Pany's new micro four thirds

[michael s.]

<< ... <i>I believe DSLR cameras are doomed, due to the minimal quality advantage they currently have over

pocket-size digicams. ...</i>>><p>

 

Not the case in my experience, and I am both an enthusiastic user and a proponent of compact digital cameras.<p>

 

Nor is there much evidence of this impending "doom" if dslr sales figures I've seen are to be believed. I don't

follow that info intensely, but my sense is that the so-called "entry level" dslr's are a competitive and growing

area of the market. That's as it should be, given the impressive quality of those cameras and their dropping

prices.<p>

 

Meantime, too many of the compacts boast meaningless, if not downright photo-degrading megapixel increases while

they hype laughable high iso 'capabilities' -- all on tiny sensors.

[jay a. frew]

I don't get the need to compare M4/3rds with current DSLR systems. I look at it as a potential for a vast improvement

in digi-cam tech and performance.

 

I don't think any of the camera makers have made any significant "useable" improvements in digi-cams for many

years. It is still difficult to frame and focus in bright light, with these cameras (even worse

if you need reading glasses) and, as has been mentioned above, they continue to compromise image quality by

cramming more&more pixels onto tiny sensors.

 

On top of that, some of the better digi-cams are getting large...some are too large to easily fit in a jacket

pocket...while the smaller cameras' performance could soon be eclipsed by cell-phone cams.

 

Furthermore, when I spec my 4 yr old casio exilim P-700 camera against current models from any brand, I cannot

find a compelling reason

to buy another digi-cam...they just haven't done enough to improve these things. The current digicam development

trend seems to be focused more on gimmicks than on improvements to usability and image quality.

 

If M4/3rds lives-up to its promise, I think it might just make a huge dent in the digi-cam market (or drag the

rest of them

up the quality scale):

 

- for shoot-over-your-head snapshots, where image quality is not important, I think

cell phone cams could overtake digi-cams for the "non-enthusiast";

 

- for the average person, who wants a "real

camera" to take on holiday or to

important family events, a compact M4/3rds could be the perfect camera system; and

 

- for enthusiasts (maybe even working photographers) with DSLRs (and larger

format cameras), M4/3rds might finally offer a viable option for a decent, compact, take-everywhere digital camera.

 

Cheers! Jay

[chris.sager]

I agree with Dave Redman. My current kit consists of 3 devices. I have a Canon Rebel XTi with two zooms and one prime, a Fuji F31FD and a Canon HV20 HD Video Camera. Whenever quality still images are my goal, i pick up the XTi, when i need to put something in my pocket (or my wife's purse) the F31FD is brought along.

 

There is no question that the XTi produces better results, even though the Fuji's sensor is one of the best every produced in a digicam. There are other times when the XTi is completely unpractical, where the Fuji is perfect.

 

This camera would not effectively replace either of my current cameras, and would most certainly not replace both.

[john_mali]

I'm heartbroken. They totally could've made a digital rangefinder, but they didn't :(

Oh well, next year.

[jcuknz]

Once you put a decent sensor of sensible size in the pro-sumer camera then the DSLR doesn't have a dog's show

for general average shooting. The interchangeable lens is a feature slavishly followed as essential by so many is

false thinking and nothing to do with photography but a fashionable fad . I have used a pro-sumer camera with great

enjoyment for years now and only bought my DSLR to give me close focusing ability with my extension tubes and

bellows from film days. The pro-sumer is definitely inferior to the DSLR IQ wise when enlarged big, but featurewise

is vastely superior .... its Achillies heel is it's small sensor which with micro4/3 could be resolved for most

assignments. I'm suprised and pleased to read Bill Tuthill's comments becuase it is basic common sense and not

as some seem to think a joke .. sorry the joke in on those suprisingly blind DSLR advocates still using a 1950

vintage style camera instead of taking advanmtage of the electronic revolution's advances. There is an adage

that 'you cannot teach an old dog new tricks' which I seem to have proved wrong with my involvement with digital but

it does seem to be true with many other DSLR diehards.

[anatole]

The advantage that DSLRs have over compacts isn't only the sensor size; the ability to actually see what you're taking,

to be able to control the exposure easily and all those small things is what makes them so much better. DSLRs are

better in the same way that 35mm SLRs were better than good 35mm compact cameras; the two are in completely

different leagues.

 

Anyway, concerning the new G1 - it's minimal size difference when compared to an e series Olympus is a bit

disappointing; whatever the situation, an actual viewfinder, that would incorporate proper autofocus (not contrast AF)

would be far superior to an electronic viewfinder. While there will be a market for this camera, if not only because it is the

first micro 4/3rds camera there is, the potential for the format probably would be in something such as a Sigma DP1

competitor - with an integrated lens. The extra lens, while smaller than normal SLR lenses, is still mighty large, and a big

disadvantage for a camera like this; it is not a portable compact camera.

[dmanthree]

A digital rangefinder? Why? If the EVF is as good as they say, why waste time with some clumsy mechanical and less than accurate framing device? If you mean something that mimics an M8 style camera with an EVF in place of the viewfinder, well, maybe.

 

I guess I don't get why people don't get this camera. First of it's kind, and if the EVF is as good as we've been reading about, it may signal the beginning of the end of traditional mirror-box viewfinders. Why bother with a mirror, submirror, prism, and all those mechanicals when you can just view the image on the sensor? Simpler design, smaller cams, total silence, and higher reliability. I can't wait to try one...

[Spearhead]

<i>the ability to actually see what you're taking, to be able to control the exposure easily and all those small things is what makes them so much better. </i><P>Most compacts let you see what you are taking on the LCD. Maybe all. Many compacts let you control exposure easily. Try the Ricohs. So what small things are you talking about?

[bill_tuthill]

Did I mention mirror slap? Leica rangefinders and

good film P&S cameras could take sharper pictures

than SLR at similar shutter speeds due to less vibration.

The same is true of DLSR I am sure, if somebody would

bother to test it.

 

Pentax made a nice 16-45/4 and makes a seemingly

great 17-70/4. They also make a reasonably priced

50-120/2.8. What I like about constant aperture

is that you can set exposure and still zoom.

Back in the film days Pentax made an inexpensive

but superb 28-70/4.

[obakesan]

Folks

 

it seems that people are stuck in the mould of the optical SLR. Cameras don't have to be like the SLR's of the 60s ~ 90's to be good useful tools. My first swivel body coolpix was essentially a SLR although the "reflex" was being done electronically.

 

Looking at the features on this camera I think we're looking at some fantastic possibilities. I am very interested in the ability of the focal point to track the subject once locked on target. No more missed AF because my subject moved out of my AF zone (like kids tend to do).

 

The weight and size remind me of my coolpix 5000 more than my 10D and a Tokina 12-24 lens.

 

I'm very eager to see what this tool will do!

 

hope that its not priced out of my reach (like over $1000)

[dmanthree]

Bill,

 

I think we have different perceptions. My G9 produces nice images, but nowhere near the quality of a 5D at any ISO. Mirror slap has never been a problem. Only downside to the 5D is size and weight. I've never seen a proper comparison that favors any P&S over a DSLR with a good lens. We must be looking for different things in the shots, I guess.

[awahlster]

The part of this camera that interests me is the 20mm registration distance.. And the fact they already have an adapter for the larger 4/3 lenses.

 

As a Canon FD shooter with 38 lenses and no way to adapt them to any digital body due to the need for an image quality reducing optical element to fix the near sightedness you have when the lens has a 42mm registration distance and the digital body has a 44mm or more registration distance.

 

If this body has a way to meter when using a lens with no aperture info it could be the answer to many peoples wishes for a digital body capable of being adapted to use the FD mount lenses.

 

Granted you would end up with a 2.13X magnification factor making my 17mm f4.0 a 36mm f4.0 And my 24mm f2.0 a 51mm lens BUT on the other end of things it would get real nice my 200mm f2.8 becomes a tiny 426mm f2.8 and my 500mm f4.5L becomes the ultimate birding lens at 1065mm f4.5L

 

With 22mm to build an adapter in the only question is one of the lens opening circle and whether the aperture levers on the FD lenses would be a problem.

[jcuknz]

My memory of the rangefinder system is that they are a quick and easy way to find focus and not a clumsy system .. certainly surer than trying to detirmine focus than on a dark ground glass screen. When coupled with a 1:1 optical viewfinder system they are a delight to use. While I like the accurate viewfinding of the reflex system there is no doubt that the rangefinder is a very efficient way of finding focus. The ideal is to combine both to get the best of each world. Interesting would be a rangefinder/ EVF system.

My experience of the pro-sumer, top line digicams if you wish, is that the EVF is more accurate than the DSLR ... ie 98<100% rather than only 95% of the DSLR if you are worried about that much accuracy.

[ilkka]

Silly design. We don't need a smaller "DSLR" with electronic viewfinder. They went out of business five years ago. We need a Sigma DP-1 with faster operation and interchangeable lenses. A small digi compact with a big sensor. Sigma has got a lot of things right in the DP-1 but its operation is not very friendly and it is anemicly slow.

[dave_redmann]

<I>Once you put a decent sensor of sensible size in the pro-sumer camera then the DSLR doesn't have a dog's

show for general average shooting. The interchangeable lens is a feature slavishly followed as essential by so many

is false thinking and nothing to do with photography but a fashionable fad.</I><P>

 

For most people, that would be true, but once you put a decent-sized sensor, you will have to make it much bigger,

with a much bigger lens.<P>

 

<I>I'm suprised and pleased to read Bill Tuthill's comments becuase it is basic common sense and not as some

seem to think a joke</I><P>

 

Basic common sense? More like basically unawareness of the laws of physics. Control of depth of field becomes a

bigger and bigger problem as the sensor gets smaller. All else being equal, noise gets worse. These days I mostly

use a three-year-old 6 MP DSLR with good-but-not-stellar lenses and a one-year-old Canon digicam that DPReview

gave its top rating ("highly recommended"). At base sensitivity (ISO 80), outside on a sunny day, the digicam can

produce quite nice pictures. But as the sun goes down, especially indoors, the digicam falls far, far behind. The

DSLR has in-body image stabilization and usually wears, in 35mm terns, a 28-74mm f/2.8 lens. The digicam has in-

lens image stabilization and has, in 35mm terms, a 32-129mm f/2.6-5.2 lens. At ISO 400, the DSLR looks super-

clean, but the digicam looks very noisy for anything over <I>maybe</I> a 5x7-inch print. At ISO 1600, the DSLR has

produced some nice 8x10-inch prints, but the digicam looks horrible, even on its 2.5-inch screen. With the digicam,

using wide apertures to control depth-of-field is nearly impossible; even at f/2.6, the digicam has about the same

depth of field as the DSLR at f/8 or f/9. The stuff about mirror slap and all that is nonsense, and wholly irrelevant to at

least 97% of the public. For rare shots where that would be an issue, I just use the DSLR's mirror-lock-up that works

with the 2-second self-timer. The bigger issue is that I can hold the DSLR much more securely, and press its shutter

release with much less disruption to the camera body, so hand-held (where 99% of people take 95% of their shots), I

think the DSLR actually does better / gets steadier / clearer shots.<P>

 

Don't get me wrong: I like the digicam. I has made some nice pictures. And a digicam in your pocket beats a DSLR

in your closet.<P>

 

But that comes back to the central problem with the new Panasonic micro-four-thirds: it is not sufficiently smaller

and lighter than existing DSLR's that anyone would want to carry it where they wouldn't want to carry a more

conventional DSLR. And it's so much bigger and heavier than most current digicams that it won't appeal to most

digicam users.

[obakesan]

Hi

 

"We don't need a smaller "DSLR" with electronic viewfinder... We need a Sigma DP-1 with faster operation and interchangeable lenses."

 

isn't what this is?

 

When I compared the dimensions it was only 2cm wider than my nikon coolpix 5000 (which was smaller than the 5400 and others which followed). Granted this "zoom" is sticking out, but if fixed focal lengths were used (such as on the DP-1) it would be more compact than it is.

 

It seems to me that this camera has the opportunity to be everything the DP-1 is and more still!<div></div>

[obakesan]

My coolpix fits nicely in my hand, and into a side pocket of my backpack. It does this with its lens effectively 28mm wide angle lens.

<P>

<img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonCP5000/Images/inhand02-001.jpg" border="0" width="240" height="180">

<P>

This is something that my 10D or any other DSLR can't do but something I'm thinking that this panasonic might be able to do.

<P>

Compare the specs carefully, its not as big as it looks<div></div>

[obakesan]

just found some interesting discussion on this topic over on dpreview forums. The pointer to these images on flickr should settle size issues

 

 

amazing

[antony_glaser]

Is the Panasonic Lumix G1 a marketing dream, by intending to appeal to those who want the control of DSLR's but

opt out for its size. Also, there is a belief that the transition from Digital Compact to DSLR's are too much

for some people, is this founded in reality, and is £600.00 a huge sum, to pay for a mirror-less DSLR. The Nikon

P5100 Coolpix is a superb Compact and is very creative. at less than half the price.

I recall Pentax 110 tried this size revolution in the early 1980's and failed and that today Olympus E410 and

E420 have tried very hard for compact size and 4/3rds too However, for a Camera this size will 12 MP present a

strain on the sensor, or am I missing something with 4/3rd's ?

[bill_tuthill]

It seems to me that Panasonic's lens collaboration with Leica

is working out better than whatever Canon is doing right now.

Here's an image a friend sent me from his 17-85/4-5.6 EFS.

As the EXIF says, f/5.6 at 85mm. Bokeh is stunningly bad.

This lens cost $600 when he bought it, and I'd say it's a worse lens overall

than the Leica zoom on my FZ18, which cost < 1/2 that price,

with a camera body thrown in.

 

I stand by my assertion that the quality gap between DSLR and digicam

is not as great as you would expect given the price differential.

The 5D costs as much as a used car, so give me a break.<div></div>

[dmanthree]

Bill,

 

I'd love to see the ISO 1600 comparisons between the ancient 5D and any P&S you choose. While you're at it, try shooting

a night football game with that P&S. Trust me, P&S cameras will never kill the DSLR. At lower ISOs, and with stationary

subjects in good lighting, they can produce nice images. After that, well...

[ilkka]

"isn't what this is? "

 

No it isn't. It is shaped like a E-420 and not much smaller. Why would I, or anybody else for that matter, want just a

slightly smaller body that is not an SLR? Electronic viewfinders are a poor solution. They went out of fashion several

years ago when SLRs became affordable. I had a Minolta A-2 which has the best electronic viewfinder ever put into a

compact digicam. I agree that this G1 might have an even better one. But very often I had to look at the viewfinder

image with my other eye, from the side of the viewfinder, to actually see what I was framing at.

 

This one is 10mm wider than DP-1, 25mm taller and 16mm thicker without the lens. Obviously, a large zoom would

add to that a lot, but even the slimmest pancake lens would bring it to 20mm or so deeper. That is quite a lot more

in every dimension. And the DP-1 is not very small, as digicams go. I thought the whole idea of this micro 4/3s was

to make smaller cameras that are based on different design concept. I find the E-420 actuallly a little bit too small for

my hands to use, with all its buttons and controls. Ricoh GRD and DP-1 are okay because of their simpler concept.

 

But I am sure some other manufacturer, Olympus or Leica, maybe even Sigma, understands what this is all about

and makes a true compact.

[catrike]

If I were in the market for a light weight "DSLR like" camera the G1 would be perfect, but I am not. I am happy with

my Nikon D40 and the G1 (with a similar kit lens) only saves me 3 ounces and has a smaller sensor. As noted by

Ilkka above, for a carry around camera I want a Sigma DP1 that works more quickly than the current version, and the

G1 is not that. Even with a pancake lens to make it comparable to the fixed lens DP1, the G1 will still weigh in at 16

ounces or so vs the DP1's 9.5 ounces, and when you multiply the three dimensions of each camera the G1 has

more than twice the volume of the DP1. That makes a huge difference in portability. So if Sigma does not come out

with an improved DP1 soon I will be getting my second choice - an LX3.

[obakesan]

Hi

<P>

<CITE>"No it isn't. It is shaped like a E-420 and not much smaller."</CITE>

<P>

well, it looks quite smaller to me, but I guess that I'll have to wait

to see one in the flesh

<P>

<CITE>"Why would I, or anybody else for that matter, want just a slightly

smaller body that is not an SLR?"

</CITE><P>

I can't answer for you, but I can answer for me (under the anybody else clause)

<P>

<B>because</B> I don't find the optical SLR format meaningful for much of my photography.

<P>

Now, IF I was a sports photographer I certainly WOULD find the optical

viewinder of a reflex camera essential. However for what I've been doing

lately I find that its actually annoying to be forced to be behind the camera

and looking through it.

<P>

For looking straight ahead while standing or sitting the reflex camera operation

is probably the best evolution I've yet experienced. But its not so comfortable

for macro's of mushrooms on the forest floor, or wedged into a crack behind

an icicle forming on a rock like this:

<br>

<img src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_UFDhrGObeFc/R8FEGKDXb-I/AAAAAAAAADY/El8L_J3xCpQ/s400/drop.jpg" alt=""

id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170488719766417378" border="0">

<P>

 

<CITE>"Electronic viewfinders are a poor solution. They went out of

fashion several years ago when SLRs became affordable."

</CITE><BR>

probably I agree with you on them being a poor solution, in fact I prefer

the screen on the back of the camera. I loved the swivel screen as soon as

I saw it, and I notice that its migrated from Nikon (where I think it debued)

to almost every camera.

<P>

Seems to me swivel screen is still "in fashion". I also very much like the ability to zoom

in and confirm focus that the G1 seems to offer. I really can't see the viewfinder on my APS

DSLR as nicely as I could on my old film EOS. Combined with how much more easilly I can

make bigger prints from these smaller sensors than I once could critical focus is more essential

to me than it once was. I like my view camera because I can put a x10 loupe on the glass and

see what I'm going to get, the G1 seems to offer something as good as that. Of course this

implies perhaps working off a tripod, but hey I do that type of thing.

<P>

 

<CITE>"This one is 10mm wider than DP-1, ... Obviously, a large zoom would add to

that a lot, but even the slimmest pancake lens would bring it to 20mm or so deeper.

That is quite a lot more in every dimension. And the DP-1 is not very small, as digicams go."

</CITE>

<P>

well, perhaps in comparison with an EXILIM, but I don't know that we have the

physics yet to make a camera that small with a 4/3 or APS-C sized sensor in

it yet. This micro 4/3 seems to perhaps be the best comprimise yet. Certainly I'd have been happier to

see some "pancake" styled 28mm kinda width slim lens (perhaps without MEGA O.I.S) on the camera

too, perhaps these will be announced later? Still it does sound a tempting package, especially with the

point of being able to lock and track focus on a subject.

<P>

<CITE>"I thought the whole idea of this micro 4/3s was to make smaller

cameras that are based on different design concept."

</CITE>

<BR>

definately I agree that I'd prefer to see this sort of thing come out with

some nice simple single focal length lens too. Perhaps the "<I>market</I>" is

no longer interested in such things, with only a few <I>photographers</I> being

inclined that way. Dunno. But ...

<P>

<CITE>"I find the E-420 actuallly a little bit too small for my hands to use,

with all its buttons and controls. Ricoh GRD and DP-1 are okay because of

their simpler concept."

</CITE>

<P>

It seems that your idea of smaller means slimmer (which isn't really

such a criteria for me although I wouldn't mind). Personally I've come

to find that my coolpix 5000 (with the UR-E5 adaptor on it all the time to add

a barrel to hold and put a 46mm filter on (polariser/81B/80B)

<br>

<img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonCP5000/Images/accs/acc_lens02-001.jpg" border="0" width="240"

height="180">

<BR>

is a nice camera to use and stow in my pack. I like the ability to take

candid photos of people (when they think I'm just reviewing the screen,

holding a camera up to your face if a dead give away of "I'm taking your picture").

What I don't like though is the inability to use anything other than

ISO 100. I can keep the camera steady for indoor images of people, but the

people (when acting natural) can't keep still. Thus I need a little more

than the little old Nikon gives me. I keep finding this every time I use my

DSLR. I like the low noise high ISO that the bigger sensor affords, but I dislike

the high weight (my 10D with the Tokina 12-24 ain't light) and noise it makes

(quiet as it is, it ain't like my non SLR no-mirror-slapping leaf-shutter-in-lens

range finders for that sort of stuff).

<P>

This has been an interesting discussion, as it has made it clear to me

(again?) that you can't please everyone with the same thing, and that there

are quite a many differing views out there. When it does come out, if its about the same

price as the E-420 then my aging Coolpix 5000 will find itself in retirement and I'll be putting

my money where my mouth is and buying one (and some lenses). This will <B>augment</B> (<I>not replace</I>)

my DSLR in areas where I find the DSLR lacking (and expensive lens spends don't help to fix it).

 

[ilkka]

I have nothing against the screen in the back. I think it would better for this type of camera, as the only available finder. The hot shoe on top would allow a dedicated optical viewfinder to be added by those (like me) who want it. That would of course only work well with a fixed focal length lens. With other lenses, I do not mind using the back of the camera. That is what I do now with the Ricoh when I use the 21mm lens. If Sigma can make the DP-1 significantly smaller while including a bigger sensor, I do not agree that the micro 4/3 must by any necessity be bigger in size. My main complaint about it is that it tries to be a smaller DSLR. I think we both fully agree that this is not what we want. There are plenty of small DSLRs around, with good lens selections that autofocus. Why make up another similar system? DSLR is not the right choice for every situation. That is why I have small compacts. But it would be good to be able to use some DSLR lenses in a compact that provides good image quality also in low light.