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

<p>In looking at the G1 and its ability to use Leica M glass, how is the actual image quality in comparison to Canon 40D/50D or 5D cameras and Nikon D300 and D700? Does the G1 image hold up to their quality when enalrged to 11x14?<br />Or, is the 1&1/3 sized sensor just too small to compete? I like the idea of being able to use Leica fast glass for images in digital but want to be able to get an 11x14 that actually compares to the other bodies.</p>

What ISO do you want to shoot at? ISO 100, sure, it's perfectly competitive with them. ISO 3200, no it's not. I use mine at ISO 400 without worry, and ISO 800 occasionally. I don't like to push it to ISO 1600. (For reference, that was essentially how I felt about my old Nikon D40.)

<p>.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paulie, what a "1&1/3 sized sensor"?<br /> <br /> <br /> The Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 has a micro four-thirds sensor 4/3 " (18.00 x 13.50 mm -- 2.43 cm² -- 5 MP/cm²) -- that is 1/2 the size of 35mm film, by the way, and at 12 million pixels, that seems about 1/2 the current 24 million pixels of 35mm full size sensors (35.9 x 24 mm -- 8.61 cm² -- 2.8 MP/cm²).<br /> <br /> <br /> Try one and you tell us if it suits your needs. Who cares how it compares to other cameras, it only has to please you!<br /> <br /> <br /> .</p>

<p>The G1 delivers remarkably good results but as David says it falls down at high ISO. I cannot compare to the 40D but compared to the 5DII you really have to enlarge beyond 11x14 to see and real difference. I should add that this is a function of the lens as I cannot really copmpare with the 7-45 standard lens as all my Canon lenses are at the other end of the price spectrum. Thus I have mainly compared the EOS 5DII with the G1 using FD glass (again the best examples). Po-Photo gives very good test results for the G1 and I was really surprised by how good it is when I got one. The AF and frame rate will not compare to either of the two cameras you mention but the little G1 delivers results that are way beyond it's small size.</p>

<p>G1 image quality is no match for the ones from a D40x, D200 or a D300 (Nike cams). </p>

<p>It is more like a P&S cam. Nothing more nothing less.</p>

<p>One of these days, someone will bring a real m4/3rds camera.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Vivek, what on earth are you talking about? Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds use the same size sensors, which are at least 4 times larger than compact cameras use -- those you call "P&S cam". They are completely different markets.</p>

<p>Let's take one review source and compare image quality by that one standard (Google prices in parenthesis):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>G1</strong> </em> ($670-750) IQ ISO 100-200 Excellent, ISO 800 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2370, Color Accuracy Excellent 6.21<br /> <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G1-Camera-Test/Vital-Statistics">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G1-Camera-Test/Vital-Statistics</a></p>

<p><em><strong>D40x</strong> </em> ($270-$680) IQ ISO 100-3200 not rated, Resolution 1920-2075, Color Accuracy not rated<br /> <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D40x/Camera-Test-Nikon-D40x">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D40x/Camera-Test-Nikon-D40x</a></p>

<p><em><strong>D200</strong> </em> ($680-$1,600) IQ ISO 100-1600 Excellent, Resolution Excellent 2050, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.54<br /> <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D200-DSLR/Camera-Test-Nikon-D200-DSLR2">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D200-DSLR/Camera-Test-Nikon-D200-DSLR2</a></p>

<p><em><strong>D300</strong> </em> ($1,330-$1,950) IQ ISO 200-3200 Excellent ISO 16000 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2350, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.19<br /> <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D300/Camera-Test-Nikon-D3002">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D300/Camera-Test-Nikon-D3002</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So the D40x <em>may </em> be cheaper, but compare with same focal range, and <em><strong>resolution is less</strong> </em> , and camera system is bigger, no live view.</p>

<p>So, bigger chip cameras have a bigger ISO range ... and bigger bodies.</p>

<p>But, <em><strong>image qualities seem to match </strong> </em> in the eyes of the World's Largest Imagine Resource's reviews above. I won't point out that the G1 resolving power actually <em><strong>BEAT</strong> </em> the D40x, D200, and D300 -- oh, I just did! ;-) Better color accuracy, too.</p>

<p>Yet you say "no match"! How come? Vivek, lemme guess -- you're a Nikon shooter?</p>

<p>There are 23 million people out there who consider buying a DSLR but aren't buying because of <strong><em>size </em> </strong> and inconvenience of DSLRs lack of <strong><em>live view and other features and benefits</em> </strong> . I don't think Nikon's DSLRs are at risk here. But I do I think that Nikon is ignoring 23 million people, and Panasonic isn't. They are different markets. (According to Picture Business Magazine March 2009 <a href="http://www.picturebusinessmag.com/">http://www.picturebusinessmag.com/</a> )</p>

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

<p>Paulie, what are you used to using as an imaging source for printing out to 11 x 14 (odd size that -- inches?)?</p>

<p>Though ANY camera on the market today, and in the past 5 years at least, can print out flawless images at that meager size,</p>

<ul>

<li>-- what particular, specific image qualities are you looking for that make you ask, and </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>-- what particular, specific print out system are you using? </li>

</ul>

<p>.</p>

<p>Glad that I helped you to add to your film canister count. :) </p>

<p>You did NOT read the OP's question or my reply above.</p>

<p>I use Nike cams, I use films(various cameras, formats), I use Olympus 4/3rds and i do use a Pansonic G1.<br>

You may want to use your wasteful typing on price comparisons and pixel/format counts (totally out of context) on some one else, Peter. :)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Just to beat ourselves up over comparing cameras to each other and declaring a weener, instead of comparing cameras to our criteria and declaring a purchase:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>40D</strong> </em> ($700-$860) IQ ISO 100-1600 Excellent ISO 3200 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2100, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.7<br>

<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Canon-EOS-40D/Specifications-Certified-Test-Results">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Canon-EOS-40D/Specifications-Certified-Test-Results</a></p>

<p><em><strong>50D</strong> </em> ($1,000-$1,220) not reviewed yet</p>

<p><em><strong>D700</strong> </em> ($2,050-$2,880) IQ ISO 200-3200 Excellent ISO 6400 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2350, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.2<br>

<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Nikon-D700-Camera-Test/Smaller-but-still-tough">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Nikon-D700-Camera-Test/Smaller-but-still-tough</a></p>

<p><em><strong>5DII</strong> </em> ($2,420) not reviewed yet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, why bother? The <em><strong>Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1</strong> </em> beats all commers mentioned in this thread on some level, but they hold their own on other levels. But on Paulie's most important criteria -- image quality at 11 x 14 (NOT a very challenging criteria), the <em><strong>G1 EXCELS in resolving power and color accuracy</strong> </em> .</p>

<p>But, still, the ONLY thing that's important is if the G1 <strong><em>meets your needs</em> </strong> , Pauli. What say?</p>

<p>Note, you didn't seem to care, but the G1 crops in-camera to reveal ~50% of the original lens's view, and the smaller Canons reveal ~62.5% of original view, the Canon 5DII reveals ~100%, and the Nikons reveal ~66.6% of original view. Does that matter? You didn't say. Actually, the Canon and Nikon reveal 0% OR close-focus only IF you can figure out a way to mount the lens at all, see below.</p>

<p>Drive yourself crazy doing useless comparisons of meaningless data at DxOMark:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/298|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(appareil3)/194|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Panasonic/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/298|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(appareil3)/194|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Panasonic/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon</a></p>

<p>That way, you can avoid actually buying anything and avoid ever actually taking the photographs you are after! ;-)</p>

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

<p>MORE IMPORTANTLY, Paulie, have you first found the adapters you are looking for?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Leica M lens to Micro Four Thirds camera adapter</strong> </em> ($175):<br>

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm</a></p>

<p><em><strong>Leica M lens to Canon or Nikon camera adapter</strong> </em> ($...):<br>

......... still waiting ......... nope, none yet .....</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So, Paulie, does THAT make your decision for you?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>I'm not Paulie, but thanks Peter for your info, whereas Vivek didn't supply anything substantial IMO.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Vivek, you're not my audience, you're my subject. Google is our most important reader, and as Stefan suggests, photo.net will probably get a greater number of subsequent people visiting because of the specific contents within this thread, and without your pugnacious throw-away comment, I would not have enriched the content of this thread with details responsive to the opening poster's inquiry. Thank you for trolling (not a bad thing in my mind) and punching up the volume here. I like your Flickr stream, and I'll be back in a while after reading your photo.net forum stream ... 10,210 posts -- OMFG! No wonder you use phrases like "wasteful typing"! Anyway, I do have that ASA25 film you are after, how'd you know. ;-)</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>photo.net will probably get a greater number of subsequent people visiting because of the specific contents within this thread,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>May be not. Do you use a G1? Instead of listing what a search engine would spit out, give us your user experience (mine was based on actual usage).</p>

<p>Wrong information on your adapter possibilities.</p>

<p>Paulie (and others) can use google more effectively and find out the +s and the -s of a G1 elsewhere.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>.<br>

<br /> Thanks, Vivek, you save me reading 10,210 posts now that I know what they might look like.</p>

<p>Any RIGHT information on adapter possibilities?</p>

<p>And thanks for suggesting that Paulie and others get off photo.net to more effectively find the plusses and minuses of the gear about which they are curious, gear with which you supposedly have experience NOT to share. Your point here? You have experience, won't share it, and tell others to get off, yet you think I'm inappropriate in my sharing responsive research here? Humph!</p>

<p>Paulie, are you still with us or have you jumped ship? Digitizing your Leica M lenses can be done with the <em><strong>Epson R-D1/x</strong> </em> , also, see <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Epson/epson_rd1x.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Epson/epson_rd1x.asp</a><br>

... oh, and I think <em><strong>Leica M8.2</strong> </em> has an offering, too: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Leica/leica_m8_2.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Leica/leica_m8_2.asp</a></p>

<p>Pleas report back in and let us know where you are in this decision. Thanks.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Paulie,</p>

<p>I've compared in detail 13x17 inch prints I've made with Pentax K10D, Nikon D200, Canon 5D, Panasonic L1, and Panasonic G1 ... all captured RAW format and processed with LR2, of similar scenes and similar ISO settings (ISO 100-800), and similar (premium) quality lenses. </p>

<p>If I hung them all on the wall next to one another and asked you to tell me which camera had made which print, you would not be able to. </p>

<p>The G1's lens adaptability and its superb EVF are the reasons to be interested in it. It's a very nice nice performer and allows me to use a brace of older lenses that I like (Nikkor 20/3.5AI, 105/2.5AI, Pentax-M 50/1.4, Olympus Pen F 40mm f/1.4 and 70mm f/2) more easily than any SLR camera can, as well as use all of my FourThirds SLR lenses. When used with its own lens or the FourThirds lenses that enable AF operation, it has some additional features that I find useful. It doesn't replace the E-1 or L1 in my kit, however, as it is not built to the same standards of durability and ruggedness as those bodies: it is a complement to the other bodies which nets a different mix of features. </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Cool, Godfrey, thanks for weighing in.</p>

<p>Your odd cache of lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>20mm f/3.5</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>40mm f/1.4</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>50mm f/1.4</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>70mm f/2</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>105mm f/2.5</li>

</ul>

<p>makes this equivalent performance on the <em><strong>Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1</strong> </em> :</p>

<ul>

<li>40mm f/3.5</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>80mm f/1.4</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>100mm f/1.4</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>140mm f/2</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>210mm f/2.5</li>

</ul>

<p>... all at 12 million pixels, very accurate color, and as much as 2,370 lines of resolving power -- definitely top of the currently available production lines. Nice!</p>

<p>It's also nice to read a G1 user report in on their specific experiences of the G1. </p>

<p>Paulie, please report back in and let is know what's on your mind now.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>I will second what David Long said. At ISO 400 and below the G1 is a very capable camera. It is a lot of fun with play with so many different lenses. At ISO 800 and above I prefer a larger sensor. At 1600 and above I like my full frame bodies. Simple law of physics really.</p>

<p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/042-treeinfog.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br /> <em>Panasonic G1 + Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 @ 11mm</em> <br /><br /> Peter, <br /><br /> I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary to try to state '35mm film format' Field of View equivalents for my lenses. <br /><br /> Note that those are not the only lenses I own. I also use several of the Olympus ZD lenses (11-22, 50-200, 25, 35 Macro) and the Panasonic/Leica lenses (14-50/2.8-3.5 and Summilux-D 25/1.4). These are all very good performers. <br /><br /> The camera performs very well for what I use it for. <br /><br /> Godfrey</p>

<p>Vivek - as Godfrey and Peter point out the G1 is surprisingly good. The standard lens is not great but as I said earlier I have little to compare it with as I never buy these type of lenses and only have the Panasonic one as I was forced to. In terms of DSLR comparisons I only have a 5DII and as I said the G1 compares very well until you go beyond 11x17 or above 400 IS0 (sorry for my earlier post I unthinkingly picked up the size from the earlier post and indeed I accidently typed 7mm not 14mm for the wide end of the supplied lens). i consider this very good performance as the 5DII has probably the best image quality of any current Canon DSLR (before anyone writes in I said image quality - I would swap the 5DII for the 1DsIII). It is clearly not as good a performer as medium format but some of this may be due to lens performance. My Fuji GX680 with the 180 F3.2 with velvia 50 scanned on the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is in a different league - but the slide is almost the size of the G1 and the Fuji lens is remarkably high quality and is not stressed for resolution.<br>

In terms of colour accuracy the delta E measure used by pop-photo may not reflect the user experience. While I am not sure exactly how pop-photo measures delta E they MAY just be testing the ability to resolve different colours (i.e. a relative test) not the absolute accuracy of reproduction. While I have no issue with the G1s ability to resolve colours I do find that they tend to be slightly oversaturated and that I prefer the colour from the 5DII (I still think that digital has a way to go to reach the Velvia 50 level). The other issue I have with the G1 is that test results not withstanding (dpreview says it gets to almost 8EV dynamic range - compared to 8.4 for the 5DII) the camera tends to blow highlights quite easily so you have to be careful.<br>

I bought the body to use Canon FD lenses and have been very impressed with the results - despite the lenses not being "digital compatible". All of my FD lenses are L series or "near L". When I say near L this includes lenses that are now L series in the EF mount but were not in Fd mount - e.g. 135mm F2. I use the jinfinance adaptor and have had no issues so far. The only thing that is an issue is the EVF in low light with a longer fast lens as it tends to flicker but I am still new to the camera and adaptor having only used it for about 6 weeks.</p>

<p>Hi Philip, </p>

<p>Just a couple of notes.</p>

<p>Yes, very long lenses and low light will tend to make the G1's EVF appear to jitter unless you have the camera solidly supported by a sturdy tripod. That's how I use long lenses anyway so it isn't much of an issue to me. </p>

<p>The combination of the G1's slightly pessimistic ISO rating and its metering calibration prove to not be very protective of highlights compared to any of my other DSLRs. I find myself using -0.3 EV compensation with it much more than with my other DSLRs where I find I'm normally setting the meter at +0.3-0.7 EV compensation a large amount of the time. Once I discovered this (through testing, of course) I've had no further problems with highlight saturation. I find its DR comparable to my other DSLRs (all RAW capture: I never bother measuring JPEGs). </p>

<p>It is quite a handy little camera, really, and is producing satisfying results. I'm not a big user at the extremes of ISO or focal length, but I do shoot in pretty difficult light a good bit of the time. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>Philip, You address many issues- good.</p>

<p>The problem I have is that "promising" qualities of the m4/3rds (G1) but failing to deliver in the final print.</p>

<p>Even when the sensor cover plate is plastered with dust, it does not show unless the lens used is stopped well below its diffraction limit. This demonstrates fuzziness of the images captured. If you increase the contrast in the post (which almost all the images taken with adapted lenses require), the details take a hit.</p>

<p>Dynamic range is very limited and it shows when a print is made to 11x14 size (OP's question).</p>

<p>One is limited to the slow kit zooms and more slow zooms in the near future. None of them match the "promised" compactness of the system. If and when the proposed 20/1.7 shows up, we will have to see what it can do.</p>

<p>On the adaptability of lenses to G1. Yes, a host of lenses can be adapted (I have several dozen, I don't want to list any as I am afraid that the 4x5; 35mm, etc format equivalents will be typed out to obscure the topic ). It is frustrating to find a decent "normal" focal length (25mm) lens. I have not found a decent wide yet (the 20/3.5 AiS does not work for me). The C-V 15/4.5 is OK but not stellar on the G1 (that isn't the case with other cameras and the same lens). Fast portrait, tele, etc lenses do well under overcast, muddy conditions with limited light and contrast.</p>

<p>Frustrating because the "potential" is there.</p>

<p>So, I am hoping that a 3rd generation m4/3rds camera would be a decent performer, on par with the cameras that Paulie mentioned.</p>

<p>If one is into <em>Lomography</em> , <em>Pinhole</em> , or <em>Holga</em> type things and want to make large prints, the G1 is a superb camera.</p>

<p>Here is a shot using a 12.5mm lens (@ f/2.8) .<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3405416940_3486f27882_o.jpg" alt="" width="525" height="700" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have no idea what you're talking about, Vivek.<br>

What 12.5mm f/2.8 lens are you using? </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Godfrey, I mentioned 2x focal length equivalents to help put into perspective (pun) the total image contents -- 12 million pixels and angle of view/capture are all that matter to many of us, and <em>actual </em> focal length has meant so little since no one uses 35mm full frame any more as they use APS (funny -- failed as film, succeeded as digital!) or four-thirds sensors (funny, Olympus had the world's best selling SLR in their Pen F 1/2 frame, and now has created a whole market based on the equivalent of 1/2 frame -- go figure).</p>

<p>Vivek, thanks for sharing some of your specific experiences, and not merely your conclusory assessment of that experience. We have no experience of your personal criteria, so your prior assessments were unreferenced for us. What is it you like about a G1 with 12.5mm f/2.8 lens? </p>

<p>Paulie and Vivek, what print out system do you use? I use Epson CcMmYK dye 5,760x1,440 dpi and HP CMYK pigment 4,800 dpi and have no complaints from 5 million pixel capture up to 17 x 11 inches output, so I'm trying to imagine any criteria that takes 12 million pixel capture such as offered by the G1 (I've explored web-shared full size JPGs and find them superior in many ways to my 5 million pixel images) and yet is dissatisfied with that 12 million pixel capture when printed out to only 11 x 14 inches. Please enlighten me if you can -- what's going on here? Perhaps there's something I know about printing that you can use to increase your satisfaction level with what you already have. Is there more to this we have yet to explore?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Hello Paulie</p>

<p>As the price of G1 is so low (and it comes with a very usable lens) why not just get one? I bought an adaptor for FD series lenses and I am looking forward to getting my FD300f4 to play with.</p>

<p>certainly in the wide area the lens availablity is limited both in AF workable lenses and by the sensor size. the 4/3 sensor is not significantly smaller or denser than a Canon 50D actually.</p>

<p>I don't understand the comparison with 5D MkII because that camera is so much more expensive that as to make the cost of the G1 inconsierable. Price a 5D mkII and a 24-105USM lens it is over $3000, the G1 comes with a similar focal range lens and is also Image Stabilised.</p>

<p>I have been using a 10D for some time (selling a 20D) and the G1 is better than the 10D in every way. With respect to the limited dynamic range I suggest reading <strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/page20.asp">this</a> </strong> test which indicates the sensor is quite comparable with APS sized sensors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>11X14 is such a nominal size I would not give this one a second thought myself. It is always a good opening shot for the neverending debate about Olympus's and Panasonic's use of a sensor that is the functional equivalent (almost) of the APS-C. If Paulie, you go for the price of the G-1 it sounds like a real winner to use with your older lenses. I mean what is there to lose. Format comes into play I guess. If you love 2 by 3 certainly buy a used 5D later on, some use two systems, legal to do that. Seewhatimean?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one is into <em>Lomography</em> , <em>Pinhole</em> , or <em>Holga</em> type things and want to make large prints, the G1 is a superb camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Boy, pretty shot over the bow evaluation. Hansen Tsang on Big Island has a G-1 and uses it pretty succssfully (and perhaps commercially) as well as Godfrey with their expensive good glass. I have seen Hansen's online work and it looks fine to me (small file, true). Not Holga-ish which I take as no compliment to the Panasonic entry nor do you. Not being contentious,really. Just sounds like the tail of the range of published opinion to me from what I have read so far. I want to see the whole 4/3 stay viable as well as a little different approach to design in DSLRs by both companies. gs Still stuck with only an E-1 and lot of film gear you would not be excited to have me list...aloha, gs</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one is into <em>Lomography</em> , <em>Pinhole</em> , or <em>Holga</em> type things and want to make large prints, the G1 is a superb camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Boy, pretty shot over the bow evaluation. Hansen Tsang on Big Island has a G-1 and uses it pretty succssfully (and perhaps commercially) as well as Godfrey with their expensive good glass. I have seen Hansen's online work and it looks fine to me (small file, true). Not Holga-ish which I take as no compliment to the Panasonic entry nor do you. Not being contentious,really. Just sounds like the tail of the range of published opinion to me from what I have read so far. I want to see the whole 4/3 stay viable as well as a little different approach to design in DSLRs by both companies. gs Still stuck with only an E-1 and lot of film gear you would not be excited to have me list...aloha, gs</p>