Panasonic G-1,a nice idea that's flawed?

The Micro Four-Third's sensor used in the Panasonic G-1,and general compactness of the design philosophy are to

be applauded from a technical standpoint.Maybe i'm just a cynic, but i can't help but think that although the system

may well be a step up from your average bridge/compact digital camera,even the larger "Standard" Four-Thirds

sensor used by Olympus in it's E-series cameras is flawed at higher ISO's, compared to APS-C type sensors.12

M.P

on a sensor smaller than standard Four-Thirds hints at either LOTS of noise, OR lots of noise reduction given current

levels of sensor design. Having owned an E-500 the results were not that great above ISO 800.Is this camera

ultimately just another example of quality being sacrificed on the altar of convenience?.Have yet to see a R.R.P. for

the system here in the U.K, but it may not be that "competitive", as there is no other similar system that i'm aware of

at present.

Hopefully i will be proved wrong, if so i will be first in line to buy one!.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

Martin.

[[is this camera ultimately just another example of quality being sacrificed on the altar of convenience?]]

 

I'm curious, how many digital point and shoots have you owned or used extensively and what were the sensors sizes and the total number of pixels?

 

[[Having owned an E-500 the results were not that great above ISO 800]]

 

How big were the prints you were making from images at or above ISO 800?

Martin check your facts before your assumptions. The micro 4/3 uses the same size sensor. The mount is smaller, the flange to film plane is smaller. The design is mirror box free so the whole design can be shrunk in size.

 

True a FF 35mm digital frame allows for a sensor density to be larger with the same MP. But the APS is 1.5x crop vs. 2.0x crop for 4/3 is not a big deal now that sensors are maturing in signal to noise at higher iso.

 

Most people will never need more than the G1 camera 12mp. Even at that post processing noise reduction and up resolution software will allow you to make bigger and higher iso prints at least equal to larger APS cameras.

 

In fact soon the 4/3 will have noise under control good enough for noise free iso 1600 which was a dream of film users. The fact that the lenses are smaller means teles that maintain F2.8 at long equivalent focal length.

I think the bigger problem with the G1 is the size and the price. They got rid of the mirror and it's not much smaller than the Nikon D60 or Canon Rebel XS. It's also $800 with the kit lens. Why should I buy it instead of the D60 or Rebel? dpreview says the camera has a deliberately conservative design which is why it has a fake prism bump. I'm far more interested in the small Olympus Micro 4/3 mockup that was shown at Photokina. I like the concept of Micro 4/3 but the G1 is too big, I might as well have an SLR.

Harvey, your "crops" are not quite right. Those are the focal length "crops" not the surface area. The surface area difference is 1/2 for APS-C and 1/4 for Four Thirds. So yes, Four Thirds is packing 12MP into 1/4 the area of a full frame sensor. But this camera isn't marketed at the full-frame professional camera crowd anyway, it's marketed at the point-n-shoot crowd. And considering that we are seeing 10MP point-n-shoot cameras with microscopically small sensors, then the Four Thirds sensor DOES offer larger "pixel sites" which means less grain and less artificial noise reduction than those kinds of cameras. And ISO results over 800? What are you shooting telephoto lenses in a cave? Hopefully, Olympus will offer some faster lenses for the M43 cameras since they will be cheaper to design and easier to build than fast lenses for standard Four Thirds. Faster lenses alone could make the M43 cameras more flexible for dark shooting than standard Four Thirds, and after all, the point-n-shoot crowd does a vast amount of shooting in-doors!

It's not a fake prism hump--the hump has the viewfinder. It may not be "much" smaller than a D60 or a Rebel, but it is smaller. It also has a much bigger viewfinder and a high-res articulating display. Worth the price difference? Probably to some even at $800, and it will only get cheaper with time. I personally want one if only for the 20mm pancake and the 7-14mm. No they're not available yet, but I think they will be produced.

Walt said "it's not much smaller than the Nikon D60 or Canon Rebel XS."

 

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Canoneos1000d/images/sidebyside2.jpg

 

I read the other day that the G1 was 'marginally smaller than the E-420 and 5g heavier." So it's getting near the

limit of un-usable with big lenses, right? But the real space and weight savings will be in the associated lens

range. The 'advanced amateur'/'enthusiast'/general dSLR owner/womanwon't mind buying the 2 lens kit that'll give

them a 28-400mm range at f3.5-5.6. Add in the diminuitive 7-14/f4 and the 20mm/f1.7 pancake, and the 'superzoom'

14-140mm/f4-5.6 and you have a very useful lens range that offers choice, truely wanted items. I'm no big fan of

panny or their processing (Read: IQ) but I'll give them their due on this gear. A User will fit a 2-lens kit in a

very small camera bag and if they want to travel light, they'll go with 1 lens and it'll be the pancake or the

'superzoom'.

 

Add a small flash like a FL20 or 36 (or their versions of them), a memory card or 2, spare battery, one of those

4-5" 'tripod' cum base, maybe a IR remote of some sort, and you have a the basis of a all-rounder travel kit that

you can take on aircraft andwon't look out of place at little johnnys footy game or little Jasmines 6th birthday

party at MacDonalds.

 

12MP is way too much pixels for an awful lot of people but that's fine, the user will not outgrow the gear...

it'll be enough for them.

 

From the looks of it panny have gone after the low-end dSLR user, i.e. the newcomer, the parent, the enthusiast,

the advanced amateur. Oly seem to have tackled a different market in that they are going after a hybrid of the

p&s cum low-end dSLR user. That is basically everyone under 'advanced amateur'. My money would be on Panny except

if Oly makes a real 'quality' piece of kit, y'know, gear that is nice to own that feels and looks like a million

dollars.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

The bad thing about m4/3rds is that we now have 2 4/3rds systems and there's now caveats about what works with

what and all that stuff. It has lost that 'everything works with everything else 100%' thing and that is messy in

the consumers eyes.

Size size size...

 

You can get all the size numbers from dpreview

 

G1 124 x 84 x 45 mm

D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm

Rebel XSi 129 x 98 x 62 mm

 

Yes it's smaller but for me it isn't small enough. The cutoff point for me is will it fit in a pocket or do I have to carry it around my shoulder or bring a bag? Maybe the G1 will fit in a large pocket without the lens or a 20mm pancake lens.

 

If you're happy with the G1 by all means buy it. For me if it won't fit in my pocket then I'll bring my Canon or Leica P&S or I might as well bring one of my Nikon DSLRs. That's why I'm more excited about the Olympus version. We may finally get a large sensor camera with interchangeable lenses that can still fit in a pocket.

"Harvey, your "crops" are not quite right. Those are the focal length "crops" not the surface area."

 

- Actually Harvey is quite close with his crop estimate. Crop factors that are used by Nikon (1.5X), and Canon

(1.6X, 1.3 X) are focal length crops and are advertised as such numbers. Focal length crop is what most people

care about. Focal length crops have practical meaning of suggesting lens selection and usage. Area crops have no

practical use. Some people also use perhaps more practical angle of view crop factor.

 

Look at the G1 camera versus film (24 x 36mm ) camera:

 

G1 has 18 x 13.5 mm sensor, or 243 square millimeters of area.

24 x 36 mm film has 864 square mm area. Therefore the sensor area crop factor would be 864 / 243 = and that is

about 3.5X times smaller in G1. Nobody uses "surface area" crop factor since it has no practical meaning. It is

not advertised by camera makers.

 

The G1 diagonal is about 23.3 mm and the film frame diagonal is about 43.3 mm. Therefore crop factor would be

43.3 / 23.3 = about 1.86 X ... and that is quite close to Harvey's estimates. Some film four thirds cameras have

crop factor closer to 2X.

Now I am not a big fan of PnS cameras, they have their place, snap shots (which is what I use my wife's PnS for). However, the kit lenses don't really give you anything a point and shoot doesn't, other then maybe somewhat higher quality. There are already a number of small point and shoot cameras with lens that are the equivelent of 35-200mm that are faster. Heck my wife's several years old Sony PnS has a 35-307mm equivelent lens (something like that on the long end) that is also I believe f/2.5-5.5.

 

Sure the sensor on it is smaller and it isn't as good at high ISO (passable at iso400, not so good at iso800), but the lens is faster then the kit lenses for the micro 4/3rds. When you get fast zooms in there for the micro 4/3rds they end up being quite a bit larger then a PnS for the whole package.

 

I certainly think that the micro 4/3rds has its place, but I would still be happier seeing a larger sensor in the camera to have a really dominating difference between the PnS level and the interchangable lens camera level, even if it meant increasing the size of the camera and lenses just a slight amount more.

I wonder at the mindset of people who attack a new camera system that isn't even on sale yet. Where is the point? What do you gain? If these cameras are attractive and sell some units, you have a new system on the market which widens choice and provides a competitive stimulus to the other manufacturers. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Sigma or Canon or whoever may respond by coming out with something that you do like. You can't lose.

<i>... Some film 4/3 cameras have a crop factor closer to 2x. ...</i>

<br><br>

"Film 4/3 cameras"? Ridiculous. Never existed. 4/3 System is a 100% digital invention. micro4/3 is a further

development of the standard, with a shorter lens mount register, smaller diameter mount intended for non-SLR,

interchangeable lens bodies. The sensor size, for either, is 13x17.3 mm.

<br><br>

No camera is perfect. The Panasonic G1 looks to be an excellent camera; we'll know for sure when it is delivered and

users start making photographs with it. I look forward to it as with an adapter I'll be able to use all my existing 4/3

System lenses with it, in addition to the new, smaller, faster primes that will surface in the coming year or two.

<br><br>

I don't need a camera to "fit in my pocket" to find it delightfully compact. I need a camera to be large enough to hold

securely and steadily, and to have good controls that are usable. The G1 design looks good in this regard. I owned an

LX1 and, while it took excellent photos, it proved to be too small and the controls too fussy to use for my druthers.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

Its smaller than the leica M camera like the M8, true its not a 1.3 crop but the M size camera for years was the size that was considered just right, not to small for the hands or to large to carry around for street shooting.

Another thought if I might, this is a interchangeable lens camera not a P&S. The Micro vs Standard 4/3 lenses are going to be smaller period, just look at the design of the mount. I would not put my camera in my lint laden pockets where I keep my gum and candy wrappers.

Frank... sensor plane diagonal is not the same as area. Yes the focal length crop is what people are talking about but it is a very different thing than area. Area is what MegaPixels and noise are about, not diagonal sensor plane. A 3MP 4/3's sensor, a 6MP APS-C sensor and a 12MP full frame sensor have the same size sensor sites, and so would have about the same noise levels. That's the logical explanation beyond the marketing hype. A 4/3's sensor is NOT one half the size of full frame, it is 1/4 the size, and you can throw all the confusing marketing terms and diagrams you want at it, but it will not change the size of the sensor. Full frame sensors are the same size as 135 film, 24x36. APS-C sensors are basically the same size as film "half-frame" cameras which are 24x18. 4/3's sensors are the same size as 110 film, which is 13x17. If you compare the size of 110 cameras to 35mm cameras, thats the difference between 4/3's and full frame digital.

 

Paul... two different mounts is a problem, but Leica now has 5 different mounts out, and only two of them are interchangeable in one direction. I think the real problem here is that Olympus really should have gone with something closer to the M43 mount from the beginning and just made miniature SLR cameras with miniature lenses.... like a digital version of the Pentax 110 SLR.

 

I don't think large lenses will be too much of a problem, after all, a 200mm lens on 4/3's is equivalent to a 300mm lens on APS-C and a 400mm lens on full frame, so the 4/3's telephoto lenses can be much much smaller for the same reach than Canon or Nikon professional stuff. So really, a Micro 4/3's shooter can be standing right beside a Canon 5D shooter and get the same reach with much smaller lighter gear, and smaller bags. Smaller and lighter means more flexibility and manuverability. Canon and Nikon are pretty well entrenched with the "big hands" club, but there's a ton of shooters, including women (and myself) who have smaller hands and are looking for an overall smaller camera build to their proportions. The Mini Cooper is a very very tiny car, but it's still popular despite the fact that many Americans are just too big to get into one!

My issues are the wides and super wides, not the telephotos. There isn't to much out there in the wide and super wide catagory for choice and nothing for speed really (nothing faster then f/2, and it is a 28-70mm equivelent zoom...of course for a zoom f/2 is blinding fast), which is needed that much more with the lack of high iso capability in comparison to some of the APS-c and full frame cameras (you can't tell me a 4/3rds of any manufacturer at iso3200 can compare to even a 5d at iso3200, let alone a D3).

 

If you look at the line up there is exactly one lens that you could consider a wide or super wide that is prime, the Olympus 8mm f/3.5 diagonal fisheye.

 

The micro 4/3rds might help out to a degree with the much smaller sensor to lens register distance, but I doubt it it small enough to make truely compact wide angle lenses feasible for the camera. At least nothing that is particularly fast.

" "Film 4/3 cameras?"....never existed..."

Ah contraire Godfrey old man. What about all my half frame cameras? Their aspect ratio is 4:3, four thirds!

Not the same size of course, digital 4/3 is closer to 110 frame size if one wants to compare to a film format size.

 

Of course you know I'm just pulling your leg.

Firstly, sincere apologies to Harvey for my ignorance about the sensor size....guess i should read the spec a little more closely!.I will admit that Olympus have indeed improved the sensor noise issue since the inception of the E-500, but i'm not sure how anyone can say that noise issues at high ISOs with Four-Thirds will shortly be a thing of the past, unless of course anyone's an Olympus tech boffin here! ;-] .I actually don't have an issue with noise if it replicates film grain,as i shoot regularly on Tri-X film, but high ISO noise from Four Thirds so far is quite "blotchy",which i find a distraction if you print to A3 or so.

To answer Rob,i have used a Nikon Coolpix 4m.p. digicam, and a Fujifilm Prosumer model (i can't remember the model,but it interpolated 3m.p. to 6m.p.)quite extensively, and both were decent little cameras, but both struggled with the noise issue in nightime cityscapes, and a few dimly-lit weddings i attended.Output was around A4 for the Nikon, A3 for the Fuji.I just seem to get a better quality of output from a 6 m.p. CMOS or APS-C digital SLR.

John,

 

My leg is longer now, eh? ;-) I owned and used (and still own) quite a number of half-frame 35mm cameras.

 

Half-frame 35mm is not 4/3 System. And it's 18x24 mm format, not 13x17.3 mm. It may be a 3:4 proportion format, but

that is by no means 4/3 System. (It's actually closer to Canon/Leica's 1.3x crop sensors in area, which are nominally

18x27mm.) 110 film format is theoretically 13x17 mm on a piece of 16mm wide film, yes, although it is usually masked

to a bit smaller than that. It is a 3:4 proportion format, but it is also assuredly not 4/3 System.

 

Godfrey

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/153-redcross.jpg" border=0><br>

<i>Panasonic DMC-L1 plus Olympus ZD 25mm f/2.8 <br>

ISO 800 @ f/3.5 @ 1/8 second (hand held)</i><br>

</center><br>

Martin,

<br><br>

If you're seeing "blotchy" noise from your 4/3 System cameras, you're underexposing. The photo above was made at

ISO 800 using the 7.5Mpixel, first generation Panasonic 4/3 System sensor. It renders beautifully to an 11x14 inch print

and has a very "film-like" appearance, but nicer than any ASA 800 color film I ever used.

<br><br>

More recent sensors, larger sensors, etc, produce smoother results, but I like the rendering qualities of this camera in both B&W and color

photographs.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

Matthew,

 

The Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 is an ultra wide angle lens (90 degrees across the diagonal) that is also quite fast for a

UWA, and a spectacular performer. There is also the superb ZD 7-14/4 (115 degrees on the diagonal) ... again, quite fast for

such a UWA and another spectacular performer. The new ZD 9-18 (can't recall the lens opening) is another UWA that's

getting very good reviews.

 

For compact primes, the ZD 25/2.8, ZD 35/3.5 Macro and ZD 50/2 Macro span the normal to portrait telephoto range very

nicely and are all pretty compact. But shorter than 25mm compact is very hard to do, along with speed, for a 38mm mount

register AND a swinging mirror. There is the superb Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH ... a state of the art

lens with superb performance ... but it is large and heavy due to the complexity of the lens formula required for the DSLR

mount. With UWA zooms like the ones above, it's hard to justify putting a lot of effort into UWA primes ... they won't be

much faster and they will perform very nearly the same.

 

micro4/3 gets around that easily. Both a register half the distance AND no swinging mirror to get in the way means a lot

more flexibility in lens design. Remember that they're just getting started ... Panasonic has already announced a 20mm

f/1.7 which is smaller than the Olympus 25/2.8 to be released next year, and a "mini" version of the 7-14mm (f/4 also) that

is 30% smaller in all dimensions. I expect there will be a lot more compact, fast primes in the next year or two as this gets

rolling. Also, the ~20mm mount register and no mirror in the way means that some beautiful UWA lenses with Leica M-

mount can be adapted to the G1.

 

Godfrey

Paul P wrote: "The bad thing about m4/3rds is that we now have 2 4/3rds systems and there's now caveats about

what works with what and all that stuff. It has lost that 'everything works with everything else 100%' thing and

that is messy in the consumers eyes."

 

Yeah, that troubles me some too. I rather think it should be viewed as a wholly new standard. Different lens

mount, different lens to sensor distance, total dropping of the optical viewfinder. It is a fresh but different

system. Yes I can use my ED Zuiko lenses with an adapter (perhaps, if the focusing system can be adapted) and

Panasonic lenses can be used with Olympus but they add an OIS system which seem counterpurpose to the body

stabilization so readily usable in a 4/3 size sensor. I may buy one of these guys with one lens because I can

call it a fancy point and shoot. But I am sticking with the standard 4/3 for my needs and am less excited about

the mini size aspect. Mainly because I think there are some good offerings in the small high end point and shoot

series by Nikon and Canon and even Panasonic. A single good lens is not beyond development. with a fast aperture

too and decent high ISO (high for me is 400, a traditionalist here) I hope I am wrong about the confusion factor

of two standards that are in some ways competitive. If they come out with a swivel LCD and a good ergonomic style

I could migrate though,heck I am easy!.

 

I won't judge yet of course, since this is a fledgling. I think those who have stuck by Olympus for a while are

justifiably excited and maybe a little taken off stride by this new variation cum new "standard" of the 4/3

species. And there are some fair buzzes about what is the game plan of the so called consortium) Little size

is good. Small good lenses is good. Small affordable lenses is nirvana. An expansion of accessories like copy

stands is good too. I am not a patient guy as Olympus decides its marketing direction over there.gs

I hope there will be a Leica -M adapter to the micro 4/3 camera system. I have some Leica-R lenses I use on my E-system, but so far M lenses can not be fitted to any digital (except the dedicated M8, which is too expensive, and RD-1, which is too old).

 

Every camera is a compromise. There are always tradeoffs. You need to decide what you are willing to trade and how much you are willing to pay. Even big money does not mean that you get a perfect camera.

Ilkka, M lenses like my 21/25/35/50/90mm become 42/50/70/100/180 mm EFL because of the 2x crop factor that leaves the whole wide angle end for Pany or Oly lenses since it needs to be 12mm or wider just to get the equivalent of a 24mm wide angle lens. I get excited about some of this but not the loss of my 25mm biogon losing its wide angle view I paid so much for while becoming a slow normal lens.