated lens.<br>

Your Idea on the 7-14 mm sounds good thats a very wide lens covering real 14mm view on the wide end so even if its not good below 9mm its still wide enough for just about anything. On the long end at 28mm should be excellent if a little slower than my f/ 2.0 but it covers up gaps I have in primes due to the enormous 2x cropping factor.<br>

Say Godfrey, a 12mp u4/3 sensor is say 1/4 the size of full frame 35mm frame in area isn't it. Doesn't that mean that you could fit 48mp if the sensor was made that big with the same density?<br>

Have you noticed the images having more resolution or its just proportional, I ask because I am sure that if a FF camera had 48mp it would exceed the lens' ability to resolve anywhere near that much on a 35mm 36x24mm frame.</p>

<p>I don't think in so-called "full frame" terms, Harvey. A 7-14mm lens covers the ultrawide range I use very nicely on the FourThirds format, where I'll probably be using 10-12mm with it most of the time. The Olympus 11-22 hits the same numbers too: I find myself most often in the 11-14mm range when I'm using it, and it comes right up to the wide-normal range. </p>

<p>The G1's sensor puts 3000 photosites in 13mm, or about 230 photosites per mm. Without adding in the resolution loss of the antialiasing filter, that means the G1 can resolve at maximum 115 line pairs per mm. That's well beyond the vast majority of even high quality lenses, but not out of reach for some (my Pentax A50/2.8 Macro lens has been tested on an optical bench and maxes out at around 130 LP@mm). </p>

<p>In a series of tests with the Olympus ZD 35mm Macro lens, comparing the E-1 (5Mpixel), L1 (7.5 Mpixel) and G1 (12 Mpixel) ... Yes indeed, there is definitely a nice improvement in resolution over the other two. For long lens work it's not as significant, but for wide lens work on highly detailed subject matter it can certainly make a big difference. I've not yet done a detailed test with the Olympus 11-22 lens regards this improvement, however, and that's one of the sharpest FourThirds lenses around. </p>

<p>Most of my older 35mm SLR lenses are showing their limitations on the G1 body ... the Pentax M50/1.4 certainly does, so does the Nikkor 180/2.8. But those two lenses are 30+ years old: I expect modern lenses to produce better results.</p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>Godfrey, thanks for sharing your real-world experience. The pepole at the manufacturer seem to find difficulty in sharing correct info on the compatibility within the 4/3 and M4/3 systems.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm also looking forward to see 20/1.7 on the shelf as soon as possible. 40/1.4 Nokton seems attractive, but I suspect it would render soft image wide open because of its "classic" design. Same thing goes with Nokton 35/1.4. Has anyone tried Nokton 35/1.2 aspherical with G1?!</p>

<p>i was reading through this thread and then stoped and had to post this before reading the rest. I too wanted to see Godfrey's cameras with the lenses, especially the L1 ( My favorit design of the 4/3 cameras) and then he posted the pics with an actual scale for scale...lol, I thought that was quite aproprait, and i also smile because so many people think those are rulers. I got an accociats in architecture now im Going for a BS in engineering,(i know wrong way to do it) and it always erks me when i help freshmen and they are calling the scales rulers... sorry for the randomness, thats how my mind works sometimes</p>

Getting back to the EVF question posed... Yes, you'll have to try it. I bought mine sight-unseen, and my first views though it in good light

were reassuringly positive: Looks like a very decent finder, if a little lacking in ability to see much highlight detail (like in strong sunbeams).

But in poor light, things begin to get ugly. It gains Way up in even moderately low light, making available light scenes appear flood-lit.

 

It's all a lot easier to take on the LCD, mostly because it's not enlarged by an optic and you're viewing it from a distance. And the LCD is

great on the G1. But I'm still trying to come to terms w/the EVF, I suppose it's both it's best & worst feature...