It's amazing that no one else can manage to get pre-release digital cameras (particularly DSLR) other than dpreview. I mean, it's almost like they're owned by some company that has early access to hardware, and they use that to gain an advantage. Oh, wait....
Now the only question is whether their integrity is compromised by the ownership. At the very least, they have an effective monopoly on digital camera previews, which is rather disconcerting. What I don't understand is why the camera companies don't want other sites to get in on the action. It's almost like they're stuck in a pre-digital world trying to figure out how to cope with the internet.
Marketing: "Hey, we should send out a bunch of camera samples to web sites. They'll provide reviews, which are essentially free advertising! All it costs us is shipping plus the hardware, which is a damn sight cheaper than any other form of advertising (and more effective to boot)."
Marketing VP: "HELLS NO! We can't let anyone have early access to our product! It will kill our profits! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
Thanks for your comment. You certainly understand our frustration in trying to get camera info and samples to review. Frankly we have asked every manufacturer repeatedly, but we have yet to review even ONE camera provided by a manufacturer. We have been buying the cameras wherever we can as fast aswe can and then reselling them after review.
The manufacturers keep saying nice things over the last two years, but none of them has ever delivered anything for review. It is still pulling teeth just to get on and remain on, press release lists. This is certainly totally unlike our presence in the computer market and it can be quite frustrating.
We do think our perspective on electronics is quite different from other imaging review sites and we hoped that some manufacturers would see that as a new opportunity for a fair and frank review. Perhaps over time that will eventually happen.
I think it would help manufacturers have a greater trust in the sites review abilities if there was some sort of standard you guys came up with when reviewing them. Resolution cards, constant scenes in consistent lighting that can be taken to show differences in different ISO settings to build a database against other cameras.
It has not seemed yet like the reviews have any sort of constants to compare other reviewed cameras here against. Color, sharpness, noise true resolution ect ect. One can put the coolest name they want on their image processor but the outcome is what matters, and it’s too hard to compare totally different scenes with the help of impractical numbers.
Controlled consistant scenes + onmouseover images for the review itself = your friend.
The benefit of SLR's in the film world was obvious. The importance of the "Single Lens" in the "Single Lens Reflex" equation was obvious. What you see in the viewfinder = what will be imaged on the film. In the digital world, with live view screens showing the actual sensor image even more precisely than most optical DSLR viewfinders (only the most expensive have 100% viewfinders), there is no longer any need for the "reflex" part of the "SLR" construction. That whole flipping-mirror thing was just a workaround, a hack, a kludge. Panasonic is the first to realize this, and create a digital camera with interchangeable lenses that opens up the full range of possiblities for digital imaging. The mirror box meant that there would always be a gap of some 20mm (more or less) from the sensor to the back of the lens; thus making lenses with focal lengths of less than approx. 20mm extremely difficult to engineer. Now that the mirror box is gone, the lens can get much closer to the sensor, and hugely wide angles should be attainable, even on a relatively small sensor like the 4/3rds.
I don't like any previous EVF I have seen, but I'll reserve judgement on this until I have actually looked at one. The DPR preview said it got grainy when gained up a lot at night, have to see how bad that really is compared to an optical viewfinder. Same with the autofocus - they say it is fast, but I want to see how fast and accurate it is.
SLRs typically have a registration distance of around 40mm, this halves that to 20mm. So anything wider than 20mm (which isn't wide on 4/3) will be retrofocal, and to beat the current widest rectilinear lens (Sigma 12-24 on film/FF digital) they will need a lens wider than 6mm.
For whoever said they want a more rangefinder shape, I'm sure that could be done, but their product research probably said the more traditional shape would sell better. Sales of the Olympus E300/E330 were not helped by being a somewhat non-traditional layout.
" In the digital world, with live view screens showing the actual sensor image even more precisely than most optical DSLR viewfinders"
Except electronic viewfinders bring their own parcel of problems.
I just wish they'd stop with the half-assed semi-DSLR body shape and size, and go straight for a very compact, rectangular rangefinder size mobody.
I don't want a slightly smaller DSLR, or I would've bought the Olympus E420. I want a digital rangefinder that doesn't suck and cost the earth like the Leica M8 does.
I haven't see a single bad thing about live view so far. "
You try panning fast, or pointing into into bright lights, or darkness.
I've read the Preview of the G1. EVF has advantages, but it also had disadvantages.
I'd kinda like a hybrid OVF/EVF if I could, sort of a heads-up display where it can overlay histograms and other information, but you can disable it if need be. Of course, that still requires a mirror assembly, so its back to DSLR territory anyhow.
Them going on and on about how 'smooth' and 'accurate' ect ect this thing is and not mentioning the actual size of the CCD makes me roll my eyes.
It’s pretty obvious to me this is a stunt to create some new type of camera sector. Compact SLR? Give me a break. That doesn’t even make any sense! By definition you’re going to have a lens, even if prime, that’s not going to fit comfortably in your pocket! Not only that, but if the camera itself is too light the lens will make it unbalanced on a tripod and in hand. I hope they were at LEAST smart enough to put the tripod threading further up closer to the lens itself under the camera, but that doesn’t change the in-hand issue.
If you think it’s a non-issue then you’re better off with a PoS camera, because SLRs are made to be comfortable through 1000s of images taken in a days’ time. Your hands will start to hurt, and isn’t that kind of contradictory to the purpose of this camera? Comfort? Or is there another purpose? I don’t really understand the point of this.
Let’s not forget the most important thing; Even the best consumer SLRS with full frame CCDs and superb SnR cannot resolve the resolution of the glass in front of them. What is the POINT of putting glass that even those cameras cannot resolve in front of this? It’s like putting 8GB of ram into a system that can only see 3.5.
Unless this thing is like 300$, it’s sort of an insult to any photographer with half a wit.
Yes, the pixel density is 4.98 MP/centimeter square as we pointed out, but the New Canon 50D is 4.5 which is not a hyge difference. You missed the point that the P&S densities are 28 to 36 MP per square centimeter which are a huge density difference compared to 4/3.
In fact all of the APS-C sensors are all but the same when you look at the huge density advantage they hold over the best of today's point-and shoot models. Frankly people need to get past the emotion over the 4/3 sensor size and look at the facts, which are nowhere near the stark picture some like to paint. The 4/3 sensor is 75% the area of the the Canon sensor, and 6 to 8 times larger than the best P&S sensors.
"Frankly people need to get past the emotion over the 4/3 sensor size ..."
Agreed.
The smaller sensor in FT is claimed to be the equvilant of about 0.5-1 stop slower than the larger sensors in "conventional" dSLRs, but as can be seen with the Zuiko ED 12-60mm, the FT mount can enable faster lenses for a given size -- i.e. negating the supposed disadvantage. Lenses for mFT should be the same or better.
[quote]
Olympus ... have taken advantage of the Four Thirds sensor to deliver lenses which, for any given size, weight and cost, simply perform to a higher and more consistent standard than those optimized for larger formats ... The relatively fast maximum aperture (a half to a full stop faster than APS-C equivalents ...), coupled with the excellent wide-open performance, also allows the use of lower ISOs at equivalent light levels for maximum image quality.
[/quote]
From http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_...">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_...
The beef I have with this type of deal is there is no point. Honestly what’s the point? You can’t fit this anywhere a normal DSLR couldn’t go. It’s a diluted mix of SLR and point and shoots taking the worst qualities from each. Too big to be put anywhere advantageous over a normal DSLR and worse than even some of the worst pixel densities in the DSLR market.
When you say it’s nowhere near the bad picture some people paint, you put yourself in a category of 'good enough'. People that spend 1000$ on glass and camera equipment do not do 'good enough' they do not want gimmicks. This is such a gimmick camera. The only interesting feature with practical use is that the glass is closer to the CCD.
Like I said, they can word things in a way to make the practical aspects of teh camera that are bad, sound good, but in the end they need to stop it and focus on the true pluses of this design.
The G1 at least is very similar in dimensions to the superzoom-class P&S cameras, and body-only similar in size to something like the Canon G9. So while this should take a big bite out of the superzoom market (at least once the micro 4/3 14-140 lens drops), I don't really consider it "pocketable". We have a couple of Canon S5IS cameras here in the lab, with the exception of large cargo pockets or maybe a pullover hoodie I don't have any pockets which could hold something that size comfortably. So if I am bringing some sort of camera bag anyway I don't see the problem with stepping up to the smaller traditional DSLRs from Olympus, Canon, Pentax, etc. But it will give Panasonic something different in the marketplace.
Being so small, yet packing potentially high level image quality, would be nice for hiking and camping where one doesn't want to haul a more traditially-sized SLR and lenses, I would think. Also potentially nice for people that like to sneak camera gear into concerts and such. :)
Personally, I don't like non-optical viewfinders on my SLRs, but as long as it has a viewfinder in addition to the rear LCD, it might not be too bad. The problem is that I can't see myself investing any money in any system other than my current Nikon system, so...
"Haul"? Are you serious? This thing maybe weighs 2-300GRAMS less than a proper DSLR. If you can't handle 300grams to take obviously better photography you might as well use your cameraphone with that line of thought.
I'm not sure how you conclude that a DSLR will take "obviously better photography (sic)". The G1 sensor is the same size as those used in all of Olympus' range of "proper DSLR's". Wesley points out quite correctly that this is not much smaller than 35mm full-frame and has perfectly decent imaging characteristics, certainly far better than the fingernail-sized sensors used in typical compact cameras. So this is certainly comparable to a "proper DSLR" in image quality. As for handling and speed, it all depends on what type of pictures you want to take: this isn't something you'd normally use to shoot motorsports, but on a hike it's as good as any DSLR, and will only get better as technology progresses.
As for the weight difference of 300 grams, you've never met a serious hiker, have you?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
Back to Article
computerfarmer - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
There is a detailed review at the following site.http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic...">http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/conten...ix-G1-Di...
It is compared with Nikon D90/D60, Olympus 520, Canon Rebel XSi(450).
I would like to see this camera with the 2 lens kit.
aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1whatthehey - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
It's amazing that no one else can manage to get pre-release digital cameras (particularly DSLR) other than dpreview. I mean, it's almost like they're owned by some company that has early access to hardware, and they use that to gain an advantage. Oh, wait....http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07051402amazonac...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07051402amazonac...
Now the only question is whether their integrity is compromised by the ownership. At the very least, they have an effective monopoly on digital camera previews, which is rather disconcerting. What I don't understand is why the camera companies don't want other sites to get in on the action. It's almost like they're stuck in a pre-digital world trying to figure out how to cope with the internet.
Marketing: "Hey, we should send out a bunch of camera samples to web sites. They'll provide reviews, which are essentially free advertising! All it costs us is shipping plus the hardware, which is a damn sight cheaper than any other form of advertising (and more effective to boot)."
Marketing VP: "HELLS NO! We can't let anyone have early access to our product! It will kill our profits! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Thanks for your comment. You certainly understand our frustration in trying to get camera info and samples to review. Frankly we have asked every manufacturer repeatedly, but we have yet to review even ONE camera provided by a manufacturer. We have been buying the cameras wherever we can as fast aswe can and then reselling them after review.The manufacturers keep saying nice things over the last two years, but none of them has ever delivered anything for review. It is still pulling teeth just to get on and remain on, press release lists. This is certainly totally unlike our presence in the computer market and it can be quite frustrating.
We do think our perspective on electronics is quite different from other imaging review sites and we hoped that some manufacturers would see that as a new opportunity for a fair and frank review. Perhaps over time that will eventually happen.
aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
I think it would help manufacturers have a greater trust in the sites review abilities if there was some sort of standard you guys came up with when reviewing them. Resolution cards, constant scenes in consistent lighting that can be taken to show differences in different ISO settings to build a database against other cameras.It has not seemed yet like the reviews have any sort of constants to compare other reviewed cameras here against. Color, sharpness, noise true resolution ect ect. One can put the coolest name they want on their image processor but the outcome is what matters, and it’s too hard to compare totally different scenes with the help of impractical numbers.
Controlled consistant scenes + onmouseover images for the review itself = your friend.
slashbinslashbash - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
The benefit of SLR's in the film world was obvious. The importance of the "Single Lens" in the "Single Lens Reflex" equation was obvious. What you see in the viewfinder = what will be imaged on the film. In the digital world, with live view screens showing the actual sensor image even more precisely than most optical DSLR viewfinders (only the most expensive have 100% viewfinders), there is no longer any need for the "reflex" part of the "SLR" construction. That whole flipping-mirror thing was just a workaround, a hack, a kludge. Panasonic is the first to realize this, and create a digital camera with interchangeable lenses that opens up the full range of possiblities for digital imaging. The mirror box meant that there would always be a gap of some 20mm (more or less) from the sensor to the back of the lens; thus making lenses with focal lengths of less than approx. 20mm extremely difficult to engineer. Now that the mirror box is gone, the lens can get much closer to the sensor, and hugely wide angles should be attainable, even on a relatively small sensor like the 4/3rds.strikeback03 - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - link
I don't like any previous EVF I have seen, but I'll reserve judgement on this until I have actually looked at one. The DPR preview said it got grainy when gained up a lot at night, have to see how bad that really is compared to an optical viewfinder. Same with the autofocus - they say it is fast, but I want to see how fast and accurate it is.SLRs typically have a registration distance of around 40mm, this halves that to 20mm. So anything wider than 20mm (which isn't wide on 4/3) will be retrofocal, and to beat the current widest rectilinear lens (Sigma 12-24 on film/FF digital) they will need a lens wider than 6mm.
For whoever said they want a more rangefinder shape, I'm sure that could be done, but their product research probably said the more traditional shape would sell better. Sales of the Olympus E300/E330 were not helped by being a somewhat non-traditional layout.
Maxington - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - link
" In the digital world, with live view screens showing the actual sensor image even more precisely than most optical DSLR viewfinders"Except electronic viewfinders bring their own parcel of problems.
I just wish they'd stop with the half-assed semi-DSLR body shape and size, and go straight for a very compact, rectangular rangefinder size mobody.
I don't want a slightly smaller DSLR, or I would've bought the Olympus E420. I want a digital rangefinder that doesn't suck and cost the earth like the Leica M8 does.
AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - link
Read the review by dpreview.comI haven't see a single bad thing about live view so far.
Maxington - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
"Read the review by dpreview.comI haven't see a single bad thing about live view so far. "
You try panning fast, or pointing into into bright lights, or darkness.
I've read the Preview of the G1. EVF has advantages, but it also had disadvantages.
I'd kinda like a hybrid OVF/EVF if I could, sort of a heads-up display where it can overlay histograms and other information, but you can disable it if need be. Of course, that still requires a mirror assembly, so its back to DSLR territory anyhow.
aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
I agree. Thats something they should use as a selling point more than anything else about the camera.aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Them going on and on about how 'smooth' and 'accurate' ect ect this thing is and not mentioning the actual size of the CCD makes me roll my eyes.It’s pretty obvious to me this is a stunt to create some new type of camera sector. Compact SLR? Give me a break. That doesn’t even make any sense! By definition you’re going to have a lens, even if prime, that’s not going to fit comfortably in your pocket! Not only that, but if the camera itself is too light the lens will make it unbalanced on a tripod and in hand. I hope they were at LEAST smart enough to put the tripod threading further up closer to the lens itself under the camera, but that doesn’t change the in-hand issue.
If you think it’s a non-issue then you’re better off with a PoS camera, because SLRs are made to be comfortable through 1000s of images taken in a days’ time. Your hands will start to hurt, and isn’t that kind of contradictory to the purpose of this camera? Comfort? Or is there another purpose? I don’t really understand the point of this.
Let’s not forget the most important thing; Even the best consumer SLRS with full frame CCDs and superb SnR cannot resolve the resolution of the glass in front of them. What is the POINT of putting glass that even those cameras cannot resolve in front of this? It’s like putting 8GB of ram into a system that can only see 3.5.
Unless this thing is like 300$, it’s sort of an insult to any photographer with half a wit.
aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
I’d like to correct that the CCD was mentioned, skipped a page. My mistake. My point is made clearer though, as the pixel density is 5.Wesley Fink - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Yes, the pixel density is 4.98 MP/centimeter square as we pointed out, but the New Canon 50D is 4.5 which is not a hyge difference. You missed the point that the P&S densities are 28 to 36 MP per square centimeter which are a huge density difference compared to 4/3.In fact all of the APS-C sensors are all but the same when you look at the huge density advantage they hold over the best of today's point-and shoot models. Frankly people need to get past the emotion over the 4/3 sensor size and look at the facts, which are nowhere near the stark picture some like to paint. The 4/3 sensor is 75% the area of the the Canon sensor, and 6 to 8 times larger than the best P&S sensors.
Ajax9000 - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
"Frankly people need to get past the emotion over the 4/3 sensor size ..."Agreed.
The smaller sensor in FT is claimed to be the equvilant of about 0.5-1 stop slower than the larger sensors in "conventional" dSLRs, but as can be seen with the Zuiko ED 12-60mm, the FT mount can enable faster lenses for a given size -- i.e. negating the supposed disadvantage. Lenses for mFT should be the same or better.
[quote]
Olympus ... have taken advantage of the Four Thirds sensor to deliver lenses which, for any given size, weight and cost, simply perform to a higher and more consistent standard than those optimized for larger formats ... The relatively fast maximum aperture (a half to a full stop faster than APS-C equivalents ...), coupled with the excellent wide-open performance, also allows the use of lower ISOs at equivalent light levels for maximum image quality.
[/quote]
From http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_...">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_...
aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
The beef I have with this type of deal is there is no point. Honestly what’s the point? You can’t fit this anywhere a normal DSLR couldn’t go. It’s a diluted mix of SLR and point and shoots taking the worst qualities from each. Too big to be put anywhere advantageous over a normal DSLR and worse than even some of the worst pixel densities in the DSLR market.When you say it’s nowhere near the bad picture some people paint, you put yourself in a category of 'good enough'. People that spend 1000$ on glass and camera equipment do not do 'good enough' they do not want gimmicks. This is such a gimmick camera. The only interesting feature with practical use is that the glass is closer to the CCD.
Like I said, they can word things in a way to make the practical aspects of teh camera that are bad, sound good, but in the end they need to stop it and focus on the true pluses of this design.
strikeback03 - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
The G1 at least is very similar in dimensions to the superzoom-class P&S cameras, and body-only similar in size to something like the Canon G9. So while this should take a big bite out of the superzoom market (at least once the micro 4/3 14-140 lens drops), I don't really consider it "pocketable". We have a couple of Canon S5IS cameras here in the lab, with the exception of large cargo pockets or maybe a pullover hoodie I don't have any pockets which could hold something that size comfortably. So if I am bringing some sort of camera bag anyway I don't see the problem with stepping up to the smaller traditional DSLRs from Olympus, Canon, Pentax, etc. But it will give Panasonic something different in the marketplace.tdawg - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Being so small, yet packing potentially high level image quality, would be nice for hiking and camping where one doesn't want to haul a more traditially-sized SLR and lenses, I would think. Also potentially nice for people that like to sneak camera gear into concerts and such. :)Personally, I don't like non-optical viewfinders on my SLRs, but as long as it has a viewfinder in addition to the rear LCD, it might not be too bad. The problem is that I can't see myself investing any money in any system other than my current Nikon system, so...
aeternitas - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
"Haul"? Are you serious? This thing maybe weighs 2-300GRAMS less than a proper DSLR. If you can't handle 300grams to take obviously better photography you might as well use your cameraphone with that line of thought.expiringfrog - Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - link
I'm not sure how you conclude that a DSLR will take "obviously better photography (sic)". The G1 sensor is the same size as those used in all of Olympus' range of "proper DSLR's". Wesley points out quite correctly that this is not much smaller than 35mm full-frame and has perfectly decent imaging characteristics, certainly far better than the fingernail-sized sensors used in typical compact cameras. So this is certainly comparable to a "proper DSLR" in image quality. As for handling and speed, it all depends on what type of pictures you want to take: this isn't something you'd normally use to shoot motorsports, but on a hike it's as good as any DSLR, and will only get better as technology progresses.As for the weight difference of 300 grams, you've never met a serious hiker, have you?