G1 and 1&1/3 image quality compared to 40D/D300?

<blockquote>

<p>PS - I use little tiny 2/3rds (8.8x6.6mm) capture and print regularly to 19 x 13 " flawlessly, and have had no "quality" rejections from iStockphoto, for instance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, Good to hear about your successful experience. If were you, I would stick to my winning combination of that mysterious, tiny 2/3rds camera and not speculate about larger sensors and how they might perform better in reality.</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p>Hi Vivek,</p>

<p>Ever the ornery arguer, you are. Me, too! No use trying to dis' me over any "mysterious" 2/3rds camera since</p>

<ul>

<li>(a) anyone clicking on my name here at photo.net gets more than a clue *, and </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>(b) anyone familiar with the image presentations below knows first hand the experience of 5 million pixel 2/3rds capture:</li>

</ul>

 

<blockquote>

<p>From <a href="http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/">http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/</a></p>

<ul>

<li>"Crossing The Line" directed by Peter Jackson</li>

<li>"My Bloody Valentine 3D"</li>

<li>"CHE A revolutionary Life" Special Roadshow Edition, Limited Engagement Only In Theaters</li>

<li>"The Book Of Eli"</li>

<li>"Knowing"</li>

<li>Shasha Grey "The Girlfriend Experience"</li>

<li>"Game"</li>

<li>"Jumper" from the director of "The Borne Identity" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith"</li>

<li>"Labor Pains" Lindsay Lohan (might as well just watch with the sound off!) </li>

<li>"ER" (yes, THAT "ER" -- the television show)</li>

<li>"Santuary"</li>

<li>"Southland"</li>

<li>"Angels & Demons" Tom Hanks</li>

<li>"The Cleaner"</li>

<li>"Leverage" (one of my current favorites)</li>

<li>"Slpinterheads"</li>

<li>"Woodshop"</li>

<li>"A4U"</li>

<li>"The Informant"</li>

</ul>

<p>... and so on, and those are just "in your face" examples of waay smaller than 35mm or even 4/3rds capture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyway, Vivek and Paulie, though I know it is really really difficult and challenging to measure one's own photographic needs, and instead it's so much easier to shop and compare gear against gear, however, all that really maters in the end is <em>comparing gear to our needs</em> . Have at it! And <em>your</em> needs are ... ?</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>* Me? The <strong>2003 Minolta DiMage A1</strong> DSL/EVF camera suits me fine for now <a href="http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-a1/index.html">http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-a1/index.html</a> ... though the <strong>2008 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1</strong> DSL/EVF camera with interchangeable lens mount is the FIRST camera since to seriously challenge me to acquire it as a replacement, hence my dogged pursuit of other's G1 experiences, pro and con. Also have a side-kick <strong>2006 Leica Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1</strong> DSL/LCD camera, also ~5 million RGGB pixel capture, both print 19 x 13 " just fine, now using Epson 5,760 x 1,440 dpi CcMmYK dye ink output, from 8-bit per RGB color channel 720 dpi input. I also scan film to 5,400 dpi for printing, which is equal to ~40 megapixel capture, but each pixel is direct R, G & B, not RGGB demosiaced as a DSLR would, but it has film grain noise, but ... oh, gear-to-gear comparisons are endless, and useless, after all, eh what?</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Anyway, we each have our own photographic criteria. All I'm trying to do is wrestle this thread <em>out </em> of the:</p>

<ul>

<li>endless "this camera beats that camera" </li>

</ul>

<p>... and back <em>into</em> :</p>

<ul>

<li>specific "how do I know <em>my </em> photographic needs, and then find a <em>matching </em> camera today?" </li>

</ul>

<p>Help, please.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Help, please.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Use the camera you are using to death. Assuming it will last for another year, you would have plenty of choices to decide from. No need to buy another camera unless you are preoccupied with making use of esoetric lenses that you may already have (like I am). If the latter is the case, the G1 (or the version with video) would be "fun".</p>

<p>It is quite normal to enquire about a camera/gear that one is not familiar with instead of starting to give purchase advice to others.</p>

<p>Vicarious living/existence has its disadvantages.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Let me rephrase that.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Help <strong><em>the opening</em> </strong> poster, please.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But thanks for offering to help <strong><em>me </em> </strong> out! ;-)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Peter, according to the specifications, Red is not 2/3" 5 mpix capture, it is 24.4mmx13.7mm 12mpix, and hence using a larger sensor than 4/3".</p>

<p>.<br>

<br /> http://www.Red.com/ has many cameras you can build to suit yourself, starting with 2/3rds sensors:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company</a><br>

<br>

<em>"... Scarlet Brains will record a data-rate ranging from 42 to 100 MB/s (compared to Red One's 36), and contain sensors ranging in size from 2/3" to full-frame 35 mm sensors, with resolutions ranging from 3K to 6K. The 2/3" and Super-35 sensors will be second-generation Mysterium sensors, the Mysterium-X, while the full-frame 35 sensor is expected to ship with the third-generation Mysterium sensor , the Monstro sensor. A self-contained version of the 2/3" Scarlet, with an attached lens, is also planned ..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>2/3rds sensors are alive and well and making millions of image loves happy.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Red <em>will have</em> those other sensors, but as yet, the only one available is the one I referred to, and which logically therefore must have been used for the movies in question, so in the case of Red, 2/3" isn't alive and well and being used for the movies you listed, but it is arguably about to be reborn, so to speak. It probably won't be used so much by those movie makers, though, as they would probably stick to the cine 35mm format they are so used to.</p>