Tuolumne
Veteran
"It's not the destination, it's the jouney."
/T
/T
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
gdi
Veteran
Well,
poor you then.
Cheers,
Uwe
Whoops - I forgot the $250 adapter! It is less than a factor of 10! :angel:
In considering a G1, I never thought of it as competition for the M8, just another alternative to a P&S. Using M lenses tips the scale...
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
... and they don't look better than the pictures of an entry level DSLR for half the price of the G1. So why bother with the G1?
And why bother with a Canon 5DMKII or 50D with Canon L-lenses? - get a 1000D with an image stabilised kit-lens instead. It's pictures don't look thousands of dollars less good.
Cheers,
Uwe
agreed. fully.
Turtle
Veteran
.
And why bother with a Canon 5DMKII or 50D with Canon L-lenses? - get a 1000D with an image stabilised kit-lens instead. It's pictures don't look thousands of dollars less good.
Cheers,
Uwe
I guess you get the 5d Mk II because the cheaper models have comparatively poor build and handling, less capable AF and many issues that can make them vastly inferior (IMO) as reliable, fast, intuitive and flexible picture making tools. I made the silly mistake of buying a 350D ages ago instead of a 20D and ended up hating the darned thing bec the AF is rubbish (and misses a lot) and the handling cramped and fiddly. They both have the same resolution, sure, but only when you get the shot! The number of soft frames due to AF issues with the 350D resigned it to home duty. Shooting in a steady, slow fashion these things dont matter, but if your chances are fleeting and your work more fluid with no room for error, the more professional camera can be a hundred times better. I learned my lesson: resolution only counts for images you actually take that are of the right moment and in focus! Off a tripod, the cheaper model makes all the sense!
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Jodorowsky
Well-known
I'm not a gear fetishist*; I just wanted a digital camera which gave me beautiful image, wasn't a huge DSLR, and with which I could use my lenses. Having looked at the RD-1, I went for the M8. 6 months later, everyone seemed to be getting excited about the Panasonic G1. Now, if you'd spent over 2K on a camera (the main selling point of which was that it takes m mount lenses), and then another, much cheaper, digital camera appears (that takes M mount lenses, is small etc) wouldn't you be looking back over your shoulder?
I'm looking forward to seeing the Olympus micro 4/3, and what it can do- if it renders images as beautifully as the M8, I'd consider buying it.
I take photographs for lots of reasons, but mainly because I can- I've got a machine that freezes time and space, and if something moves me I can keep the image forever. There's also a part of me that aspires to the status of artist (I know what that means to me; you decide what that means to you.)
* saying that, I'm still a hobbyist, so I've got some of the hobbyist's fascination with gear, but I'm hoping that will pass.
Everybody is a little bit pretentious- if we weren't we'd all be taking pictures with- insert whatever here. However, the fact remains, that if every picture I took looked like it had been taken on Lucky film and then cross processed, and then bleached, I'd probably concentrate more on my writing, or take up sketching.
Do you know what I mean?
I'm looking forward to seeing the Olympus micro 4/3, and what it can do- if it renders images as beautifully as the M8, I'd consider buying it.
I take photographs for lots of reasons, but mainly because I can- I've got a machine that freezes time and space, and if something moves me I can keep the image forever. There's also a part of me that aspires to the status of artist (I know what that means to me; you decide what that means to you.)
* saying that, I'm still a hobbyist, so I've got some of the hobbyist's fascination with gear, but I'm hoping that will pass.
Everybody is a little bit pretentious- if we weren't we'd all be taking pictures with- insert whatever here. However, the fact remains, that if every picture I took looked like it had been taken on Lucky film and then cross processed, and then bleached, I'd probably concentrate more on my writing, or take up sketching.
Do you know what I mean?
jody36
Well-known
Question. Is the G1 viewfinder natural or a small lcd screen?
Jodorowsky
Well-known
With Full time Live View, you can see the effect of camera settings before you shoot. Coupled with a large, 3.0-inch, 460,000-dot resolution free angle LCD monitor, framing a shot is even easier. Alternatively, the image can be sent to the Live View Finder with 1,440,000-dot equivalent resolution.
So they say.
So they say.
gdi
Veteran
It is natural to feel that way, but look around here and you'll find plenty of comments of the M8 as magical and beyond all other cameras. That will help ease any dissonance you are experiencing, as will your judging the images made by the G1 inadequate.
The beauty of the mind is that you really only have to convince yourself!!
:angel:
Last edited:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
mani
Well-known
Well I finally caved and bought an M8 - I have to say I was very excited when I finally made the decision, and the camera feels lovely and solid in my hand, just like a slightly overweight M7. But as things stand right now, I'm not sure I'm gonna keep it - simply because the files are really not super-impressing me compared to the RD1s.
Naturally the files are bigger and the texture is more fine-grained, but the Portra-film-like quality of the Epson files isn't totally coming through for me, even trying the M8 at ISO640 to get more 'texture'. What's more, drop the light and the colors start posterizing ever so slightly - whereas in the Epson the noise simply gets more granular (again reminding me of film). In my experience, it's exactly the opposite of what people have been telling me about the RD1 - that it 'watercolors' in lower light.
Anyway - here's a quick comparison of two shots taken with the Noctilux in quick succession. I've removed exif and cropped the M8 file to make it slightly less obvious which is which, but they are both output at default settings from C1 and Epson Camera Raw. I'm not sure which image I prefer - and mostly I'm interested in how they'd print. Which do you think is best, and which is which?
(Just saw the 600pixel-wide limitation on the site now, so I uploaded to an old unused flickr account instead).
Convince me to keep the M8!
Image1:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/3153911140_68cd4ef932_o.jpg
Image2:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/3153915202_cc402c62aa_o.jpg
Last edited:
Jodorowsky
Well-known
Oooh.... Live by the sword......
Well, the colours are brighter in image one, and the pot seems sharper; but there's more depth to the second, I think.....
Can I get away with saying they're both good?
I'll go with Image 2, whichever the camera may be. I think Image 1 crisper, more colourful, but image 2 has a nicer depth and look to it.....
Well, the colours are brighter in image one, and the pot seems sharper; but there's more depth to the second, I think.....
Can I get away with saying they're both good?
I'll go with Image 2, whichever the camera may be. I think Image 1 crisper, more colourful, but image 2 has a nicer depth and look to it.....
Tuolumne
Veteran
I marginally like image 1 better. It seems to hold color detail the best. But to tell the truth, it's pretty much a toss up. Also, you can only really tell from a large print. These small web images are hard to judge.
/T
/T
kuzano
Veteran
Correction in favor of Tuolumne....
Correction in favor of Tuolumne....
Prices of the G1 kit as routinely sold at prodigital2000 on US ebay (Canada Seller) at a clip of about 4 per day....$500-570 auction closings. Sold with International Warranty.
Dependable... according to all comments I have heard. Completed transactions over 70,000 in cameras and electronics.
That puts the factor on NEW Leica vs. NEW G1 at somewhat over ten times.
Correction in favor of Tuolumne....
Prices of the G1 kit as routinely sold at prodigital2000 on US ebay (Canada Seller) at a clip of about 4 per day....$500-570 auction closings. Sold with International Warranty.
Dependable... according to all comments I have heard. Completed transactions over 70,000 in cameras and electronics.
That puts the factor on NEW Leica vs. NEW G1 at somewhat over ten times.
jody36
Well-known
I prefer optical viewfinders If I am gonna use one.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
So what.
What are you complaining about?
The basic Chrysler Sebring Convertible with 2.0 litre engine sells for 29,990 EUR in Germany. That's US$ 41,150. In God's own country, the basic Sebring Convertible sells from US$ 27,290!
Now, who is ripping off whom?
No wonder the American automotive industry is on life support now and they well deserve it for ripping off their overseas customers! :angel:
Cheers,
Uwe
Jodorowsky
Well-known
Gadzooks! The whole thread was about me being worried about how silly my huge outlay would seem in the light of a comparable camera that takes M lenses. There is no comparison. If the Panasonic cost $200, it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. It's not going to do the same job that the M8 does. Have fun with the G1, but don't pretend it's a viable alternative to the M8. I'm a lucky man to have the M8; i guess i just started to take it for granted.....
mani
Well-known
Well, the colours are brighter in image one, and the pot seems sharper; but there's more depth to the second, I think.....
Can I get away with saying they're both good?
I'll go with Image 2, whichever the camera may be. I think Image 1 crisper, more colourful, but image 2 has a nicer depth and look to it.....
Well you identified the cameras correctly! But I'm surprised myself at the marginal differences in a lot of the test shots I've been making. I've also developed a few of the RAW files from both cameras in Lightroom - and then the saturation and sharpness differences between the cameras almost disappears, as it appears the algorithms used by LR tend to really lose enormous amount of detail from both cameras (even with all smoothing switched off). If I have time soon I'll post some 100% crops.
Naturally it's hard to tell anything from a scaled web-image in all honesty - but one often hears sweeping statements made on the basis of smaller images than these. I agree however that if one wants to print larger than A4 (american letter size) the finer-grained and nuanced M8 files would probably be preferable. I haven't tried this.
Anyways, right now I'm leaning towards keeping the M8. But I'm gonna process some portraits (made without IR filters) later - and I have to say that the LCD shows them all as being unhealthily pink and flushed compared to reality. So I might change my mind...
You really can't judge photos from the LCD on the camera. The histogram can help keep you from blowing out highlights, but the LCD's on the back of cameras aren't color calibrated.