Panasonic G1 New York Times review

Many good points raised on page 2 of this review.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

.

 

Thanks for the link, Harvey.

 

Also see http://PopPhoto.com/ Magazine November 2008 page 13 - they LOVED the Panasonic Lumix

DMC-G1 micro 4/3rds system, and showed Japanese Engineer Dr. Ted Sato holding it. Very nice

explanation of the viewfinder and auto focus improvements to make it compete well with DSLRs in those

areas.

 

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/5526/panasonic-lumix-g1-less-is-more.html

 

or

 

http://tinyurl.com/5sywnk

 

I can't wait for my chance to play with one and buy one, though I'd like a single lens from 28-300mm

equivalent (14-150mm native) to reduce the need to carry a spare lens for swap.

 

Otherwise, thanks for the link. Very exciting this micro 4/3rds system - 1/2 frame becoming popular

once again, like the world's best selling Olympus Pen F 1/2 frame 35mm film SLR was in it's day (and we wonder

why Olympus invented 1/2 frame digital in the 4/3rds system, eh?)!

 

Who needs full

frame? ;-)

 

Harvey, what's your interest here?

 

.

As usual Pogue gets many facts wrong. The G1 viewfinder image is still created "seeing" through the lens.

.

 

And don't forget 12 great exploratory web pages on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 micro 4/3rds system

at http://www.dpreview.com/

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/

 

.

.

 

Earlier: "... As usual Pogue gets many facts wrong. The G1 viewfinder image is still created "seeing" through

the lens ..."

 

"... many facts wrong ..."?

 

You only mention one, and you are wrong on that one.

 

He is right in saying that YOU do not look through the lens, rather you look at a tiny TV screen that

is the "viewfinder".

 

That tiny TV screen is "looking" at wires/electrical signals from the 1/2-frame 4/3rds sensor.

 

That sensor, and the sensor only, is the only one "looking" through the lens.

 

You do not "look through the lens" even though waht you see is through the lens.

 

Simple, no? .

 

I had no problem understanding this, though it is rather technical.

 

Now about "... many facts wrong ..." ... "... many ..."?

 

Wrong fact # 1 - a point to remember is that Minolta FIRST put a high-speed, high-resolution tiny TV in the viewfinder

of their Minolta DiMage A2 which refreshed at 60 frames per second and had much higher that other EVF cameras, at

the time, ~0.87 megapixel EVF resolution:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Konica_Minolta/konicaminolta_dimagea2.asp

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5rhcjt

 

And see also Minolta's own web pages:

 

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-a2/

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/68xbh3

 

... for Minolta DiMage A2 Super Fine EVF:

 

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-a2/04.html

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/6dap2l

 

 

"... The [Minolta DiMage A2] Super Fine EVF is an extra-large VGA viewfinder that offers nearly four times the

resolution of conventional QVGA electronic viewfinders (922,000 pixels vs. 235,000 pixels). ... confirm ... focus

... more easily, without having to magnify the viewfinder display ... wide 32 degree viewing angle (similar to a

35mm SLR camera), 90 degree tilting for low-position shooting, and the other special features ..."

 

So it behooves us to enhance any press release that's been republished by gaga journalists by adding

expansive research and investigative reporting that they get paid to do. Minolta beat Panasonic at this "high

quality EVF" game, probably using Sony parts, but Minolta beat Panasonic nonetheless.

 

The Minolta DiMage A2 sensor, however, was 2/3rds, not 4/3rds, ~1/2 the dimensions and ~1/4 the size of the

4/3rds sensor, so the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 micro 4/3rds system 1/2 frame DISLEVF (Digital

Interchangeable Lens Electronic View Finder) camera is a giant step up for us Minolta DiMage 5/7/A-series

DSLEVF camera shooters. I'm very excited!

 

Wrong fact # 2 - Pogue can't have gotten it right that the G1 is the smallest interchangeable lens camera. Maybe

smallest DIGITAL camera with interchangeable lenses, but ... who can check this and report back?

 

Wrong fact # 3 - on the way to "... many facts wrong ...", are there any takers out there who can find other problems

with Pogue's report at

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html?

_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=business&pagewanted=print

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5pc4r4

 

.

"He is right in saying that YOU do not look through the lens, rather you look at a tiny TV screen that is the "viewfinder".

 

So SLR's do not have through the lens viewing? The eye is actually viewing a small piece of ground glass where the image is being focused by the lens.

Hi Ron,

 

In an SLR or DSLR, the viewfinder image is light that passes through the taking lens via a mirror (hence the word

"reflex"). The number of lenses and prisms and mirrors has never changed people opinions of how SLRs work

regardless of using a catadioptric mirror lens, pellicule mirror in the mirror box, mirror or glass prism, a lens with 1

element, 13 elements, and so on. However, a case can be made for seeing a virtual image on the focusing screen just

as in a large format camera.

 

In an EVF or LCD camera, we see new light generated by the EVF or LCD, not light from the subject. Light from the

subject is captured and converted by the sensor into an electrical signal, and then in the EVF it converts an amplified

and tuned electronic signal back into light, or in the case of LCDs, filters for backlighting.

 

So, the light we see through an EVF or LCD is NOT from the subject.

 

The light we see in the viewfinder of an SLR, or ever a rangefinder or direct viewfinder camera, IS the light from the

subject.

 

The point? EVFs can also easily overlay camera information in the view including camera settings and histograms and

so on, as well as tweak the brightness amplification or drop color out in favor of black and white display. Also, as

noted, the EVF can be aimed any which way with little complications. It's hard to bend a light path any which way in

an SLR going to the viewfinder, so SLRs rarely have remote or off-angle, off-axis pre-viewing. capability. I use 90

degree TTL viewfinding on my EVF all the time to put the camera on the ground and look straight down into it to see 90

degrees ahead of the camera while I'm looking down, then drop the viewfinder back down to hold the camera at eye

level for direct viewing. Fun, and NOT available on any SLR I have ion the shelf!

Peter, most people are using the term EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lenses) for this new class of cameras.

 

I can never tell if Pogue is trying to simplify things for his non-tech readers or really doesn't know what he's talking about. I've emailed him a few time with corrections and clarifications but never gotten a response. Hey Pogue, in case you're reading it, an SLR and EVIL type camera are both TTL (Through The Lens) viewing. The SLR is an optical system, the EVIL is an electronic system. Using the rear LCD on a point and shoot or live view on a DSLRis also a TTL but electronic system. A rangefinder like a Leica has no SLR mirror but is also an optical system but is not TTL because you frame the picture through a little window off to the side and deal with parallax issues. I think we all know this stuff.

The Pentax Auto 110SLR is smaller, is a REAL S.L.R. with a moving mirror, and has the same size film as the

4/3's sensor.

 

Technically, S.L.R. stands for "Single Lens Reflex" meaning that the image comes though the Single Lens (as

opposed to Twin Lens in TLR) and Reflects off of a mirror. In fact, most "Bridge" cameras are actually just

fixed lens, fixed mirror (or prism) S.L.R.'s... meanings there's already dozens of "S.L.R.'s" on the market

smaller than the G1.

 

There is no part of the definition of "SLR" that entails that it has to have interchangeable lenses, and in fact,

many non-SLR cameras have interchangeable lenses are well, such as Range-Finder, View-Finder, View-Camera, and

TLR types. And there are probably several interchangeable lens View-Finder cameras that are smaller than the G1

as well.

 

The simple fact is that the Micro Four Third's cameras are NOT SLR's, but a whole new type of cameras. Call them

NR's (Non Reflex) or ILDV's (Interchangeable Lens Digital Viewfinder) or whatever, but the there needs to be a

new name! And to say that the first camera made in a new type is the smallest of it's type is about like saying

the first electronic computer was the smallest, fastest electronic computer ever built.

 

Unfortunately, the uninformed consumer world has an idea of what an "SLR" is that has absolutely nothing to do

with what an SLR actually is, and reviews and articles like this only serve to reinforce that ignorance with lots

of official sounding technical jargon and lots of numbers. It's like when people thought the world was flat...

just because everyone thought that the world was flat didn't make it do.

 

How about "smallest SLR ever made?" Hmmm... if you imagine each of the following cameras as a box without a

lens, the follow numbers are the cubic mm volume of that box: G1 is 468561cmm. Leica M3 is 355971cmm. Leica CL

is 367679cmm. Olympus OM1 is 395080cmm. Olympus Pen F is 286861cmm. The Pentax Auto 110 SLR is 177408cmm.

These are not the exact cubic volumes of the cameras... but really... the G1 is nowhere NEAR the smallest SLR or

interchangeable lens camera ever made!

Ahh... EVIL, yeah there ya go, new term for new cameras, unforunately, the term EVIL will probably never really catch on.

.

 

Hi Walt,

 

No, we don't all know this stuff. For instance, no camera has the viewfinder on axis ... oh, wait a minute, a

large format camera's ground glass is the only "viewfinder" on axis. Some LCDs are placed near the back

center of the taking sensor. I wish there were no paralax error, but I always have to stand a little taller to get

my taking lens to be aimed as my eye was before I put a camera to it.

 

Some people are dropping the "D" from "DSLR" since there are scant few "SLRs" anymore that are not also

"DSLRs". It may happen Pogue already said "... the G1 is the smallest interchangeable lens camera ..." and

didn't mention DIGITAL, as if it no longer matters.

 

"EVIL" is not a helpful abbreviation as it does not specify TTTL Through The Taking Lens, or TTL for short.

Sure, nobody makes an Electronic Viewfinder that's NOT through the taking lens, but still, the letters in "EVIL"

do not describe the camera the way we are used to describing cameras, so it's just a way for the owners of big

toys to defend their decisions, their importance (impotence?), and their turf against encroachment by those

with small toys.

 

The letter in "SLR" makes the viewfinder type clear since there's only one lens (Single Lens ...), so where else

could you be looking except through the same lens that the film or sensor will also look through? ;-) Think of

"TLR", the other popular camera type at the time "SLRs" became popular. Twin Lens Reflex had Twin Lenses,

so you looked through one lens and the film looked through the other lens. No one thought that there'd be

much confusion as to which of these camera types was TTL - SLRs were TTL, TLRs were not..

 

Calling this new (eight years new?) breed "DSL/EVF" make sense because it has the letters "DSL" which is

close to "DSLR" so people can imagine there is a link or similarity here to "DSLRs", and so they know where

we are starting off, probably, with Digital Single Lens, but then, instead of the letter "R", we have th eletters

"EVF", so were replacing Reflex (mirror) with EVF Electronic View Finder. Makes sense, a DSLR with an EVF

instead of an R. Got it. I now know what kind of camera it is.

 

"DSL/EVF" is a pretty good abbreviation. "DSIL" is to unfamiliar, and who needs to mark the system as "I"

Interchangeable, as in Digital Single Interchangeable Lens - no one ever did that for SLRs, calling them SILRs.

That would just be SILLY (Single Interchangeable Lens with a Lightpath shaped like a "Y" ...?!? - Q:"Is that a

SILLY camera?" - A:"Why, yes, it is!").

 

There's no need for abbreviations in this market segment yet, and abbreviations only help after we all already

know what we are talking about. But eventually, people forget what abbreviations mean, and start calling

everything an SLR even though it might be inaccurate. People called my Minolta DiMage 5/7/A-series a bridge

camera ("bridge" - another silly attempt to define a market segment) an "SLR" or "DSLR", but they were wrong

since it had no mirror ... oh, what's the point?

 

"EVIL" is just a goofy and inaccurate abbreviation. Why invent a new name, especially if it's wrong on two

counts? "EVF" already is in the marketplace, and "DSLR" is already out there, too. "DSL/EVF" combines

existing abbreviations, and is accurate, "EVIL" is just goofy and inaccurate.

 

Heck, people are having difficulty keeping track of "4/3rds", too, because "http://www.4/3rds.com/" doesn't

work as a web address, so they are calling it "four / thirds", or "FTS" for "Four Thirds System" - all goofy and

inaccurate. I'm sure mini-camera haters call it "four turds" - or maybe people from Brooklyn, New York, call it

"four terds", I dunno. But, someday, there may be a pattern we will all fall into that works for everyone, the

way "SLR" seemed to become vogue and clear - when did that happen?. "1/2-frame" versus "full-frame" works

for me, but makes Olympus embarassed that they have only half of the big guy's stuff - too diminutive.

 

And then there are those who use "uFTS" - what the heck is "uFTS"? "You Futz"? They mean "micro four-

thirds", of course, but "u" does not stand for "micro"! A backwards "u", Greek "mu", does, so why not call it

"muFTS" - pronounced "Mew Fitz"? Crazy.

 

Why not just call it:

 

micro four-thirds

 

... or:

 

micro 4/3rds

 

... and:

 

DSL/EVF

 

?

 

The marketplace will vote, and goofy threads like these will hardly have much impact over time.

 

Imagine, however, asking for a camera across a sales counter, and expecting a clerk to hand you the right

camera. Will we say:

 

"... EVIL ..."?

 

... or:

 

"... micro four-thirds ...?

 

I won't even say:

 

"... DSL/EVF ..."

 

... to the sales person until after I have it in my hands.

 

I know which one will work in the place where I may actually BUY one instead of where I jabber on and on

about it with other pixel-heads! ;-)

 

.

.

 

Earlier: "... In fact, most "Bridge" cameras are actually just fixed lens, fixed mirror (or prism) S.L.R.'s

..."

 

Nope, "bridge" cameras were all TTL EVF DSLs. They were the more expensive digital cameras that

were not compacts and not SLRs, but in between, or "bridges" between the two ranges of new digital

cameras.

 

None of them had mirrors, and none of them had interchangeable lenses.

 

They were all designed to behave like mini-DSLRs, only using an electronic viewfinder and a mini-sensor

from compact cameras.

Hi Peter,

 

Yes, I'm familiar with how EVF, SLR, dSLR and View cameras work, having owned at least one of each type over the years.

 

My only point is that I would consider all of them to have through the lens viewing.

I like the 7-14mm lens and the 14-140 lens that are comming out. I would rather have two lenses then one really slow lens or a compromised design with lots of distortion.

 

It would be nice if the new leica 24mm f1.4 lens was in Micro 4/3 mount too.

This is one bizarre thread. The sudden intrusion of a knock off chinese training shoe ad only highlights the

strangeness. I like Guinness, but don't call it beer, its actually stout. If you think its beer you don't know anything about

drinking. I'd prefer it if it had a different kind of hop and was fermented for another 15 days though. There was another

brand, Murphy's, that put out a nice drink 25 years ago. It was better by far..If you think Guiness is nice you must be a

moron, You really cannot be believed about anything, you know nothing etc etc.

 

Over at Leica, exactly these threads explode around whether any rangefinder user can possibly accept the miserably

failed opportunity that is the G1, Vats of boiling oil are poured on the heads of posters who just DON'T GET IT!!!!! God

help anyone who expresses a view that fails to be savvy about something that is under the hood.

 

Excuse the irony; let me have a word about cameras. The G1 is exciting. If it is not new in any single regard, it

nevertheless feels to me a significant new avenue off the main highway of increasing doeverythningness and megapixel

size. I won't buy one, but I'm hoping its development along with the other outfits will deliver something fabulous in a

little while so that my next camera is a different paradigm, if you will, not just more of the same. I know this though, it

won't be perfect and it won't have the plasticity to be all things to all users. I'm 55 and I had a darkroom at age 9, I have

always taken pictures. The forum tells me that I really don't understand very much about cameras and photography,

though I don't think thats true. I'd love to take better pictures but I don't know how and still have them mine. I just keep

plugging away. I strongly suspect that hardware won't make the difference I hope for. My eyes and my brain will have

to do that.

.

 

Earlier: "... EVF, SLR, dSLR and View cameras ... have through the lens viewing .."

 

Yes. However, the technical point was over Rob Pogue's following statement from the original article:

 

"... when you put your eye up to the viewfinder, you are not, in fact, seeing out the lens. You’re looking at a tiny screen ..."

 

This is technically accurate. IN the Panasonic G1 viewfinder, you are not looking at your subject. You are looking at the screen. The

screen is "looking" at electronic signals from the sensor. The sensor is "looking" out the lens at your subject. You are not looking out

the lens at your subject.

 

AND, the camera offers "through the lens viewing", as you say, only remotely, or indirectly.

 

Both right, sort of.

 

Technically, EVFs and as such, the Panasonic G1 micro four-thirds system just doesn't have DIRECT through the lens viewing for the

photographer. Rather, it has INDIRECT through the lens viewing. And, as discussed, you're not even seeing light from the subject, but

you're seeing newly created light emanating from the glowing screen, so comparisons to complex light-bending optical viewfinders are

still inaccurate. Rob acknowledged this:

 

"... technically, it’s not an S.L.R. ... it removed the box containing the mirror and prism that traditionally bend the lens’s light up to your

eye (the “reflex” system that gives [the "R" in] an S.L.R. ...) ... when you put your eye up to the viewfinder, you are not, in fact, seeing

out the lens. You’re looking at a tiny screen ..."

 

Capiche? In context, does it communicate well?

 

This is technically complex and not interesting for many in the general audience of the New York TImes, yet I think Rob did a

smashing job of covering the topic with enough detail and accuracy to do what newspapers are supposed to do, and that is, to inform

the uninformed, not to act as a technical reference library for the already well informed, like us here at photo.net. That's what

http://www.dpreview.com/ and http://www.camerapedia.org/ and the Focal Encyclopedia are for.

 

Now, on to other errors in the referenced article:

 

"... Panasonic’s [Lumix] DMC-G1 camera ... is ... the world’s smallest interchangeable-lens camera ..."

 

The weight of the G1 camera is about 13.5 ounces, not 8 ounces, was corrected October 24, 2008.

 

Any other errors in the article?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=business&pagewanted=print

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5pc4r4

 

==

 

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for sparing us the need to visit the non-participating Leica rangefinder non-Leica four-thirds people. Leica is apparently NOT

participating in the "MICRO four-thirds system", hence the Panasonic name only on the G1 lenses. No royalties for Leica, and Leica

can work on their own new toys.

 

I'm 55, also, and had a darkroom since I was 9 also, and I DO understand the inner technicalities of our gear. For me, it supports my

mastery of the gear. I appreciate that for others, such trivia interferes. My partner, for instance, only cares about BENEFITS. I, on the

other hand, have no problem studying FEATURES on the way to their provided benefits, and I'm the one who presents the benefits only

to my partner, and I keep the features to myself. So, after reviewing everything available, my partner bought the lovely little 5

megapixel Leica Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 35-350mm stabilized traveling zoom camera, see:

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/TZ1/TZ1A.HTM

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5aymcr

 

... and loves it, but knows that there is insufficient detail captured for us to be happy with prints larger than 11 x 8.5 inches, so my

partner wants a "better" camera that is not much "bigger". Do we try the new 9 megapixel TZ5 28-280mm stabilized zoom camera,

with merely more pixels but is still JPG only (JPG wipes out up to 90% or more of the captured detail compared to Raw capture), or do

we try the new Panasonic G1 with waay more sensor area, more megapixels, and Raw capture? I like the possibility of the Panasonic

G1 since it's also "better" than my Minolta DiMage A1 in quadrupling the sensor area and more than doubling the pixels, though I

already have Raw capture and can now print satisfactory detail out to 19 x 13 inches just fine for us. The desire for a super zoom lens

with close focusing is a requisite given in any system we use now and buy into next. We're after more detail, and we are not willing to

carry too much more camera. DSLRs are universally too big and heavy for us, especially with a super zoom attached. We prefer one

lens to reduce what we have to carry to only one item that is always ready to capture anything near or far.

 

Back to Pogue's "teaching" of the masses, bringing them up to speed on the benefits with only terse attention to the underlying

features:

 

"... you don’t have to look through the eyepiece. You can also use the huge back-panel screen to frame your shots. It, too, has much

higher resolution than most cameras; it also updates itself 60 times a second, twice as often [sic] as is typical, so your preview is

amazingly smooth ... This screen also flips out and swivels, so you can take pictures over your head or down at your knees without

climbing or bending. You can even frame your own self-portraits, which is impossible on most S.L.R.’s. ..."

 

There. Pogue identifies the camera as not having direct through-the-lens viewing, but twisted, indirect viewing, and twisted

electronically rather than optically. My Minolta DiMage A1 (and the A2) also did this for not only the back LCD, but for the EVF, which

could be cranked up to 90 degrees right-angle to the taking-lens axis. Cool. No one else, not even the Panasonic G1 does this with

the viewfinder, but at least it offers to do it with the LCD.

 

But how to deal with that other bugaboo on non-DSLRs - slow auto-focus? Rob says:

 

"... Without the mirror, Panasonic also had to ditch the autofocus system that most S.L.R.’s use. The replacement system, called

contrast detection, is not new - all S.L.R.’s that have a “live view” feature (where you can frame the shot using the screen) use this

system [ooops - catch the error?]. Most of them, however, do it horribly slowly; it can take as long as three seconds to focus. But the

[Panasonic] G1 can focus in about a third of a second, about the same speed as other non-live-view S.L.R.’s in this price range ... All

right, so now you know the G1’s secrets. How well does it all work? ..."

 

So, Rob chats a bit about the technical underlying features, but realizes it more important to get on to the benefits, and does so in the

rest of the article after "... how well does this work ...".

 

But, let me quote Panasonic's web page, here re-copied from the extensive hand-on review at:

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM

 

... or:

 

http://tinyurl.com/4v3dnn

 

- Shake Detection - Mega O.I.S. turns on automatically to reduce blur from handshake. [in-lens, NOT sensor based]

 

- Motion Detection - When the camera detects a moving subject, Intelligent ISO Control boosts the ISO setting to reduce blur from

subject motion. [a la 1993 Minolta si sophisticated intelligence cameras that used fuzzy logic, here applied to ISO, whereas Minolta

applied it to shutter speed]

 

- Scene Detection - Intelligent Scene Selector recognizes common shooting conditions such as Night Scene, Macro, etc., and adjusts

white balance, exposure and focus accordingly. [a la 1993 Minolta si sophisticated intelligence cameras that used fuzzy logic for

focus, aperture, and shutter speed]

 

- Face Detection - If the camera detects faces in a scene, it judges focus and exposure based on them, rather than surrounding

objects.

 

- Subject Detection - AF Tracking can automatically lock-on moving subjects. [a la 1993 Minolta si sophisticated intelligence cameras

that used fuzzy logic]

 

- Light Detection - Intelligent Exposure pulls details out of shadows. [localized pixel dynamic range maximization a la Apical UK?]

 

Sounds to me like Panasonic has not only developed much new of their own, but has also hired some former Minolta si sophisticated

intelligence people. The controls on the camera are reminiscent of earlier photographer's / engineer's cameras.

 

==

 

Hi haisong xu,,

 

This is NOT a discussion of Nike r3/r4 shoes, but a discussion of a Panasonic 4/3rds camera. Please get off photo.net. Try

http://www.shoe.net/.

 

Thanks.

 

PS - Is there also an http://www.hair.net/, http://www.basketball.net/ and so on?

 

.

Peter.... I'm not sure what you are talking about, but not all "bridge" cameras are Electronic Viewfinders. Olympus for instance made several that are SLR's using a fixed prism, I happen to have my dad's old Camedia C-1400, which had a true optical viewfinder and I believe a fixed prism. That makes it a real SLR. And in the early days of digital cameras, miniature video screens where just not high resolution enough to make an EVF even worth doing. Many "bridge" cameras were true SLR with fixed lenses and they were even being called "SLR's" by the marketing. The term SLR does not mean interchangeable lens. FYI, there have been film fixed lens SLR's in the past. These typically had leaf shutters and worked much like the fixed-lens rangefinders of the day (mid 1960s). These cameras filled the exact same market segment that digital "bridge" cameras address today, the hobbiest who isn't interested in messing with all those lenses and accessories, but want's to be able to compose and focus photos just as reliably as a "professional" camera.

 

And yes, the qualifier "interchangeable lens" was often added to "dSLR" specifically so that people buying the Digital Rebel would know it's not just another fixed-lens SLR like the "bridge" cameras of the time.

And if you allow "indirect" viewing through the lens as the definition of an SLR, then every single P-N-S camera with a rear-view LCD becomes an SLR. That's why a new term is needed, because if you call this camera an SLR, then the term SLR has no meaning because it extends to every single digital camera on the market right now, including $50 key-chain cameras with rear-view LCD's. Because, after all, the rear LCD is still a viewfinder, and for many P-N-S cameras, it's now becoming the ONLY viewfinder, with many companies abandoning eye-level viewfinders. And you can't say that it doesn't count as a viewfinder, because then everyone who shoots medium format or 35mm SLR's or TLR's with the prism removed will have beef with you. Olympus really should have had the cahones to introduce a new term along with the micro four thirds standard. Something that tells you it's got interchangeable lenses, and that you are viewing through the lens via an electronic view-finder.

.

 

Thanks, Patrick,

 

I stand corrected. Olympus shows a range of digital ZLRs - "ZLR" is what their marketing advertisements called

their US-sold film non-interchangeable zoom lens reflex cameras.

 

Their digital compact and "bridge" cameras - DSLRs with optical TTL viewfinders, and digital non-SLRs with non-

optical TTL viewfinders, as well non-SLRs with non-TTL optical viewfinders are listed nicely at Olympus web sites

such as:

 

http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_401.htm

 

http://tinyurl.com/6xby3o

 

... ranging from 0.8 megapixel to 4 megapixel. in the DSLR or DSL/EVF models, and if you search that page for the

term "SLR" there are a few, specifically the C-1400 models that you mention, that claim "optical TTL viewfinder".

 

How did they do that? With a flippin' mirror, or pellicle non-flippin' mirror or what?

 

Bridge? Perhaps. The term "bridge" is an ersatz description. It fits the venerable Olympus ZLRs perfectly, but I do

not think it was used back in the film days - or was it? Does anyone know? I think the term "bridge" first began

being used to mean less expensive digital cameras, that is, less expensive than the DSLRs that were designed

around each maker's own legacy interchangeable lens 35mm film SLRs. In the film days, no one else really made

non-interchangeable lens SLRs the way Olympus did, so "bridge" was an Olympus exclisive (okay, Yashica and

occasionally others such as Casio and Chinon and others may have had some odd, technically "SLR" non-

interchangeable lens cameras, too).

 

Let's ask Google to scour the web for a definition of "bridge camera":

 

"... digital camera with wide range non interchangeable zoom lens, usually fitted with an EVF. It has an exterior

resemblance of a DSLR camera ..." See:

 

http://www.radugrozescu.com/photo-tech/digital-photo-glossary.html

 

http://tinyurl.com/6fc228

 

Ths definition is not exclusive of DSLR designs, but do you see how important it is for people like Patrick to weigh

in with personal experience to augment and correct the erroneous presumptions of those of us without such early

experience to share? See this web page:

 

http://www.expansys.fr/c.aspx?f=26

 

... for a current example interpretation of the word "bridge" camera. It appears to be applied to digital (not film)

cameras, and all are EVFs, by the way. Here's today's list:

 

Bridge Tout voir (French for "Bridge all black")

 

- Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 Noir €354,99 TTC

 

(I believe that "TTC" does NOT mean Through The Capture lens, but is in French "Toutes Taxes Comprises"

meaning "all taxes including sales tax or vat included")

 

- Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50 Noir €309,99 TTC

 

- Fujifilm Finepix S100fs €564,99 TTC

 

- Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H10 Noir €234,99 TTC

 

- Olympus SP-570 Noir €354,99 TTC

 

- Olympus SP-565 UZ Black €364,99 TTC

 

Let's ask our fellow ad hoc photography historians at:

 

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera

 

http://tinyurl.com/6ajagg

 

"... Bridge camera is mainly a term for a medium-sized digital camera with a built-in fast wide-range auto-focus

zoom lens, an image sensor that is larger than that of a digital compact camera, and a bright high-resolution color

LCD-screen live-view viewfinder with ocular. The predecessors were autofocus zoom lens single lens reflex

cameras with a built-in lens, intermediate between sophisticated compact cameras and modern autofocus SLR

system bodies. Also known as Prosumer cameras or ZLR for Zoom Lens Reflex, especially the popular Olympus IS

bridge camera series ..."

 

But, as you suggest, there were optical viewfinders in some film and digital SLRs that happened to also have a

fixed lens, or less ambiguously, no interchangeable lenses ("fixed" could mean "fixed focal length" non-zoom, so

let's avoid that term), and Olympus was a progenitor of the idea because they had no modern, competitive auto-

focus interchangeable lens 35mm film SLR line to compete with the ongoing success of auto-focus models from

Minolta A/Alpha, Canon EOS, Nikon F, and Pentax K, and so on.

 

The manual focus Olympus OM line died without migrating to auto-focus, and unlike Minolta A/Alpha and Canon

EOS, Olympus never replaced their manual focus OM line with an equally successful 35mm auto-focus

interchangeable lens SLR line using a different, non-OM lens mount. Pentax K and Nikon F wisely used the same

lens mount from their manual focus SLRs for their auto-focus SLRs.

 

So, later, with no Olympus customers owning legacy Olympus brand auto-focus 35mm-mount lenses, there was no

prohibition for Olympus against creating a new modern fixed lens, ooops, non-interchangeable lens auto-focus

SLR. Seeing a marketplace demanding zooms, they released their Olympus IS line of film ZLRs, and when digital

became possible, the went digital with the same stuff, which included optical reflex viewfinders, occasionally, in a

few early "bridge" DSLRs with non-interchangeable zoom lenses. Cool. I must try to find one and play.

 

I find it particularly interesting that Olympus used the large (by early digital standards) 2/3rds sensor, but none larger

than 4 megapixels. Minolta also used a 2/3rds sensor in their world-surprising/leading 2001 Minolta DiMage 7-to-

A1-series cameras with Sony 5 megapixel sensors (part of their claim to fame was their super zoom 28-200mm

equivalent lens - none zoomier at the time), and again surprising and leading the world in their 2004 Minolta

DiMage A2-to-A200-series cameras with Sony 8 megapixel sensors - all DSL/EVF cameras.

 

Olympus never followed with their own competitive 2/3rds cameras after their last 4 megapixel model, but reverted

back to smaller sensors in their integrated lens cameras, and instead of any more 2/3rds sensors in their top-of-the-

line models, they went back to the well respected interchangeable lens SLR design in their 2003 Olympus E-1

4/3rds 5 megapixel DSLR camera using a Kodak sensor. Olympus had broken the Sony sensor stronghold.

 

Where was Foveon in all this, and why did Minolta not go with their own early rumored Foveon DSLR, instead

getting Sony chips earlier than anyone else (and probably inheriting Sony DSL/EVF designs including their liftable

EVF a la Sony's video cams at the time)? ;-)

 

==========

 

Regarding "... if you allow "indirect" viewing through the lens as the definition of an SLR, then every single P-N-S

[point and shoot - another non-descriptive, non-definitive misnomer] camera with a rear-view LCD becomes an

SLR ..."

 

I think you got that backward. That's not what we said.

 

Indirect viewing through the taking lens referred to EVFs, not Reflex models.

 

Reflex models by definition deliver direct subject light to the photographer's eye.

 

EVFs and LCDs by definition deliver new synthetic light, not direct subject light, to the photographer's eye, thereby

defining "indirect" viewing, even though the viewed image comes from an original source through the taking lens.

 

This distinction is subtle for some, but definitive of the words "direct" or "indirect" view.

 

Some people think of "indirect" as meaning looking away form the subject and looking instead at the camera, such

as in a waist-level viewfinder or flippable LCD. Oh well. We're all hunting for unambiguous ways to talk about our

experiences.

 

Rangefinders have direct viewing not through the taking lens, as do simple unlinked optical viewfinder cameras.

 

But, your point's a good one, Patrick, about the term "SLR" not necessarily meaning "interchangeable lens". Rare,

antique, but true. May I point out that the term P&S Point and Shoot also does not define a camera's technical

design other than meaning "fully automatic" as in auto-exposure, and auto-focus, and auto-wind for film, and could

mean a fully automatic pocket camera with non-TTL non-linked optical viewfinder window, or it could mean an

interchangeable lens SLR set on fully automatic mode, often referred to in the trade press as "P&S mode".

 

==========

 

Good discussion, folks.

 

Does anyone else have insight on the evolution and adoption of other TLAs (three letter acronyms) on the way to

such useless bad ones as FTS (four-thirds system) and MFT (micro four-thirds)?

 

Does anyone else have insight to share on the evolution of digital compacts, bridge, and SLR cameras on the way

to the micro four-thirds system, such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 mentioned here?

 

.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_g1-review/bonus_gallery.shtml

 

actual G1 photos full rez

Does anyone actually photograph anymore?

.

 

No time, man, gotta find unanswwered photo.net threads to respond to. ;-)

 

Thanks, Harvey, great find in those samples. I'll print them for my partner to inspect the detail, though we are after Raw, not JPG, they may be informative nonetheless. =8^o

 

.

Those early Olympus's used a beam splitting prism... not even a pellicle mirror. Olympus continued this pattern with their first professional digital camera, the E-10 back in 2001.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse10/

"I'm sure mini-camera haters call it "four turds" "

 

I'm tempted to go visit 'Passion for Best' and find out who these 4 are.

 

http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/

 

p.s what's chinese footware got to do with (digital) photography?

I think Olympus is officially calling it M43 and only MFT is being used by forum people... either way the two terms are confusing... MFT looks a lot like MTF and M43 looks a lot like M-42.