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

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by paulie_smith, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. 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?
    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.
     
  2. 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.)
     
  3. .


    Paulie, what a "1&1/3 sized sensor"?


    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).


    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!


    .
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. G1 image quality is no match for the ones from a D40x, D200 or a D300 (Nike cams).
    It is more like a P&S cam. Nothing more nothing less.
    One of these days, someone will bring a real m4/3rds camera.
     
  6. .
    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.
    Let's take one review source and compare image quality by that one standard (Google prices in parenthesis):
    G1 ($670-750) IQ ISO 100-200 Excellent, ISO 800 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2370, Color Accuracy Excellent 6.21
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G1-Camera-Test/Vital-Statistics
    D40x ($270-$680) IQ ISO 100-3200 not rated, Resolution 1920-2075, Color Accuracy not rated
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D40x/Camera-Test-Nikon-D40x
    D200 ($680-$1,600) IQ ISO 100-1600 Excellent, Resolution Excellent 2050, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.54
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D200-DSLR/Camera-Test-Nikon-D200-DSLR2
    D300 ($1,330-$1,950) IQ ISO 200-3200 Excellent ISO 16000 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2350, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.19
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Nikon-D300/Camera-Test-Nikon-D3002
    So the D40x may be cheaper, but compare with same focal range, and resolution is less , and camera system is bigger, no live view.
    So, bigger chip cameras have a bigger ISO range ... and bigger bodies.
    But, image qualities seem to match in the eyes of the World's Largest Imagine Resource's reviews above. I won't point out that the G1 resolving power actually BEAT the D40x, D200, and D300 -- oh, I just did! ;-) Better color accuracy, too.
    Yet you say "no match"! How come? Vivek, lemme guess -- you're a Nikon shooter?
    There are 23 million people out there who consider buying a DSLR but aren't buying because of size and inconvenience of DSLRs lack of live view and other features and benefits . 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 http://www.picturebusinessmag.com/ )
    ----------
    Paulie, what are you used to using as an imaging source for printing out to 11 x 14 (odd size that -- inches?)?
    Though ANY camera on the market today, and in the past 5 years at least, can print out flawless images at that meager size,
    • -- what particular, specific image qualities are you looking for that make you ask, and
    • -- what particular, specific print out system are you using?
    .
     
  7. Glad that I helped you to add to your film canister count. :)
    You did NOT read the OP's question or my reply above.
    I use Nike cams, I use films(various cameras, formats), I use Olympus 4/3rds and i do use a Pansonic G1.
    You may want to use your wasteful typing on price comparisons and pixel/format counts (totally out of context) on some one else, Peter. :)
     
  8. .
    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:
    40D ($700-$860) IQ ISO 100-1600 Excellent ISO 3200 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2100, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.7
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cam...EOS-40D/Specifications-Certified-Test-Results
    50D ($1,000-$1,220) not reviewed yet
    D700 ($2,050-$2,880) IQ ISO 200-3200 Excellent ISO 6400 Extremely High, Resolution Excellent 2350, Color Accuracy Excellent 7.2
    http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Nikon-D700-Camera-Test/Smaller-but-still-tough
    5DII ($2,420) not reviewed yet​
    Oh, why bother? The Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 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 G1 EXCELS in resolving power and color accuracy .
    But, still, the ONLY thing that's important is if the G1 meets your needs , Pauli. What say?
    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.
    Drive yourself crazy doing useless comparisons of meaningless data at DxOMark:
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...rand)/Panasonic/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon
    That way, you can avoid actually buying anything and avoid ever actually taking the photographs you are after! ;-)
    ----------
    MORE IMPORTANTLY, Paulie, have you first found the adapters you are looking for?
    Leica M lens to Micro Four Thirds camera adapter ($175):
    http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm
    Leica M lens to Canon or Nikon camera adapter ($...):
    ......... still waiting ......... nope, none yet .....​
    So, Paulie, does THAT make your decision for you?
    .
     
  9. I'm not Paulie, but thanks Peter for your info, whereas Vivek didn't supply anything substantial IMO.
     
  10. .
    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. ;-)
    .
     
  11. photo.net will probably get a greater number of subsequent people visiting because of the specific contents within this thread,​
    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).
    Wrong information on your adapter possibilities.
    Paulie (and others) can use google more effectively and find out the +s and the -s of a G1 elsewhere.
     
  12. .

    Thanks, Vivek, you save me reading 10,210 posts now that I know what they might look like.
    Any RIGHT information on adapter possibilities?
    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!
    Paulie, are you still with us or have you jumped ship? Digitizing your Leica M lenses can be done with the Epson R-D1/x , also, see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Epson/epson_rd1x.asp
    ... oh, and I think Leica M8.2 has an offering, too: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Leica/leica_m8_2.asp
    Pleas report back in and let us know where you are in this decision. Thanks.
    .
     
  13. Paulie,
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  14. .
    Cool, Godfrey, thanks for weighing in.
    Your odd cache of lenses:
    • 20mm f/3.5
    • 40mm f/1.4
    • 50mm f/1.4
    • 70mm f/2
    • 105mm f/2.5
    makes this equivalent performance on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 :
    • 40mm f/3.5
    • 80mm f/1.4
    • 100mm f/1.4
    • 140mm f/2
    • 210mm f/2.5
    ... 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!
    It's also nice to read a G1 user report in on their specific experiences of the G1.
    Paulie, please report back in and let is know what's on your mind now.
    .
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. [​IMG]
    Panasonic G1 + Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 @ 11mm

    Peter,

    I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary to try to state '35mm film format' Field of View equivalents for my lenses.

    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.

    The camera performs very well for what I use it for.

    Godfrey
     
  17. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  18. Hi Philip,
    Just a couple of notes.
    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.
    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).
    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.
    Godfrey
     
  19. Philip, You address many issues- good.
    The problem I have is that "promising" qualities of the m4/3rds (G1) but failing to deliver in the final print.
    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.
    Dynamic range is very limited and it shows when a print is made to 11x14 size (OP's question).
    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.
    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.
    Frustrating because the "potential" is there.
    So, I am hoping that a 3rd generation m4/3rds camera would be a decent performer, on par with the cameras that Paulie mentioned.
    If one is into Lomography , Pinhole , or Holga type things and want to make large prints, the G1 is a superb camera.
    Here is a shot using a 12.5mm lens (@ f/2.8) .
    [​IMG]
     
  20. I have no idea what you're talking about, Vivek.
    What 12.5mm f/2.8 lens are you using?
     
  21. .
    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 actual 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).
    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?
    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?
    .
     
  22. Hello Paulie
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 this test which indicates the sensor is quite comparable with APS sized sensors.
     
  23. 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?
     
  24. If one is into Lomography , Pinhole , or Holga type things and want to make large prints, the G1 is a superb camera.​
    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
     
  25. If one is into Lomography , Pinhole , or Holga type things and want to make large prints, the G1 is a superb camera.​
    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
     
  26. Wow, this forum lights up with non users to turn into some sort of a glee club! LOL.
    Perhaps some folks have super expensive and tiny fast wide angle primes that I need to look up to hang on my G1. :)
    In the meantime, I am enjoying holgagraphy. :)
    Godfrey, Email.
     
  27. .
    Earlier: "... With respect to the limited dynamic range I suggest reading this

    which indicates the sensor is quite comparable with APS sized sensors ... "​
    Link expanded out for our home readers who only have controlled access to emails sometimes.
    ==========
    Vivek, no one wants YOU to make decisions for them no matter how much experience you think you have. However, it would be great if you would share the specifics of your experience in ways that others may access and asses and make their own decisions better informed and empowered by your sharing. You've yet to answer questions earlier in the thread, answers that might help put your conclusions in perspective. Waiting ...
    .
     
  28. Vivek:
    .."Perhaps some folks have super expensive and tiny fast wide
    angle primes that I need to look up to hang on my G1." ..


    No. I have an excellent performing Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 that does wide angle work when I need wider than the standard lens' 14mm, eg: the picture posted up-thread. The Olympus ZD 9-18/4-5.6 would be a better pick if you want AF operation too: it has even wider field of view and is smaller, lighter, less expensive.

    Sounds like you've adapted a C-mount cine lens to the G1 and it isn't performing terribly well at edges and corners. No big surprise there. Just wait for the 7-14/4.

    ..."Godfrey, Email."...

    Are you going to email me or do you want me to email you?

    Your experience sure isn't mine. I still don't understand what your previous note was talking about.

    Godfrey
     
  29. Peter:
    .."I mentioned 2x focal length equivalents to help put into perspective (pun) the total image contents" ..


    Whatever. You know I absolutely despise all this dumb "equivalence-speak". If you want to give people an AoV reference, crop factors and "35mm equivalents" do nothing but confuse the matter.

    AoV equivalences aren't simple since the format proportions of 35mm film and "APS-C" are different from FourThirds format. Here's a table, sorted in descending order by Horizontal Angle of View:
    [​IMG]
     
  30. Disagreements happen. I sent back a new 4/3 camera because it didn't suit me. The recent E-30. My reasons are related to my own tastes and expectations, mostly relating to viewfinder contrast. I am eager to see how the micro 4/3 performs with quality lenses, both old and new. I like the way if feels and some features I played with briefly... I think there will be many who would like contrasting opinions with a few digestible (opinionated notwithstanding) observations not just on fast wide angle lenses which are the toughest ones to get to work well for obvious reasons of optical design and bulk.....
    Check out some Amazon reviews such as those on the E-3 andthe 12-60 to see how a friendly bunch of unsolicited user comment can help when it is forthright ; then add the stars and divide by the number and then ignore them all except those that support what Dr. Wrotniak has to say:- }or don't,actually. No top dog gurus around. I will likely buy a micro too before Fall so I am in Paulie's shoes too...Respectfully waiting to see how it goes down, gs
     
  31. Check out some Amazon reviews such as those on the E-3 andthe 12-60 to see how a friendly bunch of unsolicited user comment can help when it is forthright ; then add the stars and divide by the number and then ignore them all except those that support what Dr. Wrotniak has to say:- }or don't,actually.​
    Sounds about right, Gerry. :)
    Godfrey, I do not solicit emails from anyone. When you were in need ("how to make an m4/3rds to Pen F adapter") you did contact me. Perhaps, I misinterpreted that with your current question on the 12.5mm (it was a f/1.9 lens stopped down to f/2.8.).
    Perhaps google will help figure out how it can be put together. LOL.
    I have no interest in hanging the 11-22, 9-18 or the 7-14 zooms on the G1. They defeat the purpose of this "micro" concept altogether. Besides, the OP mentioned about Leica glass which is implicit of the size.
    When size/heft does not matter, I have better cameras and lenses that go with them and none of them involve m4/3rds or the 4/3rds.
     
  32. Vivek,
    I was simply asking what lens you were using. I know full well how to fit alternative lenses to the G1. Your "Email me" comment was puzzling.
    The "micro" in micro-FourThirds refers to the lens mount, as compared to the FourThirds SLR standard. It doesn't mean that the cameras and lenses are "micro" sized. It means the lens mount is 20mm shorter in register ... that implies that lenses designed for the mount can be smaller, but there are limits to how small they can be.
    Leica M lenses are not particularly small or light. The Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH, for instance, is roughlythe same weight and length as my Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI. It's a little bit smaller in diameter. A Leica M6 fitted with this lens is virtually the same size and weight as the Nikon FM/FE2 ... The G1 fitted will be a bit smaller and somewhat lighter, due to the lighter weight body.
    If you want a quality UW lens designed to image properly on the FourThirds digital sensor, the Lumix G 7-14/4 will be the right lens and the smallest option for the FoV.
    Godfrey
     
  33. .
    Hi Godfrey,
    "Like a lens on another format" has been with us forever even before micro cameras (as 35mm film cameras were once called). I'm just assisting those of us who think "I know what 28mm feels like on my 35mm film camera, so what's equivalent to a 28mm lens on ... such and such a camera?" Medium format, large format, or micro four thirds, we all seem to compare them to 35mm film format because 35mm film format is so pervasive and popular that is has become the most well known reference, the common denominator. It ain't me whimsically suggesting this, it's been around forever, and every reviewer brings it up. Heck, even four thirds manufacturers brag about it -- that a 300mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 600mm f/2.8, and that information on equivalence should be persuasive to purchase!
    I looked at your chart, and I see it supports my approximations of equivalence.
    .
     
  34. Just because this silly equivalence convention is pervasive doesn't mean that it doesn't cause confusion or is accurate. Or that I can't detest it... ];-)
     
  35. "..that implies that lenses designed for the mount can be smaller, but there are limits to how small they can be."​
    The proposed 20/1.7 seems to defy that notion so do the the few feather weight 25/0.95 c-mount lenses I use.
    These are in a different class altogether compared to any SLR lenses.
    There is absolutely no comparison with Leica M mount lenses and the old AI lenses in terms of performance (especially the wides).
    When the 20/1.7 hits streets and when Olympus' tobacco pouch mock up m4/3rds becomes a reality (or may be Samsung would beat them to it) there will be a major rethink of the bulky zooms.
     
  36. Olympus USA does nothing to eliminate the equivalency convention however sloppy, Godfrey. There was a paste on label with my new 70-300mm announcing equal to a 140-600mm. Just to show it will stick with us. Until we remove the stick on label of course. I wish you all well and 'survival' during the B and H holidays, too. aloha.
     
  37. Vivek,
    A 20/1.7 lens is a focal length longer than the lens register and can be be designed with a symmetrical formula to be quite small while covering the format. Aided by image correction metadata too for rectilinear correction and CA, I expect it will be a good performer.
    C-mount lenses are designed for a smaller format, have no correction metadata associated, and thus show the imaging issues you mention above.
    Gerry,
    I know. I still detest it. I think it's stupid. So sue me... ];-)
    I remove *all* sticky labels on everything I buy nowadays. Ugly crap.
     
  38. A 20/1.7 lens is a focal length longer than the lens register and can be be designed with a symmetrical formula to be quite small while covering the format.​
    In principle, may be. That would not be the case with the proposed 20/1.7.
    If "symmetric" design is the achilles heel with wide angle primes none of the current Leica and Leica mount lenses would perform while giving full frame coverage. A prime example is the CV 15 lens. It is a super performer on film and digital but is very average on the G1. Nothing wrong with the lens but the problem is with the camera and its output.
    In fact, I would think that a symmetric design wide angle prime for any digital camera would be problematic.
    Godfrey, I don't know why you would think all c-mount primes would cover a smaller circle than the 22 diagonal of the 4/3rds sensor. Larger sensored c-mount cameras do exist and lenses for them do exist.
    The G1 (or any future m4/3rds or Samsung or Canon...that I may buy) would only be used with manual focal small primes. There is little chance that a 42/1.2 or a 60/1.5 Olympus Pen F lens equivalent would be ever offered by anyone and I doubt anyone would be coming up with a lens similar to the 25/0.95 SOM-Berthiot (though old, designed exclusively for CCD camera use, btw).
    Considering the fact that some of the eBay vendors are the major sources of information of c-mount and other primes for the m4/3rds (this has become clearly different than someone asking for an adapter for old lenses they may have), naturally, I am not going top discussing the lenses I find suitable in any open forum.
    As for the 12.5mm lens, it is sharp (depending on magnification). Holga/pinhole, etc effects saves buying one those cams with built in "art" filters.
     
  39. You are arguing for no reason that I can determine, Vivek, and I don't want to participate in a nonsense argument that resolves to nothing more than a difference of opinion. Nor do I understand your reluctance to discuss what lenses you find to work well. Are you trying to corner the market on 'suitable' lenses somehow? This is ridiculous to me, but do what you wish.
    Suffice it to say that the number of C-mount lenses that are designed to both cover at least a FourThirds format AND optimized for a digital sensor is very small. Such lenses not particularly small in my experience. Your mysterious secret lenses might be compact enough to be suitable for you.
    The lenses designed for micro-FourThirds and FourThirds SLRs work very well, from ultrawide to long telephoto, and provide excellent image qualities. A variety of alternative lenses with other mounts, typically in my experience from 20mm on up, can also work very well.. in particular, the Nikkor 20, G.Zuiko 40 and 70 in my lens kit seem to perform beautifully while being reasonably sized and suitable for my use. Not all such adapted lenses do ... many alternative lenses were designed to image well on film and do not image well on digital sensors. This is particularly true of lenses which provide a wide angle field of view. I stick with lenses designed for FourThirds cameras for wide field of view options.
    Moreover, the G1 camera performs what I want to do with it quite nicely, using the kit of lenses I mentioned above, with excellent image qualities and superb prints to 13x19 and 16x20 inch sizes that are on par with other high-end 12Mpixel cameras.
    That's about all I have to contribute to this thread, so I'll unsubscribe from the notification now.
     
  40. Suffice it to say that the number of C-mount lenses that are designed to both cover at least a FourThirds format AND optimized for a digital sensor is very small. Such lenses not particularly small in my experience.​
    I am not trying "corner" any market nor am I prepared to defend a camera that I use while it is no more than a P&S quality camera. You are assuming things, making spurious statements and are dropping hints of some hypothetical experience.
    About the camera and the image quality, I did post about my experience and I am not arguing with yours or any other user (though my experience differs markedly than some other m4/3rd users).
    What any non-user says is google fodder. I will have to add your lens design principles and the mythical experience of big c-mount lenses that suit 4/3rds format to that category. :)
     
  41. Vivek
    I am not trying "corner" any market nor am I prepared to defend a camera that I use while it is no more than a P&S quality camera.​
    this is rather harsh and I believe undefendable. Do you seriously consider the G1 to be comparable to an IXUS or some other PS? Vivek, you undermine the credibility you have. Please support such a claim
    While I am still comparing results with my 10D (hardly a P&S camera) my results so far is that the G1 exceeds it in all ways. Considering the 10D, if you put the same lens on either that or a 5D the per square cm image will be the same (at least in my testing). Meaning if I crop 1000 x 1000 pixels from the middle of each image and compare them I do not see much difference. Clearly being a full frame camera the 5D captures more of the scene than does the 10D.
     
  42. Yoshio,
    I would be hard pressed to find any difference in image quality as well if I can not see any difference between 10D and 5D (1000pixel) crops.
    Please re-read what I posted as the problem that I find with G1 image quality of large prints. Dynamic range is not an absolute quantity. It is affected by the print size and the enlargement factor.
    I did put in a lot of effort in refining my post processing routines (they were essential) yet, I have not seen any glimpse of the astounding claims made here in comparison to 5D, D300, etc.
    When it came to P&S cams, I had the Ricoh GR-D in mind. It is a swell camera, btw.
    When the Olympus (M1?) with small primes are made available it could become interesting. Olympus did make statements regarding the pixel count ("12mp is enough) recently. If the DR is brought up to the level of other DSLRs, it would be fun to make comparisons.
     
  43. My only point on the comparisson to the 5DII is not based on price but merely because that is the only other DSLR that I have. I was trying to point out that on relatively small prints (up to 11 x 17 inches) and with the camera at ISO 100 - 400 that the G1 produces images that are indistinguishable from the Canon 5DII. Since the Canon 5DII probably has the highest image quality of any current Canon DSLR this is very high praise for the G1. As I said earlier I have two caveats on this statement - the first is that I do not use the G1 standard lens but high quality Canon FD glass (e.g 85 F1.2, 50 F1.4, 24 F2, 35 F2 80-200 F4L and 135 F2) which produce much better results that the lens sold with the G1. The second caveat is that the dynamic range of the G1 is less than the 5DII so it tends to blow hilights much easier. Since the $700 (Canadian) G1 even produces results close to the $3100 Canadian 5DII is a remarkable result for the little Panasonic. By the way Yoshi I do not use the 24-105 F4 as I used to own one and was never impressed with this lens. The 24 - 70 F2.8 is the Canon standard lens to buy.
    I suspect that the main issues with the G1 from a commercial standpoint are it's high price (relative to other DSLRs) and the lack of a good lens range. In my limited experience the AF and frame rate are also very poor. For those of us who use it as a platform for old MF lenses it is a great buy but I can understand the frustration of people who want to use it as a modern DSLR system.
     
  44. .
    Vivek, are you using an f/0.95 lens on your G1 with no stabilization, maybe even pre-focused or zone-focused, as a walkaround lens for street candids in low light?
    .
     
  45. I don't know how to respond to questions like that, honestly. Have you ever used a f/0.95 lens, wide open?
    I have been using f/0.95 lenses for the past 4 years on different systems. Though anyone's technique always needs practice and improvement (particularly mine), I am not unsatisfied with what I do practice.
    Here is a shot from Angenieux 25/0.95 (wide open, favorable, heavily overcast conditions with muted light for the G1). Focused correctly and with appropriate shutter speed for the subject and the aperture.
    [​IMG]
    I have many 25/0.95 lenses for G1 (a list, I already posted in a few threads below, is here and lists two of them: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p9kkgjwEQQQ-HJwvNDobeEw).
    Manual focus (especially of super fast lenses) is a dream with the G1. I have never found this much of a focus accuracy with any other type of camera in any format. That isn't the issue here at all.
    Here is another 25mm lens at f/2.8 (this is a super fast lens as well), very fast shutter speed and with a slight panning (additional blur in the background comes from that).
    [​IMG]
    I am OK with "normal" focal length lenses for my m4/3rds. The wide front is still lacking (the 12.5mm shot ought not to be confused with what I posted regarding portrait, tele lens choices. That 12.5mm lens refers to a custom built lens and there is no "market" for such an experimental lens that cost me >$300!).
     
  46. Philip
    The 24 - 70 F2.8 is the Canon standard lens to buy.​
    thanks for the pointer on the lens, I assume you are meaning in FD? I couldn't agree more with your comments about lens selection on the 4/3'rds if one was (say) a professional wedding photographer I don't think the G1 would be a wise choice. For me, it is my backpack camera choice and I feel more comfortable with it in my backpack than my 10D.
    I'm not totally happy with the FD 300f4 which arrived today, but the weather here is dim and overcast so it hardly makes a good testing time ... contrast is not so good to me.
    00SzFZ-122519584.jpg
     
  47. My reference on the 24-70 F2.8 was the EF lens for the 5DII - it was in response to an earlier post. Moving to the G1 - I am very happy with this little camera but have found it works best with high quality FD glass. Lower quality glass wide open can lead to CA. In addition when shooting towards the sun i have found situations where the contrast is suddenly fairly low. I think this is due to the fact that the rear element of the FD lenses lacks an anti-reflective coating so that the light is reflecting off the sensor, onto the rear element of the lens and back into the sensor resulting in very low contrast. While not a major issue it deos occur on the G1 with old FD lenses
     
  48. No, not scared off. One and 1/3 + 4/3rds. Four thirds of what? Sounds like marketing hype so I don't really buy into it. Just want to know if it really compares to full frame sensors or crop sensors like Nikon and Canon have.
    As for ISO, use like a Leica or my old F1 Canons with Tri-X. 11x14 was the maximum size I do real B&W from film and would like that quality from digital.
    Having the option of Leica glass for 1.4 apertures sounds nice as long as I can focus in low light.
     
  49. Paulie
    you ask four thirds of what, so from this link :
    Sensors are often referred to with a "type" designation using imperial fractions such as 1/1.8" or 2/3" which are larger than the actual sensor diameters. The type designation harks back to a set of standard sizes given to TV camera tubes in the 50's. These sizes were typically 1/2", 2/3" etc. The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube​
    so 4/3 (or four thirds) is 18 x 13.5mm
    00T0Py-123091584.jpg
     
  50. .
    BTW, little, tiny 2/3rds sensors (8.8x6.6mm) are still around, used in professional HDTV cameras especially, and peaked at ~8 million RGGB pixels (most consumer compacts and bridge cameras use even smaller sensors). See also:
    ... and:
    ----------
    Paulie,
    Rather than speculate, search Google for "four thirds", then spend as much time as you can exploring information from THE SOURCE of "four thirds":
    --
    As incredible as ANY DSLR is, all any of them has to do is match your needs , and even a little tiny 2/3rds camera (1/4 the capture size of a 4/3rds camera, 1/16th the capture size of 35mm film) may be waay more than you "need", but until you examine your needs, all this exploration is just trivia collection .
    Let us know how we can help YOU ... otherwise,
    • the world out there is your encyclopedia , and
    • Google is your table of contents .
    Have at it.
    .
    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.​
    .
     
  51. 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.​
    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.

     
  52. .
    Hi Vivek,
    Ever the ornery arguer, you are. Me, too! No use trying to dis' me over any "mysterious" 2/3rds camera since
    • (a) anyone clicking on my name here at photo.net gets more than a clue *, and
    • (b) anyone familiar with the image presentations below knows first hand the experience of 5 million pixel 2/3rds capture:
    From http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/
    • "Crossing The Line" directed by Peter Jackson
    • "My Bloody Valentine 3D"
    • "CHE A revolutionary Life" Special Roadshow Edition, Limited Engagement Only In Theaters
    • "The Book Of Eli"
    • "Knowing"
    • Shasha Grey "The Girlfriend Experience"
    • "Game"
    • "Jumper" from the director of "The Borne Identity" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith"
    • "Labor Pains" Lindsay Lohan (might as well just watch with the sound off!)
    • "ER" (yes, THAT "ER" -- the television show)
    • "Santuary"
    • "Southland"
    • "Angels & Demons" Tom Hanks
    • "The Cleaner"
    • "Leverage" (one of my current favorites)
    • "Slpinterheads"
    • "Woodshop"
    • "A4U"
    • "The Informant"
    ... and so on, and those are just "in your face" examples of waay smaller than 35mm or even 4/3rds capture.​
    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 comparing gear to our needs . Have at it! And your needs are ... ?
    ----------
    * Me? The 2003 Minolta DiMage A1 DSL/EVF camera suits me fine for now http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-a1/index.html ... though the 2008 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 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 2006 Leica Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 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?
    ----------
    Anyway, we each have our own photographic criteria. All I'm trying to do is wrestle this thread out of the:
    • endless "this camera beats that camera"
    ... and back into :
    • specific "how do I know my photographic needs, and then find a matching camera today?"
    Help, please.
    .
     
  53. Help, please.​
    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".
    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.
    Vicarious living/existence has its disadvantages.
     
  54. .
    Let me rephrase that.
    Help the opening poster, please.​
    But thanks for offering to help me out! ;-)
    .
     
  55. 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".
     
  56. .

    http://www.Red.com/ has many cameras you can build to suit yourself, starting with 2/3rds sensors:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company

    "... 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 ..."
    2/3rds sensors are alive and well and making millions of image loves happy.
    .
     
  57. Red will have 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.
     

Share This Page