Panasonic Lumix GH1 Review

<p>David Pogue reviewed the new Panasonic Lumix GH1 in his New York Times column today, April 30. (I posted the article, but then realized doing so is a copyright violation.)</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/technology/personaltech/30pogue.html</p>

<p>As Rob as done, linking to stuff like this is perfectly acceptable and not a copyright violation at all.</p>

<p>However, given the NYT's recent crappy "Nikon D5000 better than Canon SX1 IS" article (wow a large sensor camera is better than a small sensor one, you don't say!), I'm reserving judgement until I read this one. Pogue's batting average is pretty low for me right now though.</p>

<p>Having read it, my opinion is that it isn't much of a "review". I could have written essentially the same article after <a href="http://blog.photo.net/?p=4591">playing with the camera for 20 minutes at PMA</a> . But I suppose the target readership for the NYT reviews are different than those of us who hang out on PN.</p>

<p>i really don't think that it would be fair to expect anymore from a newspaper. that they are plugging it through a review would allow for the format to grow. that means more bodies and lenses perhaps for us.</p>

<p>A valid point. I was just hoping for more. But in any case, there will be a PN review at some point in the not too distant future. Panasonic just has to get me one of theie review models when they become available.</p>

<p>Not a review, as such, but some first impressions (quite favorable) from a UK videographer, Philip Bloom,with a few rough samples.</p>

<p>http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/04/30/panasonic-lumix-gh1-first-impressions-and-first-footage/</p>

<p>I find it is quite exciting. Have used a quality video camera, in the past- a Betamax- for our local public service TV station (heavy, costly), an early Canon consumer pre- DV standard tape model with srereo sound ( a little clunky and mechanically complex,) so this new small hybrid using solid memory is very very exciting. I think reviewers are in a peculiar place. Is this a still camera with video capabilities, or a true, down and dirty video camera.(?) Panasonic makes,you all know,a ton of high end video gear, and has a good lens connection with the best out there. I gave up video, because I hated time involved to edit down my raw stuff...guess I would say the workflow drove me batty then. I look forward to this new model and Oly's first micro with great interest. The four thirds standard, as I understand it, has been <em>transmogrified</em> beyond my ken anyhow. What will work with what is the biggie Q for us Olympus 4/3 users.</p>

<p>Gerry's right.</p>

<p>Current video workflow is incredibly easy, just as film editing became a few decades ago.</p>

<p>If pixel-peeper types were ever significant to film they'd never have approved 16mm...if anybody significant listened to them we'd never have seen the Civil Rights movement or the war in Vietnam on TV.</p>

<p>For that matter, pixel peeper types hated 35mm still cameras until fairly recently, couldn't stand Tri X :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, people talk too much about the video capability of GH1, which is well understandable, but there are some other improvements that attract me, in a way, more.</p>

<p>One of them is GH1's muti-format system. When you switch the format from 4:3 to 16:9, you get a little less than 10% wider horizontal coverage, which can be a strong advantage especially for indoors, landscapes or group photos in a small room, for example. G1, on the other hand, just makes "crops" from the 4:3 images and you don't get wider if you switch the format. The improvements of process/operating speed and high-ISO noise performance are also highly welcomed.</p>

<p>That is true. Some of the stuff that people liked about the LX3 seems to be amking it's way into other Panasonic cameras.</p>

<p>I have a very intimate relationship with my Panasonic top of the line 1080p 37" HD Viera LCD television. I keep thinking that with decent programming, it is the finest image I could ever peep at. Meaning the Panasonic connection is the real "big time flyer, DC-3 " of 4/3 standard and one we can put our money behind for a long haul.</p>

<p>I am still mixed up ( it happens a lot lately) about this phase detection va contrast detection ( or phase PLUS contrast) focusing business, and yep, I have tried to read and understand the summary of how both are supposed to work. I think I gather that without the mirror, the auto focus mirror does a pixel comparison of light value, or some such thing... It still doesn't tell me why my, Oly ED 14-54 and 50mm and EC-14 <strong>can't </strong> do all their tricks on the Panasonic G series models.</p>

<p>Yes, some are happy to manual focus, but I think that is a dodge in the long run and a wrong way road....autofocus is here to stay and I want it from now on. Sure, I tweak, who doesn't. Stabilization is nice, but the stabeile system ought to be the same among the brands. it seems to me..in the body preferably.</p>

<p>I sense there is a lot of drama and maybe some sumo wrestling going on in two Japan corporate headquarters. And which is the David and which is the Goliath that is calling the shots."</p>

<p>Akira, I am impressed with the multi format thing, but I don't get it all under my belt. How can the sensor do two different aspects---I am slow to pick up on that part. Is is not the same size sensor? As in 4/3? Help me out here.<br /> When you get a chance, Akira, maybe you can brief me and others with your own understanding of how Matsushita has accomplished non video aspect' shape shifting/no pixel lost-- enhancement.Sounds super cool..aloha, gs</p>

<p>Gerry, the key to understand the multi format system of GH1/LX3 is the "image circle".</p>

<p>Get a piece of paper, draw a circle and try to draw rectangles of different aspect ratios that touch the circle internally. You would notice that a wider rectangle can have longer horizontal line than the taller rectangle.</p>

<p>In the case of GH1, the "circle" can be transformed to the "image circle" of an m4/3 lens and "rectangles" can be transformed to "formats" of different aspect ratios. So, the 16:9 format that touches the image circle internally is wider horizontally than the 4:3 format that touches the same image circle internally.<br /> In order to achieve this wizardry, Panasonic incorporated (no pun intended!) a larger image sensor than that of G1 (or any 4/3 cameras). You might see the difference here (by trying to measure the sensors on your screen!) if you are lucky:<br /> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/173987-10760-28-1.html</p>

<p>Unfortunately, even this larger sensor don't seem to have vertical size that is enough to provide largest possible images in 1:1 format within the same image circle.</p>

<p>This camera is one of several that inaugurate "convergence" of formats and will lead to more TV viewing of still/video productions...</p>

<p>I don't understand obsession with the still photo capability of this cheap, tiny, reportedly highly user-friendly video/still convergence camera/audio-recorder, given the existence of so many 2/3 cameras that are so vastly superior to anything in 4/3 for conventional still photo purposes.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>I don't understand obsession with the still photo capability of this cheap, tiny, reportedly highly user-friendly video/still convergence camera/audio-recorder, given the existence of so many 2/3 cameras that are so vastly superior to anything in 4/3 for conventional still photo purposes.</blockquote>

 

<p>No problem-o. I am really interested in this evolutionary product. An early fan of new things. I will watch with interest as it comes to market. </p>

<p><blockquote>I don't understand obsession with the still photo capability of this cheap, tiny, reportedly highly user-friendly video/still convergence camera/audio-recorder, given the existence of so many 2/3 cameras that are so vastly superior to anything in 4/3 for conventional still photo purposes.</blockquote><br>

<p>Which are huge, expenſive, and have juſt ðe ſame corner problems, wiþout ðe video capability — & wiþout ðe perſpective of Zuiko or Leica lenſes in ðe near future which would leave only noiſe at ſtupiditly high ISO as a diſadvantage.</p>

<p>Leandro, I was thinking of the Sony/Zeiss and even Pentax/Zeiss (Zeiss lenses are available for both inexpensive cameras), not to mention Pentax's DA* lenses on their own merit. Neither Pentax nor Sony has Canon-style corner problems and Pentax offers its own superb, rectilinear ultra-wide primes. Gossip is only gossip, but Pentax is likely soon to offer over 20MP, K20D is already acceptably low noise at 1600, and doesn't suffer Canon's detail-softening noise reduction at 800.</p>

<p>Obviously, plasma monitor display (not prints) with excellent audio is the future for most photography, video mixed with still, edited on desktops. However, I doubt the digital audio recording potential of DSLR form-factor unless an external microphone is used...too much handling noise...so I suspect the current Olympus LS-10 recorder will remain one of the kings for better-than-DVD audio. </p>

<p>Amateur photographer gave the GH1 a good review in a brief news item and will have a test soon. As a Canon 5DII user (I also shoot FD glass on a G1) I think the GH1 will be a great video camera. I find that the 5DII produces great video but you need to play on a HDTV using the HDMI connection (most computers are not fast enough to play the 5DII video). The advantage of the GH1 is the faster frame rate (the 30 fps 5DII is a bit jerky for fast motion such as ski racing) and the ability to use the viewfinder. With the 5DII I find it difficult to follow a fast moving subject with the screen but the GH1 lets you use the EVF. It may be that I am a camera guy not a video guy but I can follow a ski racer through the viewfinder but tend to lose them with a live view screen.</p>

<p><blockquote>Neither Pentax nor Sony has Canon-style corner problems and Pentax offers its own superb, rectilinear ultra-wide primes. Gossip is only gossip, but Pentax is likely soon to offer over 20MP, K20D is already acceptably low noise at 1600, and doesn't suffer Canon's detail-softening noise reduction at 800.</blockquote><br>

Still ðey are much bigger ðan anyþing Four Þirds, ſpecially Micro Four Þirds. I don’t underſtand ðis obſeßion wiþ high-ISO, low noiſe when I would much raðer carry any Four Þirds camera and lenſes ðan any pſeudo-APS-C (no ſo-called APS-C camera has a ſenſor of actual APS-C dimenſions). Ðe worſt camera is ðe one you left home when ðe photography opportunity preſents itſelf — or ðe one which left you tired and aching.<br>

Not to mention being able to use any Four Þirds lenſes but ðe Panaſonic Micro Four Þirds wiþout having to worry about digital artifacts, and any manual lenſes wiþ an adaptor. No dSLR will ever match Micro Four Þirds video, nor any APS-C will match ðe Four Þirds combination of portability and quality — even if Minolta & Pentax have telecentric lenſes, ðey are much bigger and more expenſive to be able to cover a bigger, wider ſenſor. ¡And the GH1 multiaſpect ſenſor!</p>

<p>Leandro, "to each his own." Perhaps we're not equally physically robust. I'm only 65...I may share your "aches and pains" concerns when I'm 80, though my father had no trouble hiking with two Olys when he was that age. </p>

<p>I see no advantage in cameras made substantially of plastic...or the physical fragility and dust/moisture vulnurability of all 4/3 cameras (arguably excepting E3) vs K20D and the professional Canon/Nikons. </p>

<p>I'm enthusiastic about the potential in GH1....but its plastic construction PROBABLY (no reports yet?) hurts its audio capability. Audio will be as important as video...the plastic digital audio recorders made by Olympus are far inferior to their more-expensive metal-bodied Olympus twins. </p>

<p>When a GH is introduced with a heavy metal body (a'la Leica M8 and Pentax K20D) I'll be even more excited about micro 4/3...especially after they abandon the silly cosmetic "slr" hump.</p>

<p>On the audio topic, two facts emerge. The lens for the GH-1 is listed as having a very quiet focus motor. And Panasonic will make available off camera mics for its units that fit into the top shoe for those who are particular about sound quality. It promises a lot of goodies in one handheld small unit. Something that ten years ago would have been dreamland. Can't help feeling a tingle of anticipation, even at my age, -a young 72. Next thing will be a full fledged stereoscopic movie system...who knows.</p>

<p>Gerry, I'm sure you're right about flash-shoe mics...they may take some getting-used-to: the smallest examples I've seen, that would record relatively noiselessly, are the size of small carrots (shotguns)....maybe some sort of Dolby system could be employed to kill handling noise from lesser mics ... :-) </p>

<p>...after all, convergence, for the "particular" people you mentioned (audio equivalent of pixel peepers, like most of us are sometimes), will demand broadcast quality music/voice ...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In my earlier post i made a mistake as I was misled by a review. I suggested that the GH1 would improve on the 5DII video in two areas - namely being able to use the viewfinder when shooting and having a faster frame rate. It turns out that the GH1 is also only 30fps video and that the 60fps I read in a review was a mistake of the reviewer getting confused between the EVF rate and the video shooting rate!<br>

I am unsure what the Canon corner problems that Leandro refers to are but can assure you that my 5DII and Canon lenses produces ultimately better images than any Pentax DSLR. You may also want to chack out the instrumented PopPhoto tests where you will find that the Pentax 20D is significantly inferior to the Canon 5D II at all ISOs - including 800 ISO. they also rate the G1 as having better noise performance than the Pentax at ISO100, 200 and 400.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It turns out that the GH1 is also only 30fps video and that the 60fps I read in a review was a mistake of the reviewer getting confused between the EVF rate and the video shooting rate!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to a document that I got from Panasonic 5 minutes ago, the GH1 can do 720p (1280 x 720) at 60fps. So you may have some fact checking to do. You are correct in noting that the EVF is 60fps.</p>

<p>Well, it still seems a little too early to call GH1 "micro RED". :)</p>

<p>However, I wish Panasonic would consider its revolutionary multi-format function a standard feature of its m4/3 system cameras. (Olympus might also incorporate this feature for its comming m4/3 model because Oly also uses Panasonic image sensors on all recent 4/3 models.)</p>

<p>Philip, I have no doubt that 5DII beats K20D in most respects (except for that prosumer Canon's 3X price and lesser toughness). In printed examples, it appears that K20D is at least comparably good at detail resolution to the ORIGINAL 5D. The corner problem Leonardo mentioned is one of the reasons some Canon users mount certain Leica SLR lenses. Reviews measuring detail resolution are never credible to some of us, but to others they're gospel. YMMV.</p>